##VIDEO ID:OcdbmiRumIo## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] something is my camera off yeah everything else is good yeah everything else is good sh okay thank you yes yep we have a number of items there's some there's there's a there's agendas on that chair right there ma'am are we uh Josh know we ready to start we're live live yeah did I start the meeting yeah okay I guess Lou I guess we'll just wait for wait for Jim right yeah Jim is here but I think he just stepped away sure I think are we El at Owen mhm okay I can turn the volum to like to check to check it or you want me to turn off ready sure we good okay good evening this is Lewis George I'm chair of the danver's planning board we're here for a public meeting of the Danver planning board today is November the 12th 2024 uh it's a little bit past 6:30 we're here at the Danver Senior Center and I'm here um with our other members Michael dulis Jean hartnet our clerk uh Jim Sears and Tim spittle and so we have the agenda for today uh the first item on the agenda is uh a public hearing or continuation rather of a public hearing with respect to our subdivision rules and regulations uh discussion of new planning board rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land in Danvers Massachusetts and so I know that we'll have a this is sort of we began this uh discussion at our last meeting and we'll be I believe staff does have a presentation that they'll be giving and so um we we actually uh at at the conclusion of our last meeting we decided to start this meeting a little bit early just to uh to be able to have a discussion of our uh of the of the proposed subdivision rules and regulations have some discussion and um probably I think we were looking at we we'll see how we go in terms of discussion but I think we're looking at potentially maybe 45 minutes to an hour with respect to that so um Josh do you want to yep very good just uh GNA bring it up so yep um and if you can just speak up into the mic too just it's a little hard AB sorry just people can hear oriented from um so yes we put this presentation together so we Bas um we were hearing from the board that they wouldd be interested in kind of seeing um you know it's a 60 plus page document um the board was interested in kind of breaking it down a little bit so we tried to uh to kind of break it down just by section of the document and just kind of highlight um some of the important things um per section and I think um it might be B beneficial to just kind of go you know just kind of section by section um if there's someone from the board wants to maybe do it different or um kind of like what we did with the zoning Amendment stuff recently sort of do a walk through presentation first and then yeah sure we could total sure though that or even if we're on a section the slide each each section each section is like a slide two slides um while we're talking about if someone has a question or comment on this particular section or this particular item I think that's completely fine to if the board has a question we don't we don't we don't have to hold questions to the end I think it's fine just did um deal with it it section by section so okay um so yeah I guess I'll just get into it now we do have members of the public here as well for this is a public hearing that's right so if we if the public has questions about it should we I think uh maybe maybe at maybe at the at the end maybe that's okay with that makes sense that seems fine okay great um but yes it is a public hearing so um the public has the opportunity to have a question or comment so just this uh section one just the general kind of just the first chap section SL chapter um we've tried to just kind of I mean each section is like three or four or five pages but we've tried to just highlight M you know or show in this presentation the kind of the bigger items more important items so just like sort of just like today um the board does have the ability to Grant waivers um when they deem that the waivers are in the public interest um that's what's on the books and currently but we're just going to continue to allow that um staff um one of the big one of the changes or new things is we're we're just we're allowing ourselves an opportunity to just make sure um you know in the situation where we don't where we haven't discussed with the applicant the end application um it's beneficial for us sometimes to you know that an application's dropped off just give us an opportunity to kind of to look at it before it stamped in an official because uh once you stamp it in you know the the clock starts and there's a lot of in Mass General law days where things have to happen so we're just giving ourselves um a week you know a week or so of work just to have the opportunity to like review the application ask you know say hey this Sheet's missing or this information's missing um so that is sort of a new a new um language but we think were we set it would be helpful um is that if I could just keep going or do we anyone have any questions or comments on section one okay typo okay yeah does it typo yeah right the top oh okay yep thank you yep that was just for this but thank you yep um just a question Josh with respect to the in terms of dep the the town staff must determine completeness of application within 10 business days so if the uh if that 10 days um uh you know once that 10 days passes yeah then then it's then it's deemed you know I guess accepted is that I would I guess that would be the Assumption I guess we could clar I guess we could write clarify clarify that in writing but that's a good point we could clarify what what happens when right we could do that okay just to make it clear because we we also don't want you know if there's if there's some sort of in problem with the application you know you know and it comes off on day 11 or day 12 or something like that sure you know yep we could we could clarify that a little bit okay uh this is uh section two is talking about um an anrs and kind of just the process the anr process um you know uh most all the language and is to be in not just in this section but all of them are with the dates and the times and the expiration and all that the the legal stuff is all just from Mass General law so we're just using we're incorporating that language um for the section you know the 20 so the 21 days for the anr is comes from you know Mass General law so when someone submits a anr application the the board has 21 days to it has to be added to agenda within 21 days we're not changing we're not changing any there's no policy change or anything um you know the majority of the board has to sign it um nothing you know pretty straightforward um section three is preliminary plan does this address any I know some we've I think in the past we've we've heard some concerns about anrs before I guess in terms of access and that sort of thing there's uh there is a little bit of language in the document but we could you know talks about the three prongs M um I could make sure that that is included but I right now that you bring that up um we could maybe I could check to make sure that that language is in there but it I think I believe that it is okay you know there's a lot of language that it's not a subdivision it's a distinctly different thing mhm but um I could ensure that that language is included okay um section three is talking about preliminary plans once again very kind of consistent or is consistent with Master law regarding preliminary plans um they're not required for residential plans but we generally are in favor of them um and another piece to this is and you it will be throughout the document is just sort of focus on improving drainage drainage Drainage Systems in storm water with the you know encouraging or strongly encouraging and are requiring low impact development MH um so when working with engineering and putting this document together that's certainly one of their kind of f you know focuses like main main interest in adding adding more uh you know modern modern storm water regulations into this document which a current document you know is quite outdated so MH um on okay so this is um section four is definitive plans just before we move on from section four yep section yep yes does anyone have any questions with respect to section three I mean this is obviously we're going through the this is just going through the PowerPoint well we can certainly go through it in more detail once we've gone through this too okay hi Josh why you move on to four then so this is just talking about the sub the definitive plans um talks about applicability and just excuse me could you please um if you're going to talk if you can take it that's we're in the middle of the meeting once again it just talks about the pro each section the way it's set up is there's a lot of kind a lot of dates and kind of the the process when when they have to drop you know when has to be submitted when you make modifications or what you know what's required with the plans M obviously with a definitive plan um the submission requirement are significantly more than the the section previous to this um much more details um the preliminary in this section before um the state doesn't require nearly as much as the definitive plan and uh something that kind of like a major point with this one is uh a new kind of part to this is we have a series or a number of uh mandatory conditions that will be in every decision uh related to definitive plan um I tried to highlight the five here were some of like the more significant ones or um there's several there's several more but just for this Pro for this exercise M I just picked like the five or six that I thought would be that are the most important not most important but um that the board should know about I guess any questions or comments on this not right in the moment y okay so here's probably so the first four chapters sections are kind of a um you know what are you applying for what's required submission requirements plans checklist um this section's probably sections 5 through nine are more are definitely more what I would say like changes or differences than the previous um regulations um you can come um so this section is um focusing on um the performance guarantee um so we're trying to be proactive and ensure that some of the situations that have recently been occurring as subdivisions kind of wind down to finish um you know from the town side we're just trying to like be you know protective protect ourselves so we um spent a decent amount of time working with engineering staff about putting speak up a little more Yep Josh and we would spent a decent amount of time with engineering putting together kind of like a robust uh section requirements related to the performance guarantee MH I say I really appreciate that that's all you have to say sorry let did someone D their phone please thank you it's not a phone sorry team's meeting oh is it I think he is mute oh all right okay um sorry thanks let me let me just see so yeah um these are all quite these are all very new language um one of the things one of the big kind of changes or modification that we made is um just instead of historically allowing a subdivision developer to you know keep administ you know if you have a project and you keep coming you know they keep coming to the board you know asking like continuously For You Know M drawing down the performance guarantee and you know it's pretty administratively heavy from staff and even the board's time so we proposed that we could you know obviously everything on here is part of the conversation um we proposed that only allowing the developer to to ask for a decrease in the per performance guarantee twice before um before completion of the subdivision okay um is there currently a limit right now in terms of the no number of times no okay um and then at the bottom of the slide is just a number of contingencies and percentages based on uh you know we we really don't want to get to the situation that we've sort of been unfortunately getting into uh you know where projects aren't getting completed in time and then we don't have enough money to finish it so we're just really trying to make sure that that situation um doesn't happen so we have put in a number of kind of contingencies and kind of levers for us to kind of you know just basically protect ourselves um we worked with engineering about coming up with some of these percentages and kind of these po this basically the performance guarantee policy obviously these percentages and years and times were open to conversation um but this was what we are proposing um at this time but okay any as we're just moving along any questions with respect to Performance guarantees okay hi Josh why you to continue on there what the next part of Yep this is just a continuation of that same section but one of the big ones is um so generally what happens is when a subdivision is approved the first performance the first kind of mechanism to protect you know agreement with the town that the work is being done is the Covenant and that what has historically happened is you know the Covenant is replaced by uh another form of performance guarantee typically here it seems it appears to be a tripart agreement but it could be a number of things one of the things that we're proposing in this is that um and what's happened is the developer will sell all the lots and all the houses and then you know have the ability to kind of walk away and we're saying that um no matter what that there has to be at least um 25% of the total number of buildable Lots or a minimum one lot must remain in the original uh Covenant so um so that situation doesn't occur again mhm just everything is sort of just a with the lens of just making sure that we're we're protected basically MH don't you still have the roadway though what's that I'm sorry the roadway hasn't been turned over yet though sure but once all the lots and houses have been sold it doesn't really if there's not enough money it kind of puts us in a bind it does it doesn't like but how would they get their release to sell if you still have the tripartite out there well sell sell the lot I'm sorry sell one of the one of the lots of you got the tripartite and you go through the process every year yeah to review it so have we had a situation that there's been a problem um yes three three recently yes okay three in the past year and a half okay okay um I guess if I'll keep moving along um these last kind of three sections are very like very technical and kind of getting the nitty-gritty of streets and trees and hydrants and basically everything related to you know everything the you know building the construction the materials of the subdivision which essential you know what the the town you know what the subdivision is um so they're pretty technical we've really kind of deferred and um the engineering staff's been very helpful um and help helping us put these last kind of three sections together um and in each of these sections there's like a number of kind of standards that are cited um so I guess I'll keep going down so I guess from a policy standpoint I guess sort of preliminary discussed at our last meeting um so it's a it's a proposal it's not you know obviously this is a conversation but what we're proposing right now is to eliminate um dead end streets or what we call called The Sex um and then the next slide so um from a perspective and from engineering um there's a number of kind of reasons or to prohibit dead end streets um here on the slide we list a couple um you know this is just this is obviously conversation um you know sta as planning staff this is sort of our recommendation or you know what we think would be bet for best practice but um you know we're obviously interested in hear from the board on this topic and yeah Josh just a question just in terms of this you mentioned you give some of the reasons to um you know for you know in terms of prohibiting dead end streets you know um you know connected streets connectivity disrupts Road Network challenging for emergency services challenging for utilities um has engineering um has engineering weighed in on this or is that a concern for them or no they're actually I mean not to speak for them but they would they they would also I believe that they would also be in favor especially for that utility piece MH um I'm not an engineer but a big p the water system in particular when water and water pipes are not looped M the end of the cesac is not good for the like the qu water quality is better when it's moving and when it's not moving when it when the pipe dead ends it's I believe that it's not good for the water system as a whole when you're not looping when you're not you know interconnected looping through when it's when it's dead eding it's it's not good for the water system okay so engineering is aware of this proposal yes I I believe without speaking with them that they are in favor they also in in favor for for at least that particular reason and there might even be more okay and do you know of other um and I obviously I want to I'll turn over to the board if they have questions on this one too um is um has this been done in other um you know surrounding municipalities I mean where is has this been um has this has this been done elsewhere yes for sure it certainly has um I don't at the top of my head have a specific example of a town that had like the fby has but I