07-19-16 BPB Minutes JulyCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board Meeting
Date: July 19, 2016
Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present: Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen
Flannery, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller, Ned Barrett,
Catherine Barrett, Michael Rotondo
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne
Recorder: Mary Alice Cookson
*BevCam videotaped the meeting.
John Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Two members, Michael Rotondo and
David Mack have not arrived.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
Darlene Wynne says there are no SANRs to review.
Approval of Minutes
The Board discusses the minutes of February 16, 2016, a Joint Public Hearing with the Beverly
City Council.
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Board meeting with the Beverly
City Council that took place February 16. Flannery seconds. The motion passes
(5 -0 -2, Thomson, Hutchinson, Flannery, Matz, and N. Barrett in favor; C. Barrett
and Miller abstaining).
Open Space Residential Design Site Plan (OSRD) & Definitive Plan — Essex Crossing — 1
Pond View Lane — Request for Minor Modification — Jeffrey and Jennifer Ahrens
Homeowner Jeff Ahrens of 1 Pond View Lane directs the Board's attention to his property lines
as shown on the plan. He is looking to change the rear setback from 25 feet to 20.4 feet to
accommodate a mudroom addition and is requesting that the Board approve the site plan with the
minor modification. He has an e -mail from his neighbor agreeing to the plan.
Wynne notes that the setback requested by the plan is 20.6 feet, not 20.4 feet.
C. Barrett mentions there are 16 homes in the subdivision and asks if this may cause others to
come forward asking for the same modifications. Wynne says yes, it could.
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
July 19, 2016
Thomson observes that some of the plans show decks, which Thomson says are treated
differently from the structures themselves. Ahrens says that all of the houses on his side of the
street have decks. Thomson asks about the setback of the decks, which are 10 feet. He says he is
pointing it out, not from a zoning perspective, but so that if people are concerned about things
being closer to the lot line, then the decks are already closer to the lot line than this addition
would be.
Hutchinson raises the issue of 20.4 feet being mistakenly requested (as opposed to 20.6 feet).
Thomson asks Ahrens if he is verbally amending the application to 20.6 feet. Ahrens says yes.
Miller: Motion that the Board find the proposed change constitutes a minor modification.
C. Barrett seconds. The motion passes unanimously (7 -0).
Miller: Motion that the Board grant the proposed relief of the rear setback from 25 feet to
20.6 feet for only this property as shown on the enclosed plan. C. Barrett seconds.
The motion passes unanimously (7 -0).
Thomson notes that the Board is still short two members and will hold off on concluding the
discussion of the Rantoul Street project until they arrive at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Hutchinson: Motion to recess for Public Hearings. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
Public Hearing — Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan #9 -16 and Definitive
Subdivision Plan —122 Cross Lane — Create 3 New Residential Lots — Benco, LLC
Wynne reads the public notice for the hearing regarding a three -lot residential plan located in the
R -22 zoning district.
Representing Benco, LLC, Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering introduces himself and shows the
parcel of land on a map. He identifies the wetlands, an existing house, and the slope of the land.
He says that they presented a yield plan for 4 house lots, but the owner Mr. Carlson wasn't sold
on the idea of building the 4 lots. They have since come up with a plan to construct 3 lots as a
more sensitive use of the land. He indicates the changes made to the original plan and details
what has happened with the various City departments. For example, drainage calculations were
provided to the City and storm water runoff was discussed. He points out the locations for each
of the proposed houses. He says they have met with the Conservation Commission and Parking
& Traffic Commission. They received comments from the Fire Department, which
recommended a 90 -foot diameter cul -de -sac. They also agreed to add sprinklers for all of the
houses.
Wynne says this new plan as shown by the applicant is more attractive and consistent with the
ordinance. Although she hasn't had the opportunity to speak with the Fire Department, she thinks
they could come up with an agreement that would allow the use of a hammerhead turnaround as
opposed to the proposed cul -de -sac. Thomson and other members agreed.
Thomson asks about the slope of the roadway and the issues that were concerning to the Fire
Page 2 of 7
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
July 19, 2016
Department. He asks why the driveways can't be taken into consideration for enabling the fire
trucks to be turned around safely.
Griffin says they will need to have further discussion with the Fire Department.
Thomson says that personally he likes the plan as it is now designed. Flannery concurs. Miller
asks if there might potentially be an addition of a fourth house. Griffin says they need to look at
costs to determine that.
Matz asks Griffin to show the paved portion of the plan. Thomson asks what is going to be
located there aside from the roadway. Griffin answers just the drainage. Thomson questions why
there needs to be a 40 -foot right of way.
Griffin says that could be reduced to 30 feet. C. Barrett agrees a smaller width could be used.
Hutchinson asks what issues Griffin and the applicant have that need further discussion.
Griffin replies that they are requesting a waiver of the cul -de -sac. He would like to discuss that,
as well as hydrants with the fire department, as well as water pressure testing. The other criteria
posed by City committees is acceptable to him.
Mack asks about sidewalks. Griffin notes he has requested a waiver to have no street lighting and
no sidewalks.
