2015-11-17Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board Meeting
Date: November 17, 2015
Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present Chair John Thomson, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, Catherine
Barrett, David Mack, James Matz, Ned Barrett, Wayne Miller,
Michael Rotondo (arrives 7:02)
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne
Recorder: Eileen Sacco
Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
8 Hardy Street — Hardy Street Realty
Atty. Miranda Gooding of Glovsky and Glovsky addresses the Board and explains that this
SANR is the result of the appeal of the special permit approval of the Windover project at
131 Rantoul Street and notes that the result of the appeal with the abutters was an arrangement to
purchase the property at 8 Hardy Street.
Atty. Gooding explains that the applicant has submitted an application for endorsement of an
SANR plan to create Lot 3 and Parcel A and to transfer Parcel A from the property located at
8 Hardy Street to Lot 1, 131 Rantoul Street. She further explains that parcel A consists of
3,068 s.f of land, leaving Lot 3 with 2,173 s.f of land. She reported that after the transfer,
131 Rantoul Street will consist of 38,615 s.f.
Atty. Gooding explains that both properties are located in the CC Zoning District and the land
transfer will not alter the frontage of either property, both of which conform to existing zoning.
She further explains that Lot 3 will continue to have 52.25 feet of frontage.
Atty. Gooding explains that due to the building at 8 Hardy Street being in existence prior to the
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, the lot is a confirming lot. Furthermore, the Ordinance
prescribes no setback or frontage requirements for the lot as long as the property contains
1,000 s.f per dwelling unit, which this lot meets. Therefore the new Lot 3 will be not more or
less conforming that the current lot.
Thomson states that the matter seems straight forward. He asks if members of the Board have
any questions. There are none.
Page 1 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the SANR for 8 Hardy Street. N. Barrett seconds the motion.
The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0 -1), with Mr. Rotondo ineligible
to vote due to his arrival time.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Beverly Planning Board meetings held on September 15, 2015 were
presented for approval.
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of September 15, 2015 as
presented. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (9 -0).
Site Plan Review Application 181 Elliott Street —aka 33 Balch Street— Beverly Commerce
Park, LLC
Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne addresses the Board and reports that the applicant
has requested that the public hearing be continued to the December meeting. She describes the
proposed project and explains that the applicant has met with the Parking and Traffic
Commission and the Design Review Board and they have continued the matter for more
information and some suggested changes.
Wynne explains that the City Engineer has requested a Third Party Peer Review of the
Stormwater Management Plan and the applicant has agreed to that, but has requested that the
staff hold off on engaging a consultant until Parking & Traffic Commission issues their decision.
Thomson explains that the Planning Board needs to make a recommendation for a peer review
and confirmed that staff makes the decision on hiring the peer review. He explains that the peer
review will be done by a third party and they will present their findings to the Planning Board.
Hutchinson asks if the peer review will be limited to stormwater management. Wynne states that
stormwater management was all that was requested.
C. Barrett asks who will pay for the peer review. Thomson states that the applicant will pay for
the peer review.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Mack: Motion to recommend the Planning Department engage a Third -Party Peer
Review of the Stormwater Management as requested by the City Engineer.
Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries (9 -0).
Mack: Motion to accept applicant's request for a continuance of the public hearing.
Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries (9 -0).
Page 2 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
Request for Minor Modification to Special Permit - #145 -15 and Site Plan Review #116 -15
131 Rantoul Street — Denot Square Phase III LLC
Attorney Miranda Gooding addresses the Board and explains that the Special Permit was granted
in June of this year to allow a mixed -use building in the CC District where less than 25% of the
building area is occupied by retail space. The proposed modification, for which they are seeking
approval, is a result of the addition of a 3,000 sf parcel (Parcel A), created by the Board's SANR
approval earlier this evening, to 131 Rantoul Street, which allowed the reconfiguration of the
building footprint and a different parking arrangement. The project and the scope of relief that
was granted are not changing.
Atty. Gooding explains that the modification of the design squares off the rear of the building
and reduces the size of the building by approximately 10 %. Overall, the proposed project
remains the same, including the number of residences (72) units, and total onsite parking spaces
(72), the percentage of residential space in the building (92 %), building height, the design
elements in the building facade and the related streetscape transition between the building and
Rantoul Street. She notes that the revised parking configuration balances out parking impact
between both Pleasant Street and Railroad Avenue.
