Loading...
2012-01-17CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS REGULAR MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: Planning Board Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Beverly Public Library MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Michael O'Brien, Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James Matz MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Diana Ribreau Thomson, Acting Chair, called the Regular Meeting of the Beverly Planning Board to order at 7:30 p.m. There are no Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) or New /Other Business to discuss. Continued Discussion/Decision — Modification to Wellington Hills Definitive Subdivision Plan — Pamela J. VanTwuyver Thomson polled members of board to determine if the Board is prepared to proceed with the Public Hearing discussion for Wellington Hills Definitive Subdivision Plan without Chairperson Dinkin present. Harris made a motion to move forward with the discussion. Motion seconded by Matz. Discussion on the motion. Zambernardi informed the Planning Board that the Applicant sent Planning Staff an email requesting that the Chair be present for the discussion and submitted a waiver extending the time requirements to March I' if the Board is inclined to hold off discussion until Chairperson Dinkin can be present. Matz expressed his opinion that the request from the Applicant is fair and suggested the Planning Board hold off until the Chair is present. Harris withdrew his motion. Matz concurred and withdrew his motion for a second. Mack suggested individual members of the Board take an informal poll with their overall feeling towards a favorable or not favorable vote. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 2 of 13 Thomson stated his opinion that the Chair is essential to the discussion. However, unofficially, he would go around the table to see who in favor of deciding tonight. Matz stated he would prefer to not move forward. Mack stated he is favor of moving forward. Harris stated he is in favor of moving forward. Thomson stated is not in favor of moving forward. Flannery and Hutchinson stated they prefer to move forward and are prepared to vote. O'Brien stated he is not in favor of moving forward. Thomson stated that they would continue discussion for the Modification to Wellington Hills Definitive Subdivision Plan after the Walgreens Public Hearing. Set Public Hearing Date: Special Permit Application #130 -12, Site Plan Review Application #106 -12, and Inclusionary Housing Application #03 -12 — Demolish existing building and construct four - story, mixed -use building containing 45 apartments and commercial ground floor unit — CC Zone — 79 Rantoul Street (a /k/a 81 Rantoul Street) — Enterprise Apartments — Rantoul Enterprise Realty Trust Mack stated he would not be present for the February 21, 2012 meeting. Matz made a motion to schedule a Public Hearing for Special Permit Application #130 -12 and Site Plan Review Application #106 -12 for 8 p.m., February 21, 2012, at the Senior Center, Beverly. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6.0.0. Mack made a motion to recess the Regular Meeting at this time and begin the Public Hearing for 48 Dodge Street. Motion seconded by Hutchinson. Motion carried 6.0.0. Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #105 -11 and Special Permit Application #129 -11 — Raise part of existing building and construct Walgreens Pharmacy — CG Zone — 48 Dodge Street — Westward Apple Orchards Limited Partnership Matz recused himself. Zambernardi read the public notice aloud for the record. Attorney Thomas Alexander, 1 School Street, Beverly, was present representing the Owner /Applicant of Westward Apple Orchard, LLC managed by Symes Associates, Beverly. Alexander began with an overall description of the proposed project. Alexander stated that the property is CG Zoned and located on the corner of Conant and Dodge Streets. The lot area is 72,860 s.f. (1.67 acres). The present use is mixed office and retail that is presently occupied by Symes Associates, Coldwell Banker Real Estate, North Shore Bank, and Country Curtains. The proposal involves tearing down one building on -site that contains 10,619 s.f with plans to construct a 13,555 s.f. Walgreens building. Alexander stated that the portion of the building that occupies North Shore Bank and Country Curtains would not be affected by the current proposal. Alexander informed the Planning Board that he and his client have met with the Beverly Design and Review Board and are in the process of responding to their comments. Alexander added that Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 3 of 13 a number of comments were made by the Parking and Traffic Commission and his client plans to respond to those comments as well as plans to respond to letters received by several public agencies. Therefore, Alexander stated that his client is asking that the Public Hearing not be closed tonight so they can incorporate their feedback into the presentation. As part of the presentation, Alexander stated that the following representatives are present to discuss areas of the proposed project: Jeff Rhuda, Symes Associates - background and analysis of the building. Josh Swirling, PE, Bohler Engineering - existing site and proposed changes. Giles Ham, Vanasse &Associates - traffic analysis and impact. Bill Lorigan, Moser Associates - building design. Doug Benoit, PE, Arista Development, LLC - Development Manager for project. Thomson asked for a show of hands by the members of the public that are present for the Public Hearing only. Majority of those present raised their hand. Jeff Rhuda, Symes