BPB Minutes 11 18 2014Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board:
Planning Board Meeting
Date:
November 18, 2014
Location:
Beverly Senior Center
Members Present
Chair John Thomson, Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson (7 :00 p.m.),
Ellen Flannery, John Mullady, Catherine Barrett, and Wayne
Miller, David Matz, David Mack, and Ned Barrett
Members Absent:
None
Others Present: Assistant City Planner Leah Zarnbernardi, and City Planner Aaron
Clausen
Recorder: Eileen Sacco
Thomson calls the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Flannery: motion to recess for public hearings. Miller seconds the motion. The motion
carries (8-0).
Concurrent Public Hearings — Site Plan Review Application #112 -14 and Special Permit
Application ##138 -14 —Site Plan Review Application to Construct Five Story Building with
Associated Surface Structured Parking, Solar Support Structure and Special Permit to
Deviate from Required Parkin at 50 Dunham Road
Mack addresses the Planning Board and states that in the spirit of full disclosure he has been
retained by a client who has some litigation with Cummings Properties and although he does not
believe that there would be a conflict he wants to make the Board and the applicant aware of this
and offered to recuse himself from these proceedings if the applicant wishes.
Steve Drohosky thanked Mr. Mack for the offer to recuse himself from the matter and stated that
the matter has nothing to do with these proceedings and noted that recusal is not necessary.
Steve Drohosky representing Andersen Clark LLP addressed the Planning Board and requested
that the public hearing be continued to the December 16, 2014 Planning Board Meeting. He
explains that they have met initially with the Parking and Traffic Commission, Design Review
Board, the Beverly Engineering Department and the Beverly Fire Department. He explains that
they have received comments on the project and they would like to take the time to address those
comments before the hearing with the Planning Board gets underway_
Page 1 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
Mack: moves to continue the Public Hearing for 50 Dunham Road to December 16,
2014. Miller seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0).
_Continued Concurrent Public Hearing -Open Space Residential Design Site Plan
Definitive Subdivision Plan, Inclusionary Housing Application and Special Permit — 232
Essex Street — DUC Residential LLC
Flannery moved to waive the reading of the legal notice. Mack seconded the motion. The
motion carries (8 -0).
Atty. Brian McGrail addresses the Board and states that since the last meeting they have been
working with Planning Department Staff on the Definitive Subdivision OSR.D approvals. He
reports that they have reviewed the draft decision and they are satisfied with it.
Zambernardi reviews the draft decision with the Planning Board. She reviewed the list of
waivers requested and notes that they are incorporated in the written decision.
Zambernardi explains the Kelleher Pond Improvements and referred to page 2 of the decision
and notes that all of the work that the developer has agreed to do before the pond is conveyed to
the city is included in this section.
Matz notes that there are a significant number of items that the developer has agreed to do and
suggests that the document be made available to the public so that they can see what the
proposed improvements are.
Miller addresses the Board and notes that there is an area in the northern section of the property
that is littered with trash and graffiti and asked if the developer is considering cleaning that up.
Atty. McGrail states that they are not planning to clean that area up and notes that they are doing
significant improvements.
Thomson notes that this is the first that the Board is hearing of that condition of the site.
Zambernardi agrees that she has not heard this before tonight.
Matz addresses the Board and notes that he is active in with the Open Space and Recreation
Committee as a volunteer and explains that trash and graffiti are unfortunate common
occurrences on the trails, noting that you will find the same thing at any trail in Sally Milligan
Park. He explained that there are group such as the Boy Scouts and other community groups that
hold clean up days on the trails.
N. Barrett notes that the Board approved payment in lieu of affordable housing for this project
and asked if the details of that should be included in the decision. Zambernardi explains that it
was a separate decision that the Board approved in September and it has been filed with the
Beverly City Clerk.
Page 2 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who
wishes to comment on this matter this evening.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Mullady: motion to close the public hearing. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion
carries (8 -0).
Thomson suggests that the Board take five minutes to review the draft decision.
There being no questions or comments regarding the draft decision:
Mack: motion to approve the QSRD Plan in the form provided to the Planning Board for — 232
Essex Street — DUC Residential LLC. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0).
The Chair votes in favor.
Mack: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan for — 232 Essex Street — DUC
Residential LLC. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). The Chair votes in
favor.