She explains the modifications have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, the
Parking & Traffic Commission, and the Design Review Board. She notes that the Board's Rule
& Regulations allow the Board to approve a minor modification where the scope of changes are
not different from that previously approved under the Special Permit; and, that the reason for
relief, the ratio of residential to retail space, has not changed.
Mr. Thomson asked if there were any conditions from the approvals. She indicated that the DRB
requested additional planting and the P &T carried over its previous conditions.
Thad Siemasko, of Siemasko & Verbridge, the Architect for the project, addresses the Board and
explains how the proposed building shape differs from that previously proposed and increases
efficiency. He notes that the most significant change to the project, for those on Pleasant Street
and Hardy Street, is that the back wall of the building is much further from the neighbors. He
notes also that 26 parking spaces formerly contained in the proposed garage will be relocated to a
new surface parking lot behind the building. He notes that the surface parking which will have
access only from Railroad Avenue will now have a total of 36 spaces and garage parking area
with access only from Pleasant Street will be reduced to 36 spaces. He further explains that this
change will yield the same number of on -site parking spaces (72), but result in a more balanced
flow of traffic to and from the site and the adjoining streets. He adds that P &T Commission has
requested that signal timing be improved as a result of this project.
He notes that retail component remains at 8% of the project and the new building footprint
allows for additional room for landscaping. He also notes that overall, the smaller building and
more balanced traffic flow represent improvements to the overall site plan in terms of
neighborhood impacts.
Page 3 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
N. Barrett questions how they will be able to control the number of cars that use the lot and the
garage spaces. Siemasko explains that the lot and the garage are not connected and there will be
assigned parking spaces for the tenants.
Mr. Rotondo clarifies that the direction of traffic flow has been changed on Pleasant Street to be
one -way to reduce the use of Hardy Street by residents.
Siemasko explains that the building will preserve all of the significant design elements of the
approved building design while improving the overall site plan and traffic circulation for the
project. He notes that there are still 9 affordable units being provided in the project. He notes that
some additional space was added to the 5t' floor on the Pleasant Street side and reviewed how the
proposed changes affect the building elevations and landscape plan. While minor improvements,
they believe they are significant improvements based on public input.
Mack asks for clarification on the number of parking spaces.
C. Barrett asks if there are any mechanical units on the rooftop. Siemasko states that there will
be rooftop units. Barrett asks if they will be visible to the neighbors looking from Hardy Street.
Siemasko explains the site lines and the existing neighborhood. Barrett explains her concern
about neighbor's views.
C. Barrett asks what plan they have for snow removal for the open parking area. Atty. Gooding
explains that there will be a property management company that will require off - premises snow
removal.
C. Barrett asked what the lighting plan is for the site. Siemasko reviews the lighting plan,
including that light is lower and directed toward the project rather than the neighborhood.
Barrett also asked what the plan is for trash removal. Atty. Gooding explains that there will be a
private trash removal service for the property, as was originally contemplated.
Matz asks the Planning Department if this application required a modification form to be filled
out. Wynne explains that requests for a minor modification do not require the application form.
Thomson clarifies that if the Board determines this is not a minor modification, the applicant
would be required to fill out the modification application form.
Matz asks the Planning Department if the purchase of 8 Hardy Street required a subdivision
application because the lot will be non - confirming. Wynne clarifies that the structure, the lot, and
the parking is conforming according to the Zoning Ordinance.
Matz asks for clarification that the surface parking has doubled in area. Siemasko explains that
there the surface area is almost triple what was proposed. Upon Mr. Matz's request, Siemasko
also explains the change in the shape of the rear of the building and its location, and reviews the
plan. He indicates that, per the Zoning Ordinance, the rear facade is articulated (by 3 ft) every
250 feet. Matz asks if the commercial space has doubled. Atty Gooding responds that
commercial spaces have switched, but the overall area of commercial and residential has not
changed.
Page 4 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
Matz asks the applicant to clarify why these proposed changes constitute minor modifications.
Atty. Gooding refers to Rule 17 of the Planning Board rules for Special Permits, which guides
the Planning Board to make its decision based on the relief originally granted. She states that
these changes don't change the relief granted and the Board has discretion to determine these
changes are minor in nature.
Mack states that in his view there are two different approvals. He believes this is a minor
modification of the Special Permit but states that he feels that it is different for the site plan and
suggested that a public hearing is required to modify the parking and traffic flow, noting that they
are proposing 26 additional surface parking spaces, above ground, abutting a residential
neighborhood and it seems like a bit of a stretch for a minor modification.