I think that would be helpful to know but I I could certainly gather that information okay especially if they've you know if they've done it and in terms of what the um you know sort of uh you know if if they've also had a little bit of of time to see how it's how it's worked out as well sure so excuse me if I may chair the Brian the Kelly director planning yes Brian hi there hi um um I can just give you a very quick I me you may want to speak up a little bit just because it's a little hard to hear you sure I can I can talk louder that's not a problem okay um so uh the main thing that old the saxs do is provide uh a lot of single family homes in on irregular shaped lots that that's that's essentially what it does so when you prevent that you have um you you just have more uh standard Lots uh and Le less density in general I guess that's not a reason to do it and that's not why we're but you're talking about what happens when which is the qu the question I believe is what happens when you stop doing dead end streets uh you will have in general in this particular case in Danver is less single family homes built um potentially um but I think the uh the the other side of that is that we don't necessarily need a ton more single family homes I want to be very clear that we're not doing this for a density reason at all period like at all um but it it does decrease the you know a whole bunch of or of single family homes being built um so that that's just a fact um and the idea is to maybe you know put put density somewhere else uh not in the single family home bucket um but anyway population density was not this is a planning and Engineering exercise that we had with engineering it was not a a social engineering thing which this has nothing to do with um all the reasons that we have are are planning and Engineering related got it okay and as I asked um and Brian I as I asked uh uh Josh um uh um engineering has been involved in this or they've they've uh either concurred or wait in oh yeah they're definitely on board U for the just the utilities General it's better to have connected streets um not just for water but just think of just plowing operations just uh efficiency when it comes to road maintenance there's a lot there's a lot of reasons there's basically a lot of planning and Engineering reasons to stop them and virtually the only one the the reasons to keep them going is essentially if you if you really want to build more single family homes then you then then that would be that would be a good way to do it okay okay yep got it well as I said at the last meeting I'm opposed to this only because I mean I've been on the board since the mid 90s and I I struggle to think of a development that came in that was connected we can I don't know if Nancy knows any but everything we've done is a CAC uh so we talk a lot about trying to promote and provide more housing and we're talking about not encouraging more single family housing so I mean had this come up 30 years ago maybe it would make more sense I think right now there's probably 10 acres in town that you might be able to develop you get some reuse we're going to see St Mary school perhaps come in kite's going to come in other than that where else are we going to put a subdivision I really don't know the Nike Site maybe if it goes a there's we did an inventory probably 15 years ago there's very very very little development left developable land why are we changing the policy now at this point because we don't want to stub out a water line it doesn't make sense I mean the things we've been approving lately six slot subdivision chadam Lane these are small subdivisions they're not big 30 lot subdivisions that we're putting in granted the Comm it's going to be big um you know are we going to force them to make connected Street that's in three different towns I don't know if what what the the thought process is we're talking a lot about housing we're having all these meetings to encourage housing and find more ways to have housing and now we have these arus that we want to have everyone put the state's going to say everyone can make their house a um an extended family living unit you know and and bypass our local regulation so what do we what's the goal here do we want more housing or don't we and I think to have not to to have a Prohibition on dead end streets I think is a c Blan prohibition this is our rule I don't think that makes a lot of sense it could be a goal or maybe a a policy that we want to see if it would make sense based on the size of the development but to make it Con you're going to take up maybe an extra lot or two by blowing out that cue saac and having it connect to the next street which goes against the idea of creating more housing and these houses are selling for a million bucks plus these aren't these aren't town houses little town houses we're building now everything is a million plus which is going to help the tax base and increase the housing so I'm I'm not sure if I think we're at 30 years late on this truthfully but that's just me okay other anybody else who Tim yeah I'd like to hear more I mean we're going to continue this conversation the fourth point on this slide strikes me as the one that I'm not an expert in right what is the impact on the water system of a dead end um because my general position would be I don't see a strong reason to prohibit an entire type of development for something that could potentially be engineered around or is still sufficient like what does four mean is it your water is toxic if it's at a dead end or is it just a minor inconvenience we can work around that strikes me as because the other three are sure they're not preferable but the gy point I mean I looked at the parcel map we have 19 developable Parcels that are big enough for a subdivision that aren't currently developed right now in Danver like there's and I looked on the map none of them would connect they're all going to be dead ends so do we want more houses I would prefer something other than single family but I'll take what I can get right are we going to give it up just because the water system is challenging what does challenging mean I'd want to know more about that Josh there was a point in here that talked about um not allowing the water system to loop back I believe it said that would prevent the dead end stub is there a reason for avoiding that other than cost I guess I'm sure I guess if you could just say that question I guess I'm unclear of your question I'm sorry so there was a there was a point in here and I can't find exactly where oh right here there shall be no dead end water mains in any subdivision regardless of size and no water M shall double back on the same street but if we had the water Ms doubling back would that avoid the issue that Tim's referencing right now isn't that comment saying that it doesn't want to double bit it doesn't want to but if they allowed it to would that would that eliminate the issue I mean think very quick sorry I I have the answer sir sorry that's fine Brian co uh so the the regulation says that all water mains shall be looped between the existing water mains provided that the connections are spaced a minimum of 500 feet apart so there is an engineering solution to Tim's question number four is is is minor compared to Life Safety operations and you know other real things that we care about but but but it is minor compared to one two and three yes it's livable we've been doing it for a while it basically has to be looped in a certain way cost a little bit more but basically there's a little more problems with it not a killer at all we're not doing this for water Ms that's that's not the reason I understand it's one of the reasons here but has nothing yeah I mean that was not the the impetus the impetus was connectivity the road Network Emergency Services I think just to follow up on that to to Jim's point I think we can do better with emergency services and things like that but just avoiding future housing is maybe not the best answer just to support that I don't think we need to keep talking about it or I don't need to keep talking about as other people's comments I'm sure but that's just my thoughts on it Gan do you have any thoughts on no I'd like to hear more from engineering okay yeah I mean as for myself I mean I'm um I definitely have you know have the I'm interested in knowing what other communities have done and what their track record has been because I I definitely I I can understand the connectivity issues and better connectivity particularly for you know for walking for uh for transport um you know the just you know Emergency Services issue um you know just in terms of I I I'm interested in in in learning a little more on the engineering side if we even you know even if you know just to get a little more info on engineering but I'm interested in what other communities are doing I'm not um at least at this point in time I'm not you know uh I I would not be I would not be opposed to the to a Prohibition on it but I also be interested in knowing what other communities have done and also if there's a way that it's been potentially even um incentivized as well if there's a way that you that one can incentivize not doing um uh you know not doing a not doing ctox we're not having dead ends so I know that we've also done that in even like the downtown area where we've where we've had certain you know U incentives for certain um you know for certain actions so again can I make Lou I'm sorry could I just make one more Point yeah please go ahead Brian I wanted um um the point is that the incent it's a tough thing to talk about incentives here yeah because the the average American is willing to spend about 20% more to live on a colde it's desirable not necessarily the best for people but it is desirable okay uh so people are willing to spend that extra money to live on a c sack so that's what makes this difficult so I'll stop there sorry okay got it okay so yeah a little bit more information on this and we continue you know that conversation yeah I mean I think that's you know um yeah I I I I think we can get a little more information I think we have some definitely I think have some opinions that are that are against it currently but I think that I'm interested in getting some more information in terms of track record in terms of what others have have done and I'm not even sure if we can even get is this something can we um I mean can is this something in terms of the engineering piece on this something can we get a you know comments from potentially yeah H yeah I think I didn't mean it cut you off I think yeah it could potentially get you something or an opinion or reasons why engineering would be for or against or you know but their their opinion on the matter you know I could try and get that in some manner can I make one other comment sure go ahead it strikes me that this issue of for example Emergency Services I could see that being a problem I grew up on a very long Dead End Street and yes sometimes it took a while for them to find houses at the End of the Street the shorter the called the act the less that's meaningful if you're breaking a plot down into two it's a very very small subdivision it's what's the difference between curbside versus pulling into a dead end that's very small so if this is the concern it strikes me that a limit on the size of a dead end Street might be a better way to to police this so we're not getting really long um dead end roads that are harder to access and maintain so you're not completely precluding the tire type you can make a waiver on the edges but at least try to keep them to be smaller well I think it's 600 ft after 600 feet you have to get a waiver is your if currently on the books that's what J's referring that's you're referring to C the current the current reg right mhm so if you go over 600 you have to get away but I don't see how I mean the the culdesac is designed to fit the fire TR I mean you know I don't know how we're limiting Emergency Services I think that's just a Thro in kind of I I just don't see I mean I want to be very very clear that's not that's not the case at all it's if there's something blocking that there's no way to get there if someone's block if there's a blocking of the one way if it's one way in one way out that's what we mean by Emergency Services if it's one way in One Way Out and it's blocked for whatever reason there's no way to get to the emergency so that that's a very good point I'm I'm glad you said that but that that's what we mean something blocking the 50 Foot Right of away so there's a something attracted trailers blocking the access is what you're telling me or I mean even just even what we saw whatever I mean it could be weather it could be I mean what we just saw North Carolina right trees falling down right I mean or is he ALS is he talking Brian were you talking about the not just blocking the the street itself but you talking about connectivity because you might have two culde acts as opposed to a through Street I wasn't trying to make it difficult it's a oneway in one way out if there's something wrong like not like a random tractor trailer but like a tree falls down that that happens all the time and yeah you go there you cut it up it's not a big deal the point I guess I'm really trying to make is that there are no real planning and Engineering reasons to have cacs I think that's the point there's only ones to there's only reasons to get rid of them okay but if no one wants it it's super easy and everyone wants to live on a cesac then we just don't put this in I mean it's that simple I think it's a policy that you're encouraging but which is fine but I I don't think we should prohibit I think it can be looked at I think I think like to Tim's point if you look at the remaining 19 developable Parcels what could be put there I would I would imagine that most of them couldn't support um connectivity I would imagine most of them are going to be C the sacks so are we going to tell are we going to just not develop those Parcels now because we we don't like cxs even though we've done it for the last 30 years it seems totally anti all this rhetoric that is anti- it is anti- Danvers for sure it is not what we've been doing for 50 50 plus years uh complete opposite it is what we've been doing I think what he's saying this proposal is not what we've been doing right yeah it's not but we're talking about promoting housing we signed on to the you know the state mandate for MBTA we're promoting housing we have to help get a lot more housing but we don't want to do housing now because it's going to be a culdesac and that's all we've done in the last 30 years it doesn't make sense to me I'm I'm not in support of it if you want to put as a you know a goal or maybe we can study it and try to encourage the develop developer to take three less Lots cuz we got to connect it to the other Street I don't think they'd want to do that it's not going to make sense you're going to have three houses on a 600 Foot Road because you got to connect it with the other Road it's not going to be make sense economically to them for what it cost them a million and a half to bring a road in and all the infrastructures and now you just cut out two or three lots so so you're not you're not encouraging you're discouraging development I I think you are totally hit it on the head the idea is that the uh culdesac houses that that are being built now uh it's what does the planning board want does the planning board want more like you said million million and a half dollar single family 5,000 foot homes do they want to promote more of that or they want to promote something different it's a policy like you said it's a policy well that's a res 3 that's a resident 3 example I mean if you're at residence 2 residence one I I don't know if there's much left in Residence One to develop I I'd have to see I don't know Tim maybe you can help me I do have a nice M show in general the CU in general the houses that are being built on cue saacs are generally obviously vacant land in the bigger areas and what has been built are beautiful expensive homes that there's nothing wrong with that I'm just saying it's a you bring up a good point in the fact that this is a policy decision by the planning board in terms of what types of housing they want to promote and that that's why we're bringing it up because it's a PO decision that you guys have to make um just because I think this does not at all mean that the planning board has to agree uh period And I wouldn't it's just it's just like I said it's a policy I'm here to give you the facts in terms of well if you do this this is what will happen and if you do that that will happen um this is more it would be it would it would the only only thing that doesn't make a ton of sense is saying well this will this will decrease housing or this is going to discourage housing it will discourage a specific type of housing that that's what this will do this will discourage you know the the normal culdesac house that's being built in danverse and you just got to decide if you if you want more of those or less of those that's the conversation well that's why we have different Siz you know zones we'll talk more thanks Brian y okay okay anyone else want to okay yeah I think this is this is this is definitely um yeah I'm interested in talking about this more i' like a little I'd like some more information because um I think the um again