2015-03-17Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board Meeting
Date: March 17, 2015
Location: Beverly Senior Center
Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice ChairEllen Hutchinson, Ellen
Flannery,John Mullady, Catherine Barrett, James Matz, David
Mack, Ned Barrett and Wayne Miller
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi, and City Planner Aaron
Clausen
Recorder: Eileen Sacco
Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Flannery: motion to recess for public hearings. Miller seconds the motion. The motion
carries (9 -0).
Concurrent Public Hearinis — Site Plan Review Application #113 -14 and Special Permit
Application #139 -14 —Site Plan Review Application to Build out North Shore Crossing —
140 Brimbal Avenue — CEA Beverly LLC
Thomson addresses those present and explains that the Planning Board will be discussing the
matter and issuing a decision this evening. He explained that he will offer the Planning Board
members the opportunity comment on the project and noted that these comments will be the
personal point of view of the members and he would ask the audience to be respectful and offer
the same courtesy that has been observed during the process without shouting, cheering or
otherwise.
Thomson made the following statement regarding the application for North Shore Crossing:
I believe that this Board should vote to grant the special permit, and approve the site plan as
presented, with conditions.
This has been a long and sometimes difficult process, but in my 20 years on this Board, I cannot
think of another project in Beverly (even the Cummings Center and Stop & Shop on Elliot
Street) that has received as much scrutiny and critical analysis. I greatly appreciate the input
from all those who have spoken or sent comments including residents and professionals, whether
in favor or opposition. We have had a professional peer review of both the traffic and the
drainage aspects of this project. The process has been a healthy one, and has helped to identify
important issues and let to the design of a better overall project.
Page 1 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
This clearly is a complicated site, but in my view all legitimate concerns have been adequately
addressed, and all of the criteria for granting a special permit have been or can be met though the
proposed design.
#1 — I believe this is an appropriate site for the proposed use — it has access to or from three
separate points and is as close to Route 128 as possible, short of direct access. It is zoned for this
use, among others, and the proposed use as a small shopping center is consistent with other uses
in the overlay district. Clearly the City Council, when it passed the Overlay District, agreed this
is an acceptable use, if not a preferred one. While there is no doubt that the sole adjoining
residential neighborhood, Northridge, would prefer not to see a shopping center in this location, I
do not believe that the proposed use adversely affects the character of the Northridge residential
use in any way. That is not to say that the proposed project will not have any impact, as it
clearly will due in part to the proximity of the Northridge K Building to the lot line. But that
impact would occur from any development of the site, including uses that do not require a
special permit, not just from the proposed use as a shopping center, and in any event I believe
that the impact can be satisfactorily mitigated by screening measures. The existence of a landfill
on the property, while complicating the development design, does not prevent the site from being
appropriate for this use. I note particularly the evidence submitted during the hearing that the
Jordan's Furniture complexin Reading on Route 128 wasalsoconstructed on a formerlandfill.
#2- I similarly do not believe that any credible evidence of adverse effects on property
values in the district has been presented, which would result from this development or its
resulting traffic. I interpret the word "district" to mean the overlaying "zoning district" not
the neighborhood generally, but even with a broader reading of the term "district ", I do not
believe any credible evidence on the subject was presented, only speculation.
#3 I do not believe this project will cause a nuisance or result in any unreasonable hazard, nor
do I believe the traffic to and from the site is undue or excessive. The configuration of the site
and three access points, and the improved connector road being constructed by the state
adequately distributes the likely traffic among as many routes as possible. In my opinion
neither the overall 6% conservative estimate of total increase in traffic volume, nor the effects
on peak time periods (which are relatively small on weekdays when most commute traffic
would be affected), constitute "undue" traffic. Through implementation of the various
conditions that will be listed at the end, together with mitigation measures shown on the plans
and the funds contributed by the applicant, I believe the city will be able to adequately deal with
the impacts of this development. That being said, I understand that Brimbal Avenue like most of
the other arteries and principle streets in Beverly is already stressed by ever increasing traffic,
and I urge the city to pay particular attention to this important corridor, and address its issues
with all appropriate measures, whether negotiating with the railroad, or adding stoplights, turning
lanes or other traffic calming measures, or enforcement of existing traffic laws, as a high priority.
#4 and #6 — The design of the project includes both adequate and appropriate facilities and the
existing and available city services are in my opinion more than adequate, for the proper
operation and maintenance of the proposed use. All utilities are readily available and/or can be
brought to the site, and the drainage, parking, lighting and traffic circulations shown on the plans
submitted are well designed and adequate and appropriate for the proposed use.
Page 2 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
#5 — While there have been many objections raised to this project, I believe that all of the
concerns raised have been adequately dealt with as stated above, and that the only objections
from an abutting property owner, Northridge, I believe that all of the concerns raised have been
adequately dealt with as stated above, and that the only objections from an abutting property
owner Northridge, have been paid particular attention to in the design, setbacks and proposed
screening, so that no valid objections from an abutter remains. That being said I would suggest
that, if possible, the accesspoint from Sohier Road to Northridge be made exit -only (right turn
only), thereby allowing the proposed driveway at that location to be to be narrowed and allowing
use of the land area gained for the construction of a berm, or at least additional green space, on
or in which the trees and fence for the screening can be constructed, further away from the
Northridge property. I realize this will necessitate a re- design of this portion of the project and
suggest that submissions of the revised plans therefore to this Board be deemed to constitute a
minor modification.
The conditions I would suggest be attached as conditions to granting of both the special
permit and the site plan approval are set forth below.