Atty. Gooding explains that in terms of site plan considerations, this Board would typically look
to the Parking & Traffic Commission for guidance. The Parking &Traffic Commission has
reviewed the modification and has recommended approval, indicating that traffic now is more
balanced.
Mack states that the lack of a public hearing on these proposed changes is a concern to him.
N. Barrett asks if there is any screening proposed for the parking spaces and for clarification on
lighting. Siemasko notes that 10 of the spaces will be a little higher in elevation than the others,
but that neighbors will be looking well -above the parking spaces. He explains the grading for the
site in the area of the parking and notes that they are proposing a wooden fence along the
property line. He states that those on Hardy Street would not be seeing any parking.
N. Barrett asks if the applicant agrees to comply with the conditions in the comment letters and
Atty. Gooding confirms. Atty. Gooding adds that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting and
35 -40 neighbors attended. She notes that neighbors did not attend P &T or DRB meetings and
that the proposed modifications have been vetted with neighbors and staff. She noted that
Rosemary Maglio has made suggestions that the developer has tried to incorporate throughout
the process. Att. Gooding stated she believes the neighborhood would not be prejudiced by not
having the opportunity to weigh in on this matter.
C. Barrett asks if abutters are notified of a minor modification request. Wynne clarifies they are
not.
Miller asks the chair for guidance on how to determine whether a modification is minor.
Thomson explains that modifications are somewhat subjective and determined on a case by case
basis by the Planning Board. He explains that the Board must determine if the modification
presented is minor in nature and if so, they then decide on the merits. He further explains that if
the Board finds that the modification is a major modification then a public hearing must be held
and the Board would set a date for that hearing.
The Board discusses whether the two permits should be bifurcated. Thomson suggests it might
not make sense to do that. If given the choice, Atty. Gooding requested that the Board bifurcate
Page 5 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
the two applications, and grant the special permit conditional to the site plan review. This would
give the applicant some certainty, albeit not the most desirable solution.
Atty. Gooding urged them to approve the request for a minor modification for the plan. She
stated that the schedule is challenging and notes that they have been working with Planning Staff
on this matter as well as listening to the neighbors and they feel that they have worked to
improve the project every step of the way. The Board discussed the process.
Rotondo asked if parking already exists on the site. Atty. Gooding indicates parking does exist,
but in different locations from where it is proposed.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Thomson suggests that the Board take each matter one at a time.
Mack: Motion to find that the proposed modification to the Special Permit be found to be
minor in nature. C. Barrett seconds the motion.
Mack states that the number of parking spaces on the site is not changing and that would make it
a minor modification.
Thomson calls for a vote on the motion. A vote was taken. The Chair votes in
favor. The motion carries (8 -1) with Hutchinson opposed.
Mack: Motion to approve the proposed minor modification to the Special Permit.
Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -1)
with Hutchinson opposed.
N. Barrett: Motion to find that the proposed modification to the Site Plan Review be found to
be minor in nature. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The
motion carries (5 -4) with Hutchinson, Miller, Mack, and Matz opposed.
N. Barrett: Motion to approve the proposed minor modification to the Site Plan Review with
conditions set forth in the Design Review Board and Parking & Traffic
Commission letters as provided. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in
favor. The motion carries (7 -2) with Matz and Hutchinson opposed.
OSRD Site Plan #5 -14 & Definitive Subdivision Plan — Submittal of Revised Plans for Final
Review and Approval — RC Realty Trust
Attorney Thomas Alexander, One School Street, addresses the Board and recalls that the Board
approved the OSRD Site Plan and Definitive Subdivision Plan with a condition that the applicant
address all of the City Engineers and Planning Department comments to their satisfaction and
return to the Board with a revised plan. He states that they have coordinated with the City
Page 6 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
Engineer and addressed nearly all of his comments as well as Planning Staff and their comments
have been addressed as well.
Atty. Alexander also reports that the 20 -day appeal period has passed without appeal and they are
seeking endorsement of the final plans. He also explains that they have included a Form G
Covenant for execution.
Atty. Alexander explains that Mike Rosati has been working on the outstanding issues and notes
that all of the revisions are satisfactory and all of the conditions outlined in the letter of
September 15, 2015 still apply.
Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne addresses the Board and reviewed the comments
from the City Engineer and Planning Department. She request clarifications on two issues from
the City Engineer, including the slope of the gravel driveway being less than 10 %. Additionally,
the City Engineer a note related to foundation drains from Lots 5 -8 draining to the stormwater
system. The applicant's engineer, Mike Rosati, will add these notes on the plan. She also notes
that the final plans will reflect additional administrative notes that were sent to the applicant. She
confirms that the City Engineer found this plan to be satisfactory and that there are comments in
his September 11, 2015 which should be incorporated as they relate to the site's construction.
Matz recalls that there was a discussion during the process about street lights vs. lamps on the
site. Wynne states that there is one public light to be proposed on the cul -de -sac near the gravel
access way. Wynne requests that notes on plan related to lighting and landscaping refer to
Planning Staff rather than Planning Board. Matz requests the final decision on who is managing
the stormwater management system. Wynne clarifies that stormwater management was requested
to be moved out of the cul -de -sac and that a homeowner's association be established to manage
it. Mr. Rosati clarifies the stormwater management plan and the difference in open space
ownership. Wynne explains that the open space areas are duly marked on the plan.
Miller asks if the gravel access way is located where the existing road is now and if it will impact
the existing stone wall. Rosati confirms that the end is the same location and that it will not
require a new opening in the stone wall. He indicates the wood debris from the site will be
ground up and repurposed, if possible.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Mack: Motion to approve the revised plan for44 -52 Standley Street — RC Realty Trust,
with the incorporation of the Planning Department comments and that the plan
include a note stating that lighting and landscaping decisions be made with the
Planning Department. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor.
The motion carries (9 -0).
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the Form G Covenant for 44 -52 Standley Street — RC Realty
Trust. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion
carries (9 -0).
Page 7 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
OSRD Site Plan #4 -14 — 232 Essex Street — Request for a Limited Partial Waiver from the
Requirements of a Condition — DUC Realty
Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne addresses the Board and explains that the Board
approved the OSRD Site Plan in November of 2014 and construction of the subdivision has been
underway for some time. She explains that the applicant has agreements for sale for the first 5
properties and expects to close in early and late December.
She explains that the Boards decision requires that prior to the sale of the first property, Open
Space Parcels A & B be transferred to the City Parks and Recreation Department and the
Homeowner's Association and Management Plan for Open Space Parcel C be established and
documents reviewed by the City. Wynne explains that, upon consultation with the City staff, the
applicant has requested a limited partial waiver of Conditions 1, 2, and 4 for Lots 1 to 5 so they
can obtain certificates of occupancy prior to conveying open space.
Wynne explains that the applicant has initiated this process with the City, including submitting a
draft deed for the Open Space Parcel A &B to the Planning Department, however, given the steps
required, the transfer of open space is not expected to occur before the closing for the first 3
units, and perhaps the next 2 as well. She reviews the process as follows:
• City Solicitor review is required for all deed documents
• City Staff conducted a follow up inspection of the open space including improvements to
Kelleher Pond, and some improvements are still outstanding
• A $10,000 bond is required to be endowed prior to the transfer of Open Space Parcels
A &B
• City Council acceptance of the transfer of the Open Space Parcels A &B to the City, at a
regular meeting of the City Council.
Wynne notes that the applicant has been responsive to the City and has met all other conditions
of the decision required up to this point and Planning Staff suggested this temporary, or limited
waiver request and therefore supports the request. Miller confirmed that the site work has been
satisfactory.
Wynne indicated that the Board not act on the additional waiver referring to Condition #6 and no
action is required.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchinson: Motion to grant the Limited Partial Waiver from Condition 1, Condition 2, and
Condition 4, requiring that Open Space Parcels A & B be transferred to the City
Parks and Recreation Department and the Homeowner's Association and
Management Plan for Open Space Parcel C be established and documents
reviewed by the City, prior to the sale of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Flannery seconds
the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (9 -0).
Page 8 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
Set Public Hearing Date — Definitive Plan — 25 Jewett Road Extension — Francis Byrne and
Marcia Byrne
Mack: Motion to set the Public Hearing Date for 25 Jewett Road Extension Definitive
Plan for Tuesday, December 15, 2015. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The
Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (9 -0).
Set Public Hearing Date — Modification to Site Plan Review #113 -14 and Special Permit
#139 -14 — North Shore Crossing — Brimbal Avenue — CEA Group Beverly
Ellen Hutchinson read the following statement into the record:
Ifiled this afternoon, apublic disclosure regarding this property with Mayor Cahill 's office, pursuant to
Mass. General Laws Chapter c. 268A, § 23(b)(3). I'd like to read a part of that statement now:
I am filing this disclosure to disclose the relevant facts to dispel any appearance of a potential conflict of
interest.