understanding what Jim said I think the um but I but I think that the that the pros I think um I want to find out a little bit more about them okay sounds good okay all right so section section A Josh Section 8 is the most technical okay of the whole of the whole document engineering was a great job just and in this they're talking about they're literally talking about you know uh you know how they're building the road the like the thickness of the road the materials use for the road what kind of trees they want the size of the tree when they're planted you know the fire hydrants the brand you know and then the very specific you know very spe very specific details of the drainage system so this is really really getting the nitty-gritty from the engineering materials piece the piece that I could probably speak to the least but um that's fine um and then so even this just an example of like a table that's in this section uh this is just showing you know the different types of Road classifications and then just the different the different kind of requirements that we'll have for each you know from where we sit mhm the majority of subdivisions that we will probably see are probably that that one on the bottom row you know the minor residential M you know kind of exactly what we were just kind of you know talking about um you know just for example um some of these other ones we likely will not see in our lifetime but that's fine um or you know for some time you know there just there hasn't been probably an industrial collector built in town in a while but that's fine mhm um okay and then we um at the end here is just kind of the definition section okay uh where we try to we are we're giving definitions of some of the some of what we deem like the important terms so just to make sure that they're you know they're clar you know it's clarified what is meant when that word is used in the docent notable in terms of changes of definitions either everything here definitions everything in here is like new like you know we basically it's like the whole in the document is brand new right um I guess this Property Owners Association was very likely not in the previous document MH um I wouldn't say anything from like nothing like policy is related but um I see Aly here is that something that we'll see potentially see more of in town less of I would say probably less of although you know less are very very very infrequent mhm okay but um any questions for that was it boor with respect to any of the this latter part here in terms of definitions and I guess sort of just a quick comment I I'm reading it right now but it talks about like the tree Warden taking into account like overhead wires and stuff and I think that like defining that specifically would be helpful I mean we've all seen way too many times in danverse where the trees are hacked away because the wires are kind of going through them and it just seems inefficient to plant trees that we then hack down so I don't know what the answer is to that but maybe there's a better way to go about that so you're saying in this um is that in the definition section yeah under what term on page 49 it says all details regarding choice of trees should be required by the tree Warden of the town of dam the tree Warden will consider existence a future installation of overhead wires and underground utilities so you think we should modify that defition I don't know what it needs to be I just don't want to keep planting trees that we then have to hack down because the wires are in the way so I don't know if it needs to be like dwarf trees or if we need to better PL I'm not sure what the answer is just something we maybe should think about it's an issue that as we look through this document should think about just my personal feelings I don't know if anyone else has comments on it but okay mhm I agree especially on North Street you put the trees on the opposite side of the wires and not maybe that should be the design piece of this and not right in front of where your drain comes from your house so the roots can destroy it trees on opposite side of with the wires but but the new new subdivision is going to be all underground anyway the new stuff but okay any others have Jean anything um not on this section okay y okay so um okay so in terms of this I know you all have um I think we have word versions of this so we can get any if there's any nitty-gritty feedback we can get get to you yep we're very happy to look through that yep okay and um and so I would anticipate that we want to continue this to our next absolutely the very least to our next meeting y um I want to be mindful of time because we have other agenda items here and want to be respectful of people's time but this is a public hearing does anyone have any um public comments with respect to the subdivision um these revised subdivision rules and regulations why don't you identify yourself and my name is John col Tony um I'm involved uh in the Beaver Brook Woods subdivision off of Route 62 and also the Chad States um subdivision off of North Street this related to M Mr chair don't worry I'm can I stay on topic here okay uh all I wish is that you heard what I said before the meeting and we can be put on the agenda next time um on this process of the subdivision uh I have a couple questions and comments sure how does it work on the next process like is there a certain date that this has to be voted on either you know yay or nay or is it something that just is ongoing until you decide that it's time I'm not 100% sure of your question but I think he's asking just in terms of timing when this would so this has been advertised so any new subdivision would be how we view this would be would have to follow these guidelines so though this is being discussed and the planning board hasn't taken an official vote MH these are already rules that someone submitting an application has to follow yes so through the chair yes sir how is that possible I don't understand how that's possible it's a public hearing mhm there's a submission of documents the board has not voted on them so does the planning staff and I'm not trying to be negative but I'm really trying to understand this does the planning staff run what happens in danamas or does the planning board run what happens in danvas planning wise with the staff acting on what they approve or disapprove so I'm just trying to figure out because this hasn't been voted on so how is it already it has it hasn't been voted on and plan and it hasn't been voted on and the planning board will ultimately vote on these and as and as as revisions take place I think what what uh what staff was mentioning was respect to a that because this has been advertised any sort of changes in the in the zoning you know that in essence you you know you'd be you'd be EX for future developments you'd be subject to that um to the zoning so right now I have a an opportunity for more land in damis that would be a cesac development so basically what I've just been told is that if I file an application and use my team that I normally use which some of them sitting in the room to apply for that application we would not be allowed to do a KAC is that correct a little bit of a you know is a little bit of gray but but I mean you're asking for a legal opinion right now and I want toize Bri Brian might be able not to put on the I guess I so I think that's something for the board to think about because I don't think anyone should be filing an application and have to follow rules that haven't been voted on by the planning board yet especially when it's still in a public form and the public for hasn't been officially closed so I I'll I'll move on because I know you have a large agenda um so being involved in two heavy developments even though they're small developments one's eight and one's nine with eight that we could build um it takes a long time sometimes because of the site work that has to be done and some of the hurdles that you have to go through so I think it's important as part of these rules if you're going to do new rules that the developers get a chance to update the planning board um as part of the rules where they don't have to necessarily go through the planning department maybe go through the the planning department to get on the agenda but they should be allowed to come in if it's once a year or twice a year or whatever if they want to update the board because I think it's very important sometimes to hear from the people that are in the trenches doing the work and dealing with the people moving to danvas etc etc so that's a suggestion that I would make um two who actually with these new rules approves the subdivisions that come still the planning board correct yeah absolutely all right and when the planning board approves them they would vote on them and the final language of that approval though it might be written by staff the planning board still can tweak that and all that and they would vote on that correct yes yes okay it's it's a very important point because that's not what's always followed now with the process that we have I would so I I want to make sure that what I'm trying to say to the board is it's it's important that the planning board is still voting on what's there uh and still has say on how it's written up on the decisions if you've noticed in terms of any planning board meeting if we've doing any sort of any sort of decision oftentimes there is revision to language and our our you know clerk Jean can very much say that often times we have to make you know where where we're adding conditions and we're making revisions which are you know ultimately the vote is by the planning board and so if there's a recommended decision that is being moved then we but we are ultimately voting on that and the any revisions or any conditions that are added in the course of the meeting that is our vote and I agree 100% And I'm involved in the situation right now in a present subdivision where I need the help of the planning board because I'll use Josh's terms we're in a gray area so the planning board made a decision voted on the decision agreed on it so I think it's important for these developers who's spending all this money to be able to get in front of the planning board as long as they do it the right way to get on the agenda to be able to share with them and to ask questions if need be at the time since ultimately the decision came from the planning board in the write up on how it was approved technically claim from the planning board tweaking what the planning staff wrote and that's forgotten about a lot mhm subdivision gets approved the developers leave they do the development and all of a sudden they can only deal with the planning staff that's not right they should be able to get FR of the way interrupt here I don't even care I want to interrupt here and say how inappropriate this is and I'll stop there the okay decrease twice can we can we keep yeah can we keep it responsive to the proposals right so Josh I don't know who that was speaking I was Brian Z Kelly hi Brian so the decrease twice I think it's a good idea to have some type of rule on that but I don't think it should be twice for the whole project maybe it's twice a year because some of these projects can go on two three four five years depending on how big they are so maybe some type of uh of you know limit but I think it should be by year and not for the entire project or some type of timeline I think the idea is not to have these projects go for that amount of time that's part of the reason for it right well any developer would like to have the projects go quicker uh because it it's only better for them but sometimes it's literally impossible like so so I think it's an a great idea to have a limit on how many times you can ask to decrease the the bond or the tripa but I don't think it should be twice for the entire project well on that subject I think what we were doing for a lot of years in the fall what we wanted to do for some of these subdivisions was you know go over the performance bond especially in in the sense where we had subdivisions that weren't fully paved and didn't have the vine to course down for plowing purposes so we typically try to get developers in here on an annual basis say in October November to go over that and see if you know they could get their Paving done um before the winter came and and and it's a good opportunity to get some of these open projects in here on an annual basis if they're not doing that regularly so that was a good practice um okay the selling of the lot um by pure coincidence the two subdivisions I'm involved in one as you know Josh we have sold most of the lots and are only building two out of that subdivision but it's our responsibility when we took on the subdivision that we have to finish for the town of danvas you know the street all all the responsibilities um so I I think it might be a good idea to have some type of if it's 25% the developer has to build themselves or whatever it may be that might be a good idea but you certainly can't eliminate where they can't sell the Lots because sometimes that helps move the subdivision along quicker as it has with us at chattam States we were just saying one we were just saying one lot I think it's one lot something like that yeah you could sell all of them except I think it's an alternative I think it's 25% or one lot yeah okay so um and I'll just be my last two things Public Safety is the number one issue on anything that you build no matter if it's a single family house a a cesac a you know an apartment building whatever so whatever the fire department whatever the police department U says to in my world that's God that's that's what you do uh and if it costs extra money to do it you do it to eliminate K the sacks all together uh is just a huge mistake and this may sound corny it may sound oldfashioned because you're ruining a quality of life m one of the biggest Thrills I get every day is when I go to our subdivision off Route 62 and the six families that we already have living there the seventh family that's getting ready to move in the relationships that's been developed and the children instead of on their phones or on their computers every single day no matter what the weather is are out there on their bikes playing together like it's like old time like when I was a kid and you don't get to see that that often and that's what kisac living does and that's why if it's the term I think the percentage you guys use it's worth 20% more to me it's worth way more than that to still be able to have that quality of life uh like old times it it's worth it and to make the K act safe is important but please don't do away with that and it has nothing to do with with money because one way or another if there's land to build someone will figure out a way to build on it so why not do single family homes uh and do kis acts and meet the rules that the board sets I appreciate the time thank you any other comments uh public comments attorney mckm and just before Josh it's a the the subdivision rules are available online is that um if they aren't I could anyone who emails me I I I think think I've sent them toor McAn I believe so but if not anyone who can who wants a copy of them can what's that yeah we should put for yeah they actually should be put out yeah yeah I will check to make sure tomorrow check to make sure we will put them online we'll put them online tomorrow if they are not online already perfect thank you Brian okay J M thank you very much Nancy mccan um local Council on many of the the subdivisions that you've seen over the last uh couple of decades I guess very quickly a few points number one these are proposed subdivision rules and regulations this is not a zone change these are not applicable until they're adopted and they have not been adopted yet so I think I I want to make that clear that these are not uh applicable now to any application that might come in um secondly I think doing away with completely uh deadend streets uh would certainly be a mistake d does already have a limitation on dead end streets of 600 ft and this board has over uh the last 10 20 years has uh frequently waved that but it is a waiver requirement and we have to come in and demonstrate how by waving that 600 foot limitation we're not running a fowl of some of the concerns that were listed here but complete prohibition of uh of a dead end street is um is not something I have seen in any other town I don't think but certainly uh I think would be a mistake here and finally um the section regarding security and bonding um I will be looking that at that in a bit more detail but I ask the planning board and planning staff look at that because uh Mass general laws chapter 41 section 81u is very specific with regard to um covenants and uh security and the developer's rights and the developer does have significant rights with regard to security how it's secured um and of course given some of the recent history with some of the subdivisions it's important for the town to be secure and to have that security but the developer has rights to and we just want to make sure that what's being proposed does not uh conflict with the developers rights under uh the subdivision control law itself okay that's it thank you great thank you any other comments for from the public on this okay any other com coming back from the board any other comments on this I I would if not I would entertain a motion to