Loading...
BPB Minutes May 17 2016Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 This Documents is Subject to Review and approval by the Planning Board CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: May 17, 2016 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson (7 =08), Ellen Flannery, Catherine Barrett, James Matz, Ned Barrett (7.13), Michael Rotondo, Wayne Miller, David Mack Members Absent: None Others Present: Assistant City Planner Darlene Wynne Recorder: Eileen Sacco Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7 =05 p_m_ Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans Wynne indicates that there are no SANRs this evening_ Public Hearing — Special Permit Application #149 -16, Site Plan Review Application #122- 16 and Inclusionary Housing Application #09 -16 — Construct 5 -Story Mixed Use Building with Retail and Commercial Space on Ground Floor and Related Parking, Utility and Landscaping Improvements — 480482 Rantoul Street — Beverly Crossing 480, LLC Mack: Motion to recess for public hearings_ Flannery seconds_ The motion carries 8 -0_ Wynne reads legal notice_ Attorney Miranda Gooding addresses the Board and states that she is joined this evening by Chris Koeplin of Windover, Thad Siemasko and John Harden of Siemasko Verbridge Architects, Charlie Wear of Meridian Associates, and Sam Gregorio of TEC_ Attorney Gooding gave an overview of the project and explains that the applicants are Beverly Crossing 480 LLC and is a joint partnership with Windover Development and Aston Investments, principals Roy & Dinart Serpa, the owner of the property_ She explains that the Serpas, long -term Beverly residents and business owners, have owned the property since 1997 and will remain the owners_ She notes that the property will be managed by Dolman Properties_ Atry_ Gooding explains that the site is the former Friendly's site on Rantoul Street and notes that there are two separate parcels containing 85,000 s_f_ with 221 feet of frontage on Rantoul Street_ Page 1 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 She also notes that the site borders Rantoul Street on one side and the back of the site borders an MBTA Right of Way_ Gooding notes that there is a small isolated wetland area on the south corner which will not be disturbed_ They are before the Conservation Commission contemporaneously with this process_ Atry_ Gooding explains the history of the efforts to redevelop this site, which has been vacant since 2000, including that a commercial / retail plaza of 21,000 sf and 125 parking spaces was approved in 2007_ She notes that the Serpas have unsuccessfully tried to sell the site for 10 years_ Atty_ Gooding reviews a rendering of the proposed site and describes an L- shaped building with the shorter side parallel to Rantoul Street_ She notes that the 5 -story mixed -use building will contain 90 residences and 1,900 sf retail/commercial storefront, requiring 7 commercial parking spaces_ In the CC District, there are no other dimensional requirements except for frontage and height, with which the building complies_ Atty_ Gooding explains that the relief requested is for two special permits, one of which is to allow a mixed -use building in the CC zoning district with the residential component being more than 75% of the building_ Gooding also notes that 1/3 of the building frontage will be dedicated to commercial space due to the size of the building; which they think is an appropriate size for the project_ She explains that the other special permit is for a reduction in parking for residential use from the required 118 (1 space per bedroom or 1.3 spaces per unit) to 108 spaces, which comes to 1.2 spaces per unit_ Atty_ Gooding explains that reduction in parking request is spurred by the consideration given to an abutter who requested accommodations to continue an access easement for an existing business_ She also notes that they used data from the Beverly Planning Department parking study which shows that much less parking is utilized by multifamily buildings in the downtown than is required by zoning_ Atty_ Gooding also explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission asked for adjustments to the flow of traffic within the site_ Atty_ Gooding explains that they have also submitted an application for an Inclusionary Housing Permit and notes that 12% of the units are required to be inclusionary units which translates to 11 affordable units for this project_ She explains that two 2- bedroom units and nine 1- bedroom units, 4 of which will be handicap accessible, will be evenly distributed throughout the building_ Atty_ Gooding states that they may in the future like to have the inclusionary housing offsite and would like to reserve the right to come back to the Board_ She explains that they are working with community partners on a potential project that would be affordable housing_ Atty_ Gooding explains that the proposed rents for the units would be $1,387 for 1- bedroom units and $1,657 for 2- bedroom units, based on 80% AMI figures for 2016_ Page 2 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 Atty_ Gooding explains that they began this process in March and met informally with the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Design Review Board for their input on the project_ She also explains that they have met with the neighbors and a number of City Councilors_ She notes that as a result they have received letters of recommendations from the DRB with no conditions