7-5-18 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board Meeting
Date: July 5, 2018
Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett, William Boesch,
Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, Wayne Miller
Members Absent: Allison Kilcoyne, David Mack
Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne
Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary
Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m
Recess for Public Hearings
Flannery: Motion to recess to Public Hearing. Miller seconds the motion. The
motion is approved (7 -0).
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #136 -18 and Special Permit Application
#169 -18 — 42 (50) Dunham Road — Construct approximately 97,396 sa. ft., 2 1 /2 story
building for new manufacturing facility and request for deviation from parking
requirements — Harmonic Drive, LLC c/o Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC
Darlene Wynne read the Public Notice.
The proposal involves construction of an approximately 97,396 sf, 2 1 /2 story (41') building for a
manufacturing facility, with accessory related uses including office, training and assembly space,
and 245 parking spaces, on a nearly 5 -acre portion of the 54 -acre Cummings Properties' Dunham
Ridge campus. The special permit relief is being requested for deviation from the parking
requirements, whereby the applicant wishes to construct fewer parking spaces than would be
required by zoning.
Miranda Gooding, Glovsky and Glovsky, 8 Washington Street, Beverly, representing the
applicant Harmonic Drive, LLC summarizes the project for the Board since they heard most of it
at the last meeting and there doesn't seem to be anyone present from the public. Gooding
introduces the team: Peter Ogren is the engineer, Harry Samolchuk architect from Connolly
Brothers, Jim Falbe from Harmonic Drive, Rod Emery is the traffic consultant, Doug Olson from
Harmonic Drive, and Steve Connolly from Connolly Brothers.
Gooding describes the project site and points out on the plan the other businesses in the area and
abutters. She reminds the Board that the building will be 2 1 /2 stories high, and 75% of the
building will be devoted to manufacturing while the other 25% to office space, training space,
meeting space and other uses. The parking lot will consist of 245 spaces which will have a mix
of compact and regular size spaces. The company has received a TIF from the City of Beverly,
which is a tax incentive to relocate to Beverly. The hours of operation will be from 7:00am to
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
3:30pm for the manufacturing staff and 8:30am to 5:OOpm for the office staff. They anticipate
light truck traffic in and out of the lot, and most will be deliveries and pick -ups by FedEx and
UPS. Gooding tells the Board this is a conforming building and the use is conforming in the
industrial district.
Gooding adds they have requested a special permit for parking to be conservative, even though
the City has opined that it is not needed because the office uses are accessory to the
manufacturing and under the same ownership. Gooding tells them that the Building Inspector
issued a letter commenting that the requirement is the 245 spaces and the project does comply.
William Boesch asks Gooding if the Board agrees with the interpretation of the Building
Inspector, do they still need to grant the special permit on the assumption that they may be
wrong. Gooding explains that it is an unusual request and they are looking for the Board to grant
the special permit for the avoidance of any doubt in the interpretation.
Gooding reads the following findings that the Board will determine if met or not:
a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the
character of 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
fact.
f. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use.
Gooding tells the Board they met with the Trustees of the Dunham Castle building and also with
unit owners and the response was favorable. Hutchinson asks Gooding how many people
attended. Olson tells her 12 -13 people attended the meeting and that the applicant had also
invited residents that live off of Presidential Circle to attend the special meeting, but nobody
attended. He tells the Board that Jim Falbe spoke with the owners of the home closest to the site
and their opinion of the project was favorable as well.
Miller asks Gooding if the parking spaces will be built out with impervious surface or will some
be reserved for future needs. Gooding tells him they are proposing to build all of them. Gooding
tells him that it doesn't make sense for them to have a parking reserve option.
Hutchinson asks Gooding what the number of employees is for both the manufacturing part and
the office part of the business. Olson comments that it is hard to verify, but about 2/3 of the
employees will be in during the 7:OOam to 3:30pm shift.
Gooding tells the Board that they received favorable recommendations from the Design Review
Board and Parking and Traffic Commission. The Conservation Commission also gave them a
favorable determination because the driveway and grading work does not trigger the need to file
a notice of intent.
2
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
Gooding says they are looking to confirm on the record that the conditions set forth for 42
Dunham Road are unique to this site and they don't want other conditions on other site plan
approvals to affect this project, such as site infrastructure work. A couple of other examples she
states would include noise compliance or drainage requirements that may pertain to the other
businesses that should not apply to 42 Dunham Road. Gooding explains that they want to make
sure down the road something doesn't come up and that on their title there aren't terms and
conditions that don't really apply to their property. She tells the Board that they would like them
to state that what is required conditions attached to prior site plans for other buildings on the lot,
do not apply to this building.