um to continue the public hearing to our next planning board meeting which would be Tuesday November 26th November 26 Tuesday November 26th so move okay okay we have a motion is there a second to continue second second okay first by Jim second by Mike all in favor please indicate by saying I I I any opposed none okay motion passes so it's uh it's continued okay let's go back to the agenda here okay the next agenda item um so this is uh uh this is not a public hearing but it's with respect to tras Lane partial release of Covenant uh request for a partial release of a covenant established on August 28th 1972 which is associated with the definitive subdivision plan entitled proposed access to Folly Hill development danver's mass and dated June 2nd 1972 And also known as TR Lane danver's mass and uh I think we have a the applicant here and um uh uh I think that we there's in terms of talking with staff I think we're going to be um hearing a little bit from from the applicant and having some further discussions that's correct yes good evening members of the board my name is Miranda sasco I'm an attorney at glovsky and glovesy and Beverly uh representing the applicant before the board this evening um corkren trolan LLC um in conjunction with Folly Hill Associates trust which is the um um underlying owner of the property um I believe uh we have with us this evening um various members of the team um including uh Peter Mahoney and Tim corkran both from uh the applicant JMC corkran and we also have uh Rebecca Brown from Greenman Peterson the traffic consultant for this project and finally we have uh attorney Dan Bailey um from Pier Atwood who is uh transaction counsel and also handling the um State permitting for this project um so um this evening the request is for a um actually a partial release of a 1972 subdivision Covenant that was approved in connection with tras Lane and here we have a copy uh highlighting the section of tras Lane that that was the subject of the subdivision plan um it's about 750 ft and connects um access from Route 128 to tras Lane in Beverly um and our records indicate that the roadway was constructed in accordance with the subdivision plan in the early 1970s around 1972 to 197 74 um more or less contemporaneously with um the network of other subdivisions such as Upland Drive Wayside Drive um Folly Hill Drive all part of what used to be the orchard known as The Orchard Hill Neighborhood um and here I don't know if this is going to work so again the section of the road that we are that is before the board this evening is this 750 ft section of tras Lane the um the town line between Beverly and danverse is right here so uh the subdivision Road stops and then next slide Rebecca okay so here you can see the tralan section in danverse connecting to tr plan in Beverly um the current developments in this area include Folly Hill Apartments which was the first um development as well as Apple Village which came next and there's also a condominium development Cherry Hill condominium that's right in the middle MH the remainder of the site remains um undeveloped and um uh corkran the applicant has entered into a purchase and sale agreement to um purchase the property and to Reed and to develop it with a high density residential project this area of Beverly specifically is zoned now for high density residential use um the applicant has a zoning freeze in place um that allows the prior zoning from 2016 to to apply here and we are proceeding under that zoning um with a conforming project to that zoning um a couple of things to say about the development um as you can see there are two sites that are proposed site a and site b a total of six buildings um with a a total number of 440 units currently proposed all located in Beverly none in danverse all access to this project will be via tras Lane there is no um there are no connections proposed to either the neighborhoods in Beverly or in danverse so it's one way in one way out there are two emergency accessways that exist one here and one roughly in this area excuse me going um to um the Raymond Farm section of Beverly um it's purposefully a very compact design um more than 67 Acres or close to 80% of the site will be undisturbed um and one of the things that that allows is a significant buffer between the construction and any of the residential neighborhoods in danverse um the project is subject to review in Beverly by the planning board um and it is also subject to review by the Conservation Commission in Beverly and most significantly um this project will require full meepa review in fact that that review is already underway um and as a component of that review there will be a very detailed and extensive re review by mass do on traffic impacts specifically relating to route 28 um so that is the project and why we're here before you in danverse is because this Covenant remains outstanding it was uh discovered during due diligence for the project um and requires us to close it out in order to uh proceed and get um uh title and financing for the project um so the Covenant itself I'm not going to go into the details this evening I just wanted to give you an overview um it basically it includes 23 conditions in all there are two types of conditions um the first uh chunk really relate to construction conditions that were in that would have been applicable at the time of construction so um that's one set the second set are some continuing conditions that have relevance for the for the site even after the roadway is constructed um the first set of conditions um the construction conditions we submitted a detailed summary in support of the board finding that conditions 1 through 12 13 and 16 have all been completed um when the construction was was done in the 1970s um as part of tonight's proceedings we hope that we can get some uh direction from the planning board to the town's engineering department to review the completion um we're not sure that that has been initiated yet and to report back to the board and then we can ask um you know proceed to to talk about those findings at the next meeting hopefully um just a quick just a clarifying question so in terms of uh request completion at least with respect to the items that you've that you've that you you interpret as being completed was that what you mean yes there there are certain conditions for example no construction can occur past the hours of 7 p.m. or that the roadway be constructed in accordance with the subdivision plan there were Landscaping um items there was a fence there you know a whole host of items that were part of that Covenant which you can determine on the ground that they are complete I see um so we are asking the board to complete those it to to release those conditions from the Covenant going forward okay um there are also a group as I said of continuing conditions um for example the the Covenant uh does not specifically requires that there be no um other access to the land other than um or excuse me no access through the neighborhoods to provide a second means of egress and and access to the development so that's a continuing condition we read that as applying um indefinitely one of those conditions in particular is condition number 14 um and that condition provides that so long as tras Lane is the principal means of access to the site which it is then any new development of the remaining land in Beverly in excess of 554 units will require the danverse planning board's um review and approval um the existing developments Apple Village Folly Hill and Cherry Hill total in the aggregate 554 so our project trips that review okay um it's important to note that the Covenant provides that um think we can see it right here and you said that was provision was that 13 uh 14 14 so it basically um provides that the approval of the town's planning board will be restricted to considerations of traffic safety on ways within its jurisdiction um and I think that's an important concept for this evening's deliberations and going forward um we are here this evening understanding that the board would like to review the project under section 14 to facilitate this review uh the applicant provided a detailed traffic impact and assessment study by Greenman Peterson um which has been I think preliminarily reviewed by planning staff um we basically provided the same traffic study that was provided to meepa and to the city of Beverly as part of uh site plan review with some focus on particular items in danverse related to tr Lane and the adjacent subdivisions that would be of interest to this board and within its jurisdiction um we you know certainly understand that a project of this size um is going to generate a significant amount of interest and discussion and that there will likely be all sorts of questions relating to um the density whether it's appropriate um and to traffic and um extending well beyond the site um and in fact uh planning staff has already suggested that peer review studies be performed on uh the interchanges to the north and south of tras lane including uh route 1A in Beverly um as we sort of set the table for this discussion we we would like to be on the record on and in terms of two two import important points um first as I just said under section 14 um and of of the express terms of the Covenant as well as the subdivision control law itself um the board's jurisdiction both in 1972 and today is narrowly and specifically related to quote considerations of traffic safety um and and those considerations uh should have a particular focus on the Danvers section of tras Lane and the immediately adjacent public ways that are within the board's jurisdiction meaning Upland Wayside and the intersections with trasc Lane um we do not uh read the Covenant as giving this board authority to have wholesale review of this project um or any review outside of the limited topic of traffic safety and nor do we find Authority Under The Covenant or the subdivision control law for this board to uh deny approval of the project by virtue of a 50-year-old subdivision plan Covenant um we do want to emphasize that this project is going to receive extensive review um and and that the town of danverse has a voice through the meepa process and has already submitted comments to meepa we anticipate that there will be further comments as the process evolves um and that those comments will be reviewed EXT be reviewed by meepa and Department of uh Transportation um which ultimately has the jurisdiction over Route 128 and the interchanges um so I think with that what we would what we had proposed if the board um finds that this is appropriate we'd like to have a short overview of the traffic study that has been submitted um and that would be given by uh Rebecca Brown from Greenman Peterson that's fine okay thank you yep you she can just identify herself when she speaks just for minutes purposes again uh hello everyone uh my name is Rebecca Brown from Greenman Peterson uh we're located in Wilmington Massachusetts um and I just want to make sure everyone in the room can hear me okay the microphone's loud enough and everything for you I think we're getting I'm getting some head nods yes all right excellent thank you very much yep all right uh so I'm just going to walk you through kind of quickly the tra study um that was put together and what the findings of that study were um as Miranda mentioned this um has been submitted also to the city of Beverly and uh will soon be submitted to um meepa um with some additional revisions coming out of the enf process um as part of the traffic study I'll kind of walk through sort of what the site access and esses that's proposed the study area that was looked at and what was included in the traffic study and how um traffic volumes were projected um the results of the safety review that was performed for the study area intersections and what the general traffic impacts were on the surrounding area intersections and then what we saw for um recommendations for proposed offsite improvements um so I know Miranda kind of already walked you through what the um site sort of looks like here um but as you mentioned there is um site a that will have four of the residential uh buildings up in this area site B um will have two of the residential buildings located down here in this area um with all of the access and egress coming through TR Lane um for uh residential traffic there will be two emergency vehicle access points in and out of the neighborhood both of those are already existing one is through oberin Road um through the Folly Hill development here and then the second one is through um manorway through Apple Village that comes down and out onto uh County Street and over toward Elliot Street out through this direction here as well um so those are the the only access and egress points for this development um the study area that we looked at um essentially included The Interchange at um Route 128 with Elliot Street because the development is really only accessible from uh Route 128 Northbound we do anticipate that um this interchange will be heavily used for people who are sort of coming from the north that want to get to the site um that will come off this exit turn around and get back on to go Northbound um to get to the TR Lane and Wayside Drive um interchange because of the proximity of the two interchange intersections to um the State Road intersection and Liberty Street intersection we also did uh study those they operate as a coordinated signal system and in fact the state road and the uh Route 128 southbound ramps operate on the same uh traffic control signal um then we did also look at all of the ramp intersections here coming off of Route 128 into the neighborhood um including the merge and diverge sections at um at the ramps with Route 128 as well well as the internal intersections in the neighborhood we were also asked to study the intersections here at um Conan Street Liberty Street and Burley street that kind of form this uh sort of triangular intersection here um but as we went through and reviewed um further in uh the trip generation and how we anticipated Vehicles getting to the site um we really don't anticipate that any Vehicles will be coming through this intersection um based on the routing of trips um which you will see in a couple of slides so we did collect traffic volumes at all those study area intersections um in accordance with uh Mass doot standards and general engineering practice we did study the weekday morning and weekday evening commuter Peak periods as well as the Saturday midday Peak period um all the traffic volumes were collected in 2023 in uh June September and October which are all uh generally considered to be above average months where school is in session and you don't get a lot of impacts from uh winter weather at that time uh we did project out traffic volumes to a seven-year design Horizon um based on a 1% perear growth rate which was uh found to be conservative in comparison to what uh traffic volumes in the area have actually been growing at and although we know that the cell signaling business is proposed to be relocated um we do expect that that building could be reoccupied in the future with a similar use um so we have not taken any credit um or applied any reduction in trips for the uh self signaling um being relocated in terms of how much traffic the proposed development would generate um on a daily basis we anticipate that the development would generate about 2200 vehicle trips um and that represents about 1,00 vehicles coming in and 1100 Vehicles going out um throughout the day via the TR Lane interchange um during the peak hours that would be roughly an additional 200 Vehicles where the majority of those would be leaving in the morning as they're exiting to go to work and returning in the evening um when they're coming back home um we do anticipate that roughly 35% of the traffic will be coming from the north um in Beverly down Route 128 to get to the site where all of those Vehicles will need to come off of The Interchange here at exit 43 turn around and get back on to the uh Northbound ramp we do also anticipate that another 35% will be coming from Route 128 to the South um the actual traffic on local roadways um we expect to be in the range of 30% in total along um Elliot Street to the North and South and along uh Liberty Street coming into this interchange here and these um these percentages were developed based on um a journey to work gravity model that looked at where people living um in this area here are currently working and based on those percentages what we see here is um increases on Liberty Street of about 10 9 to 10 Vehicles that's in two-way traffic flow um along Liberty Street during each of the peak hours and then along Elliot Street we see lesser uh increases of 18 to 20 vehicles um sort of to the north and 28 to 30 vehicles to the South um which really represents one additional vehicle every 1 to 2 minutes along Elliot Street with um one additional vehicle every six minutes or so on Liberty Street um so once we projected traffic volumes through the study area intersections we also did a review of the Collision history based on mass do crash data um for the years 2017 to 2019 which at the time that this was done was the most recent 3 years of consecutive data that was available that didn't include the 20120 covid conditions um and what we saw was that there were really only two high crashed locations that were located in the study