and the Parking and Traffic Commission has approved the project with conditions_ Atty_ Gooding explains that the Conservation Commission is midway through their process and the City Engineer has submitted a lengthy comment letter noting that there are more comments than requests for changes in the proposal_ She notes that Charlie Wear has talked with them and there are very minor changes, noting that there will be some minor changes to what is before the Board this evening_ Chris Koeplin of Windover Development Crossing addresses the Board and explains that Windover and Beverly Crossing are separate companies and reviews their mission statement_ He states that they are not about just building housing_ He notes that the site has been vacant for a number of years and notes that the location is 7 /10` of a mile from the train station in the area_ He also notes that zoning encourages this type of development in this area_ Koeplin states that they have learned from previous projects and know that they had to design this site better than the Enterprise site_ He explains that the design for 90 units is a lot but this is a big site and notes that they looked at other buildings around the city and estimates that the average is about 46 units per acre and this size building is appropriate for this site_ Koeplin reviews photos of the area as it exists today and notes the kinds of businesses that are in the area_ Thad Siemasko addresses the Board and explains the proposed building_ He explains that they are proposing 1,900 s_f_ of commercial space on the corner of the building, noting that it is a large building and will be an anchor for that end of Rantoul Street_ Siemasko reviews the elevations for the building and reviews a rendering of the proposed building showing the street scape of Rantoul Street_ Siemasko explains that the materials they are proposing for the facade of the building is masonry and corrugated metal with a stucco color palette and a field stone color_ He notes that 50% of units have either balconies or patios_ Siemasko explains the traffic circulation on the site and notes that they gave up a couple of parking spaces to provide tractor trailer access for a neighboring industrial condo and notes the location on the plan_ Siemasko explains that they are proposing 108 parking spaces which is a reduction from the 118 parking spaces required by zoning_ Siemasko reviews the landscaping plan for the site and notes that the planting schedule calls for 100 shrubs and 70 trees_ He also notes that they will be providing bicycle racks on the site_ He further notes that the lighting plan calls for covered lights to eliminate an undue glare_ Siemasko reviewed the sidewalk plans, including set - backs, planters, residential units, and required width for walking_ He notes that each unit will be separated by landscaping and they Page 3 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 hope is it will be an active living environment on the street_ He goes through the individual floor plans_ He notes that there 28 2- bedrooms (around 1,050 sf) and 62 1- bedrooms (around 750 sf); 5 of the total units are accessible, 3 of which are affordable per the inclusionary standards_ Charlie Wear of Meridian Associates addresses the Board and reviews the site design_ He explains that utilities exist on Rantoul Street and water, sewer gas, electric, cable and telephone connections are readily available_ Wear explains that there used to be a stream running through the site and in the 1970s it was routed through a 48 inch culvert and the land was filled and today looks like a field_ He explains the topography of the land and notes that the site is almost all fill_ Wear explains that there is a small wetland pocket which is an isolated wetland that is protected by the Beverly local ordinance_ He notes that they have filed with the Conservation Commission and met with Conservation staff who agreed that it is a currently low functioning wetland_ Wear explains that there is wetland vegetation on the site and they have proposed to clear the invasive species on the site and replant as well as replant the buffer zone under an agreement with the Conservation Commission_ Wear reported that he met with the City Engineer and noted that he has made several comments on the project noting that some of them are editorial or clarifications_ He notes that they filed a response to the comments with the City Engineer today_ He comments that the culvert is probably the most important issue, because it has a history of backing-up- They have proposed mitigation to address it and reduce runoff from the site_ He explains that infiltration basins will be installed to capture roof runoff and parking lot runoff_ He also notes that the infiltration system they are proposing to use is ideal for capturing pathogens_ Sam Gregorio of TEC addresses the Board and reviews the traffic impact from the project_ He describes the traffic study methodology and reviews the peak hour traffic counts and forecasts_ He describes the accepted models on which this study is based_ He notes that traffic generation will be less than 1 trip per hour and that having amenities on the site, such as a workout facility, will reduce trip generation_ Gregorio explains that the timing of the lights at Rantoul and Colon Street may need to be adjusted noting that the reconstruction project by MA DOT should improve that area_ He estimated that there would be an 8- second delay during p-m_ peak hours and that would be