James Matz asks if their project alone will require any traffic mitigation. Gooding comments that
the traffic mitigation has been thought out but certain situations will trigger traffic signalization.
Wayne Miller asks if Planning Director Aaron Clausen can clarify what the Board can do with
the conditions that the applicant is referring to. Clausen asks if he is looking for clarification on
whether or not the Board should make a finding that the conditions of previous approvals are not
applied to this particular project. Miller tells him yes. Clausen explains that he believes it is an
unnecessary exercise, that findings and conditions that are attached to previous approvals would
not be attached to this project. Clausen tells them there was a condition put on 52 Dunham Road
approval in which Cummings Properties was required to put money into a fund to make roadway
improvements. One was at the intersection of Dunham and Brimbal, to widen it to make an
additional turning lane. The other was a trigger based on an analysis that would take place in 6
months and at one year following the occupancy permit, to determine if signalization was
warranted. Clausen explains he believes the applicant doesn't want to get saddled with having to
provide any additional mitigation in connection to that condition.
Ned Barrett asks Clausen about the 52 Dunham Road project and where their occupancy
currently is at. Clausen tells him it is at zero currently. Barrett asks if there is a way for them to
trigger review regarding the traffic once this project has filled its occupancy. Gooding clarifies
that the requirement for the analysis for the traffic impacts, even though it was in the decision for
52 Dunham Road, it's actually a requirement in 6 months or 1 year following up with occupancy
of 48 Dunham Road that the analysis be done. She tells them the trigger is for the prior building.
Clausen further clarifies that the condition was applied to a building that was already
preapproved, but that building is still just a shell with no occupancy. Clausen tells them that the
condition was tied to site conditions generally and not just those two projects. Clausen tells them
when the analysis is made for that intersection it will take into account what is happening at that
time. He tells them that it gives flexibility to the site to develop and the reason the analysis
would take place after occupancy is because they didn't know what the land use mix was.
Clausen comments that a site that has mixed use manufacturing has a different commute time,
2/3 of employees coming in earlier which is different from a building with full office use.
Barrett then comments that if the analysis takes place upon occupancy of 48 building, then they
may have a situation where they fill up with occupancy but it's not enough traffic and then this
applicant's site comes in and there is a small bump. Barrett asks if the funding for an analysis
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
comes out of the same fund by Cummings and Clausen tells him yes. Barrett's concern is that if
48 building is occupied and the warrant study is done and they realize there is not enough traffic
to necessitate a signal. Barrett thinks that it might make sense to condition a warrant study to be
done on occupancy of this project independent of what's done at the other building.
Barrett asks Gooding where the traffic study is for their building. Gooding tells him that the
developer is responsible for the infrastructure of the site and has already done a traffic study.
Gooding says that the developer had anticipated a bigger build out of the site than what they are
actually proposing, which was submitted with the ENF; the Board has the Traffic Impact
Assessment (TIA). Gooding explains that the traffic analysis and the conditions that the Board
imposed on 48 and 52 Dunham Road are buildings developed by Cummings. The applicant is
developing a 5 -acre site, putting in their infrastructure, doing their portion of the roadwork and
Cummings is building everything up to their unit line. Gooding says that Cummings is
responsible for doing the traffic analysis that the Board is looking for, not the applicant. Gooding
tells the Board that if they don't do it, then they don't want someone telling them or a future
purchaser that they are on the hook for taking care of a traffic analysis.
Rod Emery, traffic consultant, comments that the he doesn't have a traffic analysis for this
project, but does for number 48. He tells them that Cummings came in with a 144,702 sq. ft.,
mixed use building and they analyzed Dunham Road and the off ramp and there was no reason to
add any mitigation. The next project they came in at was 143,000 sq. ft. and that one triggered
the mitigation for the site. Emery says that with the applicant's project at about 97,000 sq. feet
they would not trigger mitigation. Barrett asks if the cumulative of all that would bring them to
the tipping point and should the City review it at that point. Miller comments that they should do
the study. Emery tells him that the 97,000 sq. ft. doesn't warrant a signal.
