Loading...
12-17-19 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: December 17, 2019 Location: Beverly Senior Center Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett, Derek Beckwith, Alexander Craft, Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, Wayne Miller, William Boesch, Sarah Bartley Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Jodi Byrne, Recording Secretary Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Hutchinson makes note to the audience that the meeting is being filmed. Hutchinson thanks the Board for all of their hard work, in particular, the leadership of Darlene Wynne. With many meetings and hours, Hutchinson acknowledges her colleagues for their time and effort in making lives better for the citizens of Beverly. Ned Barrett arrives to the meeting at 7:06. 1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans There are none Recess for Public Hearings Ellen Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearings. Zane Craft seconds. The motion passes (9 -0). 2. Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review #140 -19, Special Permit #172 -19, and Inclusionary Housing Permit #17 -19 - "Depot 11" a 166,000 sq.ft. mixed commercial and residential building containing 106 residential units (as revised) with associated parking and site improvements —134 142 -146 Rantoul Street and 1 -9 Park Street - Depot Square Phase II, LLC Attny. Miranda Gooding (Glovsky & Glovsky) thanks the Board for their work and notes that she is representing the project on behalf of Depot Square Phase II, LLC. She states that at the 11/19/19 Planning Board Meeting, the parking and traffic work was introduced, and that all of the questions posed by the Board and the public at this meeting were addressed in a 12/9/19 response letter directed to the Planning Board. She notes that there are no marked material differences in this new analysis, therefore, support from the Parking and Traffic Committee is both accurate and closed. Attny. Gooding also notes that at the 11/19/19 Planning Board Meeting, the preservation of the Casa de Luca building was introduced. She introduces Thad Siemasko (SV Design) who presents the new project design. Siemasko's renderings include the following: 1. Lower Level- garage level shows required parking area for the building, including a bicycle storage area. 2. Second Level- 47 additional parking spaces with a lowered access to maximize the retail area. This includes an access ramp to the lower level. 3. Main level- showcases the restored Casa de Luca building and an enclosed courtyard with a handicapped access area. It is noted that one unit was removed from this floor to allow for more retail space. 4. Second and Third Floor Plans- contain a fire curtain connection through the fire wall for egress. 5. Fourth Floor Plan- hosts the roof that will connect to the Casa de Luca Building. 6. Fifth Floor Plan- strategically setback from property line to hide from street level view. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 17, 2019 7. Sixth Floor Plan- strategically setback to hide from street level view. Holds a sky lounge, made larger by reducing the number of units from 14 to 12. S. Courtyard- design boasts a defined circulation pattern with transformers well- hidden from view. 9. Site Features- review of plantings, stair designs, trim, and edging. 10. Views - Rantoul Street view shows four stories with the main, fifth, and sixth setback from view. The connector between the Casa de Luca building and main building is described. Siemasko also shows views from Railroad Ave. and includes courtyard elevations. Images show a store front at the Park and Railroad Ave. intersection. It is noted that there will be ground -level access from the Beverly Depot. The view facing the Casa De Luca building shows the inner courtyard, boasting the added brick areas. The Pleasant Street view shows the setback upper floors and the added brick areas. 11. Exterior Materials - the materials include glass, brick, and mostly gray tones. Siemasko notes that only the cornice on the Casa de Luca building is original, so the plan is to capture the historic look of the building while improving structure with a no- maintenance type of product. The design plan hopes to incorporate a storefront look on the bottom level to benefit the future tenant. Attny. Gooding comments that the design did go to the Design Review Board this month, and notes that one public comment revealed a desire that the project design include more of a restoration plan than the developer's intention. Attny Gooding wants to clarify that the existing building is incorporated into the larger project as a transition from old to new, and that it is not a restoration project. If the permit is approved, however, Attny. Gooding notes that the applicant will meet with the Historic District Commission on a voluntary basis. Wayne Miller asks about the shutters. Siemasko explains that the intention is to keep the windows the same size as the original, with the shutters and restored cornice securing the authentic look. When asked about the roof, Siemasko notes that the current plan is for a white roof with screened equipment, but that the final design will depend on the utilities that will be placed on the roof. Derek Beckwith feels that the new building is overwhelming to the old building and asks if it can be made more subtle. Siemasko