Thomson Proposed Conditions:
I. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) highway access permit,
and local street opening permit for curb openings as shown in the approved site plan
to be in hand and free of appeal before the issuance of building permit — also,
applicant to attempt to have DOT approve the Sohier Road access as "exit /right turn
only ", with no entrance from Sohier Road (so as to allow access road there to be
made narrower and provide a larger buffer to the closest Northridge building).
2. The City of Beverly and MassDOT route 128, exit 19 interchange shall be
substantially complete prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy.
3. Traffic mitigation payment ($200K) to be made at the time of application for
building permit.
4. Put in trees /fence early in the project along the Northridge Building K area — to
screen during construction.
5. If right turn 'from Sohier Road can be eliminated with MassDOT approval, widen
screening area [add berm ?? Discussion topic noting that perhaps another alternative
is to remove the angled parking and move the access drive further away from the K
building. That may cause problems with delivery trucks so you won't gain the
entire width of the parking space but perhaps it is worth exploring with the
proponent.]
6. Make approval subject to the Buffer Detail Drawing for Building K, but specify the
materials, height and sound dampening qualities of the fence shown on the plan.
Retain jurisdiction and revisit after one year of operations for additional Northridge
Page 3 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
mitigation measures. [A sound dampening fence could be good but I wouldn't
recommend one that is too tall because it could actually make the situation worse for
the residents on the north side of the K building (feel like they've been walled in.) I
think the arborvitae and perhaps a lower fence. I also personally prefer deciduous
trees to be mixed in.
7. Incorporate all comments and requirement from City departments, boards, and
commission letter.
8. Final details regarding treatment and mitigation of landfill gases (Corrective Action
Plan) to be subject to final review and approval by Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) of a modification to the previously approved
landfill post closure permit (SW -45). Final approved plans to be submitted to the
City of Beverly Planning and Engineering Departments.
9. Dumpsters to be located as shown on the plan and only services during off -peak
hours and not before or after allowed hours of operation below.
10. Deliveries to be 7 am to 8 pm Mon thru Sat and 9 am to 8pm on Sundays and
holidays.
11. Hours of operation (not earlier than 8 am [coffee bar OK at Whole Foods at 7 am or
later than 10 pm, except restaurants may remain open until midnight on Friday and
Saturday.
12. Incorporate by reference all of the written representations made by the applicant
(and its experts) in materials submitted to the Board.
13. Land banking of parking spaces as depicted. Applicant to demonstrate the need for
the parking spaces by parking analysis prior to activating the parking spaces
(additional landscaping may be required by the Planning Board)
14. Final design and location of the 24" stormwater drain pipe to be subject to prior
approval of the City Engineer.
15. Final construction plans and documentation to be submitted to the City of Beverly
Engineering Department prior to obtaining building permits.
16. Auto CAD "as built" drawings upon completion of the building and utility work to
be submitted to the Engineering Department. These drawings shall also be delivered
in .pdf format generated directly from the electronic AutoCAD files. These
drawings prior to the sale /installation of the required water meters.
Hutchinson addresses the Board and thanks Mayor Cahill, City Planner Aaron Clausen, Assistant
City Planner Leah Zambernardi, her colleagues on the Planning Board, property owner Steve
Cohen, and Chairman John Thomson for conducting an open and thorough process.
Page 4 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Hutchinson states that they have received a lot of emails suggesting that this is a done deal and
stresses that she did not know how any of her colleagues were going to vote when she came to
this meeting tonight. She states that she now knows how one of her colleagues may vote but
until now she did not.
Hutchinson notes that some have suggested that the Board allow a Market Basket or a Shaws as
opposed to a Whole Foods. She explains that the Board cannot control who the developer enters
into a lease with as long as the use meets the criteria of the special permit.
Hutchinson states that some have suggested that the development not be approved until phase II
of the interchange project is completed. She explains that the Board cannot do that because we
do not know when or if phase II will be completed as that is a project of the city and the state.
She also notes that it was suggested that the applicant receive the appropriate permits for curb
cuts and access from the state before getting local approvals and she would tend to agree but that
developer has chosen to seek local permits first.
Hutchinson reviews the criteria for a special permit and states that she is concerned with the
criteria that adequate and appropriate city services are or will be available for the proposed use.
Hutchinson states that she feels that based on the review of the plans and information submitted
by city departments this is not a reason to deny the special permit.
Hutchinson states that there is no factual evidence that the property values in the district will be
adversely affected by this use. She notes that the language in the statute refers to the district and
there is no factual evidence that there will be an effect on property values.
Hutchinson notes that a demonstrable fact is the location with regards to the Northridge K
building. She notes that one of the things that Mr. Cohen worked closely on was the location in
regards to the Northridge K building and has provided for mitigation in the form of landscaping
and a fence between the building and the site.
Hutchinson states that she disagrees with Mr. Thomson's recommendation that the Sohier Road
entrance should be made an exit only explaining that allowing both entering and exiting will take
some of the pressure off of Brimbal Avenue.
Hutchinson states that she sees the Brimbal Avenue area as two residential neighborhoods with a
commercial and industrial in the middle. She explains that the proposed use should be located
off a major highway. She states that the use is appropriate for the district and meets that criteria.
Hutchinson reviews the criteria that no undue traffic will result from the proposed use. She notes
that Brimbal Avenue has been a busy street and always will be, recalling that 45 years ago when
the Hannah School was built, resident expressed concern back then about children walking on
Brimbal Avenue to the school. She further notes that Brimbal Avenue is the main road that
takes the residents of the Cove area to North Beverly.