Wynne says typically a site visit is a plan requirement for the OSRD ordinance. Thomson asks
Griffin if someone could put a stake to mark the center of the proposed cul -de -sac, at both
dimensions, for members to visit the site on their own. C. Barrett would like to see examples of
90 -foot cul -de -sacs. Mack says his street is an example.
Miller asks who can have the final approval on anything that does not meet the criteria. Thomson
says the Board does, but they would prefer to defer to the Fire Department for these decisions.
He stressed that the Fire Department is making recommendations.
Mack: Motion to continue the Public Hearing to the September meeting to allow
discussions with the Fire Department regarding the new turnaround design and
stating the Board's preference for the potential narrowing of the roadway and
paved portion. Miller seconds. The motion passes unanimously (9 * -0).
*The full board, including the two latecomers, is now present.
Hutchinson: Motion to suspend the Public Hearing and return to the regular meeting. Miller
seconds. The motion passes unanimously (9 -0).
Continued Discussion/Decision: 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 /commercial space on ground floor and related parking,
Page 3 of 7
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
July 19, 2016
utility and landscaping improvements — 480 & 482 Rantoul Street — Beverly Crossing 480,
LLC
Thomson reminds the Board that they have concluded the public hearing on this plan so no new
information is being presented. He explains they have three things in front of them: 1) A special
permit that relates to the size and commercial use of the building and for the reduced amount of
parking included in the plan. 2) The site plan review application that includes fewer parking
spaces (from 118 to 108 spaces). 3) The inclusionary housing application.
He notes that an inclusionary housing permit could allow the inclusionary housing requirement
to be provided elsewhere in the City rather than on site within this building, if the applicant
chooses to pursue that option. Hutchinson wants clarification regarding the inclusionary housing
component. Thomson explains that the applicant may wish to move the inclusionary housing off -
site and is just bringing that to the Board's attention.
Wynne notes that Mack who was absent at the last meeting has acknowledged he has reviewed
the testimony from the last meeting and is now eligible to vote on the matter.
Miller suggests that in considering the special permit requests, that they might add the condition
that was recommended by the Parking & Traffic Commission that the applicant make the tenants
aware of public transportation options and that the conditions incorporate all the other comments
and suggestions from City committees.
Hutchinson asks if this is a single vote for both permits and Thomson says yes.
Mack: Motion to grant the special permit requests for the reduction of the parking spaces
that allows for a reduction in the required off - street parking for the residential use
and to authorize a mixed -use building in which the residential use will occupy
more than 75% of the building floor area with the condition that all of the
recommendations and comments of City departments, boards and committees be
incorporated in the decision. Flannery seconds. The chair votes in favor. The
motions passes (8 -0 -1, Thomson, Hutchinson, Flannery, Mack, Matz, Miller, N.
Barrett, and Rotondo in favor, C. Barrett abstains).
Matz: Motion to approve the applicant's requested extension of time to act on the Site
Plan Review application. Miller seconds. The motion passes unanimously (9 -0).
Matz: Motion to approve the Site Plan Review application incorporating all comments
from City departments, boards and committees. Mack seconds the motion. After
discussion below, chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0 -1, C. Barrett
abstains).
Matz says he wants to clarify some of the previous statements he's made and that it's important
for people watching on TV to understand this project and the way it is zoned and that the zoning
is, as such, for a 55 -foot and /or a 5 -story building. He explains that his opposing the plan initially
was due to personal preference. The Board's role is to act on a plan and make recommendations
Page 4 of 7
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
July 19, 2016
so that it conforms to the zoning, etc., and therefore it is not reasonable to suggest, for example,
that a 5 -story building be chopped and made into a 4 -story building. He applauded the applicant
for supporting Montserrat College of Art and for its interest in being a partner with the City. It is
his hope that this project be exceptional, which he thinks that it is, and that every project in the
City be exceptional.
Hutchinson acknowledges she was also previously vocal in her opposition. Her concern was that
the project was too large, but her real issue was with the zoning. This project is allowed by right,
she said. She does think there is a problem with the parking, but deems that going from 118
spaces to 108 is insignificant, especially given that this was a move to accommodate a neighbor,
so this is why she changed her vote from negative to affirmative.
C. Barrett reaffirms what she has said all along, that this is a good project. She doesn't have a
problem with the height and supports the shared parking. However, she says this is a mixed -use
building that has very little mixed -use. She is concerned that the percentage of retail and other
uses make up only 2 percent of the space and would like to see that percentage higher. She says
that one thing applicants should look at for the future is having flexible spaces on the ground
floor since the market can change quickly. Spaces that are flexible are popular now in planning.
Miller states that he believes that this site plan meets the six special permit criteria specified.
Mack: Motion to approve the Inclusionary Housing application. Flannery seconds. After
discussion below, the Chair votes in favor. The motion passes unanimously (9 -0).
Mack says he does not think the Board needs to specifically note that the applicant reserves the
right to modify — to move the inclusionary units off -site because if they want a modification in
the future, they can come back and convince the Board that it's appropriate.
Matz clarifies that it isn't the applicant's intention to move the inclusionary housing off -site at
this point in time. He is told that is correct.