notes that they are trying to blend in with all of the neighboring buildings, and that he feels this is achieved in the design. William Boesch compliments Siemasko on the project design in keeping the existing building, noting that it exceeds his expectations. Ned Barrett asks for more specifics from the Design Review Board. Flannery states that the Design Review Board will meet on 1/4/2020, and expects them to make a decision in time for a report at the 1/28/20 Planning Board meeting. Barrett also asks about the affordable housing application. Attny. Gooding states that the affordable housing requirement is being served at both 461 Rantoul and at 2 Hardy Street. She notes that all of the units on 461 Rantoul will be credited to this project, and that this will result in more affordable units than are required. Atty. Gooding thanks the Planning Board members who have provided valuable feedback during this long process. She asks for more discussion regarding the Special Permit request regarding the project height. Allison Kilcoyne asks Siemasko to walk through the design of the project height along Rantoul Street. Siemasko mentions other buildings as models, such as the Holmes building, and notes that the setback of the upper floors make the building more subtle. Miller requests additional drawings with views from Railroad Ave. and Rantoul Street (coming south from Salem). Hutchinson shares her concerns that her view is always drawn to the top section of the building. Siemasko notes that the top will be mostly hidden from the street level. Beckwith asks to see how tall the building Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 17, 2019 would be without the Special Permits. Siemasko notes it would be halfway through the fifth floor. Boesch reminds the Board that the Zoning offers a Special Permit to build the sixth story, so that the design accommodates this as best it can. Barrett says that he feels the design accommodates the Special Permit requirements well, and claims that the Park Street view is the only view that he finds overpowering. Siemasko reminds the Board that the stairs are set back and in line with the Depot Garage height. Barrett asks how close the structure is located to the street, and Siemasko reports that it meets the property line. Flannery notes that the addition of the brick and landscape has added many appealing changes to the design. Darlene Wynne clarifies the intent of a Special Permit and that it is something that is allowed, but may require special considerations and provides the Board the opportunity to ask for those. In reference to the Special Permit, Attny. Gooding states that this site is large, and that it is important to plan what is best for the community through both dispersing the height across the site and in the revitalization of the site. She notes that the Special Permit gives flexibility, and allows these benefits to the project. Hutchinson asks for confirmation that the first floor is retail and requests seeing the Pleasant Street Elevation. She notes that this view is a massive block. Siemasko suggests that the view is not showing a true artist rendering because the middle section is perforated as different levels are setback. Sarah Bartley asks for clarification of the areas planned for public art. Siemasko states that art is planned for several areas including: Park Street, a planned space for sculptures, a large firewall at the end of the walkway, and a planned area for a commemorative public art piece. Bartley asks if there are any existing plans, and Siemasko states that the city is establishing a public art process. Bartley asks where extra units would go if the added top floors were not there. In addition, she asks about the Rantoul Street project in regards to displacement. Siemasko notes that if the 5th and 6th floors were removed, that the extra spaces could be added to other floors. Beckwith asks about the impact of the urban landscape in regard to rental amounts and availability. He shares a report he prepared of a census -based income analysis for the City of Beverly, and reviews his analysis of median household incomes in U.S. Census Tract 2174, where the project is located, and in the City of Beverly overall, and notes that based upon median household income, no households at or below median household income in Tract 2174 would be able to afford the proposed rental fees for any of the apartments in the proposed project. Beckwith then notes that when the entire city is considered, households at or below median household income would only be able to afford Studio apartments, not the 1- or 2- bedroom units. Beckwith shares his concerns that this project may not meet the needs of the average household in Beverly, causing local citizens to be displaced. Attny. Gooding speaks to Beckwith's comments. First, she notes that this subject has been discussed at prior meetings, and that displacement is not fair to be pinned on one project or developer. She agrees that this is an issue and reads from a recent article in the Boston Globe, noting that the act of "not" building new structures does not necessarily prevent rising real- estate costs and displacement. She says that her client has built low- income and veteran housing, and that the new units have encouraged the building of the affordable units. Beckwith adds that median income needs to be considered, not just