Page 5 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Hutchinson states that a thorough review of the traffic was done by the applicant as well as a
peer review conducted for the city. She notes that two experts reviewed the plans and found that
the roads will be able to handle the additional traffic.
Hutchinson concluded that she would voting tonight in favor of granting the special permit.
C. Barrett addressed the Board and thanked the Planning Department and all who testified
and provided information to the Planning Board. She offered the comments to the Board:
To grant a special permit all 6 factors must be met.
I have comments regarding two of the factors: property values and undue traffic.
In terms of abutter's property values, both a negative and positive impact can occur
depending on the proximity of the retail shopping area to the property in question.
The closer a property is to a retail shopping area the more diseconomy is created due to
noise, traffic, lighting, pollution and crime. The proximity of commercial property affects
residential property value, either beneficially of to its detriment. While the extended
community may experience a statistically unproven Whole Foods effect, the direct abutter
will not. There is a very high probability that the residents at Northridge will experience a
reduction in their property values.
My second concern is regarding the undue traffic factor.
When valuing a property, appraisers consider the impact of external factors on valuation. Real
estate appraisers have long recognized the effect of traffic on residential property value. The
Appraisal of Real Estate, 8 th edition — appraisers caution that "excessive traffic, odors, smoke,
dust, noise — can limit residential desirability." It is clear that selling prices for homes are
affected by travel levels. Traffic variables indicate a significantly negative effect on price for
homes on a high traffic street as compared with homes on a low traffic street. The study in ARE
yielded a coefficient downward adjustment of 11.49% for high traffic. Translating the
coefficient into simple terms, a property locating in a high traffic area receives a .847% discount
for each additional 1,000 cars travelling on the adjacent street in a day. That translates to
between about 3.5% - +5% reduction in property values from those property owners that are
abutters or live in close proximity to high traffic generating retail properties.
As traffic volumes increase, the safety of our streets declines along with property values, air
quality and noise. Traffic noise, specifically heavy traffic noise lowers a property value
significantly. Protecting a neighborhood from traffic involves minimizing the speed a volume of
traffic. Cumulative effect of traffic at either end of the Brimbal Avenue corridor where both
intersections are rated the lowest "F ".
I read various articles about Whole Foods and the traffic generation that is inherent with a large
national grocery store — communities such as Malibu, CA, San Francisco, Memphis, TN,
Page 6 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Chicago, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Seattle, WA and Brighton NY all expressed concerns about
increased traffic flow.
Lastly, the Planning Board voted unanimously in 2005 that this particular parcel of land should
remain zoned IR and not be zoned CG for various reasons all of which continue to be valid,
particularly to remain in line with the City of Beverly's Master Plan maintaining the integrity of
the IR districts.
C. Barrett concluded noting that she is concerned that the North Shore Crossing application does
not satisfy the two special permit factors regarding adverse effect on property values and undue
traffic.
Mullady addresses the Board and states that he echo's his colleagues thanks to the Planning
Board members, staff and elected officials for all their work on this proposal.
Mullady states that his two main concerns are traffic and property values. He stated that he is
concerned that the effect on property values will deter people from buying homes in the area. He
also stated that with regards to traffic, any additional traffic to an already overtaxed area is will
make it worse.
N. Barrett addresses the Board and states that he would also like to thank the Board and city staff
for their efforts during this long process. He noted that although there was disagreement, no one
was disagreeable.
N. Barrett states that there are pros and cons to the project and he would echo the statement that
this is not about whether a Whole Foods should be in this location. He states that it is about
whether the developer has met his burden of proof and he thinks he has not.
N. Barrett states that he is concerned about the layout of the site and the location of the
Northridge K building and he feels that scaling back the project would be the only fair mitigation
for the residents.
N. Barrett states that the there are two MBTA train crossings at either end of Brimbal Avenue
that already contribute to the traffic in the area. He notes that he feels that the proposal will
create undue traffic and nuisances.
N. Barrett also states that he is concerned about the enforceability of the conditions regarding
deliveries and trash pick -up. He stated that it is his intention that he will vote that the applicant
has not met his burden.
Matz addresses the Board and read the following prepared comments:
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Board members for allowing me the chance to speak tonight.
Page 7 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
First I wish to acknowledge tonight the 1,000's of hours put forth on this one project by the
Planning Department staff, and the hundreds of hours given by your volunteer Planning Board
led by our chairman, Mr. John Thomson.
Before I get started I want to set the table for everyone by calling out what I look at/for in every
project. I ask myself the following questions: does this project fit in the neighborhood? Will the
project pose no adverse impact to human health, public safety, welfare and the environment? No
one has assigned me that role on this Board. I choose it for myself and I take my role very
seriously. I have voted on a number of special permits and I have voted in opposition to at least
three, all facing significant neighborhood opposition.
Throughout this process we have listened to hundreds of pieces of testimony and presentations
from the proponent and concerned neighbors alike. My personal thanks go out to the DeAngelis
household, Councilors Martin, St. Hillaire, and Latter, and City Council President Guanci.
We have talked a lot about democracy. It seems that today democracy includes shouting down
each other, intimidation and bullying. A cornerstone of democracy is that both sides are heard
and all feel safe in expressing their opinion. When we fail on that democracy fails.
From a technical standpoint, this project came down to 5 critical issues for him:
Contamination of Soil and Ground Water — though 25+ borings and monitoring wells, and 50+
test pits, there are no contaminants in soil or groundwater exceeding MassDEP cleanup
standards. Environmental impact at this site is less than minimal.
