Loading...
05-16-2017 BPB MinutesBeverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: May 16, 2017 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ned Barrett, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James Matz, Catherine Barrett and Wayne Miller (participating remotely) Members Absent: Zane Craft Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Mary Alice Cookson Chair John Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans Wynne says there are no SANRs to review. Approval of Minutes The Board discusses the regular meeting minutes of April 26, 2017. Wynne notes May 1, 2017 minutes are not yet available. Hutchinson: Motion to approve the April 26, 2017 meeting minutes with clerical edits as noted by Flannery and Matz. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (5 -0 -2) with Thomson abstaining because he was not present at the meeting and Miller did not vote. Thomson takes the hearings out of order as suggested by Wynne because Ned Barrett will be arriving late. Continued Public Hearing — 16 Woodbury Street (Definitive Subdivision Plan — Create 24' wide 216' long right -of -way to provide access to new building lot — Woodbury Street 2011 Realty Trust Hutchinson: Motion to waive the reading of the legal notice. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (6 -0 -1). Miller did not vote. Attorney Thomas Alexander, who represents the applicant, requests to withdraw the plan without prejudice. Hutchinson: Motion to accept the withdrawal of the applicant without prejudice. Mack seconds the motion. The motion passes (6 -0 -1). Miller did not vote. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 Continued Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #122 -17 and Special Permit Application #153 -17 — 105 Sam Fonzo Drive — construct two self - storage buildings, one general commercial /light industrial building, and request for three driveway accesses — Beverly Airport Self Storage, LLC, c/o Miranda Gooding, Glovsky & Glovskv, LLC Mack: Motion to waive the reading of the legal notice. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes (6 -0 -1). Miller did not vote. Wynne informs the Board that the applicants are not in attendance. They are seeking an additional continuance because they have a site visit and additional Conservation Commission meeting scheduled and want to wait until after those are done. Mack: Motion to grant the request for a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 20, 2017. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes (6 -0 -1). Miller did not vote. N. Barrett arrives at 7:12pm. Continued Public Hearing — Hillside Avenue Definitive Subdivision Plan — Create 20' wide 100 access way off Hillside Avenue right of way to create accessible frontage for existing parcel for new single family dwelling — Goddzilla LLC /ASB Design Group and Gregory and Helga Senko. Matz: Motion to waive reading of the legal notice. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0 -1). Miller did not vote. Matz: Motion to reopen the public hearing. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0 -1). Miller did not vote. Attorney Thomas Alexander, who represents applicants Greg and Helga Senko, asks who is eligible to vote this evening. Wynne informs him that everyone present has certified that they were in attendance in March at the last public hearing or have listened to the evidence, including Miller, who is participating remotely by phone, amounting to 8 voters. Alexander reminds the Board and public of the particulars of the project. He says the applicants and their family have owned the property for more than 50 years. The applicants decided not to extend the roadway in front of the property. He says that since the last meeting with the Planning Board, the City Engineer has reviewed the drainage and is satisfied that all drainage is taken care of on -site with no increase in volume or rate in the amount of run -off. Alexander addresses the question about whether this house is out of scale for the neighborhood. He notes the house will be 2,100 to 2,500 square feet. He has checked the abutters' list and found approximately 8 homes of similar size. He says that this property is a conforming lot, having the required frontage and 15,000 square feet of lot area, where 10,000 is required, and is larger than most lots in the area. All City departments have reviewed the project and given their input. He notes the Board made a request for a buffer area on the right side of the property, which was Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 added. He talks about a drainage structure at the bottom of the hill that is not functioning correctly and has been an issue identified. While it is on City land and not part of his applicant's property, they are addressing that situation to improve the neighborhood drainage. Thomson asks if the City or the applicant is doing the work. Alexander answers the applicant. Alexander further states that they have provided a no -cut zone, and they would agree to the language requiring the review or approval of the City Arborist before a tree can be removed from this zone. Thad Berry, the project engineer and principal at ASB Design Group, LLC, says that he met at the site with Mike Collins, DPW director, concerning the drainage structures in the area that are not doing what they are designed to do. He has designed three types of storm water structures on the site and gives a detailed overview of the proposed