2013-02-12CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Location: Beverly Senior Center, 90 Colon Street, Beverly, MA
Members Present Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chair John Thomson, Ellen
Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, John Mullady, Charles
Harris, David Mack
Members Absent: Michael O'Brien
Others Present: Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi
Recorder: Eileen Sacco
Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Recess for Public Hearings
Thomson moves to recess for public hearings at this time. Matz seconds the motion. The
motion carries (7 -0).
Continued Concurrent Public Hearings — Special Permit Application #131 -12, Site Plan
Review Application #108 -12 and Inclusionary Housing Application #04 -12 — Construct
three -story building containing 13 apartments with commercial space on first floor — 130
Cabot Street —Cabot Street Apartments - 130 Cabot St., LLC c/o TheHolloran Companies
Thomson moved to waive the reading of the Legal Notice. Flannery seconded the motion. The
motion carried (7 -0)
Attorney Thomas Alexander with offices at 1 School Street, Beverly, Massachusetts addressed
the Board and reported that they are present this evening to present revised plans. He reviewed
the history of the project and that of other similar projects in the area that have utilized the option
of using municipal parking areas in the area to satisfy the parking requirements for the project.
He noted that this has been a policy of the City to encourage the development of the downtown.
Alexander explained that they have been to the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Design
Review Board for their review of the project. He noted that they have sought to do more with
this project than is required, noting that they could have relied on zoning and the use of
municipal parking, but they have included onsite parking as well.
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
Alexander explained that the revised plans have an increase of 31% in parking on the site, which
is above and beyond what is required. He noted that they have moved the handicapped space to
behind the building and reduced part of the building. He explained that the parking design on
site calls for spaces to be piggy backed. He also explained that parking spaces on the site would
be assigned to the tenants. He also noted that the first floor of the building has been redesigned
to get another two parking spaces on the site.
Alexander reported that the Parking and Traffic Commission reviewed the plans and had
significant input into this and have made a recommendation to the Planning Board. He also
noted that the Fire Department, Police Department and the Design Review Board have reviewed
and approved the plans.
Harris questioned what they would do with excess amounts of snow on the site, noting that they
propose to accommodate cars on the site. Alexander stated that they would accept a condition
that snow must be removed from the site. He also noted that they are located .2 miles from the
train station and they are planning to market the property to people who would likely take the
train for transportation. He also noted that the City provides snow emergency parking in the
municipal lots.
Alexander stated that they could have by right built this project and they chose to go for a special
permit.
Thomson asked if they are seeking zoning relief for the project. Alexander explained that they
have reduced the spaces along the back of the property and plan for piggyback parking for six
spaces.
Alexander also explained that the steel barriers on Vestry Street will be removed and they are
installing a sidewalk that does not presently exist.
Thomson asked if the Fire Department approved of the parking layout. Alexander reported that
the Fire Department has reviewed the project and has submitted a comment letter noting that
they have no issues with the project.
Matz questioned the ingress and egress being on Vestry Street noting that it is a one way toward
Cabot Street. Alexander explained that it is a one -way street. Matz also questioned why the
front of the building abuts the sidewalk. Alexander explained that it is in keeping with the street
scape of the downtown.
Mack asked if the number of units in the building has changed. Alexander stated that there has
been no change to the number of units in the building. He explained that the only change is that
the interior has changed somewhat, noting that they lost a bedroom for the parking
reconfiguration.
Alexander also reported that they are redoing the corner of Vestry Street to make it handicapped
accessible noting that they will be bringing the sidewalk to grade at the corner
Page 2 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
Thomson questioned if they could limit the size of vehicles parking in the compact car spaces.
Alexander stated that they would enforce that with the tenants.
Dinkin opened the hearing up for public comment at this time for questions from the audience.
Elizabeta Veliaj of 144 Cabot Street and questioned how they could limit the number of cars that
the tenants have.
Dana Acciavatti of 4 Elm Street addressed the Board and expressed his concern about traffic and
parking on Vestry Street.