Associates, stated that the property was purchased in 1999. The historic building was built in 1715. Rhuda stated that he himself couldn't stand up in the building due to low ceiling levels. Rhuda explained why they feel the usefulness of the building has worn its course. Rhuda informed the Board the historic building has been occupied by Coldwell Banker since 1991 and that a "Butler Building" was added to the building at some point over the past 40- 50 years. Orvis occupied one space on -site and vacated in 2003 to relocate to more modern space. Country Collections occupied a space until 2008 and the space has been vacant for almost 3 years. In March 2010, Appleseed's vacated the site and relocated to the North Beverly Shopping Plaza across the way. Rhuda explained that many tenants have been approached to occupy the spaces and they have all rejected the space because it has 7 -8 ft. ceilings and no windows. Rhuda stated that the site is one of the best locations on Route IA. However, it continues to be rejected due to the limited space. Rhuda explained that Symes Associates has discounted its lease rates in an attempt to rent out the vacant spaces and raised the ceilings of those spaces by 1 ft., with still no luck. In addition, Coldwell Banker notified them in 2010 they were not extending their lease. Rhuda stated that 60% of the retail space is vacant and is obsolete rentable space. In April/May 2011, Symes Associates made a decision to redevelop the site. Rhuda stated that subdividing the space, similar to space further down Route IA, has been considered. In May 2011, they filed a demolition permit with the Historic Commission and in June /July, sent out proposals. Rhuda explained that they have seen significant play from national restaurant chains and fast food burger companies interested in the site. Walgreens contacted Symes Associates in August 2011 and in September, Symes Associates signed a letter of intent with Walgreens. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 4 of 13 Rhuda explained that come May 2012 they have a legal right to remove the historic building. Rhuda explained that they have offered to give the historic building to people as well as offered to assist moving the building to another location with no luck thus far. Symes Associates believes the building is devaluing and that economics are flying in the face of historic preservation leaving Symes Associates feeling they don't have a choice in the matter as the building has become functionally obsolete. Rhuda closed with stating Symes Associates has made a business decision to redevelop the property one way or the other and if Walgreens doesn't go in they will develop the site into something else. Josh Swirling, Engineer, Bohler Engineering, spoke about the existing site conditions and pointed out items that Engineers typically look at in terms of a functional site or dysfunctional site. Swirling stated that the fact that the building is meandered from the corner all the way to the rear of the site precludes the ability for interconnection of parking. Swirling added that there is no functional way for pedestrians to get from one part of the site to the other between Conant Street and Dodge Street. Swirling presented plans that highlighted portions of building proposed for removal in red and yellow with highlights to the proposed development footprint. Swirling explained that the goal is for a connection from Dodge to Conant Street along the perimeter of the site and to make the building structure more centrally located to accommodate pedestrian connections. Swirling showed the main entrance on the plans that include a single lane drive - through and the delivery area, which allows for internal circulation for multiple uses. Swirling stated that in their research and experience, pharmacy drive - through establishments see very little traffic and are only provided as convenience for a target market of mainly elderly or parents with young children. Swirling explained the two -way circulation provided throughout. Swirling stated that the total impervious area for the site remains the same, as there are no changes to the impervious area and very little change in the square footage of the building or footprint. Swirling stated that the proposal includes the removal of approximately 10,000 s.f.and constructing a building that is approximately 13,000 s.f. Swirling commented on site improvements to landscaping that was discussed with the Design and Review Board and the Board's comments and suggestions were heard loud and clear to which they are working on modifying the existing landscaping plan to soften the corner more, identifying it as a major corner in Beverly. Giles Ham, Vanasse &Associates, stated that he has worked closely with City Staff on a detailed traffic analysis, which was submitted, to the Board. Ham stated that the roadway itself accommodates approximately 25,000 cars per day and based on research and experience there is typically a 1 -2 car cue expected in the drive - through at one time. Ham stated that the net impact is less than 3,000 s.f of retail area. Ham admitted that the proposed project will generate more traffic but feels it would not be significant. Ham presented a summary of traffic generated during weekdays and weekends. Bill Lorigan, Moser Associates and Architects, stated they were hired to look at the site and walked the neighborhood to see what the buildings are like now to determine the best ways to address the proposed project from the residential side. Lorigan reviewed the plans for a one -story building stating the plans include breaking external components down to show a more residential look and feel. Lorigan