the worst case_ Gregono reported that they are working with MA DOT to alter the timing structure as part of the improvements_ Discussion ensued about the MA DOT plans_ Gregorio reported that a concern was raised about cut through traffic on Lenox Street and reported that less than 50% of the cars coming through could be considered cut - through traffic_ They do not feel that the site will generate any more cut - through traffic for Lenox Street noting that people are not likely to go around the block to cut through_ Page 4 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 Gregorio reiterated information presented earlier on parking and elaborated on parking demand models used_ He noted the peak parking demand is 108 spaces, which is the amount proposed_ Thomson opens the hearing up for questions from the members of the Planning Board at this time_ Mack questions if there is signage proposed for residents entering the parking lot to indicate residential parking_ Koeplin reported that they could provide those_ Rotondo questioned the use of 7 on- street parking spaces for the commercial portion of the building noting that there are thriving businesses in the area that may depend on that parking_ He notes that he has 16 parking spaces for his business and he does not have enough parking_ Atry_ Gooding explains that it depends on the time of day noting that there could be an opportunity for the use of some of the residential parking spaces for the commercial_ She notes that she hears the concern but notes that the project meets the zoning requirements_ Gooding explains that they have proposed parking according to zoning and notes that there will be additional curb area when the Rantoul Street construction project is completed_ Mack asks if cars will be able to go left and right to exit the site_ Gregorio states that that is how it is currently planned and explains the circulation of the area_ Thomson asks what effect this project will have on the Rantoul/Elliott Street and Myrtle and Cabot Street intersections and the major intersection_ Gregorio reports that it is currently a LOS D, which is an acceptable standard for an urban area, and that will not change, noting that there may be a slight increase with timing improvements and DOT improvements_ Mack asks where the dumpster area for the site is planned_ Siemasko reports that it will be in the far corner of the site in an enclosed area against the railroad tracks_ Flannery asks where the snow storage locations are on the site_ Siemasko explains the designated areas for snow storage and notes that significant snow fall will result in trucking the snow from the site_ N_ Barrett asks what else Windover has planned for Rantoul Street_ He expressed concern that a 5 -story building would create a canyon effect and there would be a lot of crowding on the street_ He also notes that he is concerned that every project that comes before the Board only has 100 parking spaces and cites three projects that total 300 parking spaces_ He states that he would like to see what the bigger picture is going to be taking practical realities into consideration_ Koeplin addresses the Board and reviews the projects that they have completed to date_ He reported that they have no plans at this time for the Press Box and Casa de Luca site and explains that they want to do the development right_ He states that they have done some sketches for 84 units at the Ford site, but notes that they like the way the dealership building looks and want to try and save it_ He explains that they are not ready to develop it at this time_ Page 5 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 Koeplin states that with regards to traffic and people they believe that people will use the trains and bikes more if there are businesses such as grocery stores and shops in the area and that people will be less car dependent_ Koeplin reports that they do not own the Congress Street site at this time but they were the proponents of the re- permitting process noting that they have reduced the scope of the project from 72 units to 62 units_ Koeplin states that the MBTA site for the parcel near the parking garage is out to bid but notes that he is not sure that they are going to bid on the project_ N_ Barrett states that he is concerned with the urbanization of Beverly, noting that it is allowed by zoning and the city's Master Plan, therefore it's important to hear the larger vision_ He states that he likes the use of technology noting the electric car chargers and encourages the promotion of Live/Work space within these projects_ He would also like to see people encouraged to use the MBTA, car sharing programs, and bicycles_ He states that he would like to see Windover think about the issues as the big picture_ Miller asks what the expected demographic and ages of the prospective tenants will be_ Koeplin states that he expects young professionals or newly married (18 -35) and recent retirees with connections to the North Shore to be interested in this site_ He notes that Beverly has a lot to offer such as beaches, the hospital and other services and attractions that would be attractive to this demographic_ He also notes that the 30- minute train ride to Boston is a plus for young professionals_ Koeplin explains that the parking required for the site is 1 space per bedroom and there are 118 bedrooms proposed for the site_ Thomson inquires about the proposed rents for the site_ Koeplin notes that the rents referred to earlier in the meeting