Dale Acciavatti of 4 Elm Street addressed the Board and expressed concern that the project will
be taking parking spaces from Siam Delight. He also expressed concern about the developer
providing parking for the businesses that will be on the first floor of the building. Alexander
explained that they are not required to provide parking for Siam Delight and they are supplying
parking as required and allowed by zoning.
A resident of 144 Cabot Street addressed the Board and noted the recent snow storm and stated
that Vestry Street was the last street to be plowed. She questioned who would remove the snow
from the site. Alexander stated that they would hire a private contractor to remove the snow
from the site.
Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street addressed the Board and expressed her concern that there
are inconsistencies in the floor plans for the project and reviewed her findings. Architect Dan
Skolski addressed the concerns. Maglio also questioned whether zoning for the site has been
fully complied with regarding the distance of the parking spaces from the lot line. Alexander
explained that they could design the project in compliance with the zoning, but they are seeking
a special permit.
Thomson stated that the opinion is that the zoning allows all or a portion of the parking to be
offsite.
Maglio noted that the minimum width for compact car spaces is 9 feet and the dimension of their
spaces do not meet the standard.
Dinkin noted that past practice has been to interpret the zoning ordinance as inclusively as
possible.
Maglio also questioned the location of the trash door noting the location of the handicapped
parking space in front of the door. Alexander explained that the trash removal containers will be
residential style barrels and explained the access to the trash room.
Maglio referred to the July 1 plan and the revised plan and noted that no mechanical units are
shown on the plan. She asked how many units would be between the south side of the building
and Siam Delight. Skolski explained that there would be 15 units, one for each unit. Maglio
Page 3 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
questioned if a pole in the location noted would be removed. Skolski reported that all existing
poles on the site would remain.
Dana Acciavatti of 4 Elm Street, addressed the Board again and questioned how they can count
the parking space located in front of the trash door, noting that snow will make it difficult. He
showed the Board photos of the recent snowstorm.
Alexander stated that as is the case in many urban parking lots they would have to contact the
tenants to work with the private contractor when snow is to be removed.
Diane Belisle of 4 Elm Street addressed the Board and questioned if it is plausible to get the lot
cleared of cars for snow removal. Dinkin stated that is not a controlling fact in this matter. He
noted that the issue before the Planning Board is to decide whether they meet the criteria set
forth in the zoning ordinances and in the areas that they fail to meet the requirements are they
entitled to a waiver. He noted that past and present weather events do not matter and if they
agree to contract for snow removal on the site, what reason does he have to disbelieve them?
Thomson questioned if the proposed parking spaces are based on zoning requirements.
Alexander responded.
Dinkin closed questions from the public at this time.
Dinkin opened the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street addressed the Board and expressed her concern that there
is no screening of conflicting uses at the time of occupancy and there is no buffer in place of
yard landscaping. Alexander noted that the screening should be accomplished using a fence.
Nick Colantuno of 25 Vestry Street addressed the Board and noted that the zoning is split and he
is also concerned about the parking for employees of the street level shops. Dinkin noted that the
parking for the site is formula driven by the number of square feet of the project. Colantuno also
expressed concern about the lighting plan for the site. Alexander reported that they are planning
building mounted lights, which were approved by the Design Review Board.
Harris noted that 13 parking spaces are mostly to accommodate compact cars. Alexander noted
that there are 7 spaces proposed for compact cars, noting that it is assumed that people will take
the train if possible.
Diane Belisle of 4 Elm Street addressed the Board and stated that she feels that the snow removal
will compound the problem noting that dump trucks and grates will need to get in there to
remove the snow.
Nick Colontuno of 25 Vestry Street addressed the Board and noted that commercial loading
requires 10,000 s.f and questioned where that will be and if it is located on the street, how it
would be regulated. Alexander explained that it will be on the street in front of the building as is
the practice on Cabot Street.
Page 4 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
Dinkin recessed the public hearing until 9:15 p.m. in the evening.
Public Hearing — Site Plan Application #109 -13 — Construct Freestanding Market — 157
Essex Street — CD Patel, Inc.