Atty. McGrail addresses the Board and states that on behalf of his client Mr. DiBiase he would
like to thank the Planning Board and the Planning Department staff for the professional and
courteous manner that was shown during this process.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Planning Board meetings held on May 5, 2014, May 20, 2014, ,tune 16, 2014,
and July 15, 2015 were presented for approval.
The Board tabled the approval of the minutes to the December 16, 2014 meeting.
Flannery moved to recess for 10 minutes to allow for the arrival of the representatives of Beverly
Airport. Mack seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0).
Public Hearin — Special Permit Application #140 -14 — Construct New Airport
Administration Buildine in Water Supply Protection_ Overlay District - Beverly Airport
Commission — Beverly Airport ^�
:Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearing. Mack seconds the motion. The motion
carries (8 -0).
Zambemardi reads legal notice.
Page 3 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
William Mahoney of 10 Beverly Hills Avenue, Vice Chair of the Beverly Airport Commission
addressed the Board and introduced those present who are here to explain the project.
Tom Mahoney of the Mass DOT Aeronautics Division addressed the Board and explained that
they did a statewide evaluation of assets and found a glaring issue in the 15 airports noting that
they are in need of new or renovated buildings. He explained that the transportation bond bill
included funds for a five year program to build or renovate 15 buildings in the airports across the
state. He explained that Beverly, Fitchburg and Mansfield are being done in year one of the
project.
Janna Kauss addressed the Board and explained the plans for the new airport administration
building will include office space for the airport manager and staff, a pilots lounge, new meeting
rooms, an office tenant space for lease, bathrooms, storage and kitchen facilities. The 5,000 s.f.
building will be located on the west side of the airport parking lot bordering the airfields.
?? explained that they are requesting a special permit from the Planning Board to allow for
commercial and industrial uses permitted in the underlying iR District in the Water Supply
Protection Overlay District.
?? stated that the plans have been reviewed by the Fire Department, Engineering Department,
Beverly Salem Water Supply Board and comments have been received from there. She noted
that the Mr. Knowlton Superintendent of the BSWSB had a comment about the proposed sewer
line being a short line from the building to the existing manhole in the parking lot. 1/ explained
that the reason for the short pipe is that it is extending down to LP Henderson Road and the age
of the infrastructure. She also noted that the biggest change for the drainage will be a new
manhole out to LP Henderson.
Thomson states that this is the first time that the Planning Board has seen this project and asks if
this is a new building or a renovation of the existing building. ? ?? states that this will be a new
building.
Thomson asks if all of the construction is taking place in the current area that is paved or
previously paved. ?? states that the building will be where the existing paving is and they are not
paving any areas that have not been paved previously.
Miller asks if the change in the sewer pipe is in compliance with what the SBWSB asked for. ??
states that it is and explains that the plan dated October 21, 2014 is in response to Mr.
Knowlton's comments on the pipe and the replacement of the manhole.
?? explains that the existing buildings will remain on the site and there are no plans to remove or
renovate them as part of this project.
Paul Vitale addressed the Board and explained that the parking will be on the east side of the lot
noting that most of the activities take place on that side of the site. He explained that building 45
Page 4 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
is pretty dilapidated and they will be taking it down and level it until this project is complete in
case there is a need for more parking.
Vitale also explains that they will be doing an RFP to lease 2,500 -3,000 s.f of space for a
restaurant and they hope to lease it for 20 years or so. He also notes that the administration
building is important to the rebuilding of the airport and this project ties right in for them.
Vitale reported that the pilots lounge is designed to be open 24 hours a day.
T. Mahoney addresses the Board and explains that the program wants to be a brand that
welcomes people to Massachusetts and they are constructing three size buildings noting that
Beverly is 4,500 s.f. He also notes that their intent is for green sustainability and notes that the
roof is slanted and designed for solar panels eventually if funding is available. He explained that
the DOT is funding 95% of the project with the additional 5% the local share of the cost.
Thomson explains that the Planning Board is reviewing this matter because of the Watershed
Overlay Protection District. He reviewed the standard for a special permit and noted that the
Planning Board may grant the required special permit only upon finding that the proposed meets
the conditions set forth in Section 38 -280.2 of the WOPD, any other applicable regulations or
guidelines adopted by the Planning Board, and the following additional conditions:
a. The proposed use in no way, during construction or thereafter, adversely affects the
existing or potential quality of water that is available in the Water Supply Protection
Overlay District; and
b. The proposed construction has been designed to avoid unnecessary disturbance of the
soils, topography, drainage, vegetation, and other water - related natural characteristics of
the site to be developed.