Landfill Gas — The landfill is still releasing methane at low levels that will be mitigated using
current and readily accepted engineering measures consisting of both lateral and vertical barriers
and venting at building roof tops. This is a very old landfill that has vented itself; landfill gas is
not a significant issue on this project and is not sufficient reason to deny a special permit.
Settlement — by any measure, this old landfill has gone well beyond a period of significant
settlement. Commercial development on a closed landfill is widely done across the country and
the settlement rates at this landfill do not pose any unique challenges. This project is located on
private property and as such it is up to the owner /proponents to come up with a foundation
design that is both cost efficient for their project and limits their liability in the future. Again,
this is private property, and foundation design is not a reason to deny a special permit.
By the way, one of the concerned neighbors presented a nice speech and got beyond "hello" until
she asserted that not enough time had been spent on landfill gas and other environmental issues
and too much time (might) have been spent on stormwater and other issues. The correct
statement is that a discussion of potential contamination, Landfill Gas, and Settlement issues
were openly discussed over two evenings, with the proponent responding to my request to bring
their experts to the second evening of such discussions. On that evening, I peppered the
proponent with more than a dozen questions on these three key issues. Councilor Martin even
thanked me later by saying "you ask great questions." I think that these issues were adequately
vetted.
Page 8 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Storm Water Mana ement — The proponent has presented a plan that has been reviewed,
commented on multiple times by the City peer reviewer until there has been agreement. I trust
the experts.
The subgrade infiltration system is designed to mitigate downstream influx of water during a
storm event. The design will allow water in the subsurface to be released in pulses similar to
what occurs under existing conditions. Trying to raise panic over downstream flooding that is
very unlikely to occur is not only incorrect and misleading but irresponsible.
The Drain Pipe Issue — at the thirteenth hour one gentleman attempted to assert that replacement
of the old city owned drain line was going to be replaced at tax payer expense; a completely false
statement, having no history behind it or facts to support such a statement. The correct statement
is that the proponent will pay $300,000 to remove and replace the city owned line at zero
taxpayer expense. Given the multitude of experts involved, I trust that storm water will indeed
be managed on site, and regardless, storm water is not a reason to deny a special permit.
Traffic — When it comes to human health and public safety /welfare, This issue, above all others,
has been my biggest concern. A lot of information has been out there, and debated, regarding
vehicle trips and trip counts — too much information. Way too much. At the end of it all, the
proponents traffic engineer and the City's' Peer review engineer agreed that this project will add
5 -6% additional traffic to baseline (existing traffic).
I have lived in the neighborhood to be impacted by this project for almost 20 years and by my
loose count I have traveled Brimbal Avenue more than 20,000 times. Despite what some
neighbors contend, there are those ofus on the Board who do have extensive experience with
existing traffic on Brimbal Avenue. We deal with it every day, twice per day during the week
and several times on the weekends.
There are significant traffic issues in North Beverly, particularly on Walnut and Putnam Streets.
The traffic concerns in North Beverly are very real. However they are the responsibility of the
city and not this proponent or any other. I trust that they will be remedied by this administration
to the satisfaction of the people who live there.
Now, to the matter of granting the special permit. Assuming as I have that (1) adequate and
appropriate facilities are available on site and (2) that adequate and available city services will be
provided (how can one conclude otherwise in a city of 40,000 ?) I will specifically address four
of the six criteria that must be met.
That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by
such use. Property values of abutters in the IR Overlay District will not be adversely affected
because they are also commercial and retail.
As for the surrounding neighborhoods — outside of the IR Overlay District? Providing the Board
with one instance where a local Lynnfield real estate agent scapegoated traffic as the reason he
could not sell a $465,000 home for $540,000 is not a sufficient sample size to impress me. I saw
Page 9 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
the house in question; I wouldn't pay $540,000 for it either. While it is true that there are a
number of studies which show that property values decrease with an influx of traffic. It is also
equally true that the numbers also show that neighborhoods where a Whole Foods is located
have a documented record of increasing property values.
Staying on point, I conclude that property values in the IR Overlay District will not be adversely
impacted by this project.
That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character
of adjoining uses will not be adversely impacted.— This project will be located in an area
zoned for industrial and commercial usage next to a highway interchange. Adjoining properties
are also commercial and retail with the exception of one building. I leave open the question for
now, will the character of the Northridge K Building be adversely impacted by this project?
There are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact.
There is one abutter objecting to this project and they claim to base their objections upon how
this development will dramatically (negatively) impact their quality of their life. The one
demonstrable fact presented is the proximity of the proponents' property and the Northridge K
Building, a distance of less than 5 feet. That is a fact.
However it is up to the proponent to alleviate their abutter's situation over and beyond
complying with setback requirements, etc., under the special permit? That is an open question
for the Board to discuss.
That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. The main
question I put before the Board for us to discuss this evening is this: Does a 5 to 6% increase in
traffic pose a condition(s) of "undue traffic... nuisance... or unreasonable hazard." I am no traffic
expert by any means so I will rely upon the recommendations of the Traffic Commission dated
February 6, 2015. However, I am open to the opinions of others on the Board this evening.
These are my conclusions developed over the very long haul. I look forward to our discussion
this evening. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, and All, for the opportunity to
speak this evening.
Miller addresses the Board and states that he has three concerns regarding the conditions
proposed by Chairman Thomson. He notes that the delivery hours have been discussed but not
the size of the vehicles that will be allowed. Thomson states that they were discussed and
proposed by the developer and that will be incorporated into the decision.