Zambernardi reads legal notice.
Matt Hammer of Hancock Associates addressed the Board on behalf of CD Patel, Inc. and
explained that they are proposing the construction of a 2,937 s.f freestanding market with
associated improvements at 157 Essex Street. He explained that the site is the former Lil' Peach
store at the corner of Gardner and Essex Streets and Site Plan Review is required because the
building is over 1,000 s.f in the CN Zoning District.
Hammer explained the location of the site and noted that they have been to the ZBA for a
variance to replace the existing building with the proposed convenience store, but since then the
store has collapsed and the area has been cleaned up. He noted that the front and side setbacks of
the proposed new building are the same as the original building.
Hammer reported that the Parking and Traffic Commission has reviewed the plans and made a
recommendation to the Planning Board. He also noted that the Design Review Board has
reviewed and approved the project as well.
Hammer explained that the proposed new building will be a one story commercial building and
the entrance will be a one way in from Gardner Street and they are proposing a one way out onto
Essex Street. He also explained that they are proposing 11 on site parking spaces noting that the
handicapped spaces required are included in the 11 spaces.
Hammer explained the drainage for the site and noted that the drainage will go to a catch basin
into a subsurface infiltration system with a level spreader on the property.
Hammer explained there will be a sidewalk installed to the front entrance to the building and
there will be a dumpster pad for a dumpster to service the building. He also noted that
landscaping areas are now shown on the plan. He noted that they are proposing to install salt
tolerant landscaping materials. He noted the snow storage location on the plan. He also noted
that there would be no mulch allowed in the snow storage areas to allow for water infiltration.
Hammer noted that there is also ample on street parking in the area.
Hammer noted that the DRB reviewed the color scheme for the building and recommended a
burgundy color as opposed to the red that they proposed. He also noted that the roof top units
will be screened.
Hammer noted that the lighting on the property will be contained to the site.
Page 5 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
Matz asked if the applicant met with the abutters of the site for their input. Hammer stated that
they met with the abutters and they had strong support for the project. He noted that Mr. Patel is
very familiar with the neighborhood. He reported that there was concern about infiltration of
ground water near the Smith property but they do not believe that the project will impact them.
He explained that they did test pits and the data shows that extra measures will not be necessary.
Hammer noted that it is a nice neighborhood however they have kept security in mind with the
design of the building to prevent robberies etc., noting that the front of the building is designed
so that the windows provide for visibility, noting that the previous building was not designed as
such. He also noted that the prior building did not have the visibility to the outside that this one
will have.
Hammer stated that the hours of operation will be from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Mack questioned what the difference is between the former convenience store and the new
proposed store. Mr. Patel explained that the new market would include takeout food prepared on
site.
Hutchinson noted the addition of food preparation on the site and asked if they have a rodent
control plan. Hammer reported that the Board of Health requires one and they have reviewed
and approved the plan.
Thomson noted that they are proposing the same egress as the prior store and asked if the traffic
flow will be marked. Hammer explained that they would be marking the parking lot with
direction arrows and installing signage as well.
Thomson asked what the delivery hours for the site would be. Hammer explained that deliveries
would be made between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Zambernardi read comment letters from other City Departments as follows:
William Fiore, Beverly Fire Department, dated January 23, 2013
Sgt. Russ Rollins, Beverly Police Department, dated February 5, 2013
Bill Burke, Beverly Board of Health, dated February 5, 2013
Eric Barber, City Engineer, dated February 5, 2013
Zambernardi reported that the Design Review Board recommends increased plantings in the rear
of the property and that salt tolerant plants and shrubs be used. They also recommend the color
scheme for the roof and awnings be burgundy in color.
Dinkin opened the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Councilor Scott Houseman addressed the Board and asked about the lighting plan for the site.
Hammer explained that they will be installing wall sconces in the front of the building and the
and the back of the property will have light fixtures casting downward on the parking area.
Zambernardi reported on the ZBA's conditions of approval for the project.
