2005-06-21
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD: Planning Board
TOPIC: Regular Meeting
DATE: June 21, 2005
PLACE: Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson, Richard Dinkin, John Thomson,
Eve Geller-Duffy, Ellen Flannery, Jason Silva,
Donald Walter, Charles Harris, Joanne Dunn
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Assistant Planning Director
RECORDER: Robin Levesque
Dinkin calls the regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board to order at 7:30 p.m.
Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearing. Seconded by Flannery. All members
in favor. Motion Carries.
Public Hearing (continued): Thompson’s Farm Definitive Subdivision Plan – 16-18
Cole St. – Estate of Arthur Thompson c/o James Manzi
Thomson: Motion to waive reading of the legal notice. Seconded by Geller-Duffy.
All in favor. Motion carries.
Attorney Thomas Alexander, One School St., Beverly, MA appears on behalf of the
Applicant. Alexander states that he and Thad Berry from Xeriscape Design met with
Virginia Roach of CDM and Frank Killilea, City Engineer and resolved the Planning
Board's issues pertaining to drainage. Alexander states there will be no volume increase.
Alexander states they added the trees asked for by Phil Klimowicz, City Arborist.
Alexander reads a letter from the Cemetery Trustees and submits it for record. Alexander
states that the letter from CDM stated that the drainage was revised satisfactorily.
Alexander states he respectfully requests that the Board close the public hearing tonight
and make a favorable vote.
Dinkin asks the members if they have any questions or comments. There are none.
Dinkin asks the public if they have any questions or comments.
Janice Rice of 34 Cole St. states she owns Lot #10 and she had a survey done. She states
she didn’t know where her property was in respect to the project, now she states that her
lot came within the project and that the newly created road would take up a portion of
frontage she could have potentially had on a subdivision road. She shows the Board a
copy of an earlier subdivision plan for the parcel called Cuckle Hollow Road
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 2
Subdivision. Alexander states that plan is not an existing condition and the road shown
was never approved by the Planning Board. Dinkin explains to Mrs. Rice that under the
zoning regulations, R22, she only has one lot. Rice states she would like to have her
options available to apply for Zoning relief and this plan takes away from potential
frontage.
Dinkin asks if there are any other questions or comments.
Renee Mary of 274 Hale St asks if the pond issues have been resolved, and the residents'
flooding problems. Alexander states we’ve redesigned the property so that there is no
increase in the rate and volume of flow. Mary notes that this is not on Cole Street.
Flannery asks City Engineer Frank Killilea if he has had an opportunity to review the
CDM report. Killilea states he has and only minor revisions were needed that Thad Berry
has worked with CDM to resolve. He states that he can't see any reason to hold the
applicants up any longer.
Dinkin asks if there are any other comments of support of this project.
Dinkin asks if there are any other comments of opposition of this project.
Thomson asks Alexander to modify the street plan to give Mrs. Rice her theoretical
frontage back.
Alexander states that they can modify the plan but may need a waiver in order to give her
a little sleeve.
Dinkin states he would like to put the hearing in recess until 8:15 pm
Set Public Hearing – Modification to Site Plan Application #39-98-Walgreen Store –
54 Elliott Stree/401 Rantoul St. – Walgreen Co. c/o Gary Peters
Thomson: Motion to set Public Hearing to modify Condition #2 of Site Plan
Approval to lift restriction that operations be limited to the hours of 8:00
am and 11:00 pm, for September 20, 2005, at 7:30 pm. Seconded by
Geller –Duffy. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Note: Meeting date and time was later changed to September 21, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.
Set Public Hearing – Cleveland Road Extension Definitive Subdivision Plan –
Alphonso & Mary Vitolo – 405 Elliott Street
Flannery: Motion to set the Public Hearing to modify the definitive plan for the
further extension of Cleveland Road to serve on additional house lot, for
July 20, 2005 at 8:30pm. Seconded by Walter. All members in favor.
Motion carries.
