Loading...
10-30-18 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: October 30, 2018 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett, William Boesch, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, David Mack, James Matz Members Absent: Wayne Miller Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans a. 59 Ober Street — 59 Ober Street LLC Materials added into the Record: Form A: SANR Application SANR Plans: "Subdivision Plan of Land in Beverly, Massachusetts" prepared for 59 Ober Street LLC, 258 Andover Street, Georgetown, MA 01833, dated October 9, 2018, scale: 1 " =30', drawn by Williams & Sparages, 189 North Main Street, Suite 101, Middleton, MA 01949. Thomas Alexander, offices at 1 School Street in Beverly on behalf of the applicant 59 Ober Street LLC tells the Board that this is an ANR plan on a way that has provided frontage for three other lots and that the Board has previously signed off on an ANR for this way. The lot is in the R10 zone, which requires 100 feet of frontage and 10,000 s.f. of area. He tells them that each lot has over 117 feet of frontage, which is more than adequate frontage and each lot has more than 10,000 s£ The area of Lot 1 is 33,500 square feet in area, when subtracting the way and the area subject to the conservation commission jurisdiction, the lot area is 27,400 s.f., which is more than double the requirement. Lot 2 has 28,400 s.f. in area, and subtracting the road easement area and conservation commission jurisdictional area, the net is 26,600 s.f.. He says the Board has previously determined that the way is adequate for frontage. They are requesting endorsement of approval not required plan. James Matz asks if this is next to Lynch Park. Alexander answers yes. Ellen Flannery asks if this is where Mrs. Kennedy's house is located. Alexander answers yes. Darlene Wynne notes that the frontage she saw on plans recorded in the Registry of Deeds is located in a different location, is about 167 feet, and does not include the parcel containing the roadway, as shown on this plan. She points it out on the plan and asks when the lot line was changed. Alexander explains that it was there before the subsequent way was there and the frontage shown and used was the initial way and is where the pavement is. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 William Boesch asks where the pavement is. Alexander points it out on the plan. Wynne comments that the section that says Way on plan is shown as a separate lot on previous plans. Alexander explains that it was merged because it is owned by one owner. Alexander tells Wynne that it has been that way since the 1930s or 1940s. Alexander comments that this way has been deemed to have adequate frontage by the Planning Board previously. Wynne notes that a 2008 ANR plan relates to one -end of the street. She comments that the distance on the plan doesn't qualify for a pork chop lot. Alexander clarifies that it is not a pork chop lot because it has frontage at the way. Ellen Hutchinson asks Wynne if she is satisfied with the answers to the questions. Alexander notes that there are two houses further down the road that frontage on this way. Alexander shows on the plan where they are taking the frontage from. Wynne comments that historically the frontage was not taken from the spot that Alexander points out. Alexander explains that it is the older of the two ways and is where the pavement is. Hutchinson asks if the owner is claiming ownership to a way that they don't own. Wynne asks if they own the land. Alexander says that they do. Alexander comments that there are two ways. One way provides access to one house and the other way provides access to the other. Alexander comments that the Board has already determined that this way is not subject to the Subdivision Control Law and that it provides access for emergency vehicles. He says it is the same way providing access to the other lots. Boesch asks in what context was the shorter of the frontage measured and what has changed since then to enable you to claim greater frontage. Wynne comments that they are looking for clarity on how the calculation of frontage is calculated in one area compared to another. Alexander explains that there is a frontage calculation on the edge of the lot that they own that abuts the way which is 117 feet for one lot, 117 feet on the second lot, they go back the setback distance of 20 feet, and there is 117 feet again for each lot, which equals the adequate frontage. David Mack asks how can there be two separate ways of frontage when they are stacked on top of each other. Alexander comments that is a historical thing and he is not sure why they did it that way. Alexander points out the first one and the subsequent one. Mack clarifies the outer way is the one they want, and that is the first one. Wynne asks on which part they drive. Alexander shows on the plan where the pavement is. Hutchinson asks why the previous lot line was on the second way, on prior plans. Alexander says it may have been separate lots, but explains that it has been one parcel for some time now. Matz asks why the parcel juts out and looks like it is overlaying the other way and then comes back again. Alexander shows it on the plan and explains it to Matz and then tells him that they are getting frontage from the older way. Wynne explains this was all one lot historically and Alexander tells her yes. Wynne then comments