Miller states that he also agrees with Ms. Hutchinson that the egress and ingress on Sohier Road
should be both entrance and exit. He notes that studies show that there will be no queuing and
the traffic will keep moving.
Miller stated that the third impact that he is concerned about is the impact to the Northridge K
building being so close to the access road and he does not feel that the proposed mitigation of a
buffer with landscaping and a fence is adequate. He note that the proposed fence is 8 feet high
and suggests as an alternative that the developer install high efficiency ductless air conditioning
Page 10 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
on that side facing the roadway of the Northridge K building. He explains that this will allow
the residents to close the windows and will also help with dust during construction. He states
that he feels that this would be a better solution to maintaining quality of life.
Miller states that traffic is a huge issue but notes that the focus has been too much on volume of
traffic as opposed to movement of the traffic. He states that the Level of Service increase of 5-
6% won't matter as long as there is movement. He states that he does not think that has really
been addressed noting that a great deal of consideration has been given to this project.
Mack addresses the Board and thanks Chairman Thomson for a very orderly hearing. He notes
that his leadership and control is appreciated.
Mack reviews the special permit criteria and offered his remarks on each.
Mack notes that the first criteria is that the specific site is an appropriate location for the
proposed use, and that the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected, he finds
that in his opinion Mr. Thomson and Ms. Hutchinson were spot on that the location of the use off
of a major highway is appropriate. He note that the developer agreed that the redesign of the
interchange would be completed before the site is opened and this is critical. He also states that
he has not seen any evidence that the residential character of the neighborhood would be
adversely affected.
Mack also stated that he agrees with Mr. Matz regarding the fact that the site is a former landfill.
He notes that since the 70's and 80's former landfills have identified for use and reuse and he did
not hear any evidence that the use of the site would present a problem.
Mack stated that no factual evidence was presented that property values would be affected with
the possible exception of the gentleman who stated that he may lose a portion of his yard. Mack
states that he is confident that if that is the case they would be compensated through the eminent
domain process.
Mack stated that Whole Foods tends to boost property values and notes that he found some of the
comments regarding people from other communities coming to Beverly to shop there disturbing.
Mack stated that regarding adequate city services being available he does not think that is a
factor and there is no evidence that city services are not adequate or not available.
Mack stated that no one enjoys traffic. He notes that the standard is not NO traffic, it is undue
traffic or nuisance traffic. He states that traffic is a positive sign of economic growth and notes
during the recession there was little or no traffic. He states that an increase in traffic is no in and
of itself a negative thing.
Mack stated that a lot of information was provided during the process regarding the traffic and
notes that the Board listened to the anecdotal observations and opinions of those who live in the
area, as well as reviewed presentations from traffic engineers for the developer and a peer
review. He also notes that the opinions and review of city agencies including the Parking and
Page 11 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Traffic Commission that is made up of volunteer professionals and representatives of the police
and fire department.
Mack states that he drives through Beverly all the time as do all members of the Board and states
that traffic tends to be over stated in an alarmist sort of way. He recalled that there was much
opposition to the Walgreens project in North Beverly and notes that it is now open and he does
not see any affect from it.
Mack states that the added traffic will not be a nuisance and that the flow of traffic level of
service closest to the site will go from a level F to an A. He also notes that the impact will be
incremental and at peak hours. He also notes that traffic will be significantly less than if the
developer were to develop what he can as of right.
Mack states that there are issues with the North Beverly traffic at the railroad crossings and there
will continue to be a problem until the city and the MBTA address that.
Mack concluded stating that the applicant has more than met the burden on this and the Board
would be remiss as a Board if this is not allowed to go forward.
Thomson asks for a motion from the Board at this time and notes that further discussion will be
called for once there is a motion on the table.
Mack: motion that the Planning Board approve the Site Plan Review and the Special
Permit for all of the reasons he stated in his remarks and those made by the Planning Board
members who expressed support for the project. He also states that he tends to agree with Ms.
Hutchinson on the condition proposed by Mr. Thomson regarding the egress and ingress on
Sohier Road which would relieve the traffic on Brimbal Avenue. Hutchinson seconded the
motion.
Discussion:
Mullady states that as a teacher he interprets the word nuisance as something that interferes and
he feels that additional traffic would be a nuisance and he feels that common sense should be
followed. He also questions the reliance on information presented by the experts and notes that
the Board needs to pause and see what happens if they are wrong.
Thomson states that he appreciates all of the comments made this evening and notes that
reasonable people can agree to disagree. He notes there are standards and common sense isn't
one of them that the Board has to take this seriously noting there has to be a higher standard.
Thomson explains that the suggestion of the condition for the Sohier Road egress is his personal
opinion. He states that his concern is that it is not a vital entrance point but it is a vital exit point
for the site.
Thomson also refers to the research presented regarding the effect on property values presented
and states that he appreciates the research but he does not feel that it is relevant to this
circumstance. He also notes that with regard to the Lynnfield example used it is entirely possible
Page 12 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
that the owner was asking more for the property than he could get. He explains that people
always put property on the market for what they hope to get for it.
Thomson states that the enforcement of the conditions will be up to the Building Inspector for
the City of Beverly and notes that if members of the public notice any non - compliance of the
conditions imposed, they should contact the Planning Department and the Building Inspector.
He notes that the owner is subject to fines.