Thomson states that he fecls that the project meets the criteria noting that there will be less
impervious surface on the site than is there today.
Thomson also explained that the project meets the standard criteria for approving special permits
and reviewed the following criteria:
a. That the site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of the
adjoining uses will not be adversely affected;
b. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely
affected by such use:
c. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result:
d. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and
maintenance of the proposed use;
e. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable
facts;
f. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use.
Page 5of13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 204
Thomson notes that the proposed project meets the criteria noting that there are no changes
proposed to the traffic pattern and they have plans for additional paring in necessary in the
location of building 45.
Matz notes that a pre demolition survey is required for potentially hazardous material. Vitale
noted that it is a requirement of the building permit and they will follow that. He also noted that
they would be installing a silt fence around the site. He also notes that a construction waste
management plan as to be adhered to
Thomson opened the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street addresses the Board and notes that there is a plaque in the
building in honor of his uncle and requested that it be saved for the new building.
Rose Maglio addresses the Board and expressed her concern about the taking of part of the
parking area for the project.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter.
N. Barrett: Motion to approve the Special Permit Application #140 -14 — Construct New
Airport Administration Building in Water Supply Protection Overlay District — Beverly Airport
Commission — Beverly Airport, subject to compliance of the comments of the City Engineer.
Miller seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0).
Thomson thanked the members of the Beverly Airport Commission and their representatives for
their time this evening.
Hutchinson joins the meeting at this time.
Matz moved to recess for public hearings at this time. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The
motion carries (9 -0).
Concurrent Public Hearings — Site Plan Review Application #113 -14 and Special Permit
Application #139 -14 —Site Plan Review Application to Build out North Shore Crossin —
140 Brimbal Avenue — CEA Beverly LLC
Thomson addresses the Board and those present and reports that the traffic study for the project
will not be discussed this evening. He explained that the traffic study will be reviewed by the
Beverly Parking and Traffic Commission at their meeting on December 2, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. He
states that the topic being discussed this evening will be the storm water management for the site
as well as drainage and hazardous materials.
Steve Cohen of CEA Group addresses the Board and reported that a technical zoning memo has
been received from Planning Department staff regarding the parking setbacks. He explains that
parking has been pulled back 15 feet as requested to allow for more landscaping along Brimbal
Page 6 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
Avenue and the connector road. He reported that they will have 40 compact parking spaces on
the site as a result.
Cohen reports that they held an open meeting with the residents of Northridge and it is a
productive meeting. He notes that they will be meeting with the Northridge Board of Trustees in
December and further notes that they continue to work on issues with them to accommodate
them.
Cohen reports that there was a question at the last meeting regarding the hours of operation for
Whole Foods. He reports that the hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He also
reported that deliveries will be made on a one daily delivery in an 18 wheel truck and there will
be some small local delivery vehicles as well. He also reported that with regards to trash
removal, the majority of their trash is recycled and all recycled material is removed by the
delivery drivers and organics will be composted and removed no more than once per week.
Cohen reported that the 24 inch city drain pipe that runs through the property is currently in need
of work and it will be replaced and may be relocated. He notes that they are having
conversations with the City Engineer regarding that_
Cohen recalled that they were also asked to look at the by right office project for the site of what
could be built without the need for a special permit and they looked at that. He reported that by
right they could construct six stories of office space with a six story parking garage and shows
the Board renderings of what that would look like. He reviews the drawings and compares that
floor area for the office space to the proposed project for four buildings.
Cohen introduces Tim Williams and Carlton Quinn to review the storm water management for
the site.
Williams addresses the Board and explains that the site is a 6 sf2 acre former land fill covered
with scrub brush. He reviews the drainage plan for the site. He notes that the existing 25 inch
pipe is in disrepair and they are working with the Engineering department to come to an
agreement about that. He notes that something has to be done with it. He also explains that the
roof drainage will be tied into the underground detention system.
Williams also reports that they have been coordinating with Jacobs Engineering on the design for
this project with the Department of Transportation project on Brirnbal Avenue.