area one being at the Burley Street and Conan Street intersection here where there was a high number of um angle type collisions that were occurring at that location again we do not anticipate sending any vehicle trips through that intersection so we don't anticipate having any impact on the crash Occurrence at that location the other location was here at the Route 128 Northbound ramps with Elliot Street um where some improvements have recently been constructed since that Collision data was uh recorded that involved installation of new signal equipment along this stretch of Elliot Street as well as installation of some do not block the Box um signage and pavement markings through the intersection here and um we do anticipate that those improvements will reduce the occurrence of collisions at that location at the request of mass do we're in the process of reviewing updated Collision data um from 2021 to 2023 post construction of the improvements at that location to see if that has reduced um the occurrence of traffic collisions and we anticipate submitting that information as part of the deir for meepa review when that does go through um this diagram here is showing sort of the traffic operations or the level of service at each of the study area intersections um youw green essentially means good the intersections operating at level of service a with very minimum delay in the 2031 build condition um where red condition means a level of service F where there's some capacity constraints at those intersections um so the only intersections where we do see levels of service F occurring are at the intersections along Conant Street where again we don't anticipate sending any vehicle trips through Conan Street to get to and from the site as it's not on a direct route um there are easier ramps to get on and off of um to the north rather than traveling through Conan Street uh so we don't anticipate having any impact here so when you look at the uh number that's in the Box here that's showing the increase in delay through each of those study area intersections where we do have the greatest impact obviously as for um the left turn coming off of the ramp here um from Route 128 where we are increasing the delay there by 54s seconds and then the left turn getting onto the ramp here where the development would be increasing the delay by 50 seconds um so that's where we're seeing really the most substantial increase um in delay through any of the study area intersections all of the other intersections are all operating at acceptable levels of service today and will continue to operate well in the future um with minimal impacts in delay of 2 seconds per vehicle or or less what we are proposing to do is some signal timing and safety enhancements along this section of Elliot Street um where we would be um modifying the existing signal timing here to optimize um the timings at each of these intersections and then because we were seeing some issues with the safety of some of the intersections and um angled collisions what we noticed is that they do not block the boxes at these intersections really weren't striped far enough back to actually block traffic within the intersection so we've proposed um extending those do not block the boxes a little bit further um to further reduce Vehicles pulling through the inner singled collisions and some of the additional delay that happens there because of traffic being uh blocked um with implementation of these of those improvements all of the study area intersections would return to a level of service D or better um which is generally considered to be the um design goal for an intersection um and with that we wouldn't be increasing delay on any of the movements through any of the study area intersections by more than 8 seconds per vehicle um the other area where we are looking at some improvements although all of the these intersections coming on and off The Interchange are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service when we met with mass do recently prior to our uh deir filing with meepa um they had requested that we review kind of the the safety and geometrics of this Interchange to propose some enhancements at this location so some of the improvements that we're looking at is here's Wayside Drive um right here and you can see that there are really two ramps that come off into the neighborhood one coming off um first onto Wayside Drive which is an egress only from Route 128 and then the second one being um an an egress and an access onto 128 right opposite where tras Lane joins in this one coming off Wayside Drive is very confusing although there are signs out there that say um that it is one way the stock Top Line is only striped across half of the roadway here and there aren't any do not enter signs there's just the oneway signs located here um so it could be confusing to someone who's unfamiliar with the area that may not understand that they're not supposed to uh turn on to the highway in that location so what we plan to do is extend the stop line across the entire intersection to reinforce that that is a one way and install proper do not enter signs on either side of the road and then um which would be right at the intersection itself and then in this area right here we would install the wrong way signs that um you're seeing Mass do install on all of the ramps now uh to indicate to drivers that they're traveling the wrong way if they do happen to turn by accident onto that roadway the other thing that um they've asked us to look at is installing um a type of sort of a channelization coming off of Route 128 here um with striping that would indicate to people that this clearly is an exit so if someone turns on here they'll see that they're not physically able to um make this rightand turn to get onto the highway they had asked us to do that with striping or some type of flush Island so that in the event that an emergency vehicle needed to get access onto the highway in this location that they could do that um down at this end here um this will remain fairly consistent with what it looks like today with the exception of there is some unraveling of the pavement along each of these edges here and when this island here was last striped it wasn't striped um to standard so you can kind of see that they just um sort of painted a line straight across here and as a result drivers are coming around this corner driving over this line so we would uh repair the striping in this island here to what it um should actually be to allow for these turns and then repair the pavement Edge widening this out just a little bit to provide a sliver of a shoulder there um so that as vehicles are traveling around that corner as as um you know delivery vehicles and stuff go around that corner uh that they're not dragging the rear of the vehicle off the edge of the pavement down at this intersection here at uh TR Lane and Wayside Drive um there's very limited Improv ments that are actually being proposed at this location um we would just install some upgraded stop lines on both the tras lane Northbound approach and Wayside Drive um approaches to the intersection with new stop signs um currently the TR Lane Northbound is is free flowing um and there's a uh right turn arrow here that seems to imply that people aren't allowed to make a left-hand turn into the neighborhood however they are actually allowed to do that this is really intended to indicate that drivers are supposed to stay to the right of um the striped Island in here um so we would be fixing that replacing the signage so that it's clear that um vehicles are intended to stay to the right of the island that they are allowed to um make this left-hand turn movement but that they would be required to stop first before doing that um to ensure that they can see oncoming traffic coming off of the highway um there are a number of Transportation demand management measures that we're also looking at to further reduce the number of trips that would be generated by this development and uh reduce the amount of impact um including the provision of on-site amenities such as um you know gyms and things like that on the site um pools so that um residents can make use of those rather than having to go offsite for those types of amenities the neighborhood itself already has a number of recreational walking and biking trails that we would provide connections to um and establishing new pedestrian routes along the site so that people can make use of that for recreation um we're also investigating now the extension of the Kata bus route number eight down into the site that already goes into the Folly Hill development as a means of um allowing people to make use of that bus route which does also um have service to uh the cing center and to um the commuter rail as well at Beverly Depot station one of the things that we're evaluating is the potential for shuttle service that would go directly to um Depot station without the need to go to multiple other stops like the bus route would um preliminarily it's looking like we might be able to get a 10 to 15% % reduction in trips associated with a shuttle service um so we're looking at whether or not that is economical um before evaluating whether we can do that um and then the last thing that we looked at at the request of the city of Beverly was to provide a grocery service on the site um to help reduce the need for people within the neighborhood to go offsite um or to go out onto Route 128 to go get some m or eggs or something like that that they need for Quick Service um so we did an evaluation of trips that would be generated based on providing some type of grocery service for use by the neighborhood and found that it would actually increase the trips that would be generated um by the development by about 20% um over having just the residential development itself um So based on that we're not proposing any type of grocery or convenience use on the site um it would remain just the residential development um so conclusions drawn from the traffic study um as I mentioned the development is anticipated to generate just under 200 total trips during the peak hours we anticipate that about 9 to 30 of those would be on uh local roads um so roughly one additional vehicle every two to 6 minutes on the local roadways um and the majority of the traffic increases would be on the highway itself self um the greatest impact that we would have would be on the Route 128 in Elliot Street ramps where we are proposing some signal timing and safety enhancements that bring the levels of service there back down to better than no build conditions um to a level of service D or better um we're looking at some safety enhancements at the Route 128 Wayside Drive and TR Lane interchange as well as some Transportation demand management measures to help further reduce the trips and the impacts um which we will continue to vet those um those enhancements and TDM measures through the meepa deir process um and with the mitigation as I mentioned um all of the um the movements along Elliott Street through the Route 128 interchange uh would be improved to a better than no-build condition and the maximum increase in delay that we would see at any of the study area intersections uh would be 4 seconds per vehicle um or less um so that concludes my presentation of the traffic study and the impact that we're uh seeing as a result of the project um happy to answer any questions if there are any okay sounds good I think just the way we'll um uh go this you know in terms if we have some questions from the um from the board I do want to hear from plan from town staff as well just in terms of I guess before we go to the the board with any questions I do want to make point I understand that we do have a number of people who are here today this is this is not a public hearing um so this is a request for a release of a um of a covenant on TR Lane so it's not this is not a a a you know what we typically might see for like a subdivision request or such where there's actually uh where it's a public hearing so this is really to um to get information and um uh and also I want to to to hear a little bit in terms from plan from town staff so in terms of what of our what are the parameters that we're looking at here and I know that we have some there's some traffic mitigation issues we wanted to well Josh or or Brian whatever yeah I mean I guess a good start um so I think the big piece I guess as um the attorney for the development team mentioned you know we're looking at you know from a Danver the projects in Beverly but but it obviously has impacts to Danvers and we're looking at the the Covenant the that was discussed at the beginning you know the 1972 Covenant M 1972 Covenant you know what is the traffic what you know that's a focal point for the board is what is you know the traffic impact of this MH um so I think that's certainly a focal point on this one um in terms of you know there's been a traffic report that's been generated so that staff's view in terms of our purview today is the is we expect to traffic that's if not the main yeah like you know other than the other C you know that's the Covenant which we you know we went through item by item sure um you know if the fence is were installed if the pushes were installed if the so you know when you read it it's like you know there's you know anything above the 554 that was built in the 70s they have to come back to the planning board and they have to look at the impact of traffic speak up I can't really hear you yeah anything above the 554 which the 554 units that were built in the 70s they the development team has to come back to the planning board and review what the traffic impact would be if anything above that number right okay got it okay um I think we have some um we have some questions for the the applicant or the traffic consultant jim I've got some questions yeah sure um I I think do we as the staff have the ability to get dtac involved to look at the because this is the major impact again we were talking in the first hour about you know cognetivity of roads and this is a a huge um you know cu the saac if you will that connects there's no way there's no connection to 62 um you know could we have our town dtac look at it and see if they might have recommendations I mean just looking at it myself knowing the history from when Overlook Drive came in and its effect on Vista Drive and these those 48 lots that we approved back then when they first came in um there was the concept of connecting two 62 and at that time there was land that was available for that uh at the time the neighborhood Vista Drive neighborhood those folks did not want to have people cutting through from 62 to head north on 128 cutting through their neighborhood so that was a big motivation for avoiding that however I'm wondering if this particular developer would be able to gain access to 62 to access this development to try to take off some of the pressure on 128 is there any land available that they could kind of get through to the bevly side of 62 well there is land available that is where one of the emergency access routes travels and it's um it's allowed for emergency egress but in the same way that uh the Vista Drive neighborhood and the other neighborhoods around Overland did not want to see that as a cut through the folks on the other side on County way are not eager to see that as any sort of connection either going through their neighborhood so you know and and I think it's questionable whether the access that we have would be sufficient to do that but we've also been under very um you know I think the city of Beverly in in initial comments has made it clear that they would not support that okay so I just wanted to be sure that you you looked at it I mean you could make it unattractive to be a country you could put speed bumps and curvy roads to kind of prevent people from doing that that they use that in some towns and cities to kind of slow down the traffic yeah I mean I I wish I could say that it was something that was feasible but it's just not given the constraints that have been put on this property over the years as more conditions have been have been put on okay if we could get up could um the traffic study just could she focus on the plan where the access comes to 128 when you have Wayside along with um um the other roadway there so Wayside what is there a way and maybe you can't tell me but maybe the dtac and dver can tell me is there a way that we could make that two ways wouldn't that take some pressure off the people on Vista Drive and in those neighborhoods if they could access before they even get to this new heavily traveled more traveled roadway and just use that as kind of a neighborhood access and egress why not make it both ways what's wrong with that it seems to be wide enough um Rebecca do you I think that last one was yeah right there yeah so you're asking why not make this two ways yes um it's really has to do with the distance between um this point here and this point here um so what that would essentially do is have a very short weaving section for vehicles in and out of this Lane um as vehicles are kind of you know traveling up through to get off onto TR Lane and vehicles are also trying to get on and then merge over to stay onto Route 128 um so the distance between those to was really too short to have um two interchanges in close proximity okay yeah um and can you just review you talked a little bit