2
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 3
Note: Meeting date and time was later changed to September 21, 2005 at 8:30 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Walter: Motion to approve the minutes of February 8, 2005, February 15, 2005,
April 20, 2005 and May 2, 2005. Seconded by Flannery. All members in
favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing (continued): Thompson’s Farm – Definitive Subdivision Plan – 16-
18 Cole St. – Estate of Arthur Thompson – c/o James Manzi
Dinkin calls the Public Hearing to order at 8:15 p.m.
Alexander states he met with the Rice's and his client has agreed to accommodate the
Rice's request.
Dinkin closes the hearing.
Informal Discussion – Sturtevant Street Extension Subdivision Plan – Steve Archer
Attorney Thomas Alexander, One School St., Beverly, MA, representing the applicant,
states that the Planning Board approved a definitive subdivision plan to extend Sturtevant
Street with a hammerhead turnaround and to create 6 new lots in September of 1987.
Alexander states the applicant did not complete construction of the road within the two
year time allotted to do so and he states they can no longer claim it to be a legal
subdivision approval. Alexander states he would like to bring the subdivision back for
approval. Alexander stated he spoke to the Fire Department. He shows the members the
area on a plan and states that the existing right of way is not in very good condition
Zambernardi asks Alexander to give a distance of the existing and the additional length of
Sturtevant Street to be constructed. Alexander states it would be well over 500 feet long.
Dinkin states his recollection is about 1100 feet.
Dinkin asks the Board members for their comments.
Thomson states that the Board has never easily granted the extension of a dead end street.
He states that the 500-foot requirement is an important tool for planning in the City. He
states this is a little different because it was already approved once, but it is not a
desirable outcome.
Alexander states that 500-feet was the requirement in the 1980s when this was approved.
Dinkin states that he voted in favor of this project in the past but that his views have
evolved since then.
3
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 4
Alexander states that the current configuration of the road does not have a turnaround for
fire apparatus. The plan would provide a hammerhead turnaround and improve that
condition.
Dinkin states his case might be stronger if the length of the road is brought down and a
conforming cul de sac is added.
Steve Archer suggests that the Board drive down and see the existing turnaround. He
states he would prefer asking for a waiver and adds that Star House would like very much
to have improvements of the property, which they will try to accommodate.
Zambernardi states most of the lots are over 10,000 square feet and she asks if they have
considered a cluster configuration where the frontages and areas are reduced and the
length of the road can be shortened.
Thomson states they may have more receptivity from the Board if it's a cluster with a real
turnaround. The street is already too long.
Archer thanks the Board for their comments and states he will talk to an engineer about a
cluster design.
Thomson: Motion to recess and reconvene for a regular scheduled hearing. Seconded
by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Public Hearing (continued): Chapman Corner Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan –
2 Boyles St. – Manor Homes at Whitehall LLC, - David Carnevale
Thomson: Motion to waive reading the legal notice. Seconded by Flannery. All
members in favor. Motion carries.
Zambernardi states that copies of Attorney Tom Harrington’s legal opinion were
distributed regarding the legality of having two plans filed with the Board at the same
time. Dinkin asks Harrington if it’s fair to say that his opinion indicates that it’s not
unlawful that the applicant can have two plans filed with the Board at the at the same
time, but that it is a bad idea. Harrington states that is a fair summary.
Attorney Thomas Alexander, representing the applicant, states he thinks it is within the
law and that it is a good idea in some situations.
Harrington introduces Peter Shanahan from HydroAnalysis, Inc. who is present to speak
on the drainage system. Shanahan states that retention pond #1 is below the water table
and will not function, and that pond #3 has the same problem. He states that CDM
required them to raise the ponds when reviewing the cluster subdivision for the site and
that has not been done with this plan. He states that according to the Massachusetts
Storm Water Policy, the site will not meet the standards for recharging groundwater.
Shanahan passes out to the members a tabulation of runoff volume of water coming off
4
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 5
the site. He states that the tabulation shows substantial increases of volume going into
Wetland A and Eisenhower Avenue.
Robert Griffin from Griffin Engineering states the proposal is to alter the terrain around
Pond #1 by excavating and changing the land and that is why the pond is lower. He
states that the pond will not be underwater. He states that this drainage design has been
approved by the Conservation Commission’s consultant, Dr. Chiang. He states he does
not think there is a problem with Pond #3.