were for the affordable housing units and estimated that the market rate units could be $1,600 for 1 bedroom and $1,900 42,000 for 2 bedroom units_ Matz notes that they are requesting a special permit to reduce the retail from the 25% required by zoning and asked what percentage they are proposing_ Atty_ Gooding stated 2% and explained that the 25% retail requirement is a difficult bar to meet in the CC zoning district if the building is 4 stories or higher_ She notes that in the case of the 131 Rantoul Street site it did not make sense to bring the retail to the back of the building in a residential neighborhood_ She notes that the retail percentage for that project is 7 %_ Matz states that he has trouble visualizing a 5 -story building fitting into that neighborhood, rather than 4 stories_ Siemasko explains why he believes there isn't a big difference between a 4- story building or a 5 -story building at this site_ The pedestrian experiences the building at the street line, which is set back at 2 stories_ He states that it will be a big building but it will visually fit in the neighborhood_ He referred to the surrounding properties and notes that they want to make a new statement in the neighborhood that Beverly is changing at that end of town_ Also, that the building does work well with comice lines across the street_ Hutchinson addresses the Board and refers to the size of the Cummings Center building_ She is worried that the proposed building would dwarf the neighborhood_ Page 6 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 Siemasko states that when you look at the width of Rantoul Street this large of a building is appropriate and reviews the building plans noting that the zoning allows a 55- foot -high building_ He also reviews the setbacks and the siting of the building on the site_ Atty_ Gooding stated that this is a good debate and notes that we are talking about the CC zoning district_ She explains that the area has been studied and the site has been vacant for a good long while_ She notes that this street from a design perspective can support taller buildings_ She recalled that the only other project that has been permitted for this site was all commercial retail and nobody has come forward to build it_ She states that they feel that this project will help make the city come back to life and further notes that the Downtown 2020 plan recommends bringing residential housing to the neighborhood to bring additional people to support local businesses_ Rotondo inquired about the desire to reserve the right to request off -site units in the future_ Thomson suggests that it might simply be a modification to request later_ Gooding expressed concern that the inclusionary regulations require the decision to be made now and wanted to be forthcoming_ Hutchinson asked for clarification about the financials of the project_ Koeplin explains that if the 5 th floor is removed, the project would not be a financeable project_ C_ Barrett informed the Chair that she has several questions to ask of the applicant_ Thomson stated that given the hour he would like to allow for some public comment this evening_ He asked if Ms_ Barrett could hold her questions to the next meeting as the Board will be continuing the matter to the June meeting_ Ms_ Barrett agreed_ Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at the time_ Dominic Secondiani, 485 Rantoul Street, addresses the Board and states that he has concerns about the proposed number of parking spaces_ He states that he has lived in that area since 1970 and there have always been parking issues in the neighborhood_ He also questions why they are being allowed to build to the sidewalk, without being set back_ Siemasko states that good urban designs provides an active streetscape_ Buildings separated from the street by parking lots is not pedestrian-friendly- He states that the CVS building is an example of a suburban building in an urban area_ He also noted that the building needed the entire site to meet the parking requirements; any more commercial area would have required more parking_ Walter Ewaschuk, 24 Myrtle Street, addresses the Board and states that he agrees that there is not enough parking in the area for the residents and that traffic will be a concern_ He also states that the design of the building is too big for the neighborhood_ Gin Wallace, Executive Director of Beverly Main Streets, addresses the Board and calls attention to the Downtown 2020 strategic vision plan which was drafted with input from the residents about what they wanted downtown Beverly to be_ Two of the key points were= one, rooftops before retail, meaning that it makes sense to build up to the 25% commercial requirement and Page 7 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 two, that they do not want Cabot and Rantoul Streets to look the same_ She also states that she does not see this as one parcel_ She explains that the vision for the area is for more than 1,000 residential units that could support quality retail_ She appreciates that the building appears stark at first, but it might not later_ She further stated that she and the Board at Beverly Main Streets fully support the project_ Cynthia Modugno, Trustee of Utility Park Condominium Trust, a direct abutter, addresses the Board and states that they are happy that something is being developed on the site_ She also noted that the existing conditions cause flooding on her property from this site when there is heavy rain_ She also notes