drainage system and off -site improvements, which result in a decrease of the existing rate of run -off. He explains how the systems interconnect to maximize the ability to put the water into the ground. He details the specifics of the drainage system. Thomson asks that he was able to decrease the existing rate. Berry confirms. In response to a question from Thomson, Berry notes a change that was made to the orientation of the house to shorten the driveway and decrease pavement. Flannery asks if the rendering has changed. Alexander confirms it is the same. The walkway will be impervious pavers that run off into soil. He says that in any area where they are going to remove ledge, they will fill that with clean soil so the water can better infiltrate. Berry also describes how they propose to make improvements to the catch basin in Northern Ave as an off -site improvement to the drainage system. He notes the main idea is to capture the water better in the catch basin, as well as infiltrate any overflow around the catch basin. He describes that a rain garden is simply a low area with a 12 inch base of stone that allows water to slowly infiltrate into the soils. He describes maintenance as weeding, mowing the lawn, and keeping the gutters clean. Thomson asks about letters received from the City so far. Wynne reviews what has been received. They include one from the Board of Health and from the City Engineer a letter and follow -up email indicating no further comments. This lot is not in the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction. The Fire Department requested a sprinkler system be installed. The Police Department had no issues. Mack asks for a clarification on the waivers requested. Wynne cites the 8 waivers listed in the application, which are related to design standards and roadway application. Thomson asks why a waiver for roadway grade is required. Alexander notes the new road is flat but is supposed to have a more than 1% grade. Berry indicates that they no longer need that waiver as the road meets this standard. Flannery asks who is going to maintain the drainage system being installed. Alexander responds that what is on -site will be maintained by the homeowners and they propose that a bond or surety be put in place so that if the homeowner is not able to do it, the City can use the surety to do the work. The extra off -site work they are doing would be maintained under City jurisdiction. L; Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 Flannery asks what happens if it's not maintained. Alexander says that the City would give notice to the homeowner that the drainage structure needs maintenance. If the homeowner does not comply after due notice, the City uses the bond to do the work. Flannery asks how much damage to the neighbors' property can be done if the system is not maintained. Alexander says they are natural setups that are hard to fail. They are just depressions and connected by pipes discharging into the soil, a simple and naturally oriented system. Hutchinson asks Berry about a comment in red on page 2 of the report concerning the presence of ledge on the site. She asks why this comment was highlighted. Berry says that it is because he is not ignoring the fact that the site has ledge, but the group has done its due diligence to find out what the soils are in the area and how they can be maximized for the best drainage. Hutchinson asks about a statement on page 3 of the report concerning the removal of ledge and replacement of that with clean fill. She asks if the calculations are made before or after the removal. Alexander says the calculation is done pre and post, and takes into account the addition of absorptive soils to the site. Berry clarifies that it doesn't look at how much extra soil is brought in. Hutchinson asks how much ledge will have to be removed through blasting. Berry says he does not know, but that they have brought a contractor who can explain the process. Hutchinson notes that the dwelling size mentioned is different than noted in the report and asks if this changes the calculation. Berry says the calculations are based on the footprint of the house, which is the approximately 1,700 square feet in the report, not the total square footage of the house. C. Barrett thanks Alexander and Berry for the information about the run -off in the area. She asks about the size of the storm water infiltration and how much water it can hold. He details that each chamber is 8 feet long by 3 feet wide by a little more than 2 feet deep and there are 8 chambers. He points out the hashed area on the map, noting that below the chambers is crushed stone, and he shows again how the system will work. C. Barrett asks what is happening to the catch basin in the street, if it will be replaced or repaired. Berry says they are going to look at it. It might need a new rim. It is fairly new. C. Barrett said that in another project that involved blasting, some of the neighbors weren't informed. She wants to know what will be done regarding potential blasting with this project and who gets notified. John Mscisz of A.T. Mscisz & Sons, construction contractor for the project, details options that would be considered before resorting to blasting. For example, to drill holes and instead of blasting, to use an excavator and hammer the ledge out. Another is to drill holes and infuse them with epoxy that is detonated, splitting the rock. If blasting does occur, though, he says they will abide by every