Loading...
7-5-18 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: July 5, 2018 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett, William Boesch, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, Wayne Miller Members Absent: Allison Kilcoyne, David Mack Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m Recess for Public Hearings Flannery: Motion to recess to Public Hearing. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #136 -18 and Special Permit Application #169 -18 — 42 (50) Dunham Road — Construct approximately 97,396 sa. ft., 2 1 /2 story building for new manufacturing facility and request for deviation from parking requirements — Harmonic Drive, LLC c/o Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC Darlene Wynne read the Public Notice. The proposal involves construction of an approximately 97,396 sf, 2 1 /2 story (41') building for a manufacturing facility, with accessory related uses including office, training and assembly space, and 245 parking spaces, on a nearly 5 -acre portion of the 54 -acre Cummings Properties' Dunham Ridge campus. The special permit relief is being requested for deviation from the parking requirements, whereby the applicant wishes to construct fewer parking spaces than would be required by zoning. Miranda Gooding, Glovsky and Glovsky, 8 Washington Street, Beverly, representing the applicant Harmonic Drive, LLC summarizes the project for the Board since they heard most of it at the last meeting and there doesn't seem to be anyone present from the public. Gooding introduces the team: Peter Ogren is the engineer, Harry Samolchuk architect from Connolly Brothers, Jim Falbe from Harmonic Drive, Rod Emery is the traffic consultant, Doug Olson from Harmonic Drive, and Steve Connolly from Connolly Brothers. Gooding describes the project site and points out on the plan the other businesses in the area and abutters. She reminds the Board that the building will be 2 1 /2 stories high, and 75% of the building will be devoted to manufacturing while the other 25% to office space, training space, meeting space and other uses. The parking lot will consist of 245 spaces which will have a mix of compact and regular size spaces. The company has received a TIF from the City of Beverly, which is a tax incentive to relocate to Beverly. The hours of operation will be from 7:00am to Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 3:30pm for the manufacturing staff and 8:30am to 5:OOpm for the office staff. They anticipate light truck traffic in and out of the lot, and most will be deliveries and pick -ups by FedEx and UPS. Gooding tells the Board this is a conforming building and the use is conforming in the industrial district. Gooding adds they have requested a special permit for parking to be conservative, even though the City has opined that it is not needed because the office uses are accessory to the manufacturing and under the same ownership. Gooding tells them that the Building Inspector issued a letter commenting that the requirement is the 245 spaces and the project does comply. William Boesch asks Gooding if the Board agrees with the interpretation of the Building Inspector, do they still need to grant the special permit on the assumption that they may be wrong. Gooding explains that it is an unusual request and they are looking for the Board to grant the special permit for the avoidance of any doubt in the interpretation. Gooding reads the following findings that the Board will determine if met or not: a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected. b. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use. c. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. d. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. e. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. f. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Gooding tells the Board they met with the Trustees of the Dunham Castle building and also with unit owners and the response was favorable. Hutchinson asks Gooding how many people attended. Olson tells her 12 -13 people attended the meeting and that the applicant had also invited residents that live off of Presidential Circle to attend the special meeting, but nobody attended. He tells the Board that Jim Falbe spoke with the owners of the home closest to the site and their opinion of the project was favorable as well. Miller asks Gooding if the parking spaces will be built out with impervious surface or will some be reserved for future needs. Gooding tells him they are proposing to build all of them. Gooding tells him that it doesn't make sense for them to have a parking reserve option. Hutchinson asks Gooding what the number of employees is for both the manufacturing part and the office part of the business. Olson comments that it is hard to verify, but about 2/3 of the employees will be in during the 7:OOam to 3:30pm shift. Gooding tells the Board that they received favorable recommendations from the Design Review Board and Parking and Traffic Commission. The Conservation Commission also gave them a favorable determination because the driveway and grading work does not trigger the need to file a notice of intent. 