that this is a nice - looking building, although a little large but she feels that anything developed on the site is a win for her as a direct abutter_ Suzie LaMont, 20 Porter Street, addresses the Board and states that she supports that the development is set closet to the street, but she agrees that the proposed building is a monstrosity and is too big for the neighborhood_ She states that it is inconsistent with the neighborhood of wood -framed two - family homes across the street_ She urged the Board to make this right for the neighborhood_ Gary Rourke, 103 Elliot Street, addresses the Board and states that the Association has been discussing the project_ He confirms that the area floods in heavy rains_ He is concerned that by paving it over the problem will get worse_ He asks the Board to consider that issue_ He also expresses concern about parking_ Mr_ Secondiani comments that the people who spoke in favor of this proposal do not live across the street and will not have to look at this monstrosity every day_ Mack questions the runoff calculations for the site_ Mr_ Wear explains that there will be a 50% reduction in the rate of flow and he is not sure what the reduction in volume will be_ He also notes that the City Engineer has reviewed the plans but has not signed off on them yet but they sent a response to him today_ He reviews the runoff areas and locations on the plans_ Matz asks for an opinion that the proposed situation would actually improve the flooding problem on adjacent sites_ Mr_ Wear confirms_ Wear reports that revised plans will be submitted in response to the City Engineer's comments_ Wynne reported that the project team met with Planning Department staff and responded to their comments on the initial plans_ She reported that the city supports building along the street in the downtown because it supports the pedestrian environment and noted that there is a demand for housing in the area_ Thomson indicated that the Rantoul Street construction will improve conditions_ There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter this evening, Thomson calls for a motion to continue the public hearing to the June meeting_ C. Barrett: Motion to continue the public hearing to the June Planning Board meeting_ Miller seconds the motion_ The motion carries (9 -0)_ Page 8 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 Thomson calls for a five - minute recess at this time_ Thomson resumes the meeting at 9 =40 p_m_ Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #123 -16 and Special Permit Application #150 -16 — 2 Hardy Street — Hardy Street Realty, LLC Flannery: Motion to recess for a public hearing at this time_ Hutchinson seconds the motion_ The motion carries (9 -0)_ Wynne reads legal notice_ Michael Doucette of Glovsky and Glovsky addresses the Board and explains that they are seeking approval of site plan review and a special permit application for the construction of six 2- bedroom units in a 3 -story multi- family dwelling with onsite parking for 6 cars in the CC District and the Depot Parking and Height Overlay Districts_ He explains that the site is located at Hardy and Pleasant Streets and is currently vacant_ He further explains that the 6,800 sf property is located behind the 131 Rantoul Street project which is currently under construction_ Atty_ Doucette explains that they are requesting a special permit because they are proposing no commercial use in the CC district_ He also recalls that the Board endorsed an SANR plan creating this lot in January of 2015_ Atty_ Doucette reviews the plan and notes the location in relation to the 131 Rantoul Street project and the property lines_ Thad Siemasko, Siemasko + Verbridge, the architect for the project, addresses the Board and explains the plans_ He reviews the facade, landscape plan, and the various views of the proposed building_ He notes that the parking lot needs to be moved a few feet toward Hardy Street to better meet parking lot set -back requirements_ Charlie Wear, Meridian Associates, addresses the Board and reviews the utilities for the site_ He explains that they will access the utilities from Pleasant Street_ The site is currently completely paved; by placing the house and green space, they are actually reducing the runoff_ He reviews the slope and the location of the catch basin, which will tie into the existing drainage_ Thomson inquires about site lighting_ Siemasko explains that they will be installing covered lighting at the entrances to the porches and they feel that is enough as there is also lighting on the street_ Thomson asks if there is a handicapped accessible entrance_ Siemasko reports that there is on the first floor only and explains the location on the plan_ Thomson asks if there are any questions from members of the Board at this time_ Page 9 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 Miller asks if they are constructing the building to accommodate solar panels in the future_ Koeplin reports that they would put solar on all of their buildings if it were possible, but that they have not studied this site_ Siemasko explains that there is a large flat spot that they could look at_ C_ Barrett asks if visitors will be parking on the street_ Siemasko confirms that they will park on the street_ C_ Barrett asked if there will be trash facilities on the site_ Siemasko explains that there is a trash shed and explains the location_ He explains it will have the capacity for trash for the 6 units and notes that he does not know if