Page 6 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
Houseman noted that rodent control has been a concern this winter and asked how often food
waste would be picked up from the site. Hammer explained that it would be picked up once a
week and noted the location of the dumpster on the site, noting that it will be fully enclosed with
a fence.
Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street addressed the Board and stated that this is a non-
conforming use, noting that the zoning district is R10. Zambernardi clarified.
Mack noted that he would prefer more frequent removal of food waste and asked if there are any
regulations regarding that. Hammer stated that they would confer with the Board of Health and
if they are required to have food waste removed more often they will do so.
Zambernardi asked if the plans include a drive through. Hammer stated that there is no drive
through proposed.
John Hall of 143 Colon Street addressed the Board and asked when the construction will start.
Hammer reported that they want to start as soon as possible and hope to start in the spring.
Cindy Williams addressed the Board and questioned if there would be outside seating for eating
on the site. Hammer stated that there would be no seating provided, and that food prepared on
the site is for takeout only.
Thomson asked what the rodent control plan is for the site. Hammer explained that the Board of
Health has a minimum requirement.
Maglio addressed the Board again and stated that there was no food preparation in the former
building and she feels that food preparation on this site is non - conforming.
Dinkin asks if there is anyone else present who wishes to comment in favor or opposition of this
proposal. There was no one present who wished to comment.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Dinkin declared the public
hearing closed.
Continued Concurrent Public Hearings — Special Permit Application #131 -12, Site Plan
Review Application #108 -12 and Inclusionary Housing Application #04 -12 — Construct
three -story building containing 13 apartments with commercial space on first floor — 130
Cabot Street —Cabot Street Apartments - 130 Cabot St., LLC c/o The Holloran Companies
The Planning Board reconvened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m.
Page 7 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
Dinkin asked if there is anyone present who wishes to comment in support of the proposal.
There was no one present who wished to comment in favor of the proposal.
Dinkin asked if there was anyone present who wished to comment in opposition to the proposal.
Dana Acciavatti addressed the Board and stated that he has been to a lot of meetings regarding
this proposal. He noted that at the Design Review Board meeting, member Bill Finch stated that
the plans are not much different from the previous one reviewed. Acciavatti stated that he did
not think that the developer has made a lot of the modifications to the plan that the Planning
Board asked for.
Acciavatti also stated that Beverly Police Sgt. Russ Rollins had concerns about winter parking.
He reported that if someone gets their car towed it could cost them $266 in towing costs. He also
stated that Siam Delight the use of the municipal parking would make it hard for several
businesses, noting that there are several businesses that are empty. He showed photos of the
parking lot.
Acciavatti also expressed concern about the ability of fire trucks to get through Vestry Street.
He showed photos of the area with significant snow present, noting that it is a safety hazard.
Acciavatti stated that the proposed building does not fit in with the buildings that are there now.
He also stated that the revision proposed does not meet the new building guidelines, and the
schools will be affected as well.
Dale Acciavatti addressed the Board and stated that he is opposed to this project because it will
be adding two more businesses when there are already many empty commercial spaces in the
area. He stated that he also has traffic and safety issues as well as parking issues. He noted that
he does not have big parties because there is no place for his guests to park.
A resident of 114R Colon Street addressed Board and noted that the housing rehabs for
Montserrat College of Art was done well and it blends with the neighborhood.
Tom Walsh of 25 Vestry Street addressed the Board and stated that Vestry Street would not be
allowed to be created today and expressed his concern about the additional traffic that will be
added to it.
Zambernardi read letters of comment from various City Departments as follows:
Richard Benevento, Chair of the Parking and Traffic Commission, dated February 12, 2013.
Sgt. Russell Rollins, Beverly Police Department, dated February 11, 2013
William Fiore, Beverly Fire Department, dated February 6, 2013
Eric Barber, City Engineer, dated February 5, 2013
William Burke, Beverly Board of Health, dated February 4, 2013
Zambernardi reviewed comments from the Beverly Design Review Board.
