Loading...
2015-04-14Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Board: Date: Location: Members Present Members Absent: Others Present: Recorder: CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Planning Board Meeting April 14, 2015 Beverly Senior Center Chair John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, John Mullady, Catherine Barrett, David Matz, David Mack, and Wayne Miller Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson and Ned Barrett Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi, and City Planner Aaron Clausen 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). Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans 140 Colon Street — Estate of Barbara M. Rowell — Atty. Miranda Gooding Atty. Miranda Gooding addresses the Board and explains that she is representing the Estate of Barbara M. Rowell. Gooding states that members will recall that at last month's meeting the Board approved a special permit to create two pork -chop shaped lots at 140 Colon Street. She notes that now that the reduction in frontage has been approved, the mechanism for dividing the property into two building lots is an SANR plan. Gooding explains that the plans submitted are what was reviewed and approved by the Board and complies with the special permit requirements. Thomson asks if there is a note on the plan that there shall be no further subdivision of Lot B. Gooding explains that the land will be registered land in Land Court and as such will be reviewed by the land court. She further explains that the special permit decision will be included with that and will be a condition for any permits granted for the site. Thomson notes that parcel A is not a buildable lot and notes that there was some discussion at the last meeting regarding the possible transfer of the land to the abutter. Gooding explains that they thought that they could make a deal with regards to that but at this time it does not appear that a deal will be made. She notes that they are in the initial phase of a purchase agreement for the land. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Thomson calls for a motion on the application. Page 1 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Mack: Motion to endorse the Subdivision Approval Not Required for 140 Colon Street. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries with the Chair voting in favor (7 -0). 7 and 9 Shortell Avenue — David Cahill Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi addresses the Board and explains that the applicant has submitted an SANR to adjust the property boundaries between his parcels at 7 and 9 Shortell Avenue. She explains that 9 Shortell has an existing house on the lot and 7 Shortell has a garage upon it. She also explains that an in ground pool traverses the proposed property line and both the garage and the in ground pool will be removed as a result of this project. Zambernardi explains that the adjustment will enable 7 Shortell to become a buildable lot as it will have conforming lot area and frontage as a result of the land conveyance. She states that planning staff has reviewed the plan for conformance with the Board's requirements for SANR's and recommends that the plan be endorsed. There being no questions or comments regarding this plan, Mack: Motion to endorse the SANR plan submitted for 7 and 9 Shortell Avenue as submitted. Flannery seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). 50 and 54 Boyles Street — R. Pape, S Clerkin & Montrose School Park LLC Atty. Thomas Alexander with Law Offices at 1 School Street addresses the Board and explains that he is representing the Papes in this SANR plan to rework the property lines between 50 and 54 Boyles Street. He explains that Montrose School Park LLC has recently purchased 54 Boyles Street, a 2.6 acre parcel with a ranch style home. He explains that that they are working with the owners of 50 Boyles Street to purchase 2 acres of their property and join it with 54 Boyles Street in anticipation of permitting a 6 lot subdivision. Atty. Alexander explains that 54 Boyles Street will retain 38,300 s.f. of land and 150 feet of frontage after the land division, therefore it will remain a conforming lot. C. Barrett asks what the access for the new parcel will be. Alexander explains the access and notes the property line locations. Alexander notes that there are currently two lots and this will result in two lots with a different configuration. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Mack: Motion to endorse the SANR plan submitted for 50 and 54 Boyles Street as submitted. Flannery seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). Page 2 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Continued Public Comment Period and Public — Open Space Residential Design #5 -14 — Initial Review and Yield Plan- 8 Lot Subdivision — 44 -52 Standley Street — RC Realty Trust & Donna Sweeney Mack moves to waive the reading of the legal notice. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and explains that at the last meeting representatives of the Waring School spoke in opposition to the plan citing several zoning issues with the Yield Plan and they hired an engineer to conduct a review of the plan and have submitted comments on the plan. He notes that they have responded to those comments and those have been submitted to the Board as well. Atty. Alexander reported that as a result of the review they have picked up 100 of a foot and that has been corrected on the plan. John Barrows of Graham Associates addresses the Board and reviews the technical planning review that they submitted on behalf of the Waring School. Barrows reviews the summary and recommendations of their report and notes that they do not believe that the Yield Plan as submitted should be accepted by the Planning Board to determine the maximum number of lots based on their findings that maximum safety is not obtained by siting the proposed roadway intersection with Standley Street where sight distance is severely compromised and other alternative intersection locations are available. He also stated that they were not provided documentation that the improvements and infrastructure can be constructed reasonably and economically for one of the eight proposed lots sited in the apparent rock/ledge prominent know area of the site. Barrows states that they recommend a revised yield plan be submitted that will provide the maximum obtainable intersection characteristics and demonstrate street design criteria per the R &R. He also suggests that the applicant demonstrate reasonable and economic feasibility for the construction of all infrastructure and on and off site improvements. Miller refers to the letter dated March 23, 2015 from Miyares and Harrington which refers to a violation of the subdivision regulations with regards to the yield plan having a safe layout of the roads. Zambernardi explains that the city subdivision regulations talk about site distance but there are no specific standards indicated, however, the applicant will be held to AASHTO standards which are the national standards. She notes that the tonight's discussion is for the approval of the yield plan. Miller asks if the posted speed limit will be 20 MPH. Thomson states that it would be determined by a traffic study that would be submitted with the Site Plan Review. Zambernardi reports that City Engineer Gregg St. Louis had reviewed the comments and responded in an email that speak to the posted speed limits. Page 3 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Thomson asks what portion of the property will be not be built on. Alexander states that it would be part of the discussion for the concept plan. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this matter. Thomson asks for a motion to close the public hearing on the yield plan at this time. Matz: Motion to close the public hearing on the yield plan. C. Barrett seconded the motion. The motion carried (7 -0). Mack: Motion to approve the Yield Plan for 8 Lot Subdivision — 44 -52 Standley Street — RC Realty Trust & Donna Sweeney. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Alexander addresses the Board and reviews the concept plans for the site. He explains that Concept 1 calls for an 8 lot subdivision with a roadway layout that follows the easement of the city and would maintain the southern portion of the site for open space and the site disturbance would be the same. He explains that there would be 5 lots to the north and 3 lots to the south. Alexander explains concept plan 2 and states that this is the plan that they think is the best with 8 lots, four on either side of the road way. He states that they would keep the lot at a 100 foot buffer and is a better environmental situation. Thomson notes that the city will be required to approve and sign off on the access for the open space in the rear. Thomson asks if there is ledge removal required for option 2. Alexander reports that there would be ledge removal required. Thomson asks if there are any questions regarding the concept plans. Alexander reports that they prefer concept 2. Zambemardi reads a letter from the Open Space and Recreation Committee dated February 5, 2015 stating that they prefer concept 3 as the preferable layout for the site noting that it would be keeping a more pristine area untouched and most advantageous. They also requested that the undisturbed area be marked to delineate the area for residents. They also requested that the open space be donated to the Beverly Conservation Commission. Zambemardi reads letter from the Beverly Conservation Commission noting that they have reviewed all three options and recommend concept plan 3 noting that there are merits to concept plan 2, however concept plan 3 provides 65% of open space and undisturbed habitat would be preserved. Zambemardi reads letter from the Beverly Board of Health and notes that they recommend their standard conditions. Page 4 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Alexander states that they do not have a problem with most of the conditions suggested. He explains that they feel that option 2 makes a lot of sense and they would be preserving most of the land along the bordering vegetated wetland. He also states that they are on board with the requested clean up of the site and the plantings requested to return the site to its natural state. He also noted that they are in agreement on deeding the orphan lot to the Conservation Commission and to extend the water main for access to the proposed community gardens. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Barbara King of the Community Garden Committee addresses the Board and explains the location of the community gardens. She also explains that some of the walking trails will be connected as well as other trails on the other side of the site. She also states that they are appreciative that the applicant is willing to extend the water for access to the garden noting that now they rely on the generosity of some of the neighbors. Thomson asks if there will be parking for the community gardens. King explains that there will be no paved parking but within the boundary of the site they will design parking along the edge. Matz addresses Ms. King and notes that concept plan 2 has a higher percentage of open space with houses on both sides of the street. King explains that the Open Space Committee would prefer to preserve the area to the south noting that the area to the north has been compromised by the presence of the greenhouse for 20 years. She noted that concept 2 was not negated but concept 3 was strongly preferred. Thomson notes that there will be a thirty (30) day comment period on this. Miller suggests that the applicant look at moving the road in concept #3 in the manner presented in concept #3. Alexander explains that they would lose lot #3 as a complete lot. Alexander explains that concept #3 disturbs the most protected land, noting that there is something to be said for returning it to its natural state. Mullady states that it would be helpful to see the area near the greenhouse that were untouched. Miller notes that the wetland area goes right to the foundation and the tree line is the disturbed area and notes the area on the plan. Alexander states that option 2 offers the most open space and makes the most economic sense. He notes that it will improve the site and provide access to land that has been unavailable to this point. Thomson suggests that some sort of compromise between options 2 and 3 should be considered. He notes that they have done an excellent job of presenting this noting that the intent of the review of the concept plans is not to put great engineering expense on the applicant. He states that he would like to see what is feasible. Page 5 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Alexander stated that they would work on something for the Board to review. Miller states that he would be in favor of something that would combine the options and suggests that they talk with the Open Space Committee again. C. Barrett questions what the percentage of open space would be preserved. Alexander reviews the percentages of opens space on the plans noting that concept 1 and 3 have the most open space. Jeff Mansfield of 58 Standley Street addresses the Board and states that he is in favor of Concept Plan #2 and notes that he is representing the owners of the 56 Standley Street as well. Public Hearine — Special Permit Application #143 -15 and Site Plan Review Application #115 -15 — Construct Five Story Residential Building within a Mixed Use Development -181 Elliott Street — Beverly Commerce Park, LLC Zambernardi reads legal notice. Steve Drohosky of Beverly Commerce LLC addresses the Board and notes that he is joined this evening by Denis Clark, President of Beverly Commerce LLC. Drohosky explains that they are here this evening with three applications for a Site Plan Review, Special Permit for a mixed use development, a Special Permit for Inclusionary Housing to provide a payment of $556,000 in lieu of providing 9 affordable housing units. Drohosky reviews the plans for the proposed 6 story residential building containing 73 residential units with the Cummings property at the corner of Elliott Street and McKay Street. He notes that the City Engineer and the Parking and Traffic Commission have reviewed the plans and requested a traffic study and a storm water management plan. He reported that the traffic study was reviewed and approved at the last Parking and Traffic Commission meeting and the stormwater management report is still being prepared. Drohosky states that the estimated real estate tax benefit to the City of Beverly is about $225,000 per year. He also states that they expect the impact on the schools to be minimal. Drohosky explains that they are proposing 73 units, 65 of which will be 2 bedroom units and 8 one bedroom units. He also explains that 146 parking spaces will be required under the current zoning, noting that the formerly proposed hotel required 256 parking spaces. He reviewed the parking numbers for the Cummings Center and notes that there are 4,477 parking spaces on the site and 3,414 are required by zoning. Drohosky explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission required a full traffic and impact study. He reported that there are 7 traffic lights along Elliott Street from Starbucks to Rantoul Street. He stated that the report found that the proposed 73 units will have a negligible effect on the traffic in the area. Page 6 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Thomson notes that the report shows that the Level of Service in two spots was LOS E. Drohosky explains that timing adjustments to the traffic lights are recommended to move traffic along. He also notes that he report found that the traffic signal at the Starbucks location is not necessary and could perhaps be changed to a pedestrian light, but they would leave that to the city to determine. Drohosky reported that they held an open house at the Cummings Center of the abutters. He explained that they send notices to 165 neighbors and not a single person attended. He notes that they received one phone call from an abutter with a couple of questions. Drohosky reported that they have received positive comments from the Police Department, Fire Department and the Board of Health. Drohosky explained the 6 criteria for the Planning Board to consider for the approval of the special permits requested as follows: a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for he 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 adversely affected by such use. C. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result 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. Drohosky explains that they are anticipating they will be back at the May 20, 2015 Planning Board meeting with the stormwater management plan, noting that they will be presenting it to the Conservation Commission on April 28, 2015. Drohosky reviews their request for an Inclusionary Housing Permit and requested that they be allowed to make a payment of $556,605 in lieu of providing 9 affordable housing units on site. He explains that the purpose of the ordinance is to provide affordable housing throughout the City of Beverly and further explains that under Chapter 40B 10% of housing needs to be affordable and Beverly is currently just under 12 %. He explained that of the 1,940 affordable units in Beverly, 43% are very proximate to the Cummings Center and reviews the areas on the plan. Drohosky explains that the proposed fee in lieu of providing the units is set using a combination of data provided by the Planning Department and the Assessor's office and in this case it is $61,895 X 9. He stated that their request is based on the fact that there is adequate and affordable housing near the Cummings Center and the money could be used to do good elsewhere in the city where there are not as many affordable units. Page 7 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Mack asks what the vacancy rates are for affordable housing in the area. Drohosky states that they did not do an analysis on vacancies. C. Barrett asked if there would be retail units on the first floor of the building. Drohosky reports that there will be no retail in the building it will be strictly residential. C. Barrett asks what the estimated tax revenue will be for the new building. Drohosky states that it is estimated to be $225,000. C. Barrett asks what the height of the building will be. Drohosky explains that it will be 6 stories and will be 60 feet high. Barrett asks if there will be anything on the top of the building. Drohosky reports that there will be rooftop equipment. The architect for the project explained the roof top equipment and noted that it would be pushed back towards the middle of the roof. Mullady asks Drohosky if they have considered asking the MBTA to get a stop in that area. Drohosky explains that the bus comes through one or two times a day and the train is close by. He stated that they do not want to become a site where people will come and park to take the train to Boston. Miller asks if the neighbors have been consulted on this. Drohosky explains that they held an open house for the abutters and there was no one in attendance. Miller asks if there will be any improvement to the bike lanes or walking support with this project. Drohosky stated that the site supports walking and there is access throughout the site. Miller asks if there are any solar panels planned for this building. Drohosky explains that there are solar panels currently on the West Garage and they will be used to support the building. He further stated that they are not fans of green roofs explaining that they make it impossible to locate leaks etc. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Christine of 31 Foster Street addresses the Board and stated that she is concerned that 73 units of housing will impact traffic at peak hours. A resident of 44 Hillcrest Avenue addresses the Board and questions if the applicant paid for the Traffic Study. Drohosky states that they paid for it. The resident questioned why the Parking and Traffic Commission did not request an unbiased opinion. Drohosky explains that the traffic study was done at the request of the Parking and Traffic Commission and they determined the scope of the study. Rose Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street addresses the Board and stated that she feels that the 9 affordable housing units should be located on the site, noting that this is new construction. Page 8of13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Myron Hood of North Beverly addresses the Board and states that he is concerned about the Shoe Pond noting that it is 4 1 /2 feet higher than lower Shoe Pond. Mr. Thomson states that this question is not relative to the proposal before the Planning Board this evening. Thomson asks how the city will handle the payment in lieu of affordable housing units. Zambemardi explains that the City will put the money in a separate account. She also notes that the city requires the payment before the occupancy permits are granted. Zambemardi also explains that during the approval process for the former proposed hotel for the site, the ZBA requested that they keep in part the sculpture park as part of the project. She explained that Councilor Houseman has sent an email regarding this matter and she will forward it to members. Drohosky explains that in 2004 the ZBA approved the site for sculptures at the corner of 62 and McKay Street. He explains that they are not included in this plan because they have not yet formulated their thoughts on that. He noted that they are always looking for ways to make the Cummings Center more inviting to people. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter; Mack: Motion to continue the public hearing to the May 20, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Flannery seconded the motion. The motion carried (7 -0). Public Comment Period and Public Hearine — Open Space and Residential Design (OSRD) #6 —15 — Initial Review and Yield Plan — 30 Foster Street — Lindallwood Realty Trust Zambemardi reads legal notice. Flannery states that she is not related to the Flannery listed in the application. Thomson explains that the Planning Board has reviewed this site previously and there is currently a valid 5 lot subdivision approved for this site. He also notes that this is a new applicant who wishes to put a two lot subdivision on the site. Thomson explains that the task before the Board this evening is to review and vote on the Yield Plan which will determine the number of lots allowed under a conventional subdivision regulations and zoning. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering addresses the Board and explains the plans. He explain that a cluster style subdivision of this land was approved by the Planning Board in 2010. He explains that the cluster plan included the construction of an approximately 500 foot dead end road with 5 residential building lots and the developer failed to meet mortgage obligations to the land owner resulting in foreclosure. He notes that the present applicant has a purchase and sale agreement with the landowner of the development of the land. Griffin explains that the present applicant is filing this OSRD application in response to continuing neighborhood concerns and opposition to the 2010 Cluster Subdivision Plan. Page 9 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Griffin explains that the applicant is requesting OSRD approval to divide the approximately 5 acre parcel into two building lots and an approximately 1.7 acre open space parcel, using an ANR style division. He notes that each of the two building lots would have approximately 52 feet of frontage along Foster Street and the lots would share a single common driveway, the alignment of which would be essentially the same as the existing driveway. He further notes that no new streets are proposed. Griffin reviews the topographic plan for the site and explains the existing conditions. He notes that the zoning for the area is R22 and the property is presently developed with a camp style single family residence, noting that a gravel driveway connects the residence with Foster Street. Griffin notes that the property is densely wooded and except for a portion of the site between the residence and Foster Street. He explains the plan and notes that the adjacent properties to the West along Foster Street and on the opposite side of Foster Street are residentially developed. He also notes that Camp Paradise is along most of the western property boundary which is 12 acres which is currently owned by the Girl Scouts. He notes that the City of Beverly is in the process of purchasing Camp Paradise and intends to use the land for active and passive recreation. Griffin explains the requested waivers for the project noting that they are requesting relief from the requirement of a 25 foot buffer zone along the entire perimeter of the buildable parcels and they are requesting relief from the section of the OSRD ordinance that requires mapping of trees greater than 10" DBH within the areas to be disturbed. He notes that the densely vegetated nature of the site makes this requirement impracticable. Griffin explains that frontage relief is required for the two buildable parcels which will have approximately 52 feet of frontage as compared to the R22 requirement of 150 feet. He states that this relief is consistent with Section VIL1 of the OSRD Ordinance, which allows such a reduction for ANR -style development plans. He notes that it in this instance, the frontage relief allows the developer to construct two single - family homes where five are currently permitted. Griffin concluded noting that this OSRD application will enable the applicant to develop the land in a less intensive manner than is presently approved. He also stated that the applicant will convey approximately 1.7 acres of land to the City of Beverly allowing significant expansion of their soon to be purchased Camp Paradise property. He also notes that because of the common driveway, construction standards are simpler than the 2010 plan new roadway requirements and there will be less site disturbance required. He further notes that the new plan will create less stormwater runoff, less traffic and less neighborhood disturbance. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Ms. Walsh of 29 Foster Street addresses the Board and asks for a clarification on the previously approved plan from 2002. Zambemardi explains that the plan was approved after an appeal and notes that there have been extensions granted to the project over the years. Page 10 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Debra Bright of 224 Common Lane addresses the Board and noted that there were concerns about runoff with the previous plans. Thomson states that the applicant will have to come back for site plan review and they will have to present a full plan showing drainage etc. Thomson states that this preliminary plan is better than the five lot plan previously approved. Christine of 31 Foster Street addresses the Board and states that the last extension of the plan up in 2016. Thomson states that the Planning Board could grant an extension. A resident of 14 -16 Foster Street states that they like this plan better and requested that they push the houses a little further away from the property line closest to his property. There being no further questions or comments regarding the Yield Plan, Thomson asks for a motion from the Board. Mack: Motion to approve the existing subdivision plan as the Yield Plan for 30 Foster Street. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The carries (7 -0). Thomson asks if they have considered when they will deed the open space to the city. Zambernardi explains that the Board can give advice on what they would like to see in the plan for site plan review. Mack: Motion to waive the requirement for two concept plans to be submitted for review. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Mack: Motion to approve the proposed concept plan as the preferred plan for this project. Matz seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). The Chair votes in favor. Public Hearing — Special Permit #143 -15 — Site Plan Review #116 -15 and Inclusionary Housing #8 -15 —131 Rantoul Street — Depot Square Phase III LLC Zambernardi reads legal notice. Thomson states that the applicant has requested that the public hearing be continued to the May 20, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Mack: Motion to continue the public hearing to the May 20, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Six Month Review of Vault Planting Area — Special Permit #130 -02, Site Plan #106 -12, and Inclusionary Housing #8 -15 — Enterprise Apartments — 79 Rantoul Street Page 11 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 Zambemardi reports that Atty. Gooding has requested that the matter be continued to the May 20, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Matz expressed concern that the Board has a long agenda planned for that meeting. Zambemardi reviews the agenda so far for the May 20 meeting. She notes that this matter is just a review and it should not take that much time. Thomson suggests that the Board could have a special meeting. He also notes that the Board could consider meeting every two weeks. Request to Set Public Comment Period and Public Hearing Date — Open Space Residential Design (OSRD #7 -15 — Initial Review and Yield Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Plan — 50 and 54 Boyles Street — Symes Development and Permitting LLC Zambemardi explains that the Board needs to set a date for the Public Comment Period and Public Hearing Date — Open Space Residential Design (OSRD #7 -15 — Initial Review and Yield Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Plan — 50 and 54 Boyles Street. Mach: Motion to set the public hearing and comment date for the next Planning Board meeting on May 20, 2015. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7- 0). New or Other Business City Planner Aaron Clausen addresses the Board and suggests that they schedule a special meeting to review and make a recommendation to the Beverly City Council rezoning for the Beverly Waterfront. He suggested that a meeting at the end of April would be beneficial to get the recommendation to the City Council. Thomson suggests that a special meeting be held on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. Flannery: Motion to hold a special Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 for the purpose of reviewing the Waterfront Zoning Ordinance and to draft a recommendation to the Beverly City Council. Mack seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Thomson addresses the Board and notes that this is Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi's last meeting with the Board. He wished her well in her new position as the Town Planner in West Newbury. He stated that she has been a guiding force of the Board over the years and has a done a wonderful job and she will be missed. Matz stated that Zambemardi has done an outstanding job and she will be hard to replace, noting that many people comment on the Planning Department and mention Leah in particular. He stated that she will be hard to replace. Flannery presented Zambernardi with a gift on behalf of the Planning Board and expressed her thanks to Leah for all of her hard work over the years. Approval of Minutes Page 12 of 13 Beverly Planning Board April 14, 2015 The minutes of the January 13, 2015 and January 21, 2015 Planning Board meetings were presented for approval. Flannery moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mack seconded the motion. The motion carried (7 -0). 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 13 of 13