obligation they have about notifying the residents. He cites that the half the house footprint is full depth only (the basement) and half depth for the rest. Thomson clarifies that the Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 question is what happens if blasting is needed. Mscisz indicates it is their last scenario, might take a day of blasting, and they will follow all the necessary requirements including that all the neighbors within 250 feet will be notified. Matz noted a letter received from the City Engineer where they said they had no further comments at this time regarding the drainage system and asked if there's been any update to that. Wynne says no. He asks if the City Engineer will approve the drainage system. Thomson comments that he's not aware the City Engineer has ever said specifically it approves a drainage system. Matz asks Wynne what the outstanding issues are. She answers: the bond amount and says some of the possible conditions have been addressed. The major questions were related to the storm water and no -cut zone. Matz says he drove through the neighborhood and noticed a number of trees that can't stand the thin soil. There is some evidence of slump, he says. He asks about that and if any thought was given to planting additional trees along the property. Berry says he has no concern about slump. Even though the soil is thin, he's not concerned. As far as planting around the perimeter, he says, the trees can't get that large unless they have a sizeable root system. He says they picked trees they thought they can save and thinks they'll be fine. Matz asks about the diameters of the trees. Berry indicates that the trees and their size were noted on the tree location plan. Mack asks if there would be a bond to secure the relocation and /or improvement of the drainage system in the street. Alexander said they'd be willing to agree to include a bond in the plan that is separate from the Performance Bond. Thomson says he believes that would be a condition that all such work would be required before the occupancy permit. Thomson opens the hearing to members of the public. Beverly Nelson, 22 Northern Ave., says she and her neighbor, Ellen Lyons, 26 Northern Ave., spoke against the project last meeting but now want to address the ownership of Hillside Ave. On March 2, 2010 they emailed the City Councilor about trees damaged by a microburst storm, requesting that the City assess the damage and clean it up. It was ordered that the City Council would determine legal ownership and responsible party of the paper street ( "unaccepted ") that begins at Northern Ave. and ends at Hillside Ave. Nelson provided Board members with a letter from Robert Munroe, former City Solicitor, in which was stated that the land in question is not City -owned and the City had no obligation regarding the trees on the property. Based on this, she doesn't think they can put this catch basin on their property. Alexander says the catch basin is already there. There are about 140 unaccepted streets that the City provides services to, for example, trash pick -up. Thomson explains that a paper street can have multiple owners. Although the land may be owned by the abutters, people who live along the street typically have the right to access it entirely and the right to make improvements. The owners have the right to make the improvement whether it is on Hillside or the publicly owned 4 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 portion. He asks if the proposed repair is in the public street or the paper street. Alexander says they believe the work is actually in the public street. Ward 1 City Councilor Lang, who is a geologist by trade, says it's very difficult to control the run -off on this property and that putting in these kinds of infiltration systems might not be that successful because the bedrock is not going to permit the water to get in. Regarding blasting, he said he was involved in another project similar to this one and did receive complaints outside of the 250 feet radius where a newly renovated home sustained cracks that were most likely from the blast. Thomson asks Lang, since he is an expert in this area, isn't the lot already mostly ledge and isn't the same problem today existing as would exist post - construction. Lang answers yes and that while the drainage system proposed is interesting, he's not sure that with a flash flood the plan will be enough to prevent flooding. Thomson says he thinks their proposed changes will improve the run -off. Lang agrees that is the intent, but that the underlying material bedrock will not be changed. Gerard Frechette, 18 Northern Ave., who is a direct abutter downhill, said he doesn't understand how you can talk about maintenance. If the new homeowners want to fill in and plant grass then the burden is on the abutters to get the City to come in and do the work with the bond. He asks who is responsible for checking on all this. Wynne responds that if they're reported, the City Engineer will go out and check them. Frechette asks if this is up to code, why the need for all the waivers. He says it is not in the best interest of the neighbors. Greg Senko, 36 Hillside Ave., the owner of the property, asks the Board to approve the plan. He says that their property is the largest lot on the street and meets all of the uses allowed. He says he never received a concern about drainage or about the trees or vegetation on their property in his 54 years of ownership. It was