Clausen comments that based on the other two developments on Dunham Road there was a
discussion about whether or not they would need the traffic signals. At the time, the usage wasn't
certain and they weren't going to build the signals if it wasn't necessary. Clausen explains at the
time they looked at this in many different ways including the buildings on Dunham Road,
Vitality, and a possible project like Harmonic Drive. Clausen tells them the proposed use of
Harmonic Drive would have less traffic than what was presented in the ENF.
Boesch comments that what he thinks the applicant is saying is that regardless of the triggers it is
not their issue to deal with. Boesch asks if they can reach out to Cummings and tell them what
they may have to do, because they shouldn't have to put a condition on this applicant.
Gooding tells the Board that once a traffic analysis is done after the build out that Cummings has
to come back to the Board to present it. And at that time the Board will have the authority to
review and make a decision of how to use the funds that Cummings has already paid. Boesch
asks if it is triggered by occupancy and Gooding tells him it is triggered by issuance of
occupancy permit. Hutchinson asks if the certificate of occupancy for the 48 building may come
after the time when this project is up and running. Hutchinson then comments that this project
and the other projects may or may not trigger the need for signalization. Wynne tells Hutchinson
that the decision was written for number 52, which is currently a foundation and it may remain
that way for a long time. Wynne explains the condition is on the occupancy of number 48, which
4
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
is constructed and would seek occupancy at some point. Gooding then comments that if the
occupancy permit were filed for number 48 tomorrow, the analysis would happen about a year
and a half from now. Gooding explains that some projects such as Whole Foods and number 48
could be done and occupied by then, but the applicant Harmonic Drive should not be responsible
for those traffic requirements.
Barrett asks for clarification of the other buildings on property. Clausen explains that 48 is a
shell and that there are no tenants that have submitted for building permit yet. Clausen tells
Barrett that it could take some time for the analysis to take place. Clausen explains that if
something was submitted for number 48 tomorrow, it could take 3 -6 months to fit out the space.
Clausen further explains that then it would be another 6 months before the analysis would take
place. Barrett is concerned that because 48 is a shell and 52 is just a foundation, then nothing will
trigger for them to do an analysis and there will be no traffic signals at that point. Gooding
explains that if the deadline for the warrant study started that day, then they would take into
account both 48 if finished and Harmonic property, because they will be up and running in about
18 months. Gooding further explains that the longer the warrant study goes out, then more than
likely it will take their project into account.
Hutchinson comments that she believes there are two warrant studies, one at 6- months and one at
a year.
Mayor of Beverly, Michael Cahill comments that they need to hear from the Transportation
Engineer.
Emery begins his traffic presentation. Emery explains that they submitted a letter to the state
about the four proposed projects that they have been discussing. Emery tells the Board that the
state's transportation department came back with a study area based on the traffic coming from
Route 128 and surrounding streets and intersections that would be most impacted. He tells them
that the project submitted to MEPA had 311 peak hour trips in the morning and 335 peak hour
trips in the afternoon. Hutchinson asks what the assumption of the 311 trips are based on for the
build out. Emery tells her that it is based on all four projects.
Emery explains that in the report they projected the traffic for 7 years. They also added the
Whole Foods project and all four of the Cummings projects to do a master plan analysis. Emery
comments that the roundabout, as well as Dunham Road and the ramps from 128 came in at C
levels. Emery comments that the Harmonic Drive project would generate three trips to the
intersection at Enon and Dodge Street which has received an F level. He then tells the Board that
they have signalized Herrick Street at Brimbal Avenue. Emery explained that by taking out the
150,000 sq. ft. project and adding the 97,000 sq. foot project it zeroed it out and came out to be
the same with regard to the number of trips. Emery tells them their conclusion was a mitigation
package based on all 500,000 sq. ft. of new development. He comments that Cummings is trying
to predict the market they are trying to serve with the land uses. Emery explains that the peak
trips out of Harmonic Drive will produce about 60 in the morning and 65 at night. He tells the
Board that even though they are at 150,000 sq. ft. and the other two projects are close enough to
go without the mitigation, widening the road would be recommended.
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
Flannery asks Clausen if the road widening would be the responsibility of the City. Clausen tells
her that it would be.