In 2005, some 10 years ago, the CEA Group purchased the subject property from the Archdiocese of
Boston, via St Mary Star of the Sea parish, of which I am a member At that time, in 2005, I served as a
volunteer on the St Mary 's parish finance council, which was an advisory board to the pastor; I remain a
member of the parish finance council to date. As the Seller of the property, the Archdiocese and its
lawyers served as the primary negotiators of and party to the sale; the parish finance council served
simply in an advisory capacity to our pastor In 2005, the Developer sought several extensions of the
closing date on the sale. In legal consideration for an extension of the closing date, CEA Group paid
$60, 000 to the parish, who then gave the money to our school. This consideration of $60, 000 was labeled
a donation to the school.
The sale of the subject property land took place in 2005 some 10 years ago and before I was a member
of the Planning Board. My parish has had no interest in the subject property since 2005 when it sold the
property; it has absolutely no financial interest in the current development of the property and will not
benefit in any manner from any development of the property. I gained no financial or personal benefit
from the transaction in 2005; I will not gain financially or personally from any development of the
property now.
Taking into account the facts that have disclosed above, I feel that can perform my official duties
objectively and fairly. "
Thomson explains that the previous approval was conditioned upon the plan having ingress and
egress via the Connector Road and the state has denied such access, requiring this proposed
modification. Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and explains that the State has
not approved only the exit onto the connector road by consumer automobiles, however trucks are
allowed to exit and all vehicles are allowed to enter the site via the Connector Road.
Matz asks if there are other modifications. Atty. Alexander explains the other modifications to
the site plan, related to landscaping, building layout, and internal roadway changes at the egress
to Sohier Road.
Page 9 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
Atty. Alexander explains that the applicant is offering a Peer Review of the proposed revision to
the traffic study they have prepared in conjunction with the revision to the plan, at the applicant's
request.
C. Barrett asks if there will be enough time to review a traffic study before the next meeting.
Thomson indicates it may or may not be, but that the Board would not act without complete
information.
N. Barrett requests that the applicant present information on what the state has proposed for the
area and the state's input regarding area roads. Thomson indicates that there has been no
discussion about the Sohier Road access and Brimbal Ave is not within DOT jurisdiction.
Matz states that he would like to have the MA DOT Engineer present at the Planning Board
meeting. C. Barrett asked if DOT has conducted their own traffic study.
C. Barrett requested that the traffic study include all of the roads in and around the site noting
that Dunham Road has businesses up there noting the North Shore Music Theater and Cummings
Properties and states that those should be taken into consideration as well.
Atty. Alexander stated that there was no traffic study done by the MA DOT.
Mack: Motion to set the Public Hearing Date for Modification to Site Plan Review #113-
14 and Special Permit #139 -14 — North Shore Crossing — Brimbal Avenue — CEA
Group Beverly LLC for Tuesday, December 15, 2015. Rotondo seconds the
motion.
Discussion ensued on when to schedule the meeting. N. Barrett suggests that there may be more
people available to attend the public hearing in January. Matz agrees. Thomson calls for a vote
on the motion.
The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -1) with N. Barrett opposed.
C. Barrett: Motion to recommend that the City engage a third party Peer Reviewer, with the
same consultant as used before, if available, of the Traffic Study for the
Modification to Site Plan Review #113 -14 and Special Permit #139 -14 — North
Shore Crossing — Brimbal Avenue — CEA Group Beverly LLC. Hutchinson
seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -1) with N.
Barrett opposed.
N. Barrett states that he would prefer a different peer review consultant. Hutchinson states that
she would like the Board to receive the traffic study as soon as possible. Thomson reiterates the
request to have a MassDOT engineer present. Miller makes a request for traffic model
visualization to be used.
Page 10 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
Request to Amend Meeting Minutes — Rosemary Broadbent
Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne addresses the Board and explains that Ms. Broadbent
is requesting that the Planning Board consider amending the approved minutes of the January 13,
2015 Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Thomson allowed Ms. Broadbent to address the Board with her request.
Ms. Broadbent addresses the Board and explains that she would like the Board to amend the
minutes of the January 13, 2015 Planning Board meeting to include an exchange between herself
and the Board and Leah Zambernardi. She stated that she was able to get the correct wording
from the video of the meeting and she would provide the link to the appropriate part of the video.