DeVellis Zrein addresses the Board to report on the peer review that they did for the City of
Beverly on the storm water management for the project. He explains the process that they
undertook and the comments they have regarding the project as follows:
• A visit to the project's site on October 20 2014 to view the existing conditions and to
develop an understanding of the setting of the proposed design.
• Full scale drawings entitled: Site Development Plans for North Shore Crossing, Brimbal
Avenue and Sohier Road, Beverly MA dated August 29, 2014 and September 8, 2014.
Page 7of13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
Report entitled North Shore Crossing, Beverly, MA dated August 29, 2014, revised
September 8, 2014
• A full scaled drawing entitled Existing Watershed Plan dated August 29, 2014, revised
through October 14, 2014.
t. The peak rate of runoff (how fast water travels off the site) is calculated for the
site's existing and proposed conditions for comparison. This analysis is required
and the project must not result in an increase in the rate of runoff, as required by
the DEP SMS Standards. The outline of the site perimeter has been used as the
basis for the area. Runoff from off-site areas, particularly from the residential
development to the south and portion of Sohier road, drains into the site and will
continue to do so under proposed conditions. These off -site areas, excluded in the
analysis should be included in the drainage calculation models (existing and
proposed).
2. The Time of Concentration (Te) is generally defined as the time required for a drop
of water to travel from the most hydrologically remote point in a certain watershed
to the point of collection (i.e. Study point). The Tc calculations shown in the
analysis (between points B and C) does not seem to follow a drainage path. Several
high points and low points occur along the path_ The Tc flow path between B and C
should be re- evaluated.
3. The drainage calculations study point is located at an existing off -site manhole,
approximately 200' west of the site_ The calculations for the Te segments (from
point C to study point K) are missing two segments; Point C to point D and point H
to point 1.
a_ The first segment (C -D) is a 15" pipe that appears to have been constructed to
drain two existing catch basins in Sohier Road, back into the site. This pipe is
sloped at a 3 percent pitch back towards the site. This situation is not
addressed in the existing conditions analysis for the site.
L The second segment (H-1) is located within an existing wetland area, which
receives runoff through point H. The Tc calculations do not address the
hydrorological conditions and mechanics for the runoff to enter point 1.
C. The Te calculations from point C to point K (study point) does not take into
account other flows that enter the system from C to K and their affect on the
timing of the peak rate of runoff.
4. The drainage design proposes to connect the site drainage outflow to the existing
24" pipe that crosses the site in a southeast to northwest direction. The pipe
continues westerly under Sohier Road to an existing off-site manhole at Study Point
#1. Currently, this section of pipe does not receive any runoff from the site.
Available capacity and structural integrity of this pipe should be evaluated.
Page 8 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
j. The drainage report contai ns a'FEMA FIRM MAP% exhibit EX -4 for the site, which
indicates that the site is located outside a flood zone. The map seems to indicate
that the area near the project's Study Point #1, is considered "Other flood areas ".
if this is the case, the 100 -year storm event may need to be evaluated downstream
of design point #1, so as there will not be increased flooding impacts off -site as
required by DEP Stormwater regulations standard #2.
6. Based on the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services -soil survey maps,
the site is located within a map unit of "Urban Land ". This map unit is usually
not given a hydrological soil group rating by USDA. The project's site and the
existing developments to the east and the west are also located within this map
unit (Urban Land). Surrounding this unit map, are areas with hydrological soil
group of W, W. and 'C' ratings. It seems more appropriate for the drainage
design calculations to consider a more conservative approach of choosing either
a B' or an 'A' rating. The drainage calculations assume that the site has a 'C'
rating.
7. Similar to comment #1, the proposed drainage model does not take into account
runoff that enters the site drainage system from the south and west. This off-site
runoff will affect the capacity of the underground detention system (UDS). Also,
it appears that the grading (fill) along the southern and western property lines will
create a dam for the off-site runoff that currently enters the site from these
locations. Provisions should be made for the continuation of this runoff.
S. The proposed catch basin (CB #S) does not seem to capture all of the runoff from.
the watershed drainage area P -3, as outlined in the drainage calculations.