Boesch comments that the applicant wants the Board to not impose the conditions previously
placed on the other applications and projects. Clausen recommends that based on the applicant's
request that the Board make a finding that this trigger condition for occupancy doesn't apply to
their project. Clausen comments that if the projects don't happen, then there will be no necessary
mitigation based on the analysis of the two projects previously presented. Boesch asks him how
many more trips do they need going in and out of the property for that to happen. Clausen tells
him they are waiting on the analysis and that this project has a lower impact of traffic than the
other two projects.
Matz asks if there is any update on the Phase II of the City's proposed interchange project.
Gooding asks Rod Emery to give a statement to the Board. Emery tells the Board that the project
is a concept at this point and they are waiting on funding. Mayor Cahill comments that there
needs to be a shared plan since the properties involved are owned by Cummings, the City, and
Maestranzi Brothers. He is hoping that by sometime next year they can go to the state and get
some of the details sorted out. However, he tells them that realistically it could take 7 -10 years to
finish Phase II_ He hopes they can sit down with the administration next year and request Value
Capture, which is one of the terms they've used for providing funding, to support a Public
Private Partnership and hopes to piece it all together.
Clausen explains how the overall planning of the area comes into play. He tells the Board that
Cummings Properties was required to submit an Environmental Notification Form because of
their proximity to Route 128, a state highway. This ended up triggering some low -level criteria
to seek a letter or certification from the MEPA process to see if a full level report was needed
based on traffic analysis. So the analysis that Emery spoke about earlier walked through the site
master plan and looked at traffic impacts. Clausen tells them that two key components came
from that, one of which was that a full environmental impact report was not necessary, because
the traffic didn't trigger that. And the second component was that the mitigation of a traffic
signal could successfully accommodate traffic for a full build out that includes the Harmonic
Drive site. Clausen reiterates what Emery said earlier regarding an assumed 150,000 sq. ft.
project for this site. He explains that the Phase II project is of importance; however, the current
project being discussed does not require it.
Peter Ogren, comments that they submitted a new existing topography and there has already
been some grading throughout the site, and that it made sense to tier it. He explains that they
have a lower level with a parking lot, a retaining wall and an upper level that accesses the lower
level of the building that contains 13,000 sq. ft. Ogren explains the main footprint of the building
is 67,000 sq. ft. which is at a second level which has access off the manufacturing entrance and
the loading docks. In addition, is an upper level office area which is 16,000 sq. ft. which brings it
up to the 97,000 sq. ft. He explains there are two accesses to the site, one is south of the parking
garage and the other is north of the office building. He points out the truck access which is a
southerly route they ended up changing from their original plan based on the Conservation
Committees request.
11
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
Ogren tells the Board they met with the Fire Department safety officer and they did a traffic
analysis for the fire truck access to make sure it could go up and turn around in the parking lot.
He also points out the fire lane on the plan and tells them they would have access to three sides
of the building, and tells them that they approved the location of the fire hydrant. He tells them
that there is sewer available and points out some of the lines connecting to it. He also comments
that electrical and telephone poles are already available on the site. Ogren tells them regarding
drainage, they did some analysis of before and after run off and extensive soil testing on the site.
He explains that they don't have soil that is suitable for infiltration, but they have a large
containment system that could infiltrate to an extent. It is an underground retention pond that
could mitigate the run -off from the site. They submitted the run -off analysis to the City Engineer
and they got the land activities drainage permit issued on the site. He tells the Board they have
submitted a lighting plan and the concept is to put lights in the center of the parking lot or off the
lot lines so the spillover is minimal. He points out on the plan where the lighting will be placed.
Ogren tells the Board that they plan on putting on some wall packs to the building. He then asks
if there are any questions.
Miller asks Ogren to clarify the north side of the parking lot. Ogren points out where the pond is
on the plan and shows Miller where the current drainage is with a man hole. Ogren explains the
pond is the destination of the run -off from the site.
Matz asks Ogren if there is a tank on the southern part of the site. Ogren tells him he believes it
is a dumpster for metal by- products to be recycled. Matz then asks if there will be a tight tank (a
concrete tank that is put underground to retain industrial process water). Falbe comments that
there will be one in the west corner of the building where there is an overhead door where they
bring machinery in. He says because it is a drive -in door, it requires a floor drain and floor drains
can't be connected to the sewer system, so any leakage will go to a small tank. Matz confirms
that is a trap. Olson comments that the process for oil from the manufacturing will be inside the
facility in tanks and then handed over to a company for safe disposal.