Ms. Broadbent reads the content of the meeting minutes attributed to her, which she believed are
incorrect.
Mack suggests Ms. Broadbent propose the changes that she wants to make. Thomson explains
that the Planning Board meeting minutes are not verbatim and he is concerned that allowing an
amendment would set a precedent and result in others requesting amendments as well, when the
changes are not material to the decision being made. Members state that they agree that it would
be setting a precedent.
C. Barrett asks if the meeting minutes have ever been amended before. Thomson indicates that
they have not been amended during his 20 year tenure.
Ms. Broadbent also explained that the January 15, 2015 minutes had been removed from the web
for a period of time and she was not able to get an answer why. Wynne explained that she had
provided Ms. Broadbent with the response from the library, that they were experiencing issues
with their server and that the minutes were re- posted correctly.
Update of Inclusionary Housing "Submission Requirements, Procedures and Supplemental
Regulations" — Fee In Lieu of Affordable Housing Units for Fiscal Year 2016 Revision
Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne addresses the Board and explains that members will
recall that at the October meeting, the Board approved the schedule of fees for the Fee In Lieu of
Affordable Housing for Fiscal Year 2016 with the condition that the fee for Neighborhood Code
(NBC) 495 be investigated. She explains that further review indicates that there was an error in
the calculation in NBC 495 for both FY15 and FY16. She notes that the corrected fee amountfor
FYI 6, of $1.6 million, is included in the materials provided to the Board in the staff report and
the Fee In Lieu for this NBC is much higher than the other NBC's because the sale price, for the
limited amount of sales exceed $4.75 million. She requests that the Board approve the revised
Inclusionary Housing Fees.
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the Inclusionary Housing Fee Schedule for FYI 6. Flannery
seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (9 -0).
Page 11 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
Planning Board Signatory Letter
Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne addresses the Board and explains that Mass General
Laws allow for a Planning Board to designate any person as a signatory for the endorsement of
Subdivision Approval Not Required plans, among other decisions. She explains that the staff is
proposing, for the Board's consideration, that the Board allow identified Planning Staff and the
Planning Board Chair to sign on behalf of the majority of the Board. She notes that this will
expedite SANR endorsement, which requires a 21 day turnaround time, and allow staff to
endorse SANR's administratively rather than requiring Board review at regular meetings.
Thomson indicates he would not support anything that would remove the approval of SANRs
from the Board's review and approval.
N. Barrett suggested that letter to the Registry of Deeds should include the language, "acted upon
by the majority of the board." Miller recommended that the letter be edited and brought back
before the Board. Thomson suggests language be added to say, "each individually." Mack
confirms that the authority to sign should only be for the administrative function, but not the
actual decision. Thomson wonders why this wouldn't also apply to subdivision approvals and
suggests we evaluate further.
NewRnsiness
Planning Board Representative to Open Space Committee
Thomson reports that Mr. Matz has represented the Planning Board on the Open Space and
Recreation Committee for the past 8 years and is stepping down to fill another position. He
explains that Mr. Miller has expressed an interest in serving on the Open Space and Recreation
Committee to represent the Board.
Mack: Motion to appoint Wayne Miller as the Planning Board representative to the Open
Space and Recreation Committee. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion
carries (8 -0 -1), with Miller abstaining.
Planning Board Representative to the Community Preservation Committee
Thomson states that is stepping down as the Planning Board representative on the Community
Preservation Committee and Mr. Matz has offered to take over that role.
Mack: Motion to appoint James Matz as the Planning Board representative to the
Community Preservation Committee. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion
carries (8 -0 -1) with Matz abstaining.
2016 Meeting Schedule
Thomson alerts members that the first four meeting dates in 2016 don't follow the regular
schedule, due to holidays and other scheduling issues.
Page 12 of 13
Beverly Planning Board
November 17, 2015
Upcoming Zoning Amendments
Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne updates the Board on upcoming proposed zoning
amendment changes related to economic development and the creative economy, including Artist
Live /Work; Brewery /Winery/Distillery; and Maker Space. She also notes there may be changes
proposed to the IR Overlay District. She notes that a Joint Public Hearing will be required with
City Council and that draft language will be circulated.
Thomson notes that often times they feel rushed after the public hearing to have the meeting that
same night. Hutchinson requests having a redlined version to show the changes.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was
made by Mack to adjourn the meeting, seconded by C. Barrett. The motion carried (9 -0)
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30p.m.
Page 13 of 13