2 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 Gooding says they are looking to confirm on the record that the conditions set forth for 42 Dunham Road are unique to this site and they don't want other conditions on other site plan approvals to affect this project, such as site infrastructure work. A couple of other examples she states would include noise compliance or drainage requirements that may pertain to the other businesses that should not apply to 42 Dunham Road. Gooding explains that they want to make sure down the road something doesn't come up and that on their title there aren't terms and conditions that don't really apply to their property. She tells the Board that they would like them to state that what is required conditions attached to prior site plans for other buildings on the lot, do not apply to this building. James Matz asks if their project alone will require any traffic mitigation. Gooding comments that the traffic mitigation has been thought out but certain situations will trigger traffic signalization. Wayne Miller asks if Planning Director Aaron Clausen can clarify what the Board can do with the conditions that the applicant is referring to. Clausen asks if he is looking for clarification on whether or not the Board should make a finding that the conditions of previous approvals are not applied to this particular project. Miller tells him yes. Clausen explains that he believes it is an unnecessary exercise, that findings and conditions that are attached to previous approvals would not be attached to this project. Clausen tells them there was a condition put on 52 Dunham Road approval in which Cummings Properties was required to put money into a fund to make roadway improvements. One was at the intersection of Dunham and Brimbal, to widen it to make an additional turning lane. The other was a trigger based on an analysis that would take place in 6 months and at one year following the occupancy permit, to determine if signalization was warranted. Clausen explains he believes the applicant doesn't want to get saddled with having to provide any additional mitigation in connection to that condition. Ned Barrett asks Clausen about the 52 Dunham Road project and where their occupancy currently is at. Clausen tells him it is at zero currently. Barrett asks if there is a way for them to trigger review regarding the traffic once this project has filled its occupancy. Gooding clarifies that the requirement for the analysis for the traffic impacts, even though it was in the decision for 52 Dunham Road, it's actually a requirement in 6 months or 1 year following up with occupancy of 48 Dunham Road that the analysis be done. She tells them the trigger is for the prior building. Clausen further clarifies that the condition was applied to a building that was already preapproved, but that building is still just a shell with no occupancy. Clausen tells them that the condition was tied to site conditions generally and not just those two projects. Clausen tells them when the analysis is made for that intersection it will take into account what is happening at that time. He tells them that it gives flexibility to the site to develop and the reason the analysis would take place after occupancy is because they didn't know what the land use mix was. Clausen comments that a site that has mixed use manufacturing has a different commute time, 2/3 of employees coming in earlier which is different from a building with full office use. Barrett then comments that if the analysis takes place upon occupancy of 48 building, then they may have a situation where they fill up with occupancy but it's not enough traffic and then this applicant's site comes in and there is a small bump. Barrett asks if the funding for an analysis Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 comes out of the same fund by Cummings and Clausen tells him yes. Barrett's concern is that if 48 building is occupied and the warrant study is done and they realize there is not enough traffic to necessitate a signal. Barrett thinks that it might make sense to condition a warrant study to be done on occupancy of this project independent of what's done at the other building. Barrett asks Gooding where the traffic study is for their building. Gooding tells him that the developer is responsible for the infrastructure of the site and has already done a traffic study. Gooding says that the developer had anticipated a bigger build out of the site than what they are actually proposing, which was submitted with the ENF; the Board has the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA). Gooding explains that the traffic analysis and the conditions that the Board imposed on 48 and 52 Dunham Road are buildings developed by Cummings. The applicant is developing a 5 -acre site, putting in their infrastructure, doing their portion of the roadwork and Cummings is building everything up to their unit line. Gooding says that Cummings is responsible for doing the traffic analysis that the Board is looking for, not the applicant. Gooding tells the Board that if they don't do it, then they don't want someone telling them or a future purchaser that they are on the hook for taking care of a traffic analysis. Rod Emery, traffic consultant, comments that the he doesn't have a traffic analysis for this project, but does for number 48. He tells them that Cummings came in with a 144,702 sq. ft., mixed use building and they analyzed Dunham Road and the off ramp and there was no reason to add any mitigation. The next project they came in at was 143,000 sq. ft. and that one triggered the mitigation for the site. Emery says that with the applicant's project at about 97,000 sq. feet they would not trigger mitigation. Barrett asks if the cumulative of all that would bring them to the tipping point and should the City review it at that point. Miller comments that they should do the study. Emery tells him that the 97,000 sq. ft. doesn't warrant a signal. Clausen comments that based on the other two developments on Dunham Road there was a discussion about whether or not they would need the traffic signals. At