reviewed the suggested materials to be used. Lorigan informed the Board Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 5 of 13 that they approached Walgreens explaining that New England is different and adding the standard box style building would not work in this area. Moser Associates and Architects came up with an architectural plan that would be site - specific for the proposed location which ultimately has made the Walgreens building scale smaller and added materials that would give the building a more attractive appeal. Lorigan went over the proposed spec details for external materials to be used. Lorigan stated that the plan was reviewed by the Design and Review Board and comments came back that the building seemed too plain and they had concerns with the facades facing Conant Street. With those comments, they have gone back to the drawing board and are in the process of changing the materials and design to give the building even more of a residential feel. Lorigan stated that the Design and Review Board brought up the issue of noise. Lorigan responded that he has created plans for 60 -70 Walgreen stores and has never experienced complaints about noise. Lorigan stated that Moser Associates has always met or exceeded noise regulations and explained that the equipment on the roof will be hidden from view behind par pins which will cut down on acoustics made by the equipment. Mack asked about the current curb -cut locations. Ham responded that the existing plan shows 2 curb -cuts on Conant Street of which they will close one as a safety benefit. Ham stated that they are offering better delineation on the curb -cut area and are working with the Parking and Traffic Commission to provide the safest option noting there is restricted turning access for vehicles near Fast Freddie's gas station. Ham added that the site distance issues would be resolved by moving the existing sign back. Thomson requested information pertaining to the site drainage. Rhuda responded that there is no change to the impervious area proposed. Rhuda explained that any storm water on the impervious surfaces would be tied back into the drainage system that is in existence today. Utilities are to be brought in via Conant Street. Thomson asked what the current drainage system is in place now. Rhuda responded that there are a series of catch basins and manholes that lead to the drainage system in the street. Rhuda stated that he would provide a copy of the Drainage Report to the Board. Rhuda continued on to say that roof drainage will be tied into the underground draining system and that all utilities will be available on -site. In addition, the revised plans will show new site lighting and the existing signage pulled back as explained earlier. Rhuda informed the Board that Symes Associates received a comment letter from the City Engineer and they plan to work with the City Engineer over the next couple weeks to address those concerns. Rhuda noted that the concerns were not major in nature rather clarification on a couple of points. Mack inquired about parking. Rhuda responded that they have had discussions with the Parking and Traffic Commission and have plans to provide further information to the data submitted. Rhuda stated that there are 115 spaces today and the plans are proposing 102 parking spaces that will provide easy access for customers where the parking spaces now are not convenient. The plans include a reduction of 13 spaces of which they believe are the least utilized and accessible spaces. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 6 of 13 Thomson requested that parking be addressed with respect to the permits requested Rhuda responded that the requirement for this development according to the Beverly Rules and Regulations for parking is 120 spaces. They are requesting a special permit to reduce the number of parking spaces to 102. Rhuda informed the Board that they would submit a detailed document showing the traffic breakdown, which identifies specific uses proposed. Rhuda stated that in his opinion, the Beverly Regulations for parking spaces is set up for individual uses not a compilation of uses. For individual use, 1/250 s.f is assigned to a single user and it makes good sense but when you apply the same requirement and compound it for 1/250 s.f for a different type of tenant it makes less sense. Rhuda added that they feel the current Requirements are on the most conservative side of good engineering practice. In their experience, Rhuda stated a typical range is 3 -5 parking spaces /1,000 s.f and the Bylaw is currently set up on the higher side of that range. Rhuda stated they would provide additional documentation that will justify relief of the 120 parking space requirement. Rhuda stated that concludes their presentation. Thomson reviewed the process of the hearing to the Public for clarification. Thomson stated that the Public Hearing will not be closed tonight and at this time opened the meeting to clarifying questions from members of the Planning Board. Mack asked how the proposed Walgreens site compares in size to the Walgreens store located on Cabot and Elliott Street. Benoit responded that the proposal before them tonight is for a 13,500 s.f. building. Benoit stated that he is unclear of the exact size of the Walgreens downtown but believes it is a prototype store, which is typically between 14,500- 15,000 s.f. Mack felt the presentation on the traffic analysis was explained too fast and he requested a review of the numbers to get a better understanding. Mack stated that it is his opinion the roadways on Dodge and Conant Street are impossible. Members of the public applauded in agreement to Mack's comment. Thomson