low income. Miller shares his hopes that the Board is representing the community well, and asks if this project will be good for the children of Beverly. Atty. Gooding says that these developments typically do not attract school -age children; she notes that the City's research has found that there is approximately 1 child for every 40 units is existing multi- family buildings around transit. However, she notes that this project will provide 1.3 million of tax revenue that will be added to Beverly's city budget, much of which will go to Beverly schools. She also notes the excitement of a city with a revitalization of businesses (on both Cabot and Rantoul) that are dependent upon these new structures. Miller recognizes that growth is necessary for Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 17, 2019 the city, and that this project fits into the master plan. He also feels that the Special Permits are appropriate. He does, however, feel that the project could do better in the area of sustainability. Flannery: Motion to continue the public hearing to the January 28, 2020 meeting of the Planning Board on. Boesch seconds. The motion passes (9 -0). Flannery: Motion for a five minute recess. Beckwith seconds. The motion passes (9 -0). Flannery: Motion to reopen the public hearing. Craft seconds. The motion passes (9 -0). Barrett and Boesch leave the meeting at 8:32. Hutchinson states that Agenda Item 99 will be moved to next on the agenda. 9. Request for a Minor Modification to Approved Site Plan #134 -18 - elimination of the open deck at the rear of the commercial space leased to Atomic Cafe, and modifications to the residential windows — 268B Cabot Street - Overlook Cabot, LLC Attny. Gooding represents the applicant (Overlook Cabot, LLC) in a minor modification at the Atomic Cafe to a prior approval. The client has requested to open a new juice bar operation in the rear of the building instead of an enclosed deck (as seen in prepared package). The plan would incorporate garage - style doors that could both open and close instead of an all open plan. Attny. Gooding states that these modifications were already approved by the Design Review Board. Hutchinson confirms that the deck area will now be enclosed with doors that could open and close. Miller asks if there were any objections from the Design Review Board. Flannery confirms that there were none. Beckwith asks if this modification would change the seating capacity of the restaurant. Atty. Gooding states that the area's seating, relief, or parking would not be impacted. Miller: Motion to determine the modifications To Site Plan Review #134 -18 are minor in nature Craft seconds. The motion passes (9 -0). Miller: Motion to approve the modifications to Site Plan Review #134 -18 as described. Craft seconds. The motion passes (9 -0). 3. Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review #146 -19 - Construct a mixed -use building in the CN Zoning District containing 880 sq.ft. of retail space on the first floor and 2 residential units on the second and third floors (as revised), with associated parking and site improvements - 0 Everett Street - 0 Everett Street LLC, c/o Alexander & Femino Attny. Tom Alexander (1 School Street) states that he is presenting on behalf of the owner of this property (0 Everett Street, LLC). Alexander provides a brief history of this mixed -use project, with a planned retail area and two residential units. He notes that this lot has been a used car lot, and that his client's hope is to improve the lot's usage. Attny. Alexander states that the CN Zoning District requires adherence to the least restrictive adjacent residential zone, which in this case is the R6. He notes that the project meets all of the zoning requirements. He also notes that the project meets all of the height and parking requirements. Attny. Alexander specifies that the parking requirements are 4 spaces for residential and 3.2 spaces for retail, and that they are providing 9 parking spaces. Alexander stresses that they are subject to Site Plan Review, but do not require a Special Permit, as it is a by -right project. Attny. Alexander notes that this building supports transit- oriented development as it is walkable to the Beverly Farms train station. He states that the Design Review Board made three recommendations to Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 17, 2019 which the developer has agreed: 1. enhanced column design 2. walkway materials of blue stone 3. corner landscaping on Hale Street at a low growth plan (to keep corner view accessible). Julia Mooradian (Seger Architects) addresses the design of the building. She notes that an engineer (Bobrek Engineering) is also present for questions. Mooradian reviews the landscape plan of the project. She shows the abutters and the planned six ft. fence. In addition, Mooradian shows the various plantings and states that they worked with neighbors in developing a design that meets all needs. Mooradian states that they will rebuild a stone wall and design and plan two patios. She shows images of the basement and retail area, and notes that each residential area will be on opposing sides of the structure. In addition, Mooradian shows the columns on the structure that will be redesigned as recommended by the Design Review Board. All street views are shown in the drawings, with descriptions of the exteriors, including a