Thomson also states that with regard to property values there has been no factual evidence that
they will be adversely affected. Mack states that property values are somewhat of a science
noting that property values are localized. He also notes that the proximity of a development to
which one can walk to such as a grocery store could have a benefit to counter any negative
effects.
N. Barrett states that one concern of his is the impact of the development on traffic and he feels
that the ingress and egress near the Northridge K building and notes that he is concerned about
traffic noise and pollution. He also states that the proposed mitigation is not enough. He states
that he thinks that the site is too small for a four building project and suggests that it were just for
a grocery store it could be reconfigured to better fit the site and is he only appropriate mitigation
for the neighbors instead of shoe horning four buildings on the site.
N. Barrett also states that he is concerned that the traffic from special events such as the North
Shore Music Theater has been glossed over. He state that you can count the cars from the
number of ticket sales for an event and he feels that the experts dodged this issue. He notes that
traffic will be increased at peak hours during the week and on weekends as well, noting that the
neighbors requested that they be allowed to have their weekends.
N. Barrett also stated that he is concerned about the type of truck traffic that the development
will attract and the effect on the abutters.
Thomson notes that the Planning Board has a responsibility to see that mitigation is proposed for
the neighbors and states that there is mitigation proposed in the form of landscape screening and
a proposed fence.
Mullady states that he would echo N. Barrett's comments with regards to the impact on the K
building and notes that telling the residents to close the windows is not acceptable and more
should be done.
Mack addresses the Board and notes that the Northridge K building is close to the property line
and notes that what the developer could develop by right wouldn't be any different unless the
property remains undeveloped. He also noted that many of the same arguments were made by
abutters of the Walgreens property on Enon Street and he believes that it was handled the same
way and was beneficial to both parties and the direct abutter is quite pleased. He stated that he
does not feel that the effects of this warrants denial.
Page 13 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
C. Barrett addresses the Board and states that the research that she read on the Whole Foods
effect does not prove that effect. She also states that if the Board votes to approve this, the
proposed left hand turn going into the North Shore Plaza needs to be looked at. She notes that
there is no traffic signal, no round about and not even a suicide lane. She further notes that the
additional traffic from the North Shore Music Theater with two performances on the weekends
needs to be closely looked at.
Matz addresses the Board and states that he concurs with Ms. Barrett on the left turn into the site
on Brimbal Avenue, and was remiss in not mentioning it during his remarks. Thomson notes
that the road will be widened to keep the traffic moving. He also notes that there is a dedicated
left turn on Essex Street to enter Route 128 and it works rather well.
Thomson calls for a vote on the motion at this time. He notes that a super majority of the Board
is required and six votes are needed for this to pass.
Mack addresses the Board and states that he has reconsidered and would like to amend his
original motion to include the condition regarding the Sohier Road egress be exit only as
recommended by Thomson.
Thomson states that in order for this to be a friendly amendment the member who seconded the
motion needs to second the amendment.
Hutchinson states that she feels strongly that it should be an entrance and an exit.
There being no second the amendment offered by Mack, Thomson calls for a vote on the original
motion that the Planning Board approve the Site Plan Review and the Special Permit for all of
the reasons he stated in his remarks and those made by the Planning Board members who
expressed support for the project. He also states that he tends to agree with Ms. Hutchinson on
the condition proposed by Mr. Thomson regarding the egress and ingress on Sohier Road which
would relieve the traffic on Brimbal Avenue that was made by Mack and seconded by
Hutchinson.
A vote was taken and the motion carried (6 -3) with N. Barrett, C. Barrett and Mullady opposed.
Miller asks if further discussion could be held at this time regarding other conditions for the
project. Thomson agrees.
Miller addresses Thomson and regarding the Sohier Road exit issue and notes that the traffic
study recommended that it be an entrance and an exit. Thomson states that his intention with this
condition was to further mitigate the issues with the Northridge K building. He also notes that he
talked with the Chair of the Parking and Traffic Commission Richard Benevento and he
indicated that the entrance on Sohier Road is not critical to the project. He noted that the only
reason for the tweak is to help mitigate the Northridge K building issues. He notes that the gain
would only be six feet that would be saved on the roadway width. He also noted that the
applicant would have to come back to the Board with a change.
Page 14 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Thomson states that he feels that there is no interest in reconsidering the issue of the Sohier Road
issues he suggested that the Board move on from this issue.
N. Barrett addresses the Board and suggests a condition that would require the owner to provide
a police detail during holiday periods on Brimbal Avenue. Thomson states that it is not an
unreasonable request but notes that most businesses provide them as a good business practice.
He also states that he cannot recall the Board ever conditioning that before. He asks Zambernardi
if she knew of any instance where this was done. Zambernardi states that she is not aware of any
conditions imposed requiring traffic details.
Thomson also notes that the Parking and Traffic Commission has requested a review of the
traffic 6 months after the occupancy permits is issued and again at 12 months and if there are any
traffic issues as a result of the project, that will be an opportunity to address them.
The Board voted to allow the applicant to address the Planning Board to offer comments at this
time.
Atty. Thomas Alexander representing the CEA Group addresses the Board and states that the
traffic details that are provided by Stop and Shop, Shaw's, and the North Shore Music Theater
are done so by the owner of the property because it is good business.
Mack states that he does not feel that a condition requiring police details is necessary.
Miller states that he feels very strongly about the quality of life issues that result from this
project on the Northridge K building residents and his suggestion of the air conditioning was for
that reason. He also notes that he does not feel that a regular fence will benefit this and suggests
that it should be a sound protection fence.
Thomson states that the residents of Northridge did not ask for this and further notes that he
would hope that the fence proposed would be a noise attenuating fence.