asked members of the public to hold their applause. Lorigan responded that they have looked extensively at daily and peak traffic data, data from the Mass DOT, speed data, safety data, and more, stating there is a lot that goes into a traffic study. In terms of traffic, the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to look at critical peak hours for this type of project. Lorigan explained that the proposed use is estimated to generate 70 customer trips in and out during the weekday peak hour being more dispersed on Saturdays. In terms of any impact on delay at the intersection and change in cues, Lorigan said there would be increases, but they would not be significant. Lorigan stated that they have done what they can to make it a safe site using good planning practices. Rhuda asked Lorigan to explain to the Board what the difference is to the space when fully occupied with a Walgreens compared to an alternative development on the site and what the net traffic increase would be during peak hours. Lorigan responded that it was determined that a Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 7 of 13 Walgreens would generate 70 trips in -out during the weekday's peak hour and if the site is developed for a different use or uses, the traffic generated could be more significant. Walgreens would not pose a significant increase but rather a slight increase in traffic and cues. Hutchinson expressed her concerns with the fact that the site has not been fully occupied for some time now and Coldwell Banker is strictly office use, which in her view would not generate the same amount of traffic a retail establishment such as Walgreens would. Hutchinson stated in her opinion, vehicles will never make a left turn coming out of the site onto Dodge Street and feels with this plan vehicles will loop around and exit Conant Street creating more traffic at that traffic signal. Giles responded that have looked at the way the signal operates at that location and it is not as difficult as one may think. The signal creates time to get out onto Route IA. Giles stated that he was there for about an hour and a half this evening between 5 -6 p.m. and it is his opinion the signals create gaps that make it possible to move traffic along. Hutchinson asked if a study was performed on current trips into the site now. Giles responded stating that they do have a report and included a detailed analysis that covered their findings in a two -hour weekday period and two hour Saturday period in relation to traffic. Giles stated that the City has experts on the Parking and Traffic Commission and these types of questions and comments were covered in detail and responded to. Harris asked how many cars are going in and out now from the site. Giles responded that there are between 70 -100 trips in and out today with much of the site vacant and projects 70 cars in/out during the weekday evening peak hour. Harris asked if Giles is comfortable with a 50% increase in traffic. Giles responded that he is comfortable. The analysis was run based on all traffic being new and it works. Giles reiterated that everything is being done to make it a safe area. Flannery expressed concern over the added traffic to Conant Street and the increase to crossover traffic coming off the Route 128 exit ramp into the site. Giles responded that there are a couple hundred vehicles an hour that come off the exit ramp but did not determine how many of those vehicles currently cross over. Thomson asked what the advantage is to a 2 -way driveway on both sides. Rhuda responded that there is no connection to the site now and feels it takes traffic away from Route IA. Rhuda explained that they have worked on a lot of corner sites in the past and there is in fact a possibility for non -use customers to cut through to avoid traffic, however, he feels the tenant will do things to deter that from happening in the event it becomes an issue. Rhuda stated that if you make it a one way enter /exit site you are forcing people to go onto Route I when they don't have to. Mack asked how far back the building entrance is from the site entrance. Alexander responded 230 ft. and 350 ft. respectively. Mack expressed his concern to the width of the 2 -way traffic entrance and suggested that some sort of median be added and visible to vehicles entering the site. Mack asked if it is possible that the Conant Street entrance be blocked by traffic cueing up at the light. Ham responded that it is possible during peak hours. Mack commented that most people leaving the site as it is now exit onto Route IA only to get onto the ramp going to Route 128. Mack stated his concern with vehicles cutting across Route IA from the 128 exit ramp and asked Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 8 of 13 if there has been any discussion to try to mitigate the issue. Alexander responded that the City is well represented by the Parking and Traffic Commission and they have asked the Applicant to take a closer look, which they plan to do. Harris commented on the architectural renderings and suggested that the plans conform more to New England architecture. Harris asked if the Design and Review Board questioned the proposed plans having so much brick. Lorigan responded that it was discussed and the Design and Review Board suggested bringing more materials down the front exterior to show less brick and adding more plastic PVC pilasters. Lorigan reviewed the plans in more detail showing what they will be proposing to increase the amount the clapboard panels and showing only 3 ft. of brick. Harris stated he is looking forward to seeing the updated architectural design. Flannery asked about the hours of operation