never an issue until the public notice process. After letters were sent to neighbors and notice given in The Salem News, he and his wife followed up with neighbors and the result was 21 letters of support from neighbors. All the City departments have responded and made their suggestions. They will follow all the suggestions that are required. He and his wife are in their early 70s and the proceeds are an important part of their retirement plan. They've listened to all the concerns raised. They've put together a sensitive plan. They hope the Board will approve it. Bonnie Michalowksi, 37 Hillside Ave. says she is concerned with the amount of construction, the blasting and that one person's needs seem to outweigh the needs of all the abutters in the neighborhood. She said the 21 who signed the letter aren't abutters and that jamming something in because it can be done doesn't seem like a good plan. She asks who it benefits and says not her or her neighbors, just the person selling the property. Rick Marciano, 141 McKay Street, asks how deep the footprint across the building will go down. Colantoni, the developer, says it's a full -depth foundation with 8 -foot walls and 10 -inch thick 4 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 footing. If it was a full foundation and not a walk -out, he says he could see a potential issue but it's not. There are going to be permanent drains dealt with as far as the plans. Marciano says they've been given the pros but he wants the cons of the drainage system. Thomson comments that any system can malfunction. Alexander says the pros are that it was determined by a private engineer and the City Engineer that the results will be less run -off than there is presently. The systems are natural systems, easy to maintain and should last hundreds of years. They use the existing contours instead of creating contours. Marciano says that if the drainage system fails and undermines the property, it is the responsibility of the neighbors to have a civil lawsuit. Thomson says that yes, anytime your neighbor doesn't do something right, you have the right to sue. Charlene Smith, 17 Northern Ave, says she's heard and appreciates the efforts to address run -off, but much needs to be done to protect the neighbors who have water problems already and have brought them to the City. She notes if you put another house there and change the topography and you create fissures, water will seek its outlet and that is down, she says. She says being told "too bad, so sad' isn't a responsible response. She doesn't like the fact that protection (after blasting) is only for 30 days. She declares nobody can answer the question about what her recourse will be if suddenly she has a "swimming pool" on her property and that the City will not take responsibility at that point. Thomson says he gave the answer and they don't like the answer. He poses the question: "So therefore, there should be no development ?" Justin Repp, 14 Cornell Road, who is a real estate agent involved in this deal and has worked with John Colantoni before. He says Mr. Colantoni always stands up to the work he performs and completes projects on time. From what he sees in real estate, Mr. Repp says there are a number of properties similar in square footage that have recently sold, so there is a precedent for this type of home in this neighborhood. Margaret Mulligan, 46 Eastern Ave., asks about the waivers and the process. Thomson informs her that there is a public hearing and this is it. She wants to know about the blasting and notification for that. Wynne says they had the fire department come in to address that and there is information about it on the State Fire Marshall's website, at the local Fire Stations, and in the minutes of the April meeting. She highlighted some of what was learned in April. N. Barrett says the blasting permit is not the purview of the Board and the Board is not in a position to give legal advice regarding how abutters should respond to requests to enter their home. Thomson confirms that Mulligan is commenting that without the waivers, this project can't be done. He clarifies that this is being presented as a subdivision because the City prefers the road not be constructed to Northern Ave. He notes that one option is to build out the roadway, which would allow them to build the house. Alexander adds that the applicant has designed the plan this way to have minimal impact on the neighborhood. Thomson says that the applicant could decide to go ahead without the Board's permission and construct the remaining portion of the existing way to City standards to supply the required frontage, without any subdivision approval required. He asks that the public understand that. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 Mack: Motion to close the public hearing. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0 -1). Miller did not vote. Thomson orders a 5- minute recess. Discussion /Decision The regular meeting is resumed. Hutchinson: Motion to approve the plan conditioned upon meeting any and all conditions set forth in letters from any agency or City department and to grant the waivers that have been requested. Thomson asks about a setting a condition as part of the motion that the applicant agree to a bond to maintain the completed drainage system. Alexander suggests $3,000. Thomson asks if the applicant will consider $5,000. Alexander confers with the applicant, who agrees. He notes as second motion would be needed to condition when the off -site work should be completed. N. Barrett asks about the lifespan of the system and cost of the PVC pipes if they have to be replaced. Mscisz describes the construction materials, maintenance requirements and life expectancy of materials. He notes they'll have a longer lifetime than concrete and have no mechanical couplings. He notes a rough ballpark of replacing the plastic alone is about $1,500. Hutchinson: Adds to the above motion the following conditions: that the Board require a bond in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee the performance and maintenance of the storm water management system; that the owner or successor in interest be responsible for storm water management system operations, maintenance, and repair; that the owner or successor in interest be responsible for all maintenance and repair of utilities and roadway, including plowing, within the private way; that prior to the removal of any trees in the no- cut -zone shown on the plan, the owner shall obtain approval from the City Arborist that a tree is dead, dying or compromised by construction or clearing operations; that the private way Covenant shall be referenced and noted on a plot plan as required by the Subdivision Rules & Regulations; that the road will be posted "private way" at its entrance; that a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until and unless such time as the work and improvements to the storm drain in Northern Avenue are completed and approved by the City Engineer. The motion is seconded by Mack. Hutchinson says she understands the difficulty of the decision and agrees that not every parcel of land has to be developed. She says the triggering reason for her vote is that the drainage situation in the neighborhood situation will likely improve as a result of this project. Also she cautions the neighbors present to protect their interests in the event that blasting is done. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 Matz says he's a geologist. There is no evidence that the drainage system won't work, provided it's maintained, he says, but if it's not, it will fail and he has a concern about that. He discusses experience in his own neighborhood regarding drainage issues. He notes if the system fails, he is wondering what happens to these people. He notes that he looks at things project to project, or condition to condition, that can benefit more people. He agrees the storm water improvements, particularly on Northern Avenue, will benefit others; however, he notes he isn't convinced that putting in this residence will benefit more than one person. He says he believes the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few, or in this case, the one. C. Barrett asks how long the bond will be in place. Thomson answers forever. Vote: The motion passes (6 -1 -1). James Matz voted in opposition. Miller vote was not counted due to audio issues during the hearing. Public Hearing — Trask Lane Definitive Subdivision Plan — Elimination of Planning Board 1981 Approved Roadways, Shortening of Proposed Trask Lane and Combine Lots — Folly Hill Associates Trust Wynne notes that Miller is no longer participating by phone. She distributes written information to the Board. She reads the legal public notice for the hearing. Flannery: Motion to open the public hearing. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). Mark Glovsky, a lawyer with offices at 8 Washington St. in Beverly, says he represents the applicants Abbott and Stanley Reeve. Before he gets started, he wants to say that today he received the Planning Board staff report and letter from the City Engineer with respect to comments or deficiencies on the plan. Additionally, today the Board received a letter from Glovsky that goes beyond the plan but was an attempt to put everything in context. He says the Board determined to take no action on the Preliminary Plan in the fall of 2016. The letter is his attempt to answer some questions and explain how they got to this point where they are now. He says that if the Board thinks it may be appropriate, they are not averse to continuing the hearing so that the engineer for the project, Peter Ogren, has an opportunity to respond to the staff report and the Board has the opportunity to digest Glovsky's letter and see if they require any additional information. C. Barrett asks why the Engineering letter is dated May 11, 2017 but Glovsky only received it today. Wynne explains it was sent to her as a draft and not signed until today. N. Barrett suggests that maybe, rather than flat out continuing the hearing, Glovsky might read some of the contents of his letter. Glovsky agrees to read the pertinent sections, going into the project's history beginning in 1971 when the Reeve family acquired the property. Their original idea had been to create a Reston Virginia -like project with the golf course. That didn't pan out and they ended up selling the golf course to the City. In 1971, the City and Lawrence Reeve entered into an agreement that multiple large apartment complexes be built at Folly Hill, noting 1,400 units were contemplated. He says many don't realize there are currently 554 apartments V Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 there. This agreement was dependent on the City providing adequate water and sewer to the site and that Mr. Reeve would contribute $250,000 towards that, and that the City would adopt RSD zoning. Glovsky adds that recently, economic