9. The 4' dia. outlet control structure (OCS #1) with 3 -24" dia. pipes, will require the
construction of the controlled outlet wall to be located within inches of the 24"
outlet pipe to D MH 47. Also, having the inlet to the U DS via the OCS# I will affect
the hydraulics of the controlled outlets. We suggest that the inlet to the UDS from
the proposed stonneeptor (SC# 1) be located away from the OCS.
10. The parking area in front of Bui ]ding 'C' is shown to be pervious pavement.
Several comments regarding this area:
a. No detail of this pavement section is provided.
b_ DEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 2, recommends the underlying
soil to have a minimum infiltration rate of0.17 inches /hour. No
information on the existing soil infiltration capacity is provided.
c. DEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 2, also recommends the use of
this type of pavement in low use areas (i.e. sidewalks, overflow
parking, parking stalls, etc.) with a rigorous maintenance program.
d. The proposed drainage calculations use a Cn value of 61 for this area
Page 9 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
and a Cn value of 74 for landscaped areas. No documentation is
provided to the use of a Cn value of 61.
e. It appears that this parking area is considered as pervious pavement for
the design parameters of the Stormceptor. Considering clogging, lack of
maintenance and high intensity storms, the stormceptor would be
undersized for this application.
11. Standard #3 under the "Checklist for Stormwater Report" states that Recharge
BMP's have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the
maximum extent practicable. No calculations are provided.
12. Also, under the Standard #3, it is stated that a Long Tenn Pollution
Prevention Plan is attached to the Stormwater Report. A long term
pollution prevention. plan has not been provided.
13. Standard ##5 under the "Checklist for Stormwater Report" states that the
treatment train includes an oil grit separator, a filtering bio- retention area,
and a sand filter or equivalent. It is unclear where is this proposed on the
site. Also, monthly street sweeping to be provided to reflect the 8% reduction
in TSS.
14. Standard 49 under the "Checklist for Stormwater Report" requires the
inclusion of an Operation and Maintenance Plan, with specific items as
stated in the checklist. This plan has not been provided.
15. Given the configuration of the OCB41 in relation to the inlet and outlet pipe
sizes and location, the maximum length of the proposed broad crested weir is
approximately 25. The drainage calculations assume a weir length of 4'. The
calculations should be adjusted to reflect the actual length of the weir and the
corresponding 100 -year peak elevation..
16. The excavation within the footprint of the proposed UUDS #2 will be as deep as
13' below existing grade. A determination for seasonal high ground water
(ESHGW) has not been provided? Based on the ESHGW, structures that are
located within it should be evaluated for buoyancy.
17. The underground Detention. System detail should be revised to reflect
design elevations.
18. The existing 24" Reinforced Concrete Pipe that crosses the site, is proposed to
remain beneath proposed buildings A &C. Although the pipe is fairly deep, it is
our recommendation to re- locate the pipe outside the proposed building footprints for
reasons of potential repairs and maintenance. If the pipe remains below the proposed
buildings, we recommend the line be CCTV inspected and repaired as necessary. It
may fall under the State plumbing code jurisdiction for the section within the
buildings. The local plumbing inspector may need to be consulted.
Page 10 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
19. Given that the site is a former solid waste landfill we think that all
subsurface utilities, manholes, pipes, etc. will likely be required to be gas
tight due to landfill gases present in the area. If this is the case, a trench
reflecting this requirement, and associated pressure testing, should be
detailed as necessary.
20_ Several proposed drainage pipe crossings may have conflicts. Adjustments
of inverts and/or slopes may be required.
21. As a general comment regarding the drawings. It is hard to read the
Grading and Drainage plan as it relates to the existing conditions _ This
may have occurred due the reproduction of the documents_ I understand
that plan was superimposed over future /proposed roaivaydesign plans, but
it is important to be able to understand theproposed work as it relates to
the site existing conditions as well as the future roadwork.
In summary and based on the information and review provided above, it is our opinion
that there were assumptions made in the drainage analysis that need clarification and/or
re- evaluation which will more accurately define the Existing Conditions. Without clearer
definition of the Existing Conditions (flowrate, volume and direction), any comparison
of the Proposed Conditions are not possible in order to determine whether the design
accurately mitigates any potential drainage impact.
Thomson opens the hearing up for comments from members of the Planning Board at this time.