the time, the usage wasn't certain and they weren't going to build the signals if it wasn't necessary. Clausen explains at the time they looked at this in many different ways including the buildings on Dunham Road, Vitality, and a possible project like Harmonic Drive. Clausen tells them the proposed use of Harmonic Drive would have less traffic than what was presented in the ENF. Boesch comments that what he thinks the applicant is saying is that regardless of the triggers it is not their issue to deal with. Boesch asks if they can reach out to Cummings and tell them what they may have to do, because they shouldn't have to put a condition on this applicant. Gooding tells the Board that once a traffic analysis is done after the build out that Cummings has to come back to the Board to present it. And at that time the Board will have the authority to review and make a decision of how to use the funds that Cummings has already paid. Boesch asks if it is triggered by occupancy and Gooding tells him it is triggered by issuance of occupancy permit. Hutchinson asks if the certificate of occupancy for the 48 building may come after the time when this project is up and running. Hutchinson then comments that this project and the other projects may or may not trigger the need for signalization. Wynne tells Hutchinson that the decision was written for number 52, which is currently a foundation and it may remain that way for a long time. Wynne explains the condition is on the occupancy of number 48, which 4 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 is constructed and would seek occupancy at some point. Gooding then comments that if the occupancy permit were filed for number 48 tomorrow, the analysis would happen about a year and a half from now. Gooding explains that some projects such as Whole Foods and number 48 could be done and occupied by then, but the applicant Harmonic Drive should not be responsible for those traffic requirements. Barrett asks for clarification of the other buildings on property. Clausen explains that 48 is a shell and that there are no tenants that have submitted for building permit yet. Clausen tells Barrett that it could take some time for the analysis to take place. Clausen explains that if something was submitted for number 48 tomorrow, it could take 3 -6 months to fit out the space. Clausen further explains that then it would be another 6 months before the analysis would take place. Barrett is concerned that because 48 is a shell and 52 is just a foundation, then nothing will trigger for them to do an analysis and there will be no traffic signals at that point. Gooding explains that if the deadline for the warrant study started that day, then they would take into account both 48 if finished and Harmonic property, because they will be up and running in about 18 months. Gooding further explains that the longer the warrant study goes out, then more than likely it will take their project into account. Hutchinson comments that she believes there are two warrant studies, one at 6- months and one at a year. Mayor of Beverly, Michael Cahill comments that they need to hear from the Transportation Engineer. Emery begins his traffic presentation. Emery explains that they submitted a letter to the state about the four proposed projects that they have been discussing. Emery tells the Board that the state's transportation department came back with a study area based on the traffic coming from Route 128 and surrounding streets and intersections that would be most impacted. He tells them that the project submitted to MEPA had 311 peak hour trips in the morning and 335 peak hour trips in the afternoon. Hutchinson asks what the assumption of the 311 trips are based on for the build out. Emery tells her that it is based on all four projects. Emery explains that in the report they projected the traffic for 7 years. They also added the Whole Foods project and all four of the Cummings projects to do a master plan analysis. Emery comments that the roundabout, as well as Dunham Road and the ramps from 128 came in at C levels. Emery comments that the Harmonic Drive project would generate three trips to the intersection at Enon and Dodge Street which has received an F level. He then tells the Board that they have signalized Herrick Street at Brimbal Avenue. Emery explained that by taking out the 150,000 sq. ft. project and adding the 97,000 sq. foot project it zeroed it out and came out to be the same with regard to the number of trips. Emery tells them their conclusion was a mitigation package based on all 500,000 sq. ft. of new development. He comments that Cummings is trying to predict the market they are trying to serve with the land uses. Emery explains that the peak trips out of Harmonic Drive will produce about 60 in the morning and 65 at night. He tells the Board that even though they are at 150,000 sq. ft. and the other two projects are close enough to go without the mitigation, widening the road would be recommended. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 Flannery asks Clausen if the road widening would be the responsibility of the City. Clausen tells her that it would be. Boesch comments that the applicant wants the Board to not impose the conditions previously placed on the other applications and projects. Clausen recommends that based on the applicant's request that the Board make a finding that this trigger condition for occupancy doesn't apply to their project. Clausen comments that if the projects don't happen, then there will be no necessary mitigation based on the analysis of the two projects previously presented. Boesch asks him how many more trips do they need going in and out of the property for that to happen. Clausen tells him they are waiting on the analysis and that this project has a lower impact of traffic than the other two projects. Matz asks if there is any update on the Phase II of the City's proposed interchange project. Gooding asks Rod Emery to give a statement to the Board. Emery tells the Board that the project is a concept at this point and they are waiting on funding. Mayor Cahill comments that there needs to be a shared plan since the properties involved are owned by Cummings, the City, and Maestranzi Brothers. He is hoping that by sometime next year they can go to the state and get some of the details sorted out. However, he tells them that realistically it could take 7 -10 years to finish Phase II_ He hopes they can sit down with the administration next year and request Value Capture, which is one of the terms they've used for providing funding, to support a Public Private Partnership and hopes to piece it all together. Clausen explains how the overall planning of the area comes into play. He tells the Board that Cummings Properties was required to submit an Environmental Notification Form because of their proximity to Route 128, a state highway. This ended up triggering some low -level criteria to seek a letter or certification from the MEPA process to see if a full level report was needed based on traffic analysis. So the analysis that Emery spoke about earlier walked through the site master plan and looked at traffic impacts. Clausen tells them that two key components came from that, one of which was that a full environmental impact report was not necessary, because the traffic didn't trigger that. And the second component was that the mitigation of a traffic signal could successfully accommodate traffic for a full build out that includes the Harmonic Drive site. Clausen reiterates what Emery said earlier regarding an assumed 150,000 sq. ft. project for this site. He explains that the Phase II project is of importance; however, the current project being discussed does not require it. Peter Ogren, comments that they submitted a new existing topography and there has already been some grading throughout the site, and that it made sense to tier it. He explains that they have a lower level with a parking lot, a retaining wall and an upper level that accesses the lower level of the building that contains 13,000 sq. ft. Ogren explains the main footprint of the building is 67,000 sq. ft. which is at a second level which has access off the manufacturing entrance and the loading docks. In addition, is an upper level office area which is 16,000 sq. ft. which brings it up to the 97,000 sq. ft. He explains there are two accesses to the site, one is south of the parking garage and the other is north of the office building. He points out the truck access which is a southerly route they ended up changing from their original plan based on the Conservation Committees request. 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 Ogren tells the Board they met with the Fire Department safety officer and they did a traffic analysis for the fire truck access to make sure it could go up and turn around in the parking lot. He also points out the fire lane on the plan and tells them they would have access to three sides of the building, and tells them that they approved the location of the fire hydrant. He tells them that there is sewer available and points out some of the lines connecting to it. He also comments that electrical and telephone poles are already available on the site. Ogren tells them regarding drainage, they did some analysis of before and after run off and extensive soil testing on the site. He explains that they don't have soil that is suitable for infiltration, but they have a large containment system that could infiltrate to an extent. It is an underground retention pond that could mitigate the run -off from the site. They submitted the run -off analysis to the City Engineer and they got the land activities drainage permit issued on the site. He tells the Board they have submitted a lighting plan and the concept is to put lights in the center of the parking lot or off the lot lines so the spillover is minimal. He points out on the plan where the lighting will be placed. Ogren tells the Board that they plan on putting on some wall packs to the building. He then asks if there are any questions. Miller asks Ogren to clarify the north side of the parking lot. Ogren points out where the pond is on the plan and shows Miller where the current drainage is with a man hole. Ogren explains the pond is the destination of the run -off from the site. Matz asks Ogren if there is a tank on the southern part of the site. Ogren tells him he believes it is a dumpster for metal by- products to be recycled. Matz then asks if there will be a tight tank (a concrete tank that is put underground to retain industrial process water). Falbe comments that there will be one in the west corner of the building where there is an overhead door where they bring machinery in. He says because it is a drive -in door, it requires a floor drain and floor drains can't be connected to the sewer system, so any leakage will go to a small tank. Matz confirms that is a trap. Olson comments that the process for oil from the manufacturing will be inside the facility in tanks and then handed over to a company for safe disposal. Matz asks them if they will be a small quantity or very small quantity generator. Falbe says he has been trying to get that resolved with the state for the last 10 -15 years. They purchase a couple of drums of mineral