for the proposed Walgreens. Alexander responded that the hours would be Sam -IOpm. Flannery asked about the proposed lighting. Lorigan responded that lighting plans are for downward facing allied fixtures. Flannery requested information on any plans for a buffer facing Chipman Road. Alexander responded that there is no buffer there now. Alexander stated they are proposing to install a buffer along the back of the existing parking lot and that a meeting has been arranged to meet with those abutters next week to determine what type of buffer is best for the area. Alexander mentioned that the City of Beverly owns a 50 ft. wide strip of land that abuts Chipman Road and with the City's cooperation they have plans to offer extensive plantings. Flannery asked about signage plans. Alexander responded that they are not seeking sign approval with this proposal but have plans to submit sign plans separately. Hutchinson requested information on the request to allow parking in the 10 ft. front setback requirement and if the 102 parking spaces are included in that set back. In addition, Hutchinson asked how many parking spaces would there be if the Applicant was not allowed to use the 10 ft. front setback. Rhuda responded that there is currently a row of 14 parking spaces. The plans would be to extend the spaces to 18. Hutchinson asked how many deliveries are expected per week and what the hours would be with respect to deliveries. Rhuda explained that because of site constraints, deliveries would be in box style trucks. There would not be 18- wheeler trucks entering the site. Deliveries are estimated to be 1 -2 per week with more frequent deliveries from smaller vendors that would typically deliver during the morning. Thomson asked for confirmation that the building next to the proposed Walgreens is not being changed in any way and if there are any foreseen plans for changes. Rhuda responded that the building is a freestanding building and they do not have plans for changes to that building at this time. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 9 of 13 Thomson requested clarification that Fast Freddy's gas station is not included in the submitted parking calculations. Rhuda responded that Fast Freddy's is not part of their ownership. Thomson asked how much of the existing building is historic in nature and if the proposed use of the lot when demolished would be for parking. Rhuda responded that the footprint of the historic building is 1,347 s.f. Rhuda concurred with Thomson's comment to utilizing the space for parking. Thomson stated that the Special Permit request would reduce the number of parking spaces and the point has been made that even with the proposed number of spaces the Applicant feels it is too many under Beverly's regulations. Therefore, why hasn't the Applicant offered to keep the historic building where it stands today? Rhuda responded that they feel the building is a site impediment to any proposed project for the site. Thomson asked Rhuda to elaborate on his comment. Rhuda presented the proposed plans showing that it would take up 8 utilized parking spaces and would completely block the site. Rhuda stated that according to Beverly's Rules and Regulations the current site for their office space requires 24 parking spaces and they only have 11 employees. Walgreens calls for 65 parking spots. However, their expertise in constructing many Walgreens across the country has been approximately 43 spaces. Thomson stated that the option should at least be considered, as the historical building is an integral part of the corner location and worth preserving. Thomson suggested that the Applicant consider keeping the historic building and keep the option going at their next presentation. Rhuda responded that they would give the matter further consideration. Mack asked if the historic building would prohibit flow of traffic as contemplated in the plans. Rhuda responded that he doesn't have an answer at this time but will take a look at the plans. Mack asked how many parking spaces are at the Walgreens in downtown Beverly. Alexander responded that he was unsure but could get the answer for the Board. Mack suggested that the Board not open the meeting to questions and comments from the public at this time until the Applicant has had a chance to meet with the other Boards and City Agencies and adjusts the proposal to reflect the many suggestions and comments made to date. Mack stated that the proposal is very much in a work in progress state right now and the presentation is far from complete stating it seems only fair to hold off on questions because there is vital information that has not been presented yet. Thomson agreed and stated that the Public Hearing will be continued at the February 21, 2012 meeting. Thomson asked if there are any members of the public that are present this evening that have pressing questions that will not be able to attend the next Public Hearing. Three members of the public gave a show of hands. Thomson requested that those who raised their hand can have a chance to speak tonight and others will have a chance at the next scheduled Public Hearing. Bill Coughlin, Ward 5 former City Councilor and Councilor at Large, stated that he lives about a 2- minute walk from the proposed site. Coughlin informed the Board that they have legal Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 10 of 13 representation here tonight and asked that the Board respect the request for legal representation to speak tonight as North Beverly residents feel the proposed project is so significant. Coughlin stated that they have worked hard on what goes into Route IA all the way to the Wenham line and they are happy