Regarding the volume estimates, Griffin states that the Board required that the cluster
proposal dealt with the volume issue. He states we may be getting ahead of ourselves in
making assumptions on these calculations because they weren't intended for that purpose.
Dinkin asks if there is anyone else that would like to talk about drainage before we go on
to traffic.
Zambernardi states she has received a letter from CDM, dated June 21, 2005 on the
drainage. Frank Killilea, City Engineer states that CDM indicated that Pond #1 is out of
sync with work that was done dealing with the cluster.
Griffin states he would like to further discuss this with Virginia Roach from CDM.
th
Dinkin asks Killilea if that would be possible before the July 12 meeting. Killilea states
he can have a meeting on this sometime before the July meeting.
Attorney Harrington addresses the traffic impact. He states the neighbors' traffic
consultant, Paul Hajec provided a letter that is very similar to the letter he provided 1 1/2
years ago. He states he would like to focus on comments surrounding the Eisenhower
Avenue connection to the Cove School. He states the Eisenhower Avenue and Cove
School traffic will increase, and he states that the 6% grade and side lines are not good.
He states it will create a cut through and will create an unsafe condition at the Cove
School. Harrington states the Planning Board has the ability to determine whether this is
a secondary or a primary street. He asks the Board look at the traffic in the area when
children are being dropped off or picked up from school. He states the Friends of
Chapman’s Corner ask that you consider this a principal street and require that the road
has a 3% grade. If that is not possible, he urges the Board to instruct the developer to
make the area as safe as possible.
Dinkin asks the members if they have any questions.
Thomson asks is the plans have changed at all from the earlier submission. Alexander
states they have not.
Thomson states that it seems that the drainage design needs further elaboration. He asks
both the applicant and the neighbors if there is anything other than drainage that needs
more discussion/elaboration at this point.
5
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 6
Harrington states that the neighbors hope the Board will direct the developer to update
the drainage. If that happens, the neighbors hope they will have an opportunity to review
and comment on the information.
Harrington states that the traffic should further be discussed. He refers to Hajec's letter,
which indicates that dead ends are safer than through streets.
Giles Hamm of VAI, representing the applicant, refers to his letter on the traffic, which
indicates that the project related traffic wouldn't be problematic. He states that the site
lines are adequate in terms of AASHTO standards. He states that as a professional
engineer, he thinks it will be safe and properly managed in terms of signage and speed
limits. He thinks it is not necessary to use the standards for a principal street.
Thomson asks Hamm whether he thinks Eisenhower is a secondary road. Hammstates
he doesn’t think it’s an issue. He states it is a low volume road. He states he wouldn't
even consider Hale that way. He thinks that Hale is more of a collector road than an
arterial.
Dinkin asks members of the public for their comments and questions.
Jack Alves of 5 Morrisson Ave. states safety is his concern; traffic is hazardous every
morning when children get dropped off at school.
Cynthia Eriksen of 260 Hale St. states that she has two boys going to the Cove School, a
bus hit my car on Eisenhower Avenue because there are so many cars parked on
Eisenhower Avenue.
Ryan Noss of 10 Brackenbury Lane states he is in the 3rd grade at Cove School and that
he has signatures from teachers and students that all agree that Eisenhower is unsafe. He
submits it for the record.
Eve Noss of 10 Brackenbury Lane states that the traffic from the Cove School on
Eisenhower is hazardous. The road is very tight for the amount of traffic. She states it is
not a place for cars to get through in a safe manner. She states there are now 450 children
going to the school and visibility is already poor.
Judy Miller of 5 Pasture Rd., states she has to take a right out of the driveway to avoid
Eisenhower. She states it is the same at Cross Street. No one stops. She states years
ago we took shifts and put cones out to get cars to stop. She states the situation is very
dangerous and cars need to go really slow.
Joanne Avallon of 17 Boyles Street states she has been on the council of the Cove School
for 4 years and every year the council has to talk with the school regarding traffic control.
She states it’s just a cut through to go to Rte. 128. She asks the members to review the
letter from Superintendent Hayes. She states the elevation of the playground and school
is very low and in addition there is a problem with the swamp gas odors.