glass front for the retail space. Attny. Alexander emphasizes that the owner has met with neighbors and has incorporated their input as well as suggestions from the Design Review Board. Wynne passes out copies of the letter showing the changes requested by the Design Review Board. Hutchinson asks if there is a set plan for the retail space, asking if a condition of no restaurant would be accepted. Attny. Alexander notes that if they did not have the required parking for a restaurant, it would not be approved for occupancy. Miller asks for clarification of the stone wall construction. Mooradian answers that the current wall needs to be rebuilt. Miller then asks if any semi - permeable materials can be used. Brendan Pyburn, the engineer explains that the materials are mostly permeable and run -off should be more than required. Miller asks about plans for heating and air conditioning. Mooradian notes that they will be using high efficiency gas furnaces. Flannery asks for a review of the greenery plans. Mooradian states that there is an existing 6 ft. fence with the plans for plantings and a 3 ft. stone wall at the end of the parking area. Beckwith asks if the trash area will provide an area for recycling and composting. Mooradian confirms a planned space for both trash and recycling, but notes that composting has not yet been discussed. Beckwith asks about the lower growth plantings, ensuring that this area does not block views of school children and pedestrian areas. Mooradian notes that the wall and plantings will not block views. She confirms areas for handicap aisles and parking and notes that exterior lighting is planned for the building on the sides of the retail area, with recessed lighting in the parking areas and one mounted light above each residence door. Bartley asks if the turning radius will meet handicap van requirements. The engineer states that this private facility only requires standard handicap access, not van access. He notes that the parking requirements are met, and it is noted that the townhomes are not handicapped accessible. Miller reads a letter from residents with concerns for traffic. The engineer notes that a traffic study was performed, and that the results will be shared with the Parking and Traffic Commission at their next scheduled meeting (the last Parking and Traffic meeting was postponed due to snow). Miller also has a letter of concern from a resident who is present at the meeting. This member of the public will be invited to speak at the time of public comment. Wynne describes a resident letter that shares concerns for zoning. Wynne says that the Building Inspector submitted a letter that the proposed use is a by -right use. Wynne also addresses that some neighbors have concerns with which side has the frontage and address to be used by the structure. Attny. Alexander reads from Section 300 -39G (conflicting uses) of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance that describes the required buffer areas. He shows the plan from Everett Street and the buffer yard on the other side for residential use. He notes that both boundaries have the required fencing and landscaping. Attny. Alexander says that the Design Review Board has already approved this plan. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 17, 2019 Wynne reads the letters from the various Boards. The applicant, Joseph Skomurski, states that he is in agreement with everything in the letter. Hutchinson asks if anyone from the public would like to speak. The Board hears from the following community members: Brian French (19 Everett Street) states that he has attended all of the meetings regarding this project. He notes that he is happy that the plans have gone from four units to two. He still has zoning concerns as he believes it requires a variance for abutting residential yards. He reads a note of zoning requirements to substantiate his concern and questions the process for approval. He wants to make sure that the dumpster, trash area, and parking areas are screened from other residences. French also requests a delay of the Board's approval until they hear the Parking and Traffic Commission's report. Wynne explains that this meeting is the consultation with the Planning Board, and that the Board would then make a recommendation to the building inspector for his review at the time of the Building Permit. Airy. Alexander states that this project has already been approved by the Design Review Board. 2. Peter Johnson (677 Hale Street) asks if the abutter Mr. Orestes Brown at 722 Hale Street submitted a letter of support. Attny. Alexander provides signed petition for the Board's review stating support for this project by two neighbors, including Mr. Brown. Johnson discusses the screening of conflicted uses, especially in including the use of evergreens. He feels that fences and walls may be included as part of the buffer yard, but not be in place of screening. He also believes there should be a left buffer yard. He asks where the snow would be placed upon plowing, and about the retail signage. Alexander explains that the signage will be determined when the tenant is established. The engineer answers that snow will be removed from the site. Attny. Alexander addresses the request for evergreens, and agrees that evergreens could be added to the lot on the right side. Hutchinson asks if the zoning language requires the use of