At the core of the meeting was the debate over the expired covenant relating to traffic safety and its implications for the Folly Hill development. The applicant’s representative, Miranda Sasco, presented arguments that the covenant had likely expired after 30 years, making it unenforceable. This position was supported by a legal memorandum, which concluded that since no extensions were recorded, the covenant’s enforceability had lapsed. The applicant proposed a reduction in the scope of required traffic studies, focusing on two intersections: TRC Lane and Wayside Drive, and Tras Lane and Folly Hill Drive. This proposal was based on the reasoning that the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) would handle traffic studies for other intersections during the environmental review process.

The discussion on the covenant’s status prompted extensive deliberation among Board members about their jurisdiction and the project’s potential traffic impact. Questions were raised regarding the Board’s authority to demand additional peer reviews of traffic impacts if the applicant challenged their necessity. Town Council’s representative, Ety Singer, explained that although the covenant had likely expired, the Board could still explore possible enforcement avenues, albeit with limited authority. It was noted that the covenant’s provisions mainly focused on traffic safety, restricting the Board’s ability to reject the project based on broader traffic implications.

The Board was particularly concerned about the jurisdiction over certain intersections and whether the applicant was obligated to attend meetings if the covenant had indeed expired. Board members sought clarity on the specific intersections included in the project and the necessity of proposed improvements like striping and signage.

Public comments highlighted community concerns about the development’s impact on traffic and infrastructure. Residents expressed frustration over traffic congestion, particularly on Route 62 and Conan Street, and questioned whether alternative access points could be explored in Beverly instead of Danvers. They were also worried about the development generating no tax revenue for Danvers while increasing traffic burdens on local roads. These comments underscored the community’s apprehensions about long-term financial liabilities due to road maintenance.

The meeting proceeded with discussions on the need for a peer review of roadways affected by the proposed development. A motion was made to conduct a review focused on Hill Drive and Wayside Drive, with the intent to reassess the development’s implications after its completion. The Board emphasized consulting with Town Council to manage the covenant’s effects on the development appropriately.

Beyond the covenant-related discussions, the Planning Board revisited zoning bylaw amendments slated for an upcoming special town meeting. These included adjustments to site plan reviews, dimensional regulations, and off-street parking standards. The Board also considered changes to the Tapleyville Overlay District and the Civic Space Institutional zoning. A notable amendment involved Article 5, pertaining to kennel regulations, which was discussed in detail. The proposed changes aimed to align with state definitions, allowing households to keep up to four dogs without a Zoning Board of Appeals permit, but requiring special permits for more.

The meeting also addressed the removal of Article 6 from the town meeting warrant, a decision influenced by public concerns about traffic and density issues in the Pine Street area. This removal allowed for further public discourse before any future votes. Discussions included potential developments on properties affected by changes to the groundwater protection overlay district, which had implications for water resources and environmental protections.