about public transportation um did you say they're going to expand the bus service or the public transportation to that development so yeah so that's what we're currently um investigating and would like to have done is extend the bus route down into the development itself um so that the Catabus could come in travel to the to the end of TR Lane essentially uh turn around at the cuis ACT that's proposed there at the end of tras Lane um and then stop um at a stop that would be near site B continue up to where the bus uh currently stops in the Folly Hill development and then exit out um as opposed to having to make a U-turn in the the middle of tras lane or within the development like it does today um it does not extend the travel time substantially for that bus route and provides you know a number of additional customers that could use it um so it does seem like something that cattle would support um but obviously we need to go through that process and like I mentioned before we'll continue Ving that throughout the meepa review process and of the proposed um new units how many do we have an idea like the breakdown of how many will be two bedrooms versus three bedrooms so I'm thinking toward um buses for school aged children do we have an idea on that I don't have the numbers off the top of my head I don't know whether um folks from corkran have that handy we can certainly provide it at the next meeting it there's a wide distribution of Studios one bedrooms two bedrooms there's a smattering of three bedrooms okay what is is the total units do you know that number um it's 440 between all buildings between all buildings yep that's all I have at the moment I'm just wondering if maybe we we could seek to get input from dtec I think it's within our purview yeah I think we could and I I know that that town staff is also um uh has has also uh addressed the the question of doing peer uh a peer review of the traffic report as well so I think more information the better so y so Tim do you have any questions at all for the yeah following up on one thing that Jim said so it sounds like there was consideration for the emergency access road right now which connects to County way being the other point of access correct and that was denied correct from the outset that's it's been a a hard no in Beverly got it so it looks like that road goes through 134 McKay Street in order to get access so that's Beverly Golf and Tennis to get to County way um I'm pretty sure I can see the map I'm pretty sure that's that's where it is yeah I'm sorry I'm not sure whether it actually goes through Golf and Tennis yeah so towards the right side of the of the plot line there you can see the road the dotted line what's right next to you is Beverly Golf and Tennis not actually through a through a Fairway Golf and Tennis is up here yep but it's their property yeah this is so is it right that because the city of Beverly owns that plot correct yes yes it's a municipal golf course gotcha so the city of Beverly is who said that the access road can't go through that land to County way correct correct see I I see the bitter irony that a weird old Covenant for a small tract of land in Danvers holds so much sway for the approval of such a big site in Beverly but it's only that way because that's being rejected as what seems to me like a much more logical road to access that site than putting everyone through the highway um so out of our control but I just sort of wanted to ask the question for context make sure we understood exactly why there was only one point of access in Danver is because of the city of Beverly yes and there were likewise I I I do believe that there were likewise discussions at one time about additional access into the Orchard Hill Neighborhood and maybe um there's the Folly Hill Neighborhood as well to the South um and I think Danvers was equally clear that they didn't want not want that access so okay if for the record the road does appear to go through the woods not through a fairway so they can still play golf if they want um so in terms of the traffic study for Tran I think I saw the numbers in the report and in the slide it looked like it was going to be doubling the amount of traffic is that right yeah that's what I saw as well it seemed like there was existing table to double in the slides I don't think but I think between the report and here it was double yeah it was yeah so um this isn't enter this isn't existing so this is entering and exiting trips that we're showing in this I was looking at the the PE the weekday Peak looked like it was about in the 110 range existing um and so it was adding an additional about double it's entering and exiting it's not existing yeah right but I'm saying that the the report here the report in the pack what's currently happening is about 100 what will be added is about 100 more which do you have a slide here that just shows us the current number of trips and then the added number of trips I think it's page eight or something but I can actually pull that up yeah I'm doing the math between looking at your slides and looking at the PDF so that's probably why it's confusing Yeah Tim I think it was like on page eight or something of the traffic impact let me see here traffic impact study I maybe I may have misspoke let's see no yeah actually existing I have a page 13 of the PDF thank you which has I believe here the the daily I saw weekday was 2560 Saturday daily was 2290 for existing and so I compared it to what we saw in the PowerPoint which was I think 2200 additional trips and if you're looking at um so if you're looking here at these daily volumes this is on TR Lane between Upland Road and Road okay um so that's not what's coming necessarily on and off The Interchange that's um further down on TR Lane but if you look um at figures 2 three and four that shows you the peak hour volumes that are traveling through the interchange and I can um oops sorry zoom in a little bit on this so you can read them better so in the morning it's about 119 vehicles that are coming off uh with 16 coming off at Wayside Drive and then almost 200 getting on there uh when we move to the PM peak hour it's you know a few more coming off on Wayside Drive there's about 44 there 131 coming off onto TR Lane and 188 getting on the highway okay um and then this is showing you the Saturday midday condition um which looks fairly similar to the PM condition a little bit more people off than on yeah so if that's the existing and then the slide we were just looking at say it's adding about anywhere between 113 to 130 something it's or 180 yeah 152 we're talking about nearly doubling and yeah the volume that's getting onto the highway is pretty close to the total volume so we're increasing closer to about 40% 35 to 40% on those volumes well you can forgive my bad M sorry about that yeah um okay yeah I mean I think that's 40% still a pretty substantial increase for a pretty small Road like that I think the other interchange on Elliot Street and just to correct make sure I'm understanding maybe this is a question for staff so if the Covenant is related to tr Lane but it says that we have the purview about traffic impact does that also include consideration for traffic impact on Elliot Street since that also is in Danvers I mean in our opin in staff's opinion we think that that could be included in the peer review in staff's opinion we think that that could be part of the peer review but yeah part of the traffic peerreview you yeah yeah okay well and I I would just if I may restate um our view that under the the actual wording of the Covenant it's Traffic Safety within the board's jurisdiction and I would submit that the board does not have jurisdiction to recommend mitigation for Route 128 or the interchanges off of Route 128 and I also think that when this Covenant was crafted in 1972 the board was specifically looking at infrastructure directly adjacent to tr Lane in fact there's a condition in the Covenant that talks about an assessment as to whether a traffic control device would be needed at the intersection of Upland Drive and tras Lane and that the applicant was on the hook to provide uh funds for peer review to or excuse me for a study to review the necessity of that traffic study I do not think that in 1972 the board was um thinking that a future board would have jurisdiction over roadway that is controlled by the state do sure just as a as a you know different you know looking at it I mean earlier in the conversation it said you know Rebecca mentioned that Elliot Street was going to be which is a road in the town of Danvers that that will be the most negatively impacted Road from this whole project yeah just jump into say I I disagree with that assessment you're taking a very narrow view of it because if a new development that is coming off of tras Lane can have the impact pushing traffic all the way back into roads and Danvers I think we should consider consider that there aren't going to be very many opportunities like this where there is one little change it's a big machine you screw up one little corner of it it's going to have repercussions throughout the town so I do think that we should consider it throughout the town I just want to make sure that I wasn't way out of line on that one in terms of the Elliot Street I mean I I live up Burley Street and so I come down State Road and go through that intersection and it stinks it is always very backed up the gridlock is bad so your point about the block the box is well taken uh is that the only Improvement that's happening to get from the like minute delay that was on the the first estimate versus the mitigated estimate which is only a few seconds of delay added that's um so we'd be doing the do not block the box as well as uh signal timing improvements that would go from the State Road intersection all the way down to Liberty Street intersection um that would really sort of maximize the green time so once you kind of enter those four intersections you should keep a green signal as you get through all four intersections um so that really helps the progression of traffic throughout each one well I would definitely personally appreciate that Improvement um I I do think it is really worth the peer peer review study that we're talking about because that is a huge Improvement you're estimating I think it's really important to make sure that's vetted and and true um okay no other questions Jean do you have any questions or uh yeah sorry um so I I'm also interested in the Elliot Street intersection um echoing what Tim said it already operates poorly and I know we just approved a daycare on Liberty Street going through that intersection um and I looked up the traffic report for that project and it was 479 vehicle trips per day um so I think if we get a peer review maybe we should add that development in as well okay okay anything further J no Mike Josh I guess a a question for staff um so I guess in terms of our purview does this something that we need to kind of vote to approve the traffic because it just seems like not to be negative but Beverly's kind of gaining all the good things of this and then danam ver is kind of just dealing with all the bad things with it like we're just getting the traffic but I'm just trying to understand like do we need to approve this traffic because I understand they're saying they don't want traffic going down uh County way or whatever but then at the same point isn't our planning board saying well we don't want traffic going down our roads so I I I'm just trying to understand like what we're actually able to do certainly uni it's a unique circumstance right um I think we're trying to evaluate the traffic impact of this project on this section of Danvers and particularly this section of Danvers So when you say this section of Danvers traffic impact yeah like the intersections that we're looking at that are in the town of Danvers that are impacted we're interested in how this project will impact them mhm and so I think that's we're supposed to analyze and look at which is why a recommendation we can get into it is to have a peer reviewer look through the traffic report potentially give us some more recommendations that would Ben that could benefit us so and Josh how would it in terms of the peer review how would that work so we would there would be there would be a peer review that would review the traffic study yes and then they would offer recommendations for they would work for the board right and they would provide recommendations the traffic report if they agree or disagree with what's been presented and very similar conversation to sort of what we're having tonight but it would be you know someone who is an expert in this topic who could provide you know technical assistance for our questions and comments I don't disagree with that I guess I'm just asking that if they also tell us there's going to be delays at Elliott Street and delays on trash Street and stuff like that what is our next steps in term of a board do we have anything that we can do um I think we're just going to try and do the best we can I guess I mean um I guess we'll have to wait and see you know what what's you know what is in the report you know okay yeah because it seems like in past projects we can talk about traffic and damers and people have lots of comments but I guess my question is when we're doing that we're gaining benefits of housing or sure taxes or things like that and this one is obviously very unique in the sense that we're kind of getting nothing out of it in a positive sense so that's why I'm curious what our standing is on that so yeah I mean I think I may I might make an argument that you're in fact getting the benefit of a significant slug of housing that's Regional without School impacts without utility impacts um so I think there's a a strong argument to be made that this is a you know this is a regional project in that sense it's Regional Housing um and Beverly Bears uh the brunt of the impacts as opposed to danverse in the case y I think it just depends on the lens at which you view this right yeah I think you could look at it from different okay some folks would say this we are getting the pros and we are getting the you know we're getting the pros and the cons you know it just depends sure so I mean I think it's worth getting you know um uh I think in addition to you know having traffic peer review on this I think picking up getting some comments I think from our you know uh potentially getting some input from dtac is that you know the danas traffic advisory Comm J mentioned that earlier um since I've been here we haven't done that but I'd be interested um I could talk to Aaron about he chairs that committee I believe um I'd be I could talk to Aaron about it tomorrow what that process would be and if they give letters or comments or just I'm just not sure we've never we've never done a project like this going to dtec you know it's generally kind of smaller more local local thing you know people folks in town wanting stop signs wanting crosswalks that type of thing but I I'm obviously i' i' I can obviously reach out to Aaron tomorrow about it well I think it's a major impact on already very congested areas um I'm wondering just if we could ask the traffic uh person do we have any um estimate of queuing on trass lane at the high peak hours and and I know you talked about that the Box area as it relates to Wayside but do you have a projection of queuing at at the you know 7 7:30 8:00 hour in the morning that you're projecting and should we or could there be some type of mediation remediation through either a signal or signage or how how can we help alleviate that I don't know if we want to put more traffic lights but sure there should be something to cuz it may may be very difficult to get out if you're trying to get out on Wayside if you can't you can't get out on Wayside on 128 so you have to get out on tras so yeah so you're talking about um basically first thing in the morning everyone's trying to go to work at school it's 7:30 7: a.m. and we're all waiting at TR trash Lane and it's queued up because people are on 128 trying to get go North to turn around to go south and you've got a big long queue yep I'm just trying to get to that page because I don't remember what the cues were right off the top of my head um but I will find that for you I also think the Beverly dver line on that map is incorrect just FYI oh is it yeah I mean it should include TR clean it did get shifted over yeah so this this line should be right up against the site yeah here and it looks like it got bumped over but yeah it should essentially be shifted right up through here Y and then it starts coming in this direction in that area um so in terms of queuing we were showing that at the intersection with TR Lane and Wayside Drive um that there's only one to two vehicles queued up on either Wayside Drive drive or the TR Lane sort of Northbound approach there um during any of the peak hours presently under build conditions presently or with the with the increase that's with the increase yeah on the high peak hours you're only going to have two cars queuing up that seems kind of hard to believe but yeah you're talking about he right here right at the Wayside Drive TR Lane intersection is that taking into account any mitigation measures you all are proposing or that's or that is without any mitigation that is taking into account the mitigation measures that we are proposing um under