evergreens, or does the language invite other plantings. Attny. Alexander notes that adding evergreens is not a problem. Furthermore, Attny. Alexander states that the Maple trees were determined during the Design Review Board meeting and in agreement with an abutting property owner. Attny. Effie Panagiotakis (represents residents at 5 Everett Street) shares client's concerns with the setbacks on the plan. She states that her client feels that the plan is not satisfactory because the client's yard meets the fence of this project. Attny. Panagiotakis suggests that this project is invasive to her client's property as her client's swimming pool meets the project fence, and the plans for the trees do not address the height of the project. This client is concerned with privacy, and has met with the builder on several occasions with respect to the height of the project as well as the buffer. Attny. Panagiotakis reads from her letter to the Board: "The buffer yard shall consist of landscape planting including evergreens." Attny. Panagiotakis states that this is desirable for year -round screening. Attny. Panagiotakis also states that her client has an issue with the dimensional requirements due to the retail space. Attny. Panagiotakis argues that she believes the use by right according to the dimensional requirements of the R6 is only for the building of two residences. She requests that the developer revise his plans again to meet these requirements. Hutchinson asks if the replacement of the maples to evergreens, would suffice the client. Attny. Panagiotakis states that their concerns are strictly for privacy, and that she is not able to provide an answer to the specificity of the type of trees. In addition, she notes that her client would like a report on the rebuilding of the fence. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 17, 2019 4. Babette Loring (Everett Street) shares the concern that there are several empty storefronts in neighboring buildings, and she wonders what could fill a new space. She is worried about safety and parking. 5. Peter Johnson (677 Hale) requests a better landscaping screening plan for the Everett Street side of project, noting the shrubs don't provide screening and the right side of lot doesn't have other plantings. 6. Paul Weingarter (12 Everett Street) shares his objection to the retail store due to traffic issues existing at this intersection. He asks that if this retail space is approved over residents' objections, that it please not be a restaurant. There are no more members of the public to speak. Flannery reviews the discussion of the landscape and the entrance and notes that the addition of evergreens may need to be submitted to the Design Review Board. Flannery stresses the need for resident privacy, and Attny. Alexander agrees to replace some of the maple trees with evergreen trees and to present this change to the Design Review Board. Hutchinson suggests that 19 ft. maples would be more beneficial than 5 or 6 ft. evergreens, and asks about the agreement between the neighbor and the property owner. Attny. Panagiotakis stresses that there was never an agreement. She states that the discussions between the residents and the developer may be unclear, and that the resident and the two attorneys could meet to review the plans. She adds that her client wants to find an amicable solution for this property to be built. Hutchinson notes that this matter cannot be resolved at this time. She suggests that the discussion be placed on hold until the builder meets with the Parking and Traffic Commission. In the meantime, Hutchinson recommends that the property owner again meet with the neighbors. Flannery: Motion to continue the public hearing until the January 28, 2020 Planning Board meeting. Craft seconds. Motion passes (7 -0). 4. Continued Public Hearing: Waiver of Frontage and Definitive Subdivision Plan- Subdivide 15,000 sq.ft. lot in the R10 Zoning District into one 10,000 sq.ft. lot and one 5,000 sq.ft lot, where a Variance for area and frontage has been granted by the ZBA, and extend Livingstone Avenue by 110 ft. - 21 Porter Terrace - Jeffrey Holloran Wynne reads the letters to the Board. Deborah Colbert (Hancock Associates) notes that she has submitted the revised plans as requested. She states that this project now provides parking with a fire truck turnaround that was approved by the Fire Department. In addition, Colbert notes that access was added to the abutting property over the drainage swale so that they could still access the rear of their property. Colbert explains that they met with the City Engineer and Assistant Planning Director in regard to their water runoff design, and that the City Engineer supports this design with no concerns. Colbert states that they will be meeting with the Parking and Traffic Commission on January 7. Colbert addresses the following: 1. The drainage swales were deemed appropriate; they are 2ft deep and 6ft. wide, 60ft. long with stones, meeting and exceeding the 100 year storm. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 17, 2019 2. The swale locations are valid in mitigating the paved roadway. 3. The Beverly Engineering Department (L. Chandler, 12/10/19 letter) indicates a policy of drainage swales as a preference over piping. The Engineering Department approved the swales in this use as appropriate. 