spirits per year and file the appropriate forms with the state. Miller asks if there is any canopy or covered parking planned in the unshaded, south facing parking area. Falbe says there is a canopy over the two chip containers, on the side of the building, because you don't want to get water washing through the chips. Matz asks if they need a SWPP at the facilities. Ogren tells him yes. Matz asks what kind of sampling will they have to do and will it be where the run -off meets the edge of the property. Ogren tells him they have a treatment plan that meets the Massachusetts standard, with deep sump catch basins, stormceptor, and discharge to the retention area. Hutchinson asks Ogren if his letter dated June 28, 2018, deals with all of Ms. Chandler's concerns. Ogren tells Hutchinson he wrote a response letter to her concerns and sent it to the Planning Board for her. Wynne comments that Ms. Chandler is happy with the response from Ogren. 7 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 Gooding asks the Board if they would like to hear the architectural presentation. Barrett asks if the plan has been seen by the Design Review Board and do they have a favorable view of it. Flannery tells him that it has and they do have a favorable view of it. Since the Board already reviewed it, they will not be presenting it again. Gooding comments that there was communication with the Building Inspector to verify the correct determination of the frontage and appropriate set -backs for the buildings. She comments that she has had some email conversations with the Building Inspector that have been contradictory to prior conversations. She tried to clarify some issues but wasn't able to before this evening. Gooding comments that the issues are whether the yards measured from the boundaries of the property are appropriately termed as rear yards or side yards. She shows the Board a slide on the presentation where the overall lot has about 159 feet of frontage on the built portion of Dunham Road. She explains the requirement in the industrial district is 225 feet and that this is a non - conforming lot, and it's a prior non - conforming condition, but it is a frontage non - conformity that the zoning bylaw allows. Gooding tells the Board the issue the applicant has is how they figure out on a lot that houses many buildings, which is the rear yard and the side yard. She explains that in their plan they had called out a rear and side yard due to other buildings being built. She shows them on the plan where the rear yard has been determined but the rest of the boundaries are side yard, and says the Engineer made a mistake because they designated a lot line by Presidential Circle as a rear lot line, implying it required 25 -foot setback. Gooding explains that it has been reviewed by the Building Inspector and will be viewed as the side lot line and having a 20 -foot side set -back requirement. Gooding tells the Board she met with Mr. Frederickson and spoke about having parking in the front yard and she wants to be certain there is no front yard or rear yard where this building is located. Boesch asks Gooding to clarify where the side line becomes the back line and she shows him on the plan that at one point on the overall site, where the rear lot line begins and everything else is side yard. Hutchinson asks if the building meets the side setback. Gooding confirms. Wynne comments that when they looked at the plan initially, the rear and side yard were switched and that initiated the question. She explains she looked at the overall site plan for 52 Dunham Road which is consistent with what Gooding mentioned about where the rear turns to side. Wynne suggests that the Board can approve with a condition to make sure this is all cleared up with the Building Inspector, due to the contradictions. She notes if there is any modification to the plan, it would have to go back to the Planning Board for approval. Hutchinson asks what they have to do to get a final approval by the Building Inspector. Gooding comments that they need to review the plan together in person and it's been difficult to schedule that. Boesch asks if he has a different position than what they have in front of them. Gooding says that the Building Inspector's position was transmitted in an email on July 4 at 8:30pm and he may have been viewing at home without the full set of plans. It is contradictory to her prior conversations with him. E3 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 Hutchinson asks Gooding if they are comfortable with the condition of what the Planning Director is suggesting. Gooding says they are. Wynne explains that the condition is, if the Planning Board decides to approve the project, that the applicant and Building Inspector resolve the question and if that change requires a modification the applicant would need to go back to the Board for a modification request. Matz asks for them to clarify how far the back wall is to the property line. Gooding tells him it is about 20.4 feet. Gooding points out another point from the building to the line is 25.1 feet. Gooding explains that if the interpretation holds then the building will remain further away from the residences, as opposed to the south end of Presidential Circle. Matz then asks Gooding how far the north wall is from that property line. Wynne tells him that it is 20.4 feet. Wynne tells the Board about the other letters she received. There was an email from Amy Maxner from July 3, 2018, stating the status of the project with the Conservation Commission. There was the email already discussed from the Zoning Enforcement Officer /Building Inspector. She also