that back when they used to have pork chop regulations, it used to be a series of pork chop lots with long driveways and she suspects that could be why the ways are cut up the way they currently are. Alexander is not aware of that. Alexander comments that the lot was using frontage for a particular lot he points out on the plan FN Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 about 5 -6 years ago. Alexander comments that all the other lots were ANR lots endorsed by the Planning Board previously. Hutchinson asks what the Board's options are. Wynne explains that if they think Alexander has demonstrated that the plan has frontage and access on the way, then they have to accept it as an ANR. Alexander comments that it is a way in existence that has been used for access for two other lots for over 50 years and notes that Fire and Police vehicles use the roadway. Alexander says he believes that this way can be used for frontage purposes. Boesch asks if there was only one way, combined, rather than multiple ways, would they have sufficient frontage. Alexander comments and points out on plan that if they just had one particular way they would have sufficient frontage, but if they had a different one on plan then they would not have frontage at the setback. Boesch asks why that is the right place to measure the frontage. Alexander tells Boesch they have to check to make sure that the way has sufficient grades, width, and pavement to ensure emergency vehicles can go up and down and that is why they use the paved way as their frontage. Wynne asks Alexander to point out where the pavement ends on a particular section of the plan. Alexander points out where it is on the plan. Boesch asks why the plan is labeled way because it is not paved. Alexander comments that when it was all one parcel, the owner granted right of way across it. Alexander then tells him that with a lot of ways, they are not necessarily paved and are called paper streets. Boesch asks how do they know that by looking at the map. Alexander comments that the document doesn't show that. Ned Barrett asks if the part that is currently paved is being used as a right of way, and it is being used by cars and is sufficient access for emergency vehicles, and at any time would the right of way need to be expanded by pushing the lot lines into the way and are they prohibiting that from happening. Alexander comments that it has been more than adequate of an area being used and there are only three houses so you don't need a wide street for it. Hutchinson asks how wide the pavement is. Alexander answers it is about 15 feet wide. Zane Craft asks about Lot 2 extending into the pavement and is it not exclusive to the older way but extends into the property as well. Alexander says no and points out on the plan where the pavement runs along the original way. Mack comments that the key to the ANR is to have access and sufficient frontage and they have a plan that is certified and presumably accurate. He doesn't know whether the ordinance says there can only be one way a property can look at for frontage purposes. If there are two ways shown on a plan and we know that it is paved and accessible, he thinks that it is an ANR plan that they should endorse. The fact that someone else may be able to show that there is no legal access or that this plan is somewhat inaccurate, they'd be free to challenge that. He thinks the Board has to accept it on face. Mack: Motion to endorse the plan as an ANR plan. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved (6 -2, Boesch and Hutchinson opposed). Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 Approval of Minutes (as available): September 11, 2018 Wynne comments that they had some typographical errors from Flannery and Boesch. Flannery: Motion to approve the September 11, 2018 meeting minutes, as amended. Boesch seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0 -1, Hutchinson abstains). Recess for Public Hearings Flannery: Motion to recess to Public Hearing. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved (8 -0). Continued Public Hearing: Livingstone Avenue Definitive Subdivision Plan (7 Porter Terrace) — Livingstone Avenue — 7 Porter Terrace, LLC Wynne tells the Board that the applicant has asked for a continuance until the November 20, 2018 meeting. Barrett: Motion to continue the Public Hearing to the November 20, 2018 meeting and accept the extension of time to review until November 20, 2018. Boesch seconds the motion. The motion is approved (8 -0). Flannery: Motion to reconvene meeting. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved (8 -0). Continued Discussion/Decision on Preferred Plan: Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Initial Review Application #11 -18 — Hickory Street Realty Trust and Sprint Hill Ventures, LLC Materials added into the record: • Staff Report 92 — Off Thaxton Road and Grover Street • Letter - Robert Griffin, Griffin Engineering Group, LLC regarding OSRD Initial Review Application for 6 -acre parcel off Thaxton Road and Grover Street, dated 10/12/18 • Revised Yield Plan and Concept Plans for 6 -acre parcel off Thaxton Road and Grover Street, prepared by Griffin Engineering Group, revised through 10/12/18 • Letter -Fire Department 10/29/18 • Letter - Police Department 10/28/18 • Letter- Kalman/Galui 10/27/18 • Letter -RJ Lyman 10/30/18 The Board previously reviewed and voted on a Yield Plan at the September 11, 2018 meeting, setting a basic maximum number of lots at 3 lots /units. The applicant wanted to return with revised concept plants that show 3 lots, and not the 4 lots originally submitted. The property is Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 nearly 6 -acres in the R22 zoning district and in the Water Supply Protect Overlay District, with 675 + /- sq. ft. of frontage on Grover Street and access from a stub off Thaxton Road. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering reminds the Board that this is a continuation of the OSRD Initial Review application for a 6 -acre parcel of land at the corner of Grover and Thaxton Streets where the Board approved a 3 -lot yield plan in September. There was concern from multiple boards about access to a fourth lot from Grover Street in the Yield Plan. The Board now has to decide upon a preferred concept plan. Griffin reminds the Board of various site features, including that the Spring Hill Estates has an emergency egress with a crash gate at its cul -de -sac providing access to the Thaxton stub. The existing conditions plan shows the intermittent stream with wetlands on both sides of the stream. There is also a 200 -foot setback because the stream is tributary to the drinking water supply. He then shows the Board the portion of the property that has a greater than 20% slopes that plays into their calculation for buildable area on the parcel. The land slopes from an elevation of 54 along Grover Street up to elevation 78 at the southern end of the property. At the buildable portion of the land, off Thaxton Street, the lowest point of elevation is 86 and then up to about 114 or so. Griffin then shows the Board the original 4 -lot yield plan which had one house coming off the driveway with a small wetland crossing and then shows them the revised 3 -lot conventional subdivision layout. The length of the cul -de -sac is about 250 feet with three R22 conforming lots. He explains that when they did the new yield plan they removed the one house on the wetland side. With the request from the Planning Board they show additional features of the Springhill subdivision, including an Open Space easement and the access to Angus Circle. Griffin then shows the Board the old Option A (old) option which had four houses before getting into the new Concepts. Concept A.1 (new), a variation on the former Alternative A, has the same open space of 3.25 acres of land with three houses and a dedicated area for construction of a storm water detention pond. The road is the about the same length as before when you reached the end of the cul -de -sac, but it is now, about 390 feet so slightly shorter. They have included a detention pond which will simplify their proposed grading. The first and second houses are in the same spot as before, but with a slightly bigger lots. Hutchinson asks Griffin if he can identify on the plans how they relate to the buffer zones and wetlands and such in each plan. Griffin points out the 200 -foot setback from the stream, which represents the Zone A water supply protection area, and then the three wetland resource zones at 25 -, 50- and 100 -feet. The land to the east of that is all uplands and out of the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction. The only work in the buffer zone is the construction of the storm water basin and they are outside of the 25 foot no disturb zone and the 50 foot no build zone. Matz comments that the storm water detention basin needs to be outside the Zone A. Griffin comments that they do need permission from the Conservation Commission for the storm water basin itself. Matz then comments about the regulations for a storm water detention basin within Zone A. Griffin comments that they can't put a storm water retention basin in Zone A but they can put a detention basin in a buffer zone. Griffin then shows they are doing some grading along Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 the buffer zone. Griffin tells the Board they are working with a 25 -foot wide tract buffer and doesn't believe there will be any negative impact because of the 50- foot -wide no disturb area associated with the open space in Wenham. They have been able to push the activity away from the sensitive areas and wetlands. Mack asks if the applicant prefers Option A.1. Griffin tells him that it is their preferred plan and that he will also show the other options. Griffin shows the Board Plan A2 which flips the house on Lot 1 to the other side of the roadway. There will be three houses with a roadway about the same length as the last one at about 425 feet to the end of the cul -de -sac. He points out that Plan A.2 vs. Plan A.1 has a different location for the storm water basin and there will be a lot of grading activities in order to create the detention pond and it will be squeezed in between the house and the driveway. Matz comments that if people decided to do something with the yard that they wouldn't have a lot of space because a lot of it is in the buffer zone. Griffin tells Matz that it is and they would have to get permission from Conservation Commission for the detention pond and driveway, but there is a level area to utilize. Wynne asks about the grading on Plan A.2 and is it not necessary to have grading for Plan A.1. Griffin comments they did the grading of that pond when they drew up the 4 lot plan. He then tells Wynne that they have more room to work