conditions have changed and it is the family's intention to consider sale and development of the site they are now discussing. He notes they had met with the City regarding their plans. In September 2016, the applicant filed the Preliminary Subdivision Plan and the Board voted to take no action on approving that plan. On March 23, 2017, the applicant filed the Definitive Subdivision Plan that is the subject of tonight's hearing. He explains that the plan contemplates elimination of 500 feet of Trask Lane, elimination of a couple of cul -de -sacs, and reconfiguration of the three lots into two lots, enabling the property to stay away from pockets of significant wetlands. Glovsky notes he would be happy to have Ogren provide information with respect to the plan, noting that he did file a utilities report and can walk them through it. Thomson says it is a lot of information and he would like time to review it. He notes there are many suggested conditions in the staff report. He mentions that never in the discussion is mentioned the word "freeze" and that it is clear what is going on here is the necessary steps to freeze the zoning so that any changes would not be applicable to this property. Glovsky says that is correct, but that the sole purpose is not the zoning freeze. He adds there is no need for the extra roadway and cul -de -sacs and a Subdivision Plan would have been required for those changes. Thomson notes they filed the Definitive Subdivision Plan within the proper time frame, they have the ability to freeze the former RSD use and dimensional requirements for 8 years. Thomson explains that the plan submitted is not a final development plan. For example, it doesn't show where utilities are located. He would put it in the category of a technical subdivision plan. The City Engineer made suggestions to the plan and Thomson acknowledges that the applicant needs time to react to it, as does the Board. Thomson asks if he is suggesting a timeline. Glovsky says that depends on what the Board feels is reasonable and that the family is in the process of marketing the property. Seeing that members of the public are in attendance, Thomson opens the hearing up to the public and asks them to keep remarks to within 2 minutes each. David Gardner, 9 Foster Drive, who is a member of the Open Space Recreation Committee, says that the committee is interested in what goes on at that site. They will have on their agenda a discussion of the project about how they might enhance the project for open space purposes. David Lang, Ward 1 City Councilor, says he thinks continuing the hearing is a wise thing to do and that this is the biggest plan that will ever be in Beverly. Brian Dapice, 39 Dartmouth St., has a question regarding the buffer zone of the property, specifically where there is a waterway. He receives clarification from Ogren, who explains that marks on the plan show the distance that they have to keep all development away from and have nothing to do with the waterway. Matz mentions that they need input from the Conservation Commission pertaining to all of this. -9$ Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 Laura Tower, 25 Princeton Ave., asks where this stands with respect to the City's proposal to change the zoning of that area. Thomson and Wynne explain that the City has already changed the zoning to have a higher square footage per lot area than what is currently allowed. But this plan won't be subject to that because of the zoning freeze, which happens automatically if these applicants follow the steps in the statute, which means having submitted a Definitive Subdivision Plan within 7 months from submission of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. Thomson adds the applicant will be exempt from the City's zoning change, but that doesn't stop the City from continuing to try to meet with the developer /owner to work out a plan that is satisfactory. Tower asks about access to the site and Thomson says it is only accessible from Route 128. The plan is just lines on paper, he notes. Rick Marciano, 141 McKay Street, says that if the property is available to be purchased, he recommends talking with the Mayor and maybe the City could purchase the land as a whole. Mack: Motion to continue the public hearing until the July 18, 2017 Planning Board meeting. Hutchinson seconds the motion. Glovsky, at the request of the landowner, suggests a greater urgency and asks for it to be continued to the June meeting instead. Mack: Motion to rescind his prior motion and make a new motion to continue the public hearing until the June 20, 2017. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously (7 -0). Public Hearing Date — Special Permit Application #154 -17 — Construct Airport Hangar in Water Supply Protection Overlay District —1010 Hangars, LLC, c/o Haves Engineerinz, Inc. Wynne reads the legal notice. Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering, representing 1010 Hangars, LLC, says that he understands that the Board cannot make a decision on the plan this evening and that the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board has asked for a 30 -day extension. Wynne clarifies that they requested the extension to the Planning Board. Thomson says that anytime a City agency asks for more time they are likely to grant it. Ogren says he is there to describe the project and see if there are other concerns that maybe they do not understand. He says he was taken aback by the report he received from the Planning Board and many of the requirements have been addressed and are shown on the plan. But there are a couple of items that are rather onerous and he is unclear if they are an underlying concern. Wynne says that the applicant can ask for relief from things that don't apply. Ogren notes that he needs to know which things he needs to address. 