received a response from Hayes Engineering to the Engineering Department's review. Wynne also received a letter from the Board of Health on June 28, 2018, stating their standard conditions. Gooding asks Hutchinson if she can offer up some suggestions regarding the conditions. Gooding comments that there are some concerns by the advisors of the applicant that the conditions be resolved on the record. She would like the Board to accept the following conditions with their decision, the wording would be: "Notwithstanding the existence of prior Planning Board decisions with respect to 50 Dunham Road, (Map 69, Parcel 2), the only condition which shall apply to the subject site plan are those referenced in this decision for 42 Dunham Road." Hutchinson asks if there is anyone present at the meeting from the Public to speak in favor or against the project, or has questions for the team. There were none. Miller comments that he believes the applicant is looking for assurance from the Planning Board but he is not sure if the Planning Department should meet first to discuss this. Clausen tells the Board that their position is the Board's conditions should be based on zoning and project approval. Clausen comments that the Board can add a finding or condition to the project that relates to conditions or mitigation applied to previously approved projects if they want; he does not have an issue with that. His prior comments was that he doesn't believe it is necessary. Boesch asks about the conditions. Gooding tells him she is concerned about trying to explain that these conditions have been satisfied to someone else. Gooding comments that it relates to property title, but it also is an issue that comes when a Board issues conditions on projects. Gooding tells Boesch that the applicant wants it crystal clear that those conditions don't apply to this project. Boesch comments that it may be better to be transparent and briefly explain that there are the other conditions and they aren't making the approval contingent on what happens with the other projects. Gooding explains they were looking for a finding from the Board and that there seemed to be a reluctance with that to think of an alternative way of giving the applicant that and they wanted some clarity to bring to their advisors. PJ Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 Olson tells the Board that they have other counsel, located in Boston, in addition to Glovsky & Glovsky. He tells them they are handling the contractual arrangements for the purchase and sale of the property itself. This counsel is concerned that there may potentially be additional cost for the traffic mitigation or violations with the condominium which they don't have liability for. Olson would like the issue resolved either with the Planning Board or the Cummings Properties. Barrett: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Hutchinson asks the wish of the Board. Barrett: Motion to approve Site Plan Review Application 9136 -18 with the following conditions: • Notwithstanding the existence of prior Site Plan Review and Special Permit decisions with regard to 50 Dunham Road (also known as Map 69, Parcel 2), the approval of Site Plan Review 9136 -18 is subject only to the conditions set forth in this Decision, that follow: • Subject to compliance with any and all conditions set forth in the comment letters from the City departments, boards, and commissions, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. • The Engineering Department requires the delivery of AutoCAD "as- built" drawings upon completion of the building and utility work. These drawings shall also be delivered in .pdf format generated directly from the electronic AutoCAD files. These drawings shall be delivered prior to the sale /installation of the required water meters. • All Stormwater Management maintenance and inspection records shall be submitted to the City of Beverly Planning Department (1) one time, annually due by December 31 of the calendar year in which the maintenance /inspection was performed. An account of any deficiencies /repairs shall be summarized in a cover letter referring to the maintenance /inspection record. • That the applicant shall resolve any and all issues regarding setback dimensions or building orientation with the Director of Municipal Inspections. Should this require any changes to the site plan, the applicant shall submit a modification request to the Planning Board. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). Barrett than stated that the project meets the required special permit findings as stated below: • That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected. • That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use. • That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. 10 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 5, 2018 • That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. • That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. • That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Barrett: Motion to grant special permit application 9169 -18, to the extent such relief is necessary, to allow deviation from Article X Parking and Loading Requirements of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance, subject to the preamble and conditions set forth in the approval of Site Plan Review 9136 -18 Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). New /Other Business a. Other business not known at the time of the posting of this agenda. Adjournment Boesch: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:21pm. Zane Craft seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). 11