Cluster Subdivision Plan Chapman's Corner Estates (Settlement Plan) — Request for One -
Year Extension of Construction Completion Date (July 28, 2016) and Request for Bond
Reduction — Manor Homes Development LLC
Wynne made the suggestion to consider the extension request and request for bond reduction at
the same time.
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering shows the site plan for the property and what has been done
on the project to date. He shows the lots that are remaining to be built. He asks for another year
(until July 28, 2017) to complete the construction.
Hutchinson: Motion to grant the one -year extension to July 28, 2017 for completing the
construction. Mack seconds. The motion passes unanimously (9 -0).
Page 5 of 7
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
July 19, 2016
Hutchinson: Motion that the Board grant the bond reduction by $11,303 to $130,638. Mack
seconds. The motion passes unanimously (9 -0).
OSRD Partial Waiver Request — Sale of 11 Sunnycrest Avenue (Lot 1) — PD Building LLC
Bob Griffin asks for a waiver from Conditions 1, 3, and 6a, for only Lot 1, from the Board's
March 22, 2016 decision on the OSRD Site Plan/Subdivision approval. He explains that the
developer has an eager buyer for Lot 1, which contains an existing home to remain at 11
Sunnycrest Ave, who wants to move in soon. He asks that the sale be able to go through prior to
conditions of the OSRD being met because this lot is not affected by the construction. For
example, conditions include the conveyance of open space and the Homeowners Association be
created prior to conveying any lots.
Wynne notes that the dates are not correct on the notary portion of the waiver form and asks
Griffin to revise that.
Miller: Motion to grant the applicant's Partial Waiver Request from the Board's March
22, 2016 decision only for Lot 1 so that this lot can be sold before the conditions
are applied. Rotondo seconds. The motion passes unanimously (9 -0).
OSRD Waiver Request — 100 Hull Street — MJP Properties
Bob Griffin explains the details of the parcel, which is mostly wetlands. He says that no more
than two new building lots will be created there. It is a gradually sloping area with frontage on
Hull Street and Wedgemere Road — a simple ANR -style development. He says he thinks they
meet the criteria for the waiver and that the developer is willing to constrain each of the three lots
to prevent further buildable lots
Matz has some questions of the Board. He is informed by Thomson and Wynne that 2 acres
triggers the applicant to have to come to the Board for the OSRD.
Thomson clarifies that this is a waiver from having to go through the OSRD process, granting
the applicant relief from being an OSRD.
Griffin says no new street is being put in. All of the lots have existing frontage.
Hutchinson asks about drainage, and Griffin responds that storm water management systems will
be put in to meet conservation requirements.
Hutchinson asks Griffin if the neighborhood has a chance to weigh in. Griffin replies no. The
work in the buffer zones will trigger Conservation Commission public hearings prior to
construction, but this ANR does not require a public hearing.
Thomson says it looks the way it is configured that a building permit could be pulled on the
corner piece and then there might need to be a hearing on the other lots. He says he would
require the City Solicitor's involvement.
Page 6 of 7
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
July 19, 2016
Mack says while he doesn't have any issue with what is being said, it seems to him that the
Board is doing this in the wrong order, putting the cart before the horse. We haven't been
presented with an ANR Plan. The premise of a waiver request is that there be an ANR Plan first.
Griffin says he can come back in September with the ANR Plan.
Thomson decides to table this matter to the next meeting where an ANR plan will be submitted
first. Thomson also request that Wynne seek an opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the
proposed deed restriction provided. Therefore, no vote is necessary tonight.
Open Space Residential Design Site Plan (OSRD) & Definitive Plan — Cove Village — 50 and
54 Boyles Street — Request for Bond Reduction — Jeffrey I Rhuda, Cove Village LLC
Matz recused himself from the discussion.
Wynne presents the request for a bond reduction. She details the work done on the project to
date. The property went on the market last week and houses are expected to be completed by
June. Mr. Rhuda has provided a draft of the letter of credit that would need to be authorized if
the bond reduction is approved, she said. The City Engineer worked with Rhuda to set $106,598
as the new and final bond amount, a reduction of $346,560 from the original bond of $453,158.
Flannery: Motion to approve the Bond Reduction resulting in a new bond amount of
$106,598, which shall not be reduced any further until construction is complete.
Mack seconds the motion. The motion passes (8 -0 -1, Matz in abstention).
New Business
Wynne says she wants to give the Board the heads -up that Krohne, Inc., has come back with an
entirely new building at 55 Cherry Hill as a result of design changes resulting in them pulling the
recently submitted building permit. They are seeking to come and start their Public Hearing at
the September meeting. They now want to demolish the existing building and construct a new
building.
Given that the Board does not meet in August, Thomson indicates that if the applicant submits an
application by August 8, he gives permission for the Planning Department to schedule the
hearing in September rather than the Board having to set the public hearing at the September
meeting. Thomson asks if anyone objects to his giving permission for this. Nobody does.
Adjournment
Mack: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Flannery seconds. The motion passes
unanimously (9 -0).
Page 7 of 7