Matz asks them if they will be a small quantity or very small quantity generator. Falbe says he
has been trying to get that resolved with the state for the last 10 -15 years. They purchase a
couple of drums of mineral spirits per year and file the appropriate forms with the state.
Miller asks if there is any canopy or covered parking planned in the unshaded, south facing
parking area. Falbe says there is a canopy over the two chip containers, on the side of the
building, because you don't want to get water washing through the chips.
Matz asks if they need a SWPP at the facilities. Ogren tells him yes. Matz asks what kind of
sampling will they have to do and will it be where the run -off meets the edge of the property.
Ogren tells him they have a treatment plan that meets the Massachusetts standard, with deep
sump catch basins, stormceptor, and discharge to the retention area.
Hutchinson asks Ogren if his letter dated June 28, 2018, deals with all of Ms. Chandler's
concerns. Ogren tells Hutchinson he wrote a response letter to her concerns and sent it to the
Planning Board for her. Wynne comments that Ms. Chandler is happy with the response from
Ogren.
7
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
Gooding asks the Board if they would like to hear the architectural presentation. Barrett asks if
the plan has been seen by the Design Review Board and do they have a favorable view of it.
Flannery tells him that it has and they do have a favorable view of it. Since the Board already
reviewed it, they will not be presenting it again.
Gooding comments that there was communication with the Building Inspector to verify the
correct determination of the frontage and appropriate set -backs for the buildings. She comments
that she has had some email conversations with the Building Inspector that have been
contradictory to prior conversations. She tried to clarify some issues but wasn't able to before
this evening. Gooding comments that the issues are whether the yards measured from the
boundaries of the property are appropriately termed as rear yards or side yards. She shows the
Board a slide on the presentation where the overall lot has about 159 feet of frontage on the built
portion of Dunham Road. She explains the requirement in the industrial district is 225 feet and
that this is a non - conforming lot, and it's a prior non - conforming condition, but it is a frontage
non - conformity that the zoning bylaw allows. Gooding tells the Board the issue the applicant has
is how they figure out on a lot that houses many buildings, which is the rear yard and the side
yard. She explains that in their plan they had called out a rear and side yard due to other
buildings being built. She shows them on the plan where the rear yard has been determined but
the rest of the boundaries are side yard, and says the Engineer made a mistake because they
designated a lot line by Presidential Circle as a rear lot line, implying it required 25 -foot setback.
Gooding explains that it has been reviewed by the Building Inspector and will be viewed as the
side lot line and having a 20 -foot side set -back requirement. Gooding tells the Board she met
with Mr. Frederickson and spoke about having parking in the front yard and she wants to be
certain there is no front yard or rear yard where this building is located.
Boesch asks Gooding to clarify where the side line becomes the back line and she shows him on
the plan that at one point on the overall site, where the rear lot line begins and everything else is
side yard. Hutchinson asks if the building meets the side setback. Gooding confirms.
Wynne comments that when they looked at the plan initially, the rear and side yard were
switched and that initiated the question. She explains she looked at the overall site plan for 52
Dunham Road which is consistent with what Gooding mentioned about where the rear turns to
side. Wynne suggests that the Board can approve with a condition to make sure this is all cleared
up with the Building Inspector, due to the contradictions. She notes if there is any modification
to the plan, it would have to go back to the Planning Board for approval.
Hutchinson asks what they have to do to get a final approval by the Building Inspector. Gooding
comments that they need to review the plan together in person and it's been difficult to schedule
that.
Boesch asks if he has a different position than what they have in front of them. Gooding says that
the Building Inspector's position was transmitted in an email on July 4 at 8:30pm and he may
have been viewing at home without the full set of plans. It is contradictory to her prior
conversations with him.
E3
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
Hutchinson asks Gooding if they are comfortable with the condition of what the Planning
Director is suggesting. Gooding says they are. Wynne explains that the condition is, if the
Planning Board decides to approve the project, that the applicant and Building Inspector resolve
the question and if that change requires a modification the applicant would need to go back to the
Board for a modification request.
Matz asks for them to clarify how far the back wall is to the property line. Gooding tells him it is
about 20.4 feet. Gooding points out another point from the building to the line is 25.1 feet.
Gooding explains that if the interpretation holds then the building will remain further away from
the residences, as opposed to the south end of Presidential Circle. Matz then asks Gooding how
far the north wall is from that property line. Wynne tells him that it is 20.4 feet.