6
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 7
Charles Noss of 10 Brackenbury Lane states he’s here because it’s a very bad situation.
He states that unless you're there day to day, there is no way of knowing the morning
situation. He states that the morning and afternoon the traffic is very bad and people
come flying down this street. He asks a question about site distances and speed.
Hamm states that at 30 miles per hour, one needs a 200-foot site distance, which we have.
Noss states they use the entrance, which is closer.
Harris notes that the Board cannot resolve congestion. He asks if speed bumps and/or a
one way circle would help.
Hamm refers to his letter of July 9, 2004 and states they could monitor traffic and
consider a one-way circle to eliminate the cut through and maybe speed bumps.
Harris asks if the speed bumps are a viable alternative. Hamm states they are. Killilea
states that based on our past experience, speed bumps are not a viable way of resolving
speeding traffic.
James Avallon of 9 Brookhead Avenue states there will be more traffic from this
development, not only from the development and parents taking their children to and
from school. People will use this as a cut through to Boyles Street and Rte. 128.
Amy Murphy of 15 Eisenhower Avenue states she lives at the Cove School and there are
no speed limit signs. She states there is one sign that states Children, 20 mph, but no 30
mph speed limit sign.
Wayne Lawrence of 16 Boyles Street asks how wide the cut through will be. Engineer
Bob Griffin states it would be 32-foot wide pavement. Lawrence asks about the widths of
roads around there. Griffin states that Boyles Street is about 18 feet at its narrow points
and 24 feet at its wider points.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street states that Hale Street is 28 feet.
Lawrence questions that fact that they don't consider this a primary road because it is
wider than the road that it connects to.
Joseph Henehan of 9 Boyles St, states good points have been made about problems and it
would be helpful to go look and experience that. The Planning Board has the authority to
mitigate the safety problems. He states that one plan is already approved. To approve
another one with these problems is not good. He states that we can't rely on the City
signs and the crossing guards to mitigate the traffic problems. He states that the traffic
problems revolve around the whole school and that the safety of the kids is at the top of
everyone’s list.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments.
7
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 8
Geller-Duffy asks what prevents parents from parking on the new part of Eisenhower to
pick up and drop off their children. She asks how wide the road needs to be to have
parents parking on the street.
Griffin states they did agree to signage with the City’s Traffic Department.
Judy Miller of 5 Pasture Road asks if there will be sidewalks going down the steep hill.
Alexander states sidewalks will be on both sides of the street.
Miller states that there will be allot of cars as well as walkers and it will be very
dangerous.
Thomson stated he would like to close the public hearing tonight. He feels he has all of
the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Avallon states that if the Board decides to make zero% volume increase a condition of
approval that will necessitate a new design, which will require new testimony.
Thomson asks to defer the public hearing until 9:31 p.m.
Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #112-05—Resubmission of Special
Permit #103-01 (approved 9/01)—Federal Heights –243 Rantoul Street/48 Federal
Street
Zambernardi reads the legal notice.
Dinkin puts Federal Heights into recess until 9:50 p.m. so that discussion can continue on
Chapman Corner Estates.
Discussion/Decision: Chapman Corner Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan – 2
Boyles Street –Manor Homes at Whitehall LLC/ David Carnevale
Thomson addresses Avallon's earlier comments and states he feels that it is more
appropriate to discuss volume increase once the public hearing is closed.
Thomson: Motion to close the public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. All
members are in favor. Motion carries.
Thomson states he doesn’t think the plan should be approved, even if it were with
conditions. He states that it exceeds the drainage volume he would like to see. He states
that it impinges upon an environmentally sensitive area unnecessarily. The wetland is a
valuable resource that we can take account of as a Planning Board. He states that part of
Eisenhower is unnecessary and notes that the prior plan showed they did not have to have
a connection to Eisenhower. He asks why the Board should approve a plan that exposes
8
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 9
the school to any more traffic. He thinks it would immediately become a cut through.
He feels it would become a primary road, which would require a waiver from the Board.
He is not prepared to give such a waiver. He recommends that the Board should deny
approval of the plan.