Page 8of13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
Rosemary Maglio addressed the Board and stated that she is opposed to the granting of special
permits for projects that do not meet the requirements. She stated that she finds the proposed use
excessive for the site. She reviewed sections of the City of Beverly Zoning Ordinances to the
Board.
Diane Belisle addressed the Board and stated that she lives on Elm Street and there are three
houses on the street. She explained that residents use Elm Street to get to Vestry Street and she
is concerned about the addition of delivery trucks.
Dale Acciavatti addressed the Board and stated that he feels that the support of Beverly Main
Streets for the project is a conflict of interest because one or two people in development group
are involved in Main Streets and are their biggest contributors.
Dinkin cautioned those present that we should speak for ourselves as opposed to people who are
not here.
A resident of 144 Cabot Street addressed the Board and urged them to think about this before
approving it.
Rosemary Maglio addressed the Board again and stated that she is concerned about nuisance
headlights shining into people's homes.
Dinkin imposed a five minute time limit for public input at this time and stated that it would be
for new information only.
Atty. Alexander addressed the Board and stated that he would like to reiterate that the proposed
site plan review application is in compliance with zoning, setbacks and height requirements for
the area. He also noted that they are proposing a smaller building than is allowed and they are
providing affordable housing. He explained that they are requesting a special permit for
designated parking and noted that by right they could have built the project without a special
permit.
Alexander also noted that the location is appropriate for the proposed use and the proposal will
not have an adverse effect on the area. He also stated that there will be no undue traffic added to
the area, the police and fire departments and the city engineer have all reviewed the project.
Alexander reviewed the ordinance and noted that adequate and appropriate city services will be
available. He noted that this project will add vitality and is an investment in the downtown.
Thomson stated that if the Planning Board does not grant the special permit, they could develop
the site as they like with fewer parking spaces by right.
Thomson also stated that he does not like the idea of so much traffic on the street. He suggested
a slightly smaller entrance off Cabot Street but noted that economically it would mean that they
would need 18 feet for the one way street and 24 feet for a two way street. He noted that the
number of parking spaces on the site is not a concern to him. He also noted that it is hard to
Page 9 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
justify putting all of that traffic on Vestry Street and questioned if they could reduce the number
of units to make the building narrower.
Thomson noted that the original proposal called for a driveway up the side of the building and
the Parking and Traffic Commission opposed it. He noted that the original ten foot road would
need waivers from the Planning Board. He stated that he would be receptive to a one lane entry
on Cabot Street and an exit on Vestry Street, noting that the sidewalk would be sacrificed.
Alexander suggested that the use of a the ten foot one way entrance would cause them to lose
parking on the site, noting that they cannot shift the sidewalk as it is in the setback.
Mack stated that the biggest problem is the parking rather than traffic and suggested adding
another curb cut would reduce parking. He stated that the main complaint he hears is that they
would like to see the parking remain.
Harris stated that he does not feel that the size of the building is adequate for the site. He
suggested that they need to reevaluate the space they have and how to utilize it.
Alexander stated that they could reduce the number of parking spaces and be in 100%
compliance. He stressed that they were proposing more than is required.
Dinkin stated that he concurs with Mr. Mack and asked the applicant to make an effort to put as
many parking spaces on site as they could. He noted that his concern is for the residential units
to have as many spaces for residents to park onsite.
Matz stated that he frequents downtown businesses and he has spoken to business owners who
have told him that they park a distance away from their business to provide parking for
customers and he does not think that this should be any different.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Harris moved to close the
public hearing. Thomson seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Thomson asked the applicant if there is any inclination to revise the proposal. Alexander stated
that they do not want to change the plan.
Motion: Mack moved to grant the special permit for 130 Cabot Street as the applicant has
met all six criteria as follows:
a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the
character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected.
b. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely
affected by such use.
C. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result.
Page 10 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
d. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and
maintenance of the proposed use.
e. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on
demonstrable fact.
f. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed
use.
Mack further moved that all conditions recommended by other City Boards and Commissions be
included as a condition of the special permit and that snow shall be removed from the site.