with on Plan A.1 as opposed to Plan A2. He mentions that with the detention pond, though it is uphill it will be discharging into the wetlands and flow down to Dodge Street. Wynne then asks if it will be a basin type, natural looking system. Griffin says they will figure that out as the design part of the project continues. Griffin comments that an open basin is most efficient space -wise as compared to an underground basin. But they would consider doing something underground if the yards aren't big enough. Griffin says it would be easier to maintain it if it was aboveground. Griffin then shows the Board Option B (old) and lets them know there is no new Option B. He then shows Option C (old), which had 2 houses closest to the town line and Option C (new) puts a house down in same area and then 2 by the access on Thaxton. He points out grading next to the house on Lot 1 and tract buffer on the roadway into site, which would complete the emergency connection to Angus Circle. Hutchinson asks if they could flip the house on the C -3 plan so it's out of the Buffer Zone. Griffin tells Hutchinson that they could, because it is a flat area. Craft asks if the preferred plan would require more grading. Griffin comments that they would work primarily in the open flat area but they would have to do some excavation to fit the house at that location. Matz asks if the applicant is most comfortable with the A.1 Concept Plan. Griffin tells him yes. Flannery comments that if the resident wanted to put a shed on Lot 1, there would be no room with the setbacks. Griffin comments that they could put a shed and they could have adequate room on Lot 1 and still conform to the zoning restrictions. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 Wynne comments that they have received letters regarding the revised plans from the following Departments: The Board of Health, Fire Department and Police Department had no comments and the abutters' letter had specific comments about blasting, preservation, and trees and flora, and location of storm water management. The abutters prefer Concept A.1 and they are asking for them to consider selecting Lot B to minimize woodlands destruction. Wynne also notes a letter from RJ Lyman that the City had requested the applicant provide. She explained during prior review of the Wenham subdivision, there was a question about rights to access over the stub and use of it as access to the development parcel. She said the City asked the applicant for evidence that they could use that stub as the development access. Wynne recommends that they incorporate that into a possible decision for when the site plan subdivision plan is submitted. The existing letters had comments about concept plans, and some were incorporated into the acceptance of the yield plan. Hutchinson asks Griffin to go back to Concept C and asks if the third house could be shifted to the right and is what they did on Concept A.1. Griffin explains that driveway is further from the lot line and avoids the hill that they would have to excavate. Hutchinson then asks how Lots 1 and 2 on plan C differ from Lots 1 and 2 on Concept A.1. Griffin explains that Lot 1 on Concept C is a little bit bigger than Lot 1 on Concept A.1, about 21,800 s.f. as opposed to Lot 19,500 s.f. respectively. In the Concept A plans, the road curves closer to the homes. Griffin continues to explain the differences between Concept C and Concept A. Hutchinson asks about the storm water management and how it differs on each plan. Griffin explains that they are similar locations and points them out on the plans. Hutchinson asks if the yard for Lot 1 on Plan C is larger. Griffin tells her that it is. Mack asks if they need a waiver for the lot sizes for Lot 1 on the preferred plan or do they need on both. Wynne answers they don't need a waiver for the lot size. Matz comments that he likes Concept A.1 because there is minimal disturbance especially within the water supply zone. Craft asks about the proposed roadway. Griffin tells him that it is 18 feet of pavement with a 40- foot right -of -way. Barrett asks about the letters from the abutters saying that they prefer Option A.1. Hutchinson then invites the abutters to speak. Tina Buchs, of 4 Thaxton Road, points out an area that is very steep on Lot 3 and comments that they would have to do a lot of work on that area, and it is about 100 feet from the wetlands, and that kind of work would be very disruptive. Griffin asks that the Board approve the revised Yield Plan and then he could work on the definitive subdivision application and the OSRD site plan. Wynne comments that the Board could accept it as the actual Yield Plan and then they could select the preferred plan and make conditions. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 Mack asks if they can accept Concept A.1 as the preferred plan and have them expand the size of Lot 1. Wynne tells Mack they can make that comment in the decision of what they want to see on the site plan. Buchs asks to show the plan with the incline. Griffin shows the Board the plan with the steep incline. Griffin tells Buchs they can still put the storm water pond and leave the steep area alone. Flannery: Motion to accept the amended Yield Plan for OSRD application #11 -18. Boesch seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0 -1, Barrett abstains). Mack: Motion to accept Concept A.1 as the Preferred Plan with the requests that (1) the applicant consider increasing the size of Lot 1 so that the yard area is bigger than depicted and (2) the applicant give consideration to the abutters' request that the area to the right of the open space be added to the dedicated open space or otherwise avoid disturbance in that area. Boesch seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0 -1, Barrett abstains). Request for Minor Modification ( 0) to Site Plan Review: Site Plan #111 -13 — 50 Dunham Road (48) — Cummings Properties LLC Materials added into the record: • Letter - Stephen Drohosky, Cummings Properties, LLC, 10/22/18 • Modification of Site Plan Review Application, dated October 22, 2018 • Plan to Accompany Site Plan Review Modification, dated 10/19/18 • Staff Report — 50 Dunham Road Modification 93 • Letter - William Burke, Director of Public Health, 10/24/18 • Letter -Fire Department - 10/29/18 • Letter - Police Department- 10/29/18 Wynne explains that the Board approved a minor modification for a site plan at 50 Dunham Road at the October 16, 2018 meeting. In approving the last modification, the Board conditioned that approval of all future site changes be run by the Planning Department before execution. The applicant is now requesting a new minor modification in response to conditions set forth by the Conservation Committee. The applicant has asked for a continuance until the next meeting on November 20, 2018. Mack: Motion to continue to the November 20, 2018 meeting. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (8 -0). Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review: Site Plan #123 -16 and Special Permits #150 -16 and #165 -17 — 2 Hardy Street — Hardy Street Realty, LLC Materials provided into the record: Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 • Staff Report -2 Hardy Street • Letter - Harborlight Community Partners- Andrew DeFranza, Executive Director, 10/24/18 • Letter - Design Review Board, 10/25/18 The Board approved a Site Plan and Special Permit to construct 6 units of housing at this site in May 2016; the special permit was to allow a building in the CC District with 100% residential uses — as this building is not directly on Rantoul Street. The Board approved in December 2017 a subsequent Special Permit and Inclusionary Housing permit to facilitate 100% of the units as affordable and for the units to count as credit units for the prior developer who donated the land to Harborlight Community Partners. Kristen Carlson from Harbor Light Community Partners, tells the Board that they will be the new owners of 2 Hardy Street and will create 6 affordable housing units there. One of the components of affordability for this project is that they have a donor that will help with solar costs, which will provide about 75% of the energy for the building. She explains they also wanted to create two accessible units on the ground floor. Therefore, the modification they are seeking is regarding the roof, which the previous one was more expensive and wouldn't be able to fit as many solar panels on it. She says instead have designed a flat roof that fits into the neighborhood. The applicant went before the Design Review Board to share the new design. Thad Siemasko, Siemasko and Verbridge, is working with Meridian Associates on the design of this project. He tells the Board that the site is behind the Flats at 131 building on Rantoul Street where there is an empty lot. Siemasko shows pictures of the site, which they will be accessed from Hardy Street. He notes the project will help fill the void with an attractive building on the corner of Pleasant and Hardy Streets. The building will have bay windows which is a common feature in the neighborhood. He shows a drawing of the proposed 3 -story building and explains how it will transition nicely into the neighborhood with the design. He shows the Board the site plan and comments that they are making 2 accessible units on the ground floor, and will have front and back door required accessibility with an accessible walkway in two areas of the property. He then points out the entrance to building, steps with iron rails, plantings, and comments that the Design Review Board requested that they change the height of the junipers. The Design Review Board asked them to narrow the opening of the parking lot to 18 feet and reduce the radius which they will do in their final plans. He says that all the changes have been incorporated as suggested by Design Review Board. Siemasko then shows the basement and utility spaces. The first floor units are all accessible with accessible laundry for all of the building. They have added some covered porch roofs to the entrances. The building is two units per floor, six units total, with entrances from the front door from Pleasant or the back door from the parking lot. Bay windows have been added, so they added some bays on the 1s and 2n floors. The whole area of the roof will be available for the solar panels. He shows the front elevation of the building. The building is a three decker style. He shows the building from the view of Pleasant and Hardy Streets. Design Review Board commented that they wanted something to hide the trash. Off the driveway there will be a shed and a canopy over it. He shows a picture of a house to show similar color palette they will be using. The prior plan had flat faces and this one will have a more elaborate flat roof. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 Hutchinson asks if the Design Review Board requirements have been implemented into their plans. Siemasko comments that they were with the exception of the bays. Wynne suggests that the Board clarify Design Review Board condition 91 to say that two bays one on Hardy and one on Pleasant Street will be partial bays. Matz comments that some residents may have an issue about the solar panels. Siemasko comments that the solar panels would be less visible on a flat roof. Wynne comments that a letter was submitted from the Design Review Board. Flannery: Motion to deem proposed plan as a minor modification. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -1, Barrett opposed). Flannery: Motion to approve proposed modification subject to the Design Review Board conditions in a letter dated 10/15/18, with condition 91 amended to read, that the two bays will be partial bays that extend from the second floor only, each second floor bay will have windows and shingle banding to mimic the second floor bays with additional architectural detail to emphasize the actual bays, and conditions 92 - 96 remain as stated. Kilcoyne seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7- 0-1, Barrett abstains). Construction Completion and Bond Release: OSRD Site Plan #07 -15 & Definitive Plan — 50 & 54 Boyles Street (nka Village Lane) — Cove Village LLC Materials provided into the record: • Staff Report — Subdivision Construction Completions • Form H Release Form • As Built Plan & Profile Plans • Letter - Engineering Department, 10/26/18 Matz recuses himself. Wynne explains the Board approved an OSRD Site Plan and Definitive Subdivision Plan for this project containing 6 new building lots and 2.3 acres of private open space, issuing its decision on October 20, 2015. The project is now complete and fully occupied. In April 2017, the applicant provided the City with $1,500, to be held in a segregated account solely for this project, to secure the obligations of the Homeowner's Association related to this project. Jeff Rhuda, Cove Village LLC, tells the Board that they have all the required paperwork and letter from the Engineering Department. Wynne comments that the Engineering Department has accepted the plans. The letter states the requirement of a holdback of 20% for roadways to ensure that they have weathered the winter and the Engineering Department believes that they have met that standard and the bond can be released in full. 10 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 Hutchinson comments that the applicant is seeking the approval of the as -built plans and the release of the performance bond (Form H), and to recommend to City Council the acceptance of the roadway as a public street. Wynne says that the Engineering Department has signed off on the request. Mack: Motion to grant request to release bond and recommend to the City Council that the roadway be accepted as a public street. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Construction Completion and Bond Release: OSRD Site Plan #05 -14 & Definitive Plan — 44 & 52 Standley Street (nka Emily Way) — RC Realty Trust Materials provided into the record: Staff Report — Subdivision Construction Completions Letter -R.C. Realty Construction & Development, LLC, 10/22/18 Letter - Engineering Department- 10/26/18 Craft recuses himself. The Board approved an OSRD Site Plan and Definitive Subdivision Plan for this project containing 8 new building lots and 3.76 acres of open space (both private and public), issuing its decision on September 15, 2015. The project is now complete and fully occupied. In March 2017, the applicant provided the City with $1,500 bond, to secure the obligations of the Homeowner's Association related to this project. This bond will need to be reissued annually. The public open space was conveyed to the Conservation Commission in early 2017. Thomas Alexander on behalf of RC Realty Trust explains they are seeking release of the triparty agreement that secured the work. He notes that the Board desired the roadway to be public because the roadway provides access to new community gardens. Wynne comments that they received a letter from Engineering Department and they have reviewed the as -built plans and street acceptance plans, and they suggest the release of the bond in full and acceptance of street as public way. The street has weathered a winter. Mack: Motion to grant the request to approve as built plans and release the performance bond and recommend to the City Council that the roadway be accepted as public street. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -1, Matz opposed). New /Other Business a. Communication: Public Hearing set for 11/5/18 at 8pm for Proposed Amendment to the Beverly Zoning Ordinance establishing Land Use regulations for Marijuana Establishments 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2018 Wynne tells the Planning Board that they will be meeting with City Council on November 5 th to discuss the Zoning Ordinance to establish Land Use regulations for Marijuana Establishments. Wynne comments that they could reconvene after the meeting to discuss the issue. Mack indicates he will not be at the November 20, 2018 meeting. Hutchinson asks if everyone but Mack will be at the November 20 meeting. Adjournment Barrett: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 pm. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (8 -0). 12