Geller- Duffy states she agrees with Thomson. As a parent, she agrees with the public
comments that Eisenhower is a problem. She states he feelings that the plan does not use
the space well.
Silva concurs with Geller-Duffy and with Thomson. He states he is concerned with the
safety issues surrounding the extension of Eisenhower Avenue and be believes it would
become a cut through for traffic. He thinks it would not just be from school traffic, but
that it would be people from other areas in the City using it as a cut through to get to
Route 128.
Harris states that he is very concerned with the vernal pool and drainage issues. Aside
from that he feels another overriding issue is the safety of the school children. He states
the school would be put at even more of a disadvantage with this plan. The developer
hasn't adequately considered this.
Flannery states that safety is the key issue, and she does not support this plan.
Thomson: Motion to deny the plan based on the fact that: the drainage system will
cause increased volume of stormwater in an already environmentally
sensitive area, so much that further iterations of the plan would change the
plan so much that it would constitute a new filing: Eisenhower Extension
unnecessarily and negatively impinges upon environmentally sensitive
areas. Former iterations of the plan have shown that other layouts, with
other access points are feasible: the creation of a through street, which is
of a greater size than both Boyles and Hale Street, would create a
tremendous magnet for traffic both to and from the school and other parts
of the City. For these reasons, the road is considered a principal one.
Because it is a principal road, a waiver of the 6 percent grade is necessary.
This is too much of a risk for the safety of the school and a waiver from
this requirement would not be appropriate because of the Board's safety
and traffic concerns: the negative traffic and safety issues for motorists
and walkers poses too great of a threat so much that this is a premature
subdivision of land: all of these issues would alter the plan so extensively
that the revised plan would constitute a new filing. Harris seconds the
motion and it carries unanimously.
Dinkin puts the hearing in recess for 16 minutes.
Thomson: Motions to recess for public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members
in favor. Motion carries.
9
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 10
Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #112-05—Resubmission of Special
Permit #103-01 (approved 9/01)—Federal Heights –243 Rantoul Street/48 Federal
Street
Attorney Richard Selands, representing Rocco Scippa states he is not prepared at this
point to make a special permit presentation. He asks the members if they would like a
full special permit presentation. Dinkin asks if he is asking for a continuance.
Mr. Rocco Scippa states he was under the impression that he was asking for an extension
of the special permit. He states that he bought the property permitted. The former
owners went through the process and received approvals from planning, engineering and
building. He states they have had a building permit. He states he’s asking the board
members to let him continue this project and he states they are not changing a thing.
Zambernardi states they did not exercise their building permit in time therefore the
building permit as well as the special permit expired. This is a request for a new special
permit for the same project.
Dinkin asks Zambernardi to read some letter into record.
??
Letter dated June 21, 2005 from Frank Killilea, Jr. Engineering Department
??
Letter dated June 21, 2005 from Robert Nelson, Building Department
??
Letter dated June 20, 2005 from Dennis Tarsook, Police Department
??
Letter dated June 9, 2005 from Deputy Fire Chief Clark Mitchell, Fire
Department
??
Letter dated June 9, 2005 from William Burke, Health Department
Scippa states he spoke to the Health Department about the dumping violations and he
assures that the area will be cleaned out.
Dinkin asks if any members of the public have any questions or comments.
Sheila Costello of 41 Federal Street states she is deeply concerned on what’s happening
to Beverly. There is increased population and undesirable people here. She states we are
looking at 18 units to be built near some very beautiful homes. She states that Federal
Street is historically a family neighborhood. She asks at what point do we have rights.
This will probably cut the value of her property in half. She states there will be too much
commercial building and Section 8. She does not want this on her street. She states she
has been robbed twice in the last two years. There will also be increased traffic. She asks
the Board to deny the plan.
John Burke, Ward 3 Councilor states he has concerns about the traffic, he reads a letter
from Carmen & Steven Kruczynski of 267 Rantoul Street.
Zambernardi states that they also have an effective site plan review approval.
Burke asks if it is within the jurisdiction to remove parking signs
10
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 11
Dinkin states traffic signs are in control of the Police Department and Council.