they will have public trash removal or if it will be private_ N_ Barrett states that he thinks that the design of this building is great for the neighborhood_ He asks what the zoning requirements are for parking on the site_ Siemasko reports that it is 1 space per unit and they are providing 6 spaces on the site_ Wynne explains that reduced parking is allowed because this site is located in the Parking Overlay District and its proximity to the train station and the MBTA parking garage_ She also notes that the Parking and Traffic Commission included a condition that they encourage tenants to look at alternative transportation options_ Thomson opens the public hearing up for public comment at this time_ Ann Theriault, 5 Hardy Street, addresses the Board and states that this building is going to shadow her house_ She also states that she is concerned about visibility when backing out of her driveway_ She also notes that most 2- family homes in the area have parking for two cars_ Wear reports that there has been a temporary increase in traffic on Hardy Street due to the 131 Rantoul Street construction project and that there are good sight lines on the street_ Wear also reviewed a comment letter received from the Engineering Department_ He notes that the existing retaining wall will be broken though and they will bring the driveway to the sidewalk grade_ Suzie LaMont, 20 Porter Street, addresses the Board and states that she supports the project and she likes the design and thinks it fits in the neighborhood well_ Wynne reviews comment letters from the various Boards and Commissions and notes any conditions requested_ There being no further questions or comments at this time, Thomson calls for a motion to close the public hearing_ N. Barrett: Motion to close the public hearing_ Flannery seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries (9 -0)_ Mack: Motion to grant the request for a Special Permit for 2 Hardy Street subject to the conditions recommended by other City Departments, Boards and Commissions Page 10 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 and that the Board finds that the application meets all the Special Permit criteria a_ -f_, as stated_ Flannery seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries (9 -0)_ Mack: Motion to approve the Site Plan Review application for 2 Hardy Street subject to the same conditions as the Special Permit approval_ Flannery seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries (9 -0)_ Mack left the meeting at this time_ Plan Endorsement and Form G Covenant — OSRD & Definitive Plan —11 -15 Sunnvcrest Avenue — (Sunnvcrest Circle) — PD Building, LLC Wynne reported that members will recall that the Board approved the project for 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue earlier this year_ She explains that the appeal period for the project has expired and the developer has submitted Mylar plans for signatures by the Board to allow for the recording of the plans at the Registry of Deeds_ She also reported that the developer has submitted a Form G Covenant for acceptance by the Board to guarantee the completion of the subdivision_ She notes that Planning staff has reviewed the covenant and the Engineering Department has reviewed the Mylar plans to ensure that they are consistent with the plans approved by the Board_ She recommended approval of the Form G Covenant and the signing of the Mylar plans_ Flannery: Motion to approve the Form G Covenant for 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue_ Matz seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries (8 -0)_ Set Public Hearing Date — Site Plan Review Application #124 -16 — 62 Dunham Road — Iron Tree Services, LLC Wynne explains that plans have been filed for the construction of a 4,800 s_f_ storage building at 62 Dunham Road and the Board needs to set a date for the public hearing_ Hutchinson: Motion to set the date for the Public Hearing for 62 Dunham Road for the next meeting of the Board on June 21, 2016 at 7.30 p-m_ noting that the meeting is starting at a different time_ Flannery seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries (8 -0)_ New or Other Business Wynne informs the Board that the final Open Space and Recreation Plan was included in the Planning Board packet for the last meeting_ She explains that the OSRC needs a letter of support from the Planning Board to submit with the plan_ She notes that a draft of the letter has been given to the Board and recommends that the Board approve the letter of support_ Page 11 of 12 Beverly Planning Board May 17, 2016 N. Barrett: Motion to approve the letter of support for the Final Open Space and Recreation Plan_ Flannery seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries (8 -0)_ Wynne reported that the Planning Department and the Engineering Department are applying for a grant from Coastal Zone Management to study the impact of climate change and to create a strategic plan to deal with the impact_ She requested that the Board approve the draft of a letter of support from the Board in support of the project_ C. Barrett: Motion to send a letter of support from the Planning Board with the grant application for Coastal Zone Management_ Miller seconds the motion_ The Chair votes in favor_ The motion carries (8 -0)_ Adiournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by N_ Barrett to adjourn the meeting_ Hutchinson seconds the motion_ The motion carried (8 -0)_ The meeting was adjourned at 10.30 p_m_ Page 12 of 12