99 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 He gives some examples of some inconsistencies (for example, in one section it talks about 17 gallons and in another place 15 gallons). There is something that discusses propane stored in tanks for sale but it doesn't mention if having a propane tank for heating is allowed outside of residential buildings, which the hangar would want to have. There is something that asks for a list of materials, and he doesn't have a list of every quart of oil, etc. used in the activities in the hangar. Also, he understands that the hangar is bigger than what is cited on the lease. He asks for suggestions as to how to move forward. Ogren also mentions that the client was confused to see the lease mentioned in the staff report. Wynne says the City Solicitor advised that if what is on the lease isn't the same size as proposed in the application, the lease needs to be revised in order for the applicant to have site control. Thomson says Ogren is referring to a list of requirements that he (Thomson) doesn't have. Wynne explains that the Water Supply Protection Overlay District has some specific requirements, as well as the standard criteria for the special permit. They were not provided in the staff report. Ogren says he's not asking them to change the ordinance. He says it's more of a matter of how it's interpreted. He discusses propane storage requirements, for example. Ogren says that if you can have a tank that can refill propane, you ought to be able to have it to heat a hangar, but it looks like that is prohibited. Matz says he was one of the principal authors of the ordinance. It required the full review of the City's legal counsel through this board and other boards and was approved by City Council. He can say that propane is permissible provided that the tank is in some kind of concrete dike. The expectation is not to provide a list of every little quart of oil that you might use, but to protect the environment. He adds that the thresholds established aren't onerous. Matz suggests that perhaps Ogren and his client should submit a list of questions to the Board. Thomson asks Ogren if he is going to be able to get site control in time for the June meeting. He says yes, if he knows the authority to talk to about these things. He'd hoped what would come out of this meeting is to know who to get answers from. He suggested to his client they needed to provide a list of materials, such as jet fuel, and resolve the propane issue. Ogren and Matz continue to discuss the particulars of the hangars needs in relation to the requirements of the WSPOD. Flannery asks what size propane tank they are looking for. Ogren cannot answer until he gets further information from a mechanical engineer. Thomson says that Ogren can submit his specific questions and the Planning Board staff will distribute the questions and get an answer back to Ogren. Ogren asks for more specific interpretation of the ordinance. Wynne said that the person the applicant was previously working with on the original lease would be the person to contact. She knows the City Solicitor's office has been attempting to address it. Ogren confirms that the applicant will need site control before the Board can take action. Wynne agrees. 99 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 Hutchinson says this discussion is not a good use of the Board's time. These are discussions the applicant should be having with the Planning Department, and that the questions need to be more concrete. Ogren says he is asking where he can go to get some clarity and is not receiving due process. He complains that he is "getting admonished." Thomson says he has some guidance on the legal site plan issue. Thomson tells him to make his list of questions and the issues contained in the ordinance and the Board will do its best to get answers back to him. Hutchinson: Makes a vote to continue the public hearing until the June 20, 2017 meeting. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). Set Public Hearing Date: Special Permit Application #154 -17 — 8 Chestnut Street — Request for Deviation from Off - Street Parking Requirements — Nadia DiCarlo, Mir., Bonum LLC. C. Barrett: Motion to set the public hearing for June 20, 2017. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). Set Public Hearing Date: Special Permit Application #156 -17 — 2 -6 Enon Street (Dodge Crossing) — Request for two restaurant uses in CN District and Water Supply Protection Overlay District — Centderry, LLC c/o Glovsky & Glovskv, LLC Hutchinson: Motion to set public hearing for June 20, 2017. Mack seconds the motion. The motion passes (6 -1). N. Barrett voted against it. New or Other Business Wynne mentions that James Matz is due for reappointment to the Community Preservation Committee (CPC). N. Barrett: Motion to reappoint James Matz to the CPC on behalf of the Planning Board. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). Adjournment Hutchinson: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Thomson seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously (7 -0). The meeting is adjourned at 9:53 p.m. -9 s