The Board voted (4 -3 -1) (Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery and Mack in favor; Hutchinson, Matz and
Mullady in opposition; Harris in abstention) to approve the special permit. The motion did not
carry. Less than 2/3 of the Board found that the project meets the specific conditions for
granting a special permit pursuant to Section 38- 28.C.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (formerly
Section 29- 28.C.2), therefore the petition for the special permit was DENIED.
The Board's second vote was on the applicant's request for site plan approval to build a 3 -story
building containing 13 residential units and commercial space on the first floor pursuant to
Section 38 -29.C. (formerly Section 29 -29.C) of the Zoning Ordinance. After closing the public
hearing and deliberating, the Board voted (4 -3 -1) (Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery and Mack in
favor; Hutchinson, Matz and Mullady in opposition; Harris in abstention) to approve the site
plan. The site plan is therefore APPROVED.
The Board found that the Inclusionary Housing Application is in full compliance with the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Section 29 -34) and Regulations
( "Submission Requirements, Procedures & Supplemental Regulations "). The Board then voted
(4 -3 -1) (Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery and Mack in favor; Hutchinson, Matz and Mullady in
opposition; Harris in abstention) to accept Inclusionary Housing Application # 4 -12 as
submitted. The Inclusionary Housing Application is therefore APPROVED.
The Board's approvals were subject to the conditions that
1. The owner shall be responsible for timely snow removal from the site.
2. The plans shall be updated so that each plan sheet is consistent with each other and with
the Board's action on the special permit and site plan, prior to application for a Building
Permit.
The applicant /owner shall comply with the written recommendations (attached) from
various City departments submitted to the Planning Board in connection with this filing
(emails from the Engineering Department dated 6/13/12, 10/11/12 and 2/5/13, and letters
from the Design Review Board dated 7/13/12, the Board of Health dated 6/11/12 &
2/4/13, the Fire Department dated 5/31/12 & 2/6/13, the Police Department dated 6/12/12
& 2/11/13 and the Parking and Traffic Commission dated 7/12/12 & 2/2/13. All
recommendations connected to the special permit request are not valid.
ANR — 96 Cherry Hill Drive
Page 11 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
Attorney Miranda Gooding addressed the Board and explained that her client is seeking approval
not required for the lot on the corner of Sam Fonzo Drive and Cherry Hill Drive. She noted that
the old lot line is shown on the plan and the redrawing of the lot line is also shown.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Motion: Thomson moved to approve the ANR plan for 96 Cherry Hill Drive as submitted.
Mack seconded the motion. The motion carried (8 -0)
Request to Set Public Hearing Date — Site Plan Review Application #110 -13 — 96 Cherry
Hill Drive — Connolly Brothers, Inc.
Zambernardi explained that Connolly Brothers has submitted a request for site plan approval to
construct a two - story, 40,000 sf +/- building for a private secondary school with accessory
cafeteria, gymnasium, athletic field and parking and is requesting a time and date for a public
hearing.
Motion: Thomson moved to set the public hearing date Site Plan Review Application
#110 -13 — 96 Cherry Hill Drive for March 19, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. Flannery
seconded the motion. The motion carried (7 -0).
Request to Set Public Hearing Date — Special Permit Application #134 -13 — Create One
Pork -Chop Shaped Lot - 55 Echo Avenue — MPM Companies LLC
Zambernardi explained that MPM Companies LLC has submitted a special permit application to
create one pork- chopped shaped lot at 55 Echo Avenue and is requesting a time and date for a
public hearing.
Motion: Thomson moved to set the public hearing date Site Plan Review Application
Special Permit Application #134 -13 for March 19, 2013 at 8:30 p.m. Mack
seconded the motion. The motion carried (7 -0).
Approval of Minutes
The approval of the minutes of the September 4, 2012 Planning Board meetings were presented
for approval.
Flannery: moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Board meeting as amended.
Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion carried (7 -0).
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was
made by Matz to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Thomson. The motion carried (8 -0)
Page 12 of 13
Draft Beverly Planning Board
Minutes
February 12, 2013
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Page 13 of 13