existing conditions it's it's pretty similar though what's the peak on TR Lane not Wayside but tras to get onto the highway what's a que so are you looking at the actual like Route 128 and the TR Lane interchange there for that queuing MH okay um so that analysis we had not included in our traffic impact and access study that um went to the town we have since been asked by mass doot to study that that interchange there um but the way that it gets analyzed is as sort of a merge condition as traffic is coming in so what happens um I Advance this you might be able to see it and again you said you were asked by m what happens is Vehicles don't actually have to yield um they come around here into their own lane um and then they this Lane continues up f a ways and then merges in with traffic um so this doesn't really cue back here because Vehicles just come around this corner into their own lane and then they merge in with traffic obious how that is how long is that roadway where that I know that's a relatively new thing probably in the last what that this comes into the its own lane um off the top of my head I don't know what that length is I may be able to find out for you it looks like it's like 7 to a th 700 to a th000 feet off Google Map seems about right yeah yeah yeah that's what I was going to measure for you and even looking at car lengths there it seems yeah yeah so that came in the last probably 5 10 years I think hasn't been there like that all the time it's relatively new so that means there are people still waiting and thinking they have to yield right right jeene just it's a good point I think that there there there are probably people who who Who's because it's relatively new they they probably still think that they have to yield waiting there may be some yeah it looks like it's about a th000 feet long mhm before it merges back in based on uh Google Maps so you're going to look into the queuing on that you've been asked to do that yes so we've been asked to analyze the merge condition through here this is 2012 so you can provide us with that information as well yep and it will go into the deir um which um will be sent to the town as well around when is that plan uh around what do you anticipate in terms of the timing for that in terms of providing this information uh right now we're aiming for mid December for submission of the deir um into meepa okay mid December yeah okay okay got it okay Mr chair yes um in listening to the back and forth I I wanted to make clear that um I think we understand that peer review of the traffic impacts would be useful to the board it's a big project it's a 500 page report we get it um I think what we'd like to be clear on and come out of this meeting hopefully with some direction on is what the scope of that peer review is um and also a timeline for when that might occur okay and a timeline for when the engineering department might be expected to have comments on the Covenant request okay but we certainly understand that the board would would actually benefit from having peer review and having some of these uh questions answered y okay um Josh anything in terms of uh I know in terms of questions with respect to engineering as well as sort of the uh the scope of the of the review yeah so the scope that was sent out to you know other traffic consultant companies was uh you know the trash Lane in the immediate vicinity and with and then also looking at the um the Elliot Street um 62 interchange and then actually in also even The Interchange in Beverly at 1A m to the north um you know from this conversation that's the scope of the of the review Josh would it make sense to also include that Liberty con stre I know they said there was no impact but I know a lot that intersection is not the safest intersection I know a lot of people who get off at the Cherry Farm exit to avoid that whole Elliot Street exit and they go that way so me being one of them um I don't know if it's included in their report I don't know why we wouldn't also include it in our report but that's just my opinion I mean we have a we have a scope from a couple firms we were going to we recommended a firm and the packet I mean I think as planning staff that we're sort of don't want to speak for Brian but um amimal to some type obviously we have to share the scope with the development team um right I think we're sort of open to discussion about the scope if we can't um you know I have a written document it's in your packet all the peer reviews right um I think what I what I see here is the um let's see here I mean study boundaries um 20 study area intersections a general review of all intersections will be completed however as requested by the town of danver's planning board primary focus will be on 128 uh exit 43 ramps Elliot Street Route 62 and Route 128 Exit 45 ramps Dodge Street 1A so it's is it possible to get a copy of it I have not seen the scope so I'm feeling a little bit uh yeah but I I would say to the extent we were naming intersections in Beverly I you know I would just renew our objection on the record okay as I was saying I think that we're sort of amenal from this conversation to make some tweaks to the scope um I think that so I understand St from the development team where they sit they want to narrow it a little bit more but I think I think we're open to a little bit of you know I think staff was concerned with respect to the um was respect you know with with doing a peer review of what was covered in the the traffic at least to a certain extent what's what was in the traffic study so that might be right which is more broad potentially than what you know they may you know agree should be covered by the peer review does that make sense what you're saying yeah I mean we would agree that the traffic study we submitted because we were also submitting something to meepa and to the town of Beverly is broader than the jurisdiction of danverse um but the board has heard me on that and you will do as you uh as you see fit okay very good and in terms of um Josh just in terms of other area so you know and then I could yeah the other sorry if you want me to answer a couple the other questions please yeah y sorry uh so in terms of engineering comments you're referring to like the summary or memo like the the uh condition of the road is that you're referring is that what you mean by from engineering is that what you mean yeah I I mean we have submitted a memo that presents for example the road was built y sure this was done I you know I'm I would assume that the board wants verification of that from the engineering department yes so they have been working on a response memo or a kind of parallel memo okay that you're describing um describing the condition of the road and the things that have been constructed or not constructed or and then what was I forget the the other question so Josh in terms of so respond so so engineering is going to be working on something that if it's you know 1 two three you know agree agree don't agree and so on correct they currently are and that they currently have a draft or process of documentation to what you're requesting yes great and then the other question was time I guess timing and just um and and I would also ask that um things like memos and Scopes be shared um before the next meeting if yeah of no of course that we have a chance to respond um no I mean I depending on how this yep that's completely fine um where I sat or staff um we were we recommending we do a traffic peer review we decide to go that [Music] route and um The Firm that we think might be the most appropriate or recommending they are not available on November 26th our next meeting so we were going to recommend to continue this item to the December 10th meeting so you have a firm that's responded that they can do the peer review or they just indicated hey when they responded hey I can hey Josh I'm interested in doing this I'm interested in submitting a a quote if I'm chosen just by the way I'm not available this week so I just know that knowing that information the 26 are not available so Josh do we have a meeting the 10th I thought there was an email about that changing that I'm sorry do we have a meeting December 10th there was an email that you sent I thought yeah we're going to do December 10th okay sorry I know there's been a lot of back and forth back and forth and just so you know for purposes for planning purposes I'm going to be out of the country December 10th yeah so I will not be able to participate in that meeting so okay so in terms of timing is that really I mean Josh in terms of the December 10th from you know in looking at getting a peer review back and considering also there might be a um the traffic queuing study that their traffic consultant is is looking at that that might not be done till mid December that's that's with respect to the traffic queuing coming on onto the merge is that something that is it is this something that potentially this is going to push Beyond I mean potentially but I I mean not to speak the development team but if we get to that point December 10th where they feel like they're not you know I think that from the peer reviewer we could like get something by that TI your second question about whether the um Dar document is done I guess we'll have to wait and see I mean um if we have a meeting on December 10th and we talk and that item is not here I guess we'll have to just you know figure that out but yeah and I I I would expect that um GPI can provide some supplemental information on that specific question even though with without waiting for the full report to be done so we we we can get that to you that would be great I think that would be good yeah would cly I think that would certainly be helpful hopefully I I spoke correctly there Rebecca didn't someone to do something on Thanksgiving get that queuing information to the town much earlier than the mid December timeline so that they can have it before their next meeting and that could be helpful as well because potentially that can also go into the hands of the of of a peer reviewer yep yep okay absolutely great and um also Josh just in terms of so engineering that's going to be in the works also if there's any other I think also coordinating with potentially dtac as well as in just in terms of safety and such if there's uh if we need to get is this something we need to get the um fire department um potentially um so it sounds like just so they're aware of it yeah um sounds like I should in the next week or so contacting a bunch of these folks and yeah I'm I will do that okay okay all right any other comments at all or can I just bring it back to Mike's question because I think he said you know what are we hoping to get out of the peer review is it right that question for you Josh so the Covenant says we have consideration for traffic to approve sort of the this particular you sub tralan uh we get information back from a peer review there's a certain level of assess traffic is the decision Point our own discretion of what is an acceptable level of traffic or where is the threshold to the extent one exists for what we should be considering and making that decision this is a unique situation I mean um I think let's you know I think we have I think at this preliminary stage I think it's important to just get you know received some documentation information from the peer riewer and then maybe kind of go from there to be honest but but I yeah i' just like to put forward that you know there's what the estimate will be of what this development will bring in terms of traffic there is an optimal alternative solution which is the city of Beverly allowing another road in from County way and so anything that that's going to be in this plan is going to be more than that so we're given a bit of a false Choice here that doesn't really need to be made MH take all the traffic or cancel the whole project I want to see more housing but why do we have to eat all the traffic because arbitrarily we've been given a false choice because it didn't open up another road so in terms of discretion I don't think it's just an arbitrary threshold of this is too much traffic this is too little traffic I think this is all more traffic than it has to be and I think that's problematic and I think has to be taken into consideration and I would just say that the Covenant doesn't speak generically in terms of traffic it speaks specifically of matters of safety um on the roads within the planning board's jurisdiction yep and and I I would request um Josh that the peerreview scope hopefully references the Covenant and and you know why this matter is before the board to begin with because I I do think that is important um as we continue these discussions well I think on based on what Tim said I mean do we need to get a legal opinion from Town Council as to what our ability is on this in sense of you have a 50 plus year old Covenant which from the perspective of people in the 70s compared to what the traffic and the impact is today do do we have the ability to you know deny the project essentially based on traffic I think I'd want to know that uh in in our opinion making and I know she's advocating for her client which is obviously her role but I want to know what what our ability is to uh you know essentially force their hand to look at other Alternatives if we're not going to accept all this traffic in Damas can you arrange that yeah um I can I can speak to that actually so we have had initial conversations uh with legal counsel can you just identify yourself for the uh that's Brian Brian Kell sorry yeah no I know sorry Brian Z Kelly director of planning uh here in Danver um we have had initial conversations uh with legal counsel um I would not put it past legal council potentially coming to meetings in the future uh because this is kind of Uncharted Territory for for a lot of us frankly um this is not routine okay um so I I that's that's like the best version that I could get at the moment from legal counsil um I have not invited them that is the planning board's uh option um but I have a feeling that U it could be very useful for a lot of reasons okay do we need to make a motion on that to help support your input or no no no just there's no motion for that it's more of do do you want would you like legal council available you can you you can make that request and we can if we can't if it's not uh our main contact maybe it's someone else in the firm so um we can certainly put that through that there's no vote needed for that it's more of just do you want it generally I think there's bit I think we're getting we have a we have Universal agreement that we would like legal counsel to um uh to to to come to a meeting and I would I would also ask that they uh that they review the issue in advance as well so that they you know so they're able to uh uh speak knowledge you about it wonderful M Mr chair uh Dan Bailey Pierce Atwood for the applicant if I could just jump in here quickly please uh with a question um who is legal counsel for the board It's Our Town Council and and who is that is KP law or another firm let um what's is it Murphy I know I know the attorney's name it's Dave DeLuca daa that that that's fine I know Dave thank you yep in light of um the chairman not being here on the 10th I'm not sure that date's a great date especially where he can't come in um I'm not sure the applicant would want to have just four people unless he could review if we go to a third hearing so maybe we pick a um I don't know if we're having a second meeting in December that's Christmas Eve it wasn't scheduled Christmas we only need 48 hours to do a meeting but um you know so what's up the will of the board I I don't I don't know if the board would want to act without its chairman on the 10th M unless we moved it to the following week mov move I think the issue not to interrupt was that you would L would indicated I think you're also not available the following Tuesday so I think that was why I unfortunately or fortunately because it's a it's a it'll I'll be out um my wife and I will be away for two weeks and so we're back on uh the Sunday immediately before Christmas we leave town on the on the we like on the 9th so it just seems with throwing in legal council throwing in you know more uh research and uh traffic opinions this might push it to January I would think yeah um one thought I have I I agree this is it would be helpful to have the continuity of the members present for these meetings as we move forward um I would not anticipate that we would be done on December 10th um I think we're it sounds as though you have peer review saying they will have a response close to December 10th which we're going to need some additional time to respond to I would however like to keep us on the agenda for December 10th so we can check in on the status of peer review if we don't have it yet um as well as the engineering department um and I'll leave it to the board as to whether legal council should be here at that time but I would think it would make sense to wait until uh the chair is available but I I think a check-in could be useful given the moving Parts seems appropriate where I sit I'm fine with that someone if you would I guess could we I guess where I sit to the board and to everyone um at that meeting Lou I guess if you were in attendance would would be comfortable if we had a peer- review memo our traffic peer reviewer attended we talked about the traffic