Matz addresses the Board and asks how the waste materials that will be generated from the site
be managed. Cohen explains that in general all material will be managed on site by a licensed
site professional in coordination with the Department of Environmental Protection. He also
explains that the plan will have to be defined and it will address how the materials are to be
handled.
Matz also notes that there is a comment about the additional storm water runoff and the
additional impact it could have. Cohen explains that the concerns are more toward the Mass
DOT discharge system but they will respond to that with additional information.
Thomson notes that the 24 inch pipe on the property is leaking out on the site. Cohen explains
that there is a collapse in the pipe and explains that they have videoed the pipe and much of it
remains but there is a loss of water where the collapse is.
Carlton Quinn explains that with the existing storm water flow all of the drainage goes to the
same place in the end. He notes as proposed this will be two separate systems_ Thomson asks
what the condition of the pipe on Sohier Road is. Quinn notes that the City of Beverly owns the
pipe and they are working with them on this. He notes that the pipes are old in certain areas and
they need to be repaired and they are discussing various options. He also notes that the city has
recently repaired certain sections of the pipe.
Page 11 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
Thomson states that they need to explain the condition of the other pipe
Hutchinson questions if it would make sense to relocate the pipe so it does not affect the
building. Cohen explains that the pipe will be replaced and will probably be relocated and noted
that the their engineer does not think it will present any structural or maintenance problems.
Cohen states that there are a number of good options on the table and they welcome suggestions.
He also noted that they have to satisfy the City Engineer and moving it is an option.
Mack questions if the city has an easement of the maintenance of the pipe. Cohen explains that
the city does not have an easement at this time but whatever legal conditions are recommended
for the project will be done.
Matz states that he would like.to have a Licensed Site Professional at the next meeting to discuss
the landfill gas infiltration.
Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Rosemary Broadbent of Northridge Road addresses the Board and expresses her concerns about
the landfill and drainage for the site. She notes that she is concerned about the stability of the
site. Cohen reports that there have been several assessments done on the site and most all have
said that the site can support the proposed buildings. He reviews the plan and notes the locations
of the buildings.
Broadbent questions what they are going to do with the pipe and if moving the pipe will affect
Northridge Road. Cohen states that if the pipe is moved it will not affect Northridge.
Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street addresses the Board and asks if they have written
acceptance from MA DOT. Cohen explains that the system collects and drains into a 24 inch
pipe. Thomson asks if DOT has reviewed and approved the plans. Cohen states that they are
cooperating with them.
Quinn states that they will need an access permit from DOT.
Rose Maglio addresses the Board and expresses her concerns about the location of the pipe on
the site. She states that the building should be sited closer to Brimbal Avenue. She also requests
that they revise the plan and have fewer buildings on the site.
Matz requested that a geotechnical engineer attend the next meeting to report on concerns about
the settlement of the landfill post construction.
Rosemary Broadbent addresses the Board again and expresses her concerns about the sharp drop
off behind building C and the effect on the drainage. Quinn explains that the slope will be 3 -1
Page 12 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
November 18, 2014
and the 4 foot natural slope down from Brimbal to Sohier. He suggests that they could put a low
perforated swale in there.
Zian notes that the timing between this development and the DOT project needs to be considered
and these plans assume that the DOT project will be in place. Cohen explains that the DOT
project will be completed before CEA starts their project. He explains that it is hoped that DOT
starts their project next spring and it is completed in the fall of 2015. Thomson asks if the CEA
project could be under construction during the DOT construction. Cohen explains that they
would do construction but they would not open the site until the DOT project is compete.
Mike Logan of 15 'Walnut Avenue addresses the Board and notes that he grew up in the area and
states that there were no controls over what was put into the landfill and states that he is
concerned about the use of a recharge area. Cohen explains that they will not be recharging
discharge noting the DEP will not allow it.
Dan D'Angelis of Brimbal Avenue addresses the Board and stated that there are a lot of concerns
about the location of the buildings on the site. He also referred to the reports done on the site by
Haley and Aldrich regarding the material on the site.
Cohen explains that the older reports were only technical reports and since then more testing of
the site has been done.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter this evening, Thomson
states that he would entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to December 16, 2014-
Hutchinson: motion to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at
7 :30 p.m. Mack seconds the motion. The motion carries (9 -0).
.Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was
made by Flannery to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Hutchinson. The motion carried (9 -0)
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30p.m.
Page 13 of 13