Thomson asks if the applicant is still in discussion with the residents of Northridge. Alexander
states that they are not.
Atty. Alexander states that a sound attenuating fence costs $15,000 more than a regular fence.
He states that they are willing to set aside $15,000 towards the installation of the suggested air
conditioning instead of the fence, and notes that they do not want to get into doing any work on
their property. Mack agrees noting that could be a slippery slope.
Alexander thanked the Planning Board and the neighbors for their attention to the process and
notes that it was a great example of democracy in our community.
Mr. Cohen also addressed the Board and thanked for all of their time and effort during this
process.
Thomson states that this concludes the Planning Board discussion of this matter and the Board
will now move forward with the rest of the agenda this evening.
Page 15 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
277, 277R, & 279 Hale Street — Lodge, Purtell, and Clarinet Realty
Thomson recuses himself from this matter and Hutchinson assumes the Chair.
Robert Griffin addresses the Board on behalf of the applicants and explains that they applicants
are submitted an SANR plan to swap three parcels between the three properties. He notes that
none of the land conveyances impact frontage and the properties will have more than the
required 45,000 s.f. of land area in the R45 zoning district.
Griffin reviews the plan with the Board.
Flannery states that this seems straight forward.
Mack asks if the Planning staff concur with the proposal. Zambernardi reports that planning
staff has reviewed the plan and recommends endorsement.
Mack: motion to approve the SANR for 277, 277R, & 279 Hale Street for, Purtell, and
Clarinet Realty as submitted. Flannery seconds the motion carries (8 -0).
Continued Public Hearing — Special Permit Application #141 -14 — Create One Pork Chop
Lot — 51 Standley Street — Thomas Carnevale, Trustee of RC Realty Trust
Thomson returns to the meeting at this time.
Mack moves to waive the reading of the legal notice. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion
carries.
Mack moves that the Board recess for public hearing at this time. Hutchinson seconds the
motion. The motion carries (9 -0).
Atty. Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and states that at the last meeting the public
hearing was opened and they made their initial presentation. He notes that the Board requested
that the applicant consider the recommendations of the Open Space and Recreation Commission
on the design.
Alexander explains that counsel for the Waring School presented objections to the front yard and
explains that the issue is that the open space for the from the building to the street for the front
yard and notes that it is well within the front and side setback requirements. He further notes
that as long as the building is within the setback requirements they are in compliance.
Alexander states that their request to create a pork chop lot is a conforming lot with a slightly
reduced frontage which is allowed by special permit.
Page 16 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Atty. Thomas Harrington addresses the Board and reviews the letter sent to the Board with
comments regarding their objections to this plan.. He explains that his objection to the plan is
that they are taking five feet of frontage from the front yard will result in that home having less
than 30 foot front yard setback required in the R -22 district. He then explains the process that
should be used to measure the front yard setback and explains that if you draw two parallel lines
from the house to the street and measure it, and questions whether pork chop lot can be created
under the bylaw. He states that the applicants request is beyond the purview of the Board.
Thomson asks Harrington to draw a line from the house to the street and questions if his
conclusion is based on a survey. Harrington states that it is based on his observation.
Harrington states that it is incumbent on the Planning Board to be sure that the entire front yard
exists before the applicant before they issue a decision.
Harrington also states that they are currently working with the Conservation Commission to
improve access to the conservation land and create two parking spaces. He states that this is not
the right place for a pork chop lot and states that they are not entitled to it.
Zambernardi reviews the plan and explains the request, and the criteria that needs to be met and
notes that the plan as presented meets that criteria.
Joanne Avalon, a Trustee at the Waring School addresses the Board and stats that in addition to
the land swap to help create access to the conservation area they are working on a community
garden on the other side. She also notes that they are concerned for the safety of the students as
well, noting that the students in grades 6 -12 will be making use of that.
Harrington states that using his definition there would need to be 30 feet of front yard for the
setback.
Miller states that Assistant City Planner Zambernardi has interpreted that the front yard setback
has been met.
Alexander states that Building Inspector Steve Frederickson has reviewed the plan and concurs
with the plan.
Alexander notes that they do not want a larger driveway and that they would like it to blend in
with the side of the house referring to the grading of the access way. He suggests that they could
have it be a shared driveway.
Harrington states that they are concerned about safety and they are concerned that the driveway
would be used for parking and they need to be sure that there will be no parking and that it is to
access the back lot. He notes that the land behind it is conservation land.
Harrington states that the Conservation Commission is in charge of the 25 foot access and they
have not focused on how wide it should be.
Page 17 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Thomson asks Alexander if they could wait until the next meeting for some answers. Alexander
explains that his client Donna Sweeney is under some time constraints. He suggest that the
decision could be granted giving the city a Right of Way for an additional 15 feet which would
make the Right of Way 40 feet. He explains the process and notes that it would have to be
approved by the City Council.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Thomson declared the
public hearing closed.
N. Barrett: motion that the Planning Board approve the Special Permit Application #141 -14 —
Create One Pork Chop Lot — 51 Standley Street — Thomas Carnevale, Trustee of
RC Realty Trust, and that the applicant agrees to a shared driveway with the
existing lot, and the applicant agrees to convey 15 feet to expand the easement to
40 foot Right of Way and subject to other conditions suggested by other city
departments. C. Barrett seconded the motion. The motion carries (8 -1 with
Mullady opposed).