Wynne tells the Board about the other letters she received. There was an email from Amy
Maxner from July 3, 2018, stating the status of the project with the Conservation Commission.
There was the email already discussed from the Zoning Enforcement Officer /Building Inspector.
She also received a response from Hayes Engineering to the Engineering Department's review.
Wynne also received a letter from the Board of Health on June 28, 2018, stating their standard
conditions.
Gooding asks Hutchinson if she can offer up some suggestions regarding the conditions.
Gooding comments that there are some concerns by the advisors of the applicant that the
conditions be resolved on the record. She would like the Board to accept the following
conditions with their decision, the wording would be: "Notwithstanding the existence of prior
Planning Board decisions with respect to 50 Dunham Road, (Map 69, Parcel 2), the only
condition which shall apply to the subject site plan are those referenced in this decision for 42
Dunham Road."
Hutchinson asks if there is anyone present at the meeting from the Public to speak in favor or
against the project, or has questions for the team. There were none.
Miller comments that he believes the applicant is looking for assurance from the Planning Board
but he is not sure if the Planning Department should meet first to discuss this. Clausen tells the
Board that their position is the Board's conditions should be based on zoning and project
approval. Clausen comments that the Board can add a finding or condition to the project that
relates to conditions or mitigation applied to previously approved projects if they want; he does
not have an issue with that. His prior comments was that he doesn't believe it is necessary.
Boesch asks about the conditions. Gooding tells him she is concerned about trying to explain that
these conditions have been satisfied to someone else. Gooding comments that it relates to
property title, but it also is an issue that comes when a Board issues conditions on projects.
Gooding tells Boesch that the applicant wants it crystal clear that those conditions don't apply to
this project. Boesch comments that it may be better to be transparent and briefly explain that
there are the other conditions and they aren't making the approval contingent on what happens
with the other projects. Gooding explains they were looking for a finding from the Board and
that there seemed to be a reluctance with that to think of an alternative way of giving the
applicant that and they wanted some clarity to bring to their advisors.
PJ
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
Olson tells the Board that they have other counsel, located in Boston, in addition to Glovsky &
Glovsky. He tells them they are handling the contractual arrangements for the purchase and sale
of the property itself. This counsel is concerned that there may potentially be additional cost for
the traffic mitigation or violations with the condominium which they don't have liability for.
Olson would like the issue resolved either with the Planning Board or the Cummings Properties.
Barrett: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is
approved (7 -0).
Hutchinson asks the wish of the Board.
Barrett: Motion to approve Site Plan Review Application 9136 -18 with the following
conditions:
• Notwithstanding the existence of prior Site Plan Review and Special Permit
decisions with regard to 50 Dunham Road (also known as Map 69, Parcel 2),
the approval of Site Plan Review 9136 -18 is subject only to the conditions set
forth in this Decision, that follow:
• Subject to compliance with any and all conditions set forth in the
comment letters from the City departments, boards, and commissions,
which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
• The Engineering Department requires the delivery of AutoCAD "as-
built" drawings upon completion of the building and utility work. These
drawings shall also be delivered in .pdf format generated directly from
the electronic AutoCAD files. These drawings shall be delivered prior
to the sale /installation of the required water meters.
• All Stormwater Management maintenance and inspection records shall
be submitted to the City of Beverly Planning Department (1) one time,
annually due by December 31 of the calendar year in which the
maintenance /inspection was performed. An account of any
deficiencies /repairs shall be summarized in a cover letter referring to
the maintenance /inspection record.
• That the applicant shall resolve any and all issues regarding setback
dimensions or building orientation with the Director of Municipal
Inspections. Should this require any changes to the site plan, the
applicant shall submit a modification request to the Planning Board.
Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0).
Barrett than stated that the project meets the required special permit findings as stated below:
• That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that
the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected.
• That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be
adversely affected by such use.
• That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result.
10
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
July 5, 2018
• That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper
operation and maintenance of the proposed use.
• That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on
demonstrable fact.
• That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the
proposed use.
Barrett: Motion to grant special permit application 9169 -18, to the extent such relief is
necessary, to allow deviation from Article X Parking and Loading Requirements
of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance, subject to the preamble and conditions set forth
in the approval of Site Plan Review 9136 -18
Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0).
New /Other Business
a. Other business not known at the time of the posting of this agenda.
Adjournment
Boesch: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:21pm. Zane Craft seconds the motion. The
motion passes (7 -0).
11