with what is there now. Coughlin requested that the Applicant keep the historic building the way it is. Coughlin stated that if you were to ask members of the public if they want a Walgreens constructed on the site, he believes the answer would be an overwhelming no. Coughlin commented that a recent article in the local newspaper was insulting to the people that live around the neighborhood and the article came across as if the people don't matter. Coughlin expressed concern over the possibility of Walgreens increasing the hours to 24 hours /day. Coughlin continued on stating he feels there seems to be a constant warfare between CVS and Walgreens. Coughlin brought up a recent accident at the discussed section of Route IA and said that citizens are very concerned. Coughlin stated that the warfare between the two companies shouldn't happen at the expense of safety to Beverly citizens. With a tremendous increase in traffic coming from Ipswich and Wenham in addition to increased traffic the project would generate, Coughlin requested that an independent traffic study be performed. Coughlin concluded by stating that the last thing the citizens of Beverly needs is a high volume business in that location. Zachary Chartock, Civil Engineer, representing the citizens of Beverly gave his credentials for the record. Chartock stated that he lives at 40 Cornell Road in Beverly and is a neighbor to the proposed site. Chartock has formulated a report based on information prepared by State data, primary foundation reports, Orton Family Foundation, LAED and BAED Board, and traffic data studies, as well as accident reports in a community and the economic impact of this style structure in a residential neighborhood. Chartock presented the data to the Board for the record. Chartock stated that a 1 -200 ratio of parking spaces is required as well as a ratio for 1.05 handicap spaces for the proposal, which requires a total of 65 parking spaces at the site. In reference to the loading and fire zone, Chartock stated that the proposal's primary entrance and exit are in the same place and is not safe by current fire and safety protocol. Chartock stated there is a need to have 2 primary accesses points to the building to allow access to the fire zone in a 10 second time frame from all entrances and the proposed does not have that. The box style trucks making deliveries would have to back out onto Conant Street because there is not enough room to turn around at the site and would only add to traffic issues. In addition, Chartock explained that a split -face traffic analysis was not performed and needs to be submitted. Chartock stated the fact that Route IA is a state route and plans need to be submitted to the Mass DOT. With respect to the additional parking proposed, Chartock stated that a CO2 ecologic study needs to be performed as it affects the community. Chartock added that a plan for a drive - through pharmacy window creates 3 lanes and the site cannot accommodate it. In conclusion, Chartock stated that a Walgreens is not a feasible structure for the site because it cannot accommodate parking; there are pollution issues; loading and unloading fire safety zone issues; as well as the cost liability and issues associated to the City and the Applicant involved in moving the historic building. Chartock stated that personally he is not opposed to the redevelopment of the site but believes there are other alternatives to what the community needs. Chartock submitted a report that proposes two alternatives. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 11 of 13 Chartock informed the Board that he contacted Walgreens and they were surprised that a historic building was on the site they were considering and expressed concerns being unaware of the historic building and plans for demolition. Chartock strongly stated that demolishing a historic building is against Walgreen's mission statement. Chartock stated that he has done corporate profiling for them in addition to corporate profiling for a company that sold time management systems to Walgreens and they were all shocked that this would be considered by a company with a reputation. Douglas Dobin, 56 Dodge Street, Beverly, lives across the street from the proposed Walgreens and stated that he has watched the increase in traffic at the corner of Conant and Dodge Street for 31 years and has seen traffic back up to the music school on Conant Street. Dobin stated that he is not opposed to the redevelopment of the site but opposes a Walgreens because of the impact on traffic. Rhuda suggested the public consider that with this proposal it gives the Applicant the option to work with a national tenant that has limits to hours, what goes into dumpsters, etc. where the alternative is to construct a 12,000 s.f box style building where the public will have no say in the tenants that occupy the site. Rhuda stated that the site would be redeveloped one way or the other. Some members of the public said they feel Rhuda's statement sounds like a threat. Thomson asked for a motion for a date and time to continue the hearing. Harris made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to 9:00 p.m. on February 21, 2012 at the Beverly Senior Center. Hutchinson seconded the motion. Motion carried 6.0.0. Thomson calls the regular meeting of the Planning Board back to order. Matz joined the meeting at this time. Continued Discussion/Decision — Modification to Wellington Hills Definitive Subdivision Plan — Pamela J. VanTwuyver Matz composed a statement for the record and read the following verbatim: "First, I want to commend #gain all those who participated in the public discussion regarding this project back on January 