Linda Giallongo of 31 Home Street states she was opposed to the project in 2001. She is
a direct abutter to the retaining wall on the south side of the property. She has serious
concerns about the retaining wall and what it is doing to her property. She hopes for
some written conditions from the Planning Board so the proposed wall is built properly.
She hopes the existing wall will be cut down, so the new wall only will be visible. She
states a wall was approved in 2001 with the condition that details are submitted to the
Engineering Department. She states this was never done and the wall is still corroding.
She wants to make sure that if and when the wall is done, it will be done correctly.
Costello asks who the current owner of the wall is.
Giallongo states she lived there for 54 years and she states she has the feeling the wall
belongs to the current owner of the property.
Costello states she has a wall that adjoins and that 10,000 feet is in need of repair.
Joe Morneau of 72 Millbury Lane states he is a principal of the laundry at 53 Rantoul
Street. He states he is in favor of the project and that the development is good for the
City.
Harris asks if this area is in the Historical District. Zambernardi states it is not.
Dinkin states he wants the property cleaned up before the next meeting. Thomson states
he would like to know who owns the wall abutting Giallongo's property. Dinkin also
states that they still want the deed restricted affordable units.
Thomson: Motion to continue the public hearing until July 20, 2005 at 9:00 p.m.
Geller-Duffy seconds the motion. All in favor, Motion carries.
Note: Meeting date and time was later changed to September 21, 2005 at 9:00 p.m.
Discussion/Decision - Thompson’s Farm Definitive Subdivision Plan – 16-18 Cole
Street – Estate of Arthur Thompson c/o James Manzi
Zambernardi tells the members that the Conservation Commission approved the project
with special conditions. She asks Alexander if it is the owner of the lot with the detention
basin on it or a homeowners association that will be responsible for the maintenance of
the detention basin. She also asks for clarification as to whether the new roadway will be
private or public.
Thomson states it is his understanding that a homeowners association would be the
vehicle for paying for maintenance of the pond. The Conservation Commission is trying
to make sure that the single lot owner is responsible for maintaining it, but this owner
should have the ability to collect from the association for the costs.
11
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 21, 2005
Page 12
Alexander states the responsibility would be on a small group of people. He states that it
is not done well if it's all on one person. He states there's one person clearly responsible
and then it's an easier enforcement mechanism. He also says the road would not be
private. It would be public.
Thomson states his main criticism of the project was the access and the request for a
waiver of the turning radius. He stated that the site visit convinced him this was not as
bad a situation. He states the other potential access, where they split a lot off from, is
actually not a good location because of the curve in the street. He states his concerns
about the volume of runoff have been addressed and that they have complied with the
other requirements.
Thomson: Motion to approve the subdivision with the conditions that the applicant
complies with the requests of the City Department heads and Commissions
(including the City arborist); that the total volume of post-development surface
water runoff from the property shall not exceed the pre-development volume
in the appropriate design storms. In light of this requirement, all comments
provided in the attached letter from Camp Dresser and McKee dated June 21,
2005 must be incorporated into the final plans, except for part of the first
sentence under Operation and Maintenance Plan which states, "the
Homeowners Association for the subdivision will be responsible for operation
and maintenance of the detention pond, oil-debris separator, infiltration beds
and infiltration units." ; that the developer conveys its land between the
proposed subdivision road and the Rice property to the Rices, or their
successors in title, so the full length of the western boundary line of the Rice
property will have frontage on the proposed subdivision road. In the event this
is not possible, the Board grants such waivers of the radius requirements as
may be necessary in this location in order for the subdivision road to be
extended to the existing westerly property line of the Rice property throughout
its length, and the roadway shall be so reconfigured and the plan revised
accordingly; and prior to endorsement of the plan, the Board requires that final
plans, drainage calculations, and a report on the Adequacy of Ways Providing
Access to Subdivisions (Beverly Subdivision Rules Section III.C.3.) be
submitted, subject to review and approval by staff of the Planning Department
and the City Engineer, with such expert assistance as may be required, which
reflect all changes recommended by the City Department heads and the City's
consultants in prior correspondence with the Board. Walter seconds the
motion. All members in favor. Motion carries.
Flannery: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by Silva. All members in favor. Motion
carries.
Adjournment at 10:35
12