Continued Public Comment Period and Public Hearing — Open Space Residential Desittn
#5 -14 — Initial Review and Yield Plan- 8 Lot Subdivision — 44 -52 Standley Street — RC
Realty Trust & Donna Sweeney
Flannery moves to waive the reading of the legal notice.
Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and explains that at the last meeting they were
in the process of presenting the yield plan for the site. He also notes that Planning staff had some
questions and they have addressed them and submitted additional information to the Planning
Department.
Alexander asks the Board if they contemplate any changes to the OSRD in light of the Beverly
Farms case. Thomson states that he anticipates something but nothing has changed presently.
Zambernardi explains that the City Solicitor will be looking into that.
Atty. Harrington addresses the Board and states that they have hired an Engineer to review the
yield plan and unfortunately they do not have the information this evening.
Alexander states that if it is at all possible they would like to get through the review of the yield
plan this evening noting that they are not looking for approval this evening.
Thomson agrees and asks members of the Planning Board for their thoughts.
Hutchinson states that she would prefer to wait until they have all of the information to review.
She notes that the next meeting of the Board is April 14, 2015. Atty. Harrington stated that he
would have their comments by March 23, 2015.
Page 18 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Hutchinson: motion to table the presentation to the next meeting on April 14, 2015.
Flannery seconded the motion. The motion carries (9 -0)
Request to Set Public Hearing Date — Special Permit Application #143 -15 and Site Plan
Review Application #115 -15 — Construct Five Story Residential BuildinLy within a Mixed
Use Development -181 Elliott Street — Beverly Commerce Park, LLC
Zambernardi explains that Steve Drohosky has submitted a letter to the Board requesting that the
matter be continued to the April 14, 2015 Planning Board meeting. She explains that they in the
process of doing a traffic study at the request of the Parking and Traffic Commission as well as
some drainage studies and they will be ready to proceed with their initial presentation that
evening.
Flannery: motion to continue the matter to the April 14, 2015. Mullady seconds the motion.
The motion carries (9 -0).
Public Hearing— Special Permit Application #142 -15 — Create Two (2) Pork Chop Lots —
140 Colon Street — Estate of Barbara Rowell
Zambernardi reads legal notice.
Atty. Miranda Gooding of Glovsky and Glovsky addresses the Board on behalf of the applicant,
the Estate of Barbara Rowell. She explains that they are requesting a special permit to create two
pork chop shape lots at 140 Colon Street. She explains that the property is in the R10 zoning
district and is accessed by a private drive. She explains that they are selling the main house on
the property and creating a second lot.
Gooding states that the plans have been reviewed by various city department and note that the
City Engineer has raised a question regarding the public way that runs up the side of the property
to the old park and explains that the subject property has the right to access and existing right of
way established from Colon Street to Woodland Road. She explains that the access is currently
unimproved, but would appear to be available to establish legal frontage without the use of
special permit Section 38 -5 pork chop lots.
Gooding also notes that the fire department raised a comment about the driveway on the new lot.
She stated that she was surprised to see a comment about that driveway noting that it is a private
driveway and explains that she talked to Mr. Tanzella and explained that they are proposing to
use the existing driveway.
Mr. Rowell addresses the Board and states that they want to be sensitive to the neighbors while
maximizing the sale of the property.
Gooding reviews the criteria for a special permit.
Hutchinson asks if parcel A will remain part of lot B. Gooding states that an ANR will have to
be submitted for approval.
Page 19 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
Gooding notes that all lots will remain under the ownership of the Rowell's until they are
conveyed.
Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Edward King of 129 Colon Street addresses the Board and asked what the new house would look
like. Gooding explains that Mr. Rowell will sell the property at this time and is not building on
it. Mr. King stated that he is concerned about the use of the property noting that it is an
unimproved way.
Hutchinson: motion to close the public hearing at this time. Mullady seconds the
motion. The motion carried (9 -0).
Matz: motion to approve the application for a special permit at 140 Colon Street,
as it meets all of the criteria of Chapter 3 8 -24 of the Zoning Ordinances A-
J, and that the property shall not be further divided, and that driveway
shall be a shared driveway with no new curb, and the driveway shall be
paved. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (9 -0).
Request to Set Public Comment Period and Public Hearing Date — Open Space and
Residential Design (OSRD) #6 -15 — Initial Review and Yield Plan — 30 Foster Street —
Lindallwood Realty Trust
Zambernardi informs the Board that the Planning Department has reviewed a request to set a
public comment and hearing date for an OSRD plan at 30 Foster Street, by Lindallwood Realty
Trust.
Thomson suggests that the Planning Board set the date for the public hearing during the April 14,
2015 Planning Board meeting.
Hutchinson moved to set the public hearing date for Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at Beverly City
Hall. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (9 -0).
Request to Set Public Hearing Date — Special Permit 9143 -15, Site Plan Review 9116 -15
and Inclusionary Housing #8 -15 —131 Rantoul Street — Depot Square Phase III LLC
Mack suggests that the public hearing be scheduled for the May Planning Board meeting if the
applicant agrees. Atty. Gooding stated that she does not have the authority to make that decision
on behalf of her client. She also notes that it is a time issue as well involving the purchase of the
property.
Mack moves to schedule the public hearing for April 14, 2015 during the Planning Board
meeting at 7:00 p.m. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries (9 -0).
Approval of Minutes
Page 20 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
March 17, 2015
The minutes of the January 13, 2015 and January 21, 2015 were tabled to the April 14, 2015
meeting..
Adiournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was
made by Mullady to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mack. The motion carried (9 -0)
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00p.m.
Page 21 of 21