3 It was one of the best examples I've seen of public involvement and how a community can come together in an orderly and peaceful manner with purpose for their common good. The applicant has stated their position with regard to the ownership of the Old Rubbly Road extension that gives them access to a parcel located entirely in the Town of Wenham and is of the opinion that the requested waiver is merely to obtain approval of a paving plan. I see it much more than that. First, I cannot understand how the Town of Wenham approves a project by granting 19 waivers including a waiver never before granted which allows for the development of a parcel(s) with no Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 12 of 13 access from any right -of -way in the Town of Wenham. I understand that the parcel is "cut off' from the remainder of the Town via the head waters of the Miles River and a broad flood plain. However, this is not Beverly's problem. There appears by all accounts to have been very limited conversation between the Town of Wenham and the City of Beverly regarding this project. There is every reason to believe that the parcel adjacent to the parcel proposed for development will also be developed, which will further strain the roads in Beverly and add increased traffic to a quiet neighborhood in Beverly that has remained as such for many years. I have noted that affordable — not low income, so let's understand that — but affordable housing is being offered within the proposed development. While that's commendable, there is no community connectivity. How are folks who might move into the proposed duplex going to "connect" to the community of Wenham? They can't. Leach fields are proposed for septic disposal within the development. This development is located within the drainage basin that contributes to the Longham Reservoir. This drainage basin has been identified by the USGS and the MassDEP for groundwater protection. Currently, the City of Beverly is working on revisions to its ordinance governing the Water Protection Overlay District. This development is located within the Overplay Protection District where leach fields are strictly prohibited. Lastly, from my point of view, the burden of public safety for this development falls upon the City of Beverly, and in these economic times, that is unacceptable. There is no benefit to the City of Beverly for this project — only burden. For these reasons, and many others, I will vote no tonight on the requested waiver ". Harris concurred with the statement from Matz and thanked members on Board for all the concerns that have been raised. O'Brien questioned if the Board's granting of the Application includes approving all 10 waivers the Applicant is requesting. Thomson responded that the Applicant has asked the Board to approve those waivers and even if the Board were inclined to approve the request, the Planning Board would still need to act on each of the waivers separately. Thomson stated that the purpose of discussion is to get thoughts and concerns from the Board and then take a motion. Thomson began by stating the length of the dead end road is the most critical in nature as pointed out at the Public Hearing. The Planning Board's policy is not to grant waivers unless there is a benefit to the City. Thomson stated that he personally doesn't see a benefit to the City granting this waiver however, the Applicant's view is that it is needed or the Applicant would not have requested to modify the Subdivision Plan. Thomson stated that in his opinion, it comes down to ownership to title of the said stub where the Applicant must prove ownership. At this time, no Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board January 17, 2012 Page 13 of 13 opinions have been rendered as to title or any title policies presented. Thomson continued on stating that the Applicant's argument has been made that it is just a simple paving plan to part of the road. However, this act makes the rest of the subdivision part of Beverly's subdivision expansion, which happens to be in another community. Thomson stated that this fact doesn't particularly bother him but what troubles him is the Planning Board not having the opportunity for any input. Thomson stated that many waivers were granted by the Wenham Board and if the Beverly Planning Board was involved he doesn't believe the Beverly Planning Board would have encouraged them to grant those waivers to protect the existing homes in the subdivision. Thomson stated that it is his view because the Wenham Planning Board was given carte blanche to the project without any review from Beverly's Planning Board is unacceptable in itself. In addition, the Applicant has not proven to his satisfaction as to ownership of title and that any one of the many comments he and Matz made alone would require rejection of this Application. Hutchinson asked for clarification that a vote in favor is to deny the waiver requests. Thomson responded yes. Harris made a motion to make a decision on the 10 waivers in a collective manner and deny the waivers requested. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6.0.0. Mack made a motion to deny the Application for the Modification to Wellington Hills Definitive Subdivision Plan based on all the reasons stated acting independent of one another. Motion seconded by Hutchinson. Motion carried 6.0.0. Election of Officers for 2012 — Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson Election of Officers tabled until the next Regular Meeting. Approval of Minutes: December 7, 2011 Approval of Minutes tabled until the next Regular Meeting. Adiournment Mack made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6.0.0.