piece or you know particularly their memo that they created and then maybe talk about the legal piece at the January meeting is that what we're sort of game planning yeah I would prefer to be present when uh if we're having any sort of conversations with with with legal counsel and just really have a if if if we were indeed to to keep this on the agenda for the 10th really just to have like a check-in meeting right I would I would not for example sorry for interrupting but I I wasn't expecting that you would have the peer reviewers here for that meeting I was anticipating that for some it would just be sort of are we on track for the January meeting to have legal councel peerreview and Engineering okay if we want to set it up like that I'm I'm amenable to have that on the agenda me as a as a sort of I am as well so that would be great so December 10th would yeah not a major conversation type night yeah hopefully we'll have some progress by then in terms of the reports so we can respond in January and set it up for a January larger bigger conversation situation yeah okay does that make sense everybody yes okay all right so okay great all right do we um uh so in terms of we'll get we'll be getting legal counsel on this one we don't need a a motion on that um what about the uh for peer review though we do need Motion in the packet for that mhm okay you need to uh move to continue the public hearing let's do the motion for the peer review first right and this is actually not a public hearing so it's a motion to let's do the motion for the peerreview and then we'll do a motion to continue the public meeting to December 10th 2024 okay y okay all right and so the um uh in terms of Josh do you want to give a just a a summary in terms of the recommendation in terms of the traffic peer reviewer we did get um we got several responses back um there were three that were very there were three that were very competitive and close um we had recently um so the firm that we are recommending this evening is Howard Stein Hudson MH um we have recently worked with them um on a on a project so there's some familiar familiarity there which project did they do on can remember um they were the peer reviewer for 152 OT okay um and also they um also near Highway inter change so they also just in terms of their quote um you know they they could attend several meetings that was part of it they could so in person if that's so I'm sorry I I'm having trouble hearing you Josh I don't I didn't hear who it was and what you said in terms of yep so uh Howard Stein Hudson okay Y and obviously we will share with you and we could continue to have a conversation about it and is there a ballpark on what they estimate for this yeah it was in it was a I think it was like 13,000 um I would just say that's substantially higher than the peer review that we've seen so far in Beverly which was the whole kitten Kaboodle so um to be honest um that between the four people that responded that was one of the low that was one of the lowest ones okay i''d be interested in seeing that scope sure um and then did you have a question did you have another question I'm sorry there's okay so so there's a motion to move forward in terms of I mean we want to have a motion to have this with the uh and this so this would be at the development team's cost yes mhm yeah I think the I think the proposal was 13,700 um I'm going to just check with clients who are on the call to make sure there's no I mean I I understand it's the board's decision but um yeah uh good evening Peter Mahoney with John M Corr and Company I I just as uh Miranda pointed out this is I think twice or close to twice what the cost of the one in Beverly was um and I know there's been a lot of discussion about scope is the scope the review of the entire traffic report and if so is that is that what the board is asking of us let's see I mean I think the focus is as we discussed tonight the trash Lane area the two intersections at Route One Route 128 particularly end you know Elliot Street um and the one I one I and Beverly um you know we could have further discussions about this this I could share the scope with you folks tomorrow we can have a little bit more conversation if we need to amend it you know in some minor ways you know I think that we're you know I think we're open to it okay right but we're but we'd be voting on The you be you making the motion that you we're doing a pview we doing Howard s Hudson um so we are have we do have the ability to sort of amend the you know that's the mo you know that's what we're voting to do so we change it we can modify it a little bit right but if it comes back to us and it's and it's not as not as as as uh as you know if it's if it's too narrow if it's if it's too narrow a scope ultimately in our view I mean then we're um I don't think that's what's going to happen but I don't know um I'm not sure how to you know I don't know okay I mean I think that we still I mean well I mean keep ball rolling I think we need to you know that we do want to get this this traffic peer review but again I mean we're doing multiple tracks here at the same time also getting Town Council involved too right mhm I think staff is saying that they shot this to three different uh firms and this this firm they've work with and this is actually the lower of the three costs so this is what they're recommending to the board I for one them and we're going to vote on this motion for peer review so uh um you put it out to a vote we're going to read the motion we're going to move forward if the applicant does not want that then we have a problem MH I'm sure you're not talking about the price 500 unit development we're concerned about what the scope is and what comes back to the board and for example whether the Beverly intersections are something that the danverse peer Reviewer is going to be reviewing in addition to the Beverly peer review in addition to Beverly parking in traffic in addition to mass do and in addition to meepa and with the town of Danvers having ample opportunity in the meepa process to provide additional comments so that that's the concern and it may be that [Music] um well the board the board should make its motion and um I suspect that will be having further conversations about it yeah all right right we have a moot uh Jean can I ask for a motion um I'm make a motion the planning board votes to move forward with Howard Stein Hudson to review the traffic report submitted for the proposed development project at trolan danvas under mgl 53g outside Consultants okay there's been a mo motion is there a second second second very good all in favor please indicate by saying I I I okay there's been a motion for peer review so let's go and I'd like to entertain a motion to um uh to continue this public meeting to the next I'm sorry to the to the board's December 10th 2024 meeting so move okay first by Jim is there a second second second by Jan all in favor hi hi hi okay thank you very much thank you okay next agenda item this is a public hearing of 24 Newbury Street Route 1 request for a special permit and a waiver submitted by mag real estate holdings Danvers LLC and McGovern Auto Group for property at 24 Newbury Street map 48 Lot 8 pursuant to section 30.5 in table one table of allowable uses Motor Vehicle sales outdoor and section 10.1.2 parking waiver of the zoning bylaw said property is in the highway carer Zone zoning District the applicant is proposing to utilize the existing building as an automotive dealership with Associated site modifications and inventory storage good evening good evening thank you very much my name is Nancy mccan I'm here on behalf of the applicant and hopefully we will make this a little more brief and straightforward than your last event um with me tonight is Matt McGovern uh also Steve horseball um project engineer and Tom Dori also with McGovern Auto Group and uh we are seeking a special permit for Motor Vehicle sales outdoor for the property located at 24 Newbury Street the property is in the highway quarter zoning District Josh if you could put up I sent you some photo okay we got that I have a photo couple of photographs of the prior condition but uh the board may already be familiar with this site it was the site of the sunline outdoor furniture um company for many many years it's been vacant now for a while this is on the southbound side of Route One just south of um Route 114 and it's been the site of a variety of retail uses with outdoor sales components uh associated with them and what we're proposing to do is simply to reuse this site for what it's been used for retail sales in this case Motor Vehicle sales uh and the outdoor sale of Motor Vehicles um in association with that and the reason we're doing this uh is that you will recall back in April you approved the McGovern Hyundai Genesis dealership campus uh for for the canes uh Garden Center site on Andover Street and that project is moving forward uh the applicant has been working with the canes as they wrap up their business that takes some time um so during the course of construction which will probably be about 18 months we'd like to use this location as a temporary dealership location um it will operate as a as a new car uh under class one dealer license and have the uh indoor as well as outdoor sale of Motor Vehicles indoor sales again of Motor Vehicles is a permitted use if that were it we wouldn't be here at all but of course as with uh most dealerships all all that I can think of actually in Danvers we have an outdoor sales component associated with the dealership and that's what triggers the site plan review we are not proposing any changes in particular to uh this site we're going to use it as it's a temporary dealership we're going to use it as is um so there is no site plan review associated with this this is simply the special permit we are seeking a parking waiver that I'll discuss in a in a couple of minutes similar to what you've seen in other auto dealerships simply because the bylaw has not kept pace with how uh Motor Vehicle sales are done now uh mostly online um again the the property has been vacant for a while it's about uh a 7 Acre Site and um we are going to utilize the existing conditions existing curb Cuts existing parking areas with uh gravel inventory storage areas which has been inventory storage for the uh patio type of furniture and other uh inventory that's been sold on the site over the years and we're going to utilize the existing sales building um there uh will be some major uh cleanup of the site much has already occurred actually under um the applicant's direction and that will continue but no other particular site changes there will be some exterior uh upgrades to the existing building and interior of course that's going to be renovated and and upgraded for the needs of the uh auto dealerships but otherwise it's a it's basically as is there's no increase in the impervious surface um nothing other than really cosmetic changes to the exterior here um and uh we will be placing a covering over the concrete area that's existing now at the rear of the site there'll be a covering over that which will serve as the uh service area for uh for the vehicles being a a class one dealer you've got to provide some service location and that's where this will be but it's a temporary type of uh covering to allow that area to be heated and used for service um we've met again with planning staff and um as I said site plan review is not triggered simply the uh the special permit uh aspect of the application um with regard to the dealerships there'll be 20 employees uh hours of operations would be exactly what you would expect Monday through Thursday 99 to 7: Friday and Saturday 9 to 6 uh closed on Sunday and service department 7 to 6 um 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and Saturday 8: to 5: again closed on Sunday and um no outdoor audio will be used at any time on the on the site said outdoor audio will not be used will not be used I knew I was going to ask that you said will be used and I was wondering does that include the uh the horns going off from the Cars when you try to locate them in the we'll do the best we can on that this this site unlike some of the dealerships that that you've seen we really don't have any residential neighbors here which is uh which is certainly helpful I did in the application outline all of the uh criteria for the issuance of the special permit this uh this application meets all of those there are uh seven of those uh criteria I'm happy to go through it uh but it's there for you already and we we do meet those uh criteria this um use is consistent with other uses uh within the highway Corridor as well as the um Route 114 neighboring uh Zone a corridor as as well I'll turn this over now to Steve horseball uh who can review the plan briefly with you and then we can hopefully wrap this up great thank you good evening I'm Steve horsefall with Kelly Engineering Group uh as you know uh you you can see that we've been utilizing the existing facility uh we've done the best that we can to put together a striping plan to accommodate the storage uh along with the the customer parking within the the front area of the building uh We've also you know gone through an analy uh analyze the fact that a car carrier can pull offsite here not in the the the uh breakdown Lane on the highway uh we have some samples of that if necessary but uh that's been reviewed by our office so far uh the existing facility has will be remodeled uh any permits that are needed within the town will be obtained through the various departments and if we have any other questions okay just had a quick question on the lighting are you proposing new lighting or what is there for lighting to uh protect and show the vehicles cuz we've had experience especially with car dealerships in the past that have had lighting that you could see on the moon but I'm assuming are you adding new lighting or does the lighting that's there now suffice at this point I think we're expecting to use the light system that's there some of the uh fixtures may be uh replaced uh or you redirected as necessary so there'll be box shine out lighting do we have any specs on that that you can provide to staff just cuz we've had experiences with dealerships and over lighting the site you know to secure but also can the applicant can you go to the microphone if you don't mind that'd be great thanks and just identify yourself for the record yeah uh Tom Dori from a govern autog group I think it's more of an upgrade of the existing lighting that's out there now um the building is is pretty old there's a little bit of work we have to do both inside and out um and particularly in the back of the building the the lighting needs to be kind of updated and brighter um it's a little bit Antiquated and then more along the the southbound side of the uh of the structure um where we'll have inventory there as well we're going to have down lighting as well so there's a little bit of upgrading to do that so normally with a site plan that would be provided to us so I think we'd have you work with staff to make sure that we've got the proper lighting you're amendable to that as a condition okay thank you okay so just turning to questions oh did you have any no if there are any other questions I other question was snow removal do you have snow removal areas that you can indicate where we can certainly provide a plan plan to the planning department that shows potential snow removal areas okay you've got cuz you've got a lot of wetlands to that we do yeah there's a lot of well there's also the uh the north side of the existing building where there's an old uh shed and garage an old building a house that not being used any longer there's plenty of room around that side of the site that we can have snow storage okay yeah so I think you need to provide a plan of that as well and and just not using any type of salt and stuff like that that could impact the wetlands could you be willing to include that as a condition as well with respect to the special permit working with Town staff with respect to a snow removal plan okay snow removal and storage okay Jim anything further you have question question I had is I know this is a temporary use what do you propose after the 18 months or two years go by for the site we'll be back to you okay with h with a uh a proposal it's anticipated for um a dealership site that will be brand new okay uh up to dat modern spiffy just like the one you've approved on uh Andover Street already but that will be we'll call that phase two or three so not planning on just using it for storage or anything of that nature gotcha no okay thank you snow Sound and Lighting we already checked off the Jim sear checklist so I think uh my questions have all been answered okay thank you that was good Jean I don't have any plans thanks questions thanks Mike my only question and I think you you said that the trucks could turn into this parking lot is that can you confirm that I'll point it out if you want to talk so the the a truck can I have a couple of handouts if you'd like to see it yeah I'd love to see I mean a truck you're seeing a truck in turn into the entrance that she's pointing to there and then pull in even with those parking spaces there okay I'm the only reason I'm mainly concerned is because there's an on-ramp right there so if there's a if there's a flatbread with trucks right there that's my main concern