4. The drainage and hydraulic impacts on stormwater drainage is in accordance with city guidelines. (L. Chandler, 12/10/19 letter) Hutchinson asks in which direction the water would flow. Colbert states that this design is to direct the water into the ground, which is where it goes now, and that it will not flow toward any other property. 5. The underground utilities will include water, sewer, and gas. The client would prefer to not add electrical, but instead to pull from the existing electrical on Livingstone. 6. Fire access and parking are approved with a fire truck turnaround and area for car parking. Hutchinson asks if they inquired about more than two cars parked in this area. Marshall Handly ( Handly & Cox of Beverly MA), the property owner's attorney, states that he did discuss this with the Fire Prevention Office and it was stated that this is not a concern as the hammerhead turnaround is not to be used in a call to an emergency, but only as an exit after an emergency. (Fire Prevention Dept, 12/11/19 letter) 7. A maintenance agreement to Lot 1 for an extended part on Livingstone. 8. Parking and Traffic Commission meeting is rescheduled for January 7 (due to snow cancellation from the last scheduled meeting). If all parking and traffic topics are agreed upon, the client will request that the Board's recommendation not be required. If there are any requested modifications, the owner will return to the Planning Board for approval. Craft asks if an additional telephone pole would be needed. Colbert states that if one is needed it would be placed on Lot 1. Hutchinson confirms that the swales are in the right of way. The attorney states that cars cannot lawfully park in a private easement. Hutchinson wants to be sure a fire truck can access the road if a car is parked in the area. Colbert confirms that a fire truck can travel over the stone on the swale as the slope is very gradual. This could be necessary if someone parks in this area (even though it is unlawful). Hutchinson asks if there are any members from the public would like to speak. Brian Marks (7 Porter Terrace) states that he sent a letter, and that he is in full support of the project with one stipulation of the frontage waiver. The condition is that Mr. Halloran agrees to be responsible for the financial cost to pave any other portions (in the future) that run to Mr. Marks' property. Hutchinson asks for the clarification that Mr. Halloran agrees to pave to the end of his property if there is a future build. Beckwith suggests a more direct way to address this issue instead of an approval with a stipulation. Jamie Godjikian (126 Livingstone Ave) shares concerns with the swales. She noted that since the last meeting, a UPS truck turned around on their street and took out her mailbox. In addition, this resident shared concerns with parking on the street and water drainage issues. Handly, the property owner's attorney, states that the hammerhead will help the UPS truck turnaround issue. He also notes that parking in this area would not affect parking at the bottom of the street. Flannery is concerned with the swales and no sidewalks. Handly suggests that the pedestrian traffic is low and that the build will not have much effect on the number of trips. Bartley asks if this project could cause a possible issue with other properties wanting to make similar changes in the future. Handly notes that this is the only property that meets this zoning availability. Hutchinson says that the public hearing could be closed for the Board to discuss, or they could wait for the Parking and Traffic Commission letter before making any decisions. Miller notes that the City's experts have approved the swales and that the turnaround has been accepted by the Beverly Fire Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 17, 2019 Prevention Office. Flannery: Motion to close the public meeting. Zane seconds. The motion passes (7 -0). Flannery: Motion to approve Waiver 1: Section 375 -13.b from using a plan scale of 1 " =40', granting use of an alternate plan scale of 1 " =20'. Miller seconds. Motion passes (7 -0). Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 2: Section 375- 13.b.(8) from showing the roadway widths and rights -of -way of streets within reasonable proximity of the subdivision. Kilcoyne seconds. Motion passes (4 -3, Bartley, Craft, Kilcoyne, Miller in favor; Hutchinson, Flannery, and Beckwith opposed). Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 3: Section 375- 13.b.(9) from showing topographical details at sufficient distances from roadway layout to ensure proper drainage on abutting properties. Flannery seconds. Motion fails (1 -6, Craft in favor and Bartley, Beckwith, Hutchinson, Flannery, Kilcoyne, Miller opposed) and Waiver is denied. Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 4: Section 375- 13.b.(10) from including any appeal or variance decisions in application package. Flannery seconds. Motion passes (4 -3, Bartley, Beckwith, and Hutchinson opposed). Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 5: Section 375- 13.b.(14) from showing the rodent disturbance notation on the plan set. Flannery seconds. Motion fails (3 -4, Craft, Hutchinson, and Kilcoyne in favor; Bartley, Beckwith, Flannery, and Miller opposed) and Waiver is denied. Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 6: Section 375 -14.c from having a 50' Right -of -Way and a 32' paved roadway width, where 40' and 24' are proposed respectively. Flannery seconds. Motion passes (5 -2, Hutchinson and Beckwith opposed). Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 7: Section 375- 14.e.(2) from providing a cul -de -sac turn- around at the end of a dead -end, where a hammerhead is proposed instead. Kilcoyne seconds. Motion passes (4 -3, Hutchinson, Flannery, and Beckwith opposed). Colbert states that request for Waiver 8: Section 375 -16.a. is withdrawn. Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 9: Section 375 -20 which sets forth Lot Drainage requirements, but lot drainage is not yet designed. Flannery seconds. Miller confirms that any drainage issues created as related to the house must be treated on the lot. Motion passes (6 -1, with Hutchinson opposed). Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 10: Section 375 -22 sidewalks, grass plots, and trees as shown in a typical street cross - section diagram. Motion fails (1 -6, Craft in favor and Bartley, Beckwith, Hutchinson, Flannery, Kilcoyne, Miller opposed) and Waiver is denied. Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 11: Section 375 -23 that all utilities will be placed underground. Flannery seconds. Kilcoyne asks for a condition if only a pole needs to be placed on property. Craft amends the motion to approve the waiver with the condition that if a pole or poles are required they would have to be installed on the property - Lot 1. Flannery seconds. Beckwith asks if gas will be on this property. It is stated that this is not related to this waiver. Motion passes (7 -0). Colbert states that request for Waiver 12: Section 375 Attachment 24 is withdrawn. Craft: Motion to approve Waiver 13: Section 375 -17, requiring utility easements that cross lots be a minimum of 20', where proposed utility easement is 10'. Flannery seconds. Motion passes (5 -2, Hutchinson and Bartley opposed). Handly requests that the applicant be able to resubmit with an amended plan addressing the waivers that were denied before the Board votes on their recommendation. Hutchinson agrees to this request and notes that waivers 3, 5, 10 were denied. Craft: Motion to reopen the public hearing. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (7 -0). Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 17, 2019 Craft: Motion to continue the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver of Frontage at 21 Porter Terrace (revising the plan to addressed denied waivers) at the January 28, 2020 Planning Board meeting. Beckwith seconds. The motion passes (7 -0). 8. Request for a Minor Modification to Approved Site Plan #138 -19 in accordance with Beverly Zoning Ordinance Section 300 -98E for 44 Dunham Ridge - 50 Dunham Road — to reduce the required setback of 44 Dunham Ridge from 25 feet to 15 feet at the north side of the building - Dunham Ridge, LLC Stephen Drohosky and Mike Aveni (Cummings Properties) review their plan to reduce the side set back from 25' to 15' promoting what they feel is an improved project. This change was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals and it will allow some minor modifications to be made to improve the site including a walkway on one side of the building, some minor modifications to the building size, the implementation of more windows, and a modification in the parking lot to reduce impervious areas. Hutchinson notes that the desire to push the building back seems minor, until all of the items it affects are noted. Drohosky states that the changes are all minor to the build. Miller asks about the removal of certain species of plants. It is noted that site work is not yet completed, but that a plan will be put in place for this. Beckwith asks about the loss of 5 ft. of setback and whether buffer area is required in that area. It is confirmed that there are no private residences in view of the building and the Board previously determined that the existing open space was a sufficient buffer. Miller: Motion to determine that the above - referenced modifications to Site Plan Review 4138- 19 approval are minor in nature. Craft seconds. Motion passes (7 -0). Miller: Motion to accept and approve the requested modifications to Site Plan Review 4138 -19 as described above and in the application and plans attached therein, subject to the condition that one (1) non - compliant parking space shown in the northwest corner of the lot shall be removed and the total number of parking spaces shown is 132. Craft seconds. Motion passes (7 -0). 10. Endorse Definitive Subdivision Plan and OSRD Site Plan #11 -18 with Form G Covenant - Thaxton Heights Road (formerly Off Thaxton Road & Grover Street) - Hickory Street Realty Trust Wynne reviews the request and process. Craft: Motion to accept the Form G Covenant to secure construction of OSRD Site Plan #11 -18. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (7 -0). Craft: Motion to endorse the OSRD Site Plan #11 -18 and Definitive Subdivision Plan as not having been appealed. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (7 -0). 11. Endorse Definitive Subdivision Plan without Covenant - 16 Harwood Street - Marius Beqo Wynne reviews the request and process. Flannery: Motion to endorse the Definitive Subdivision Plan as not having been appealed and without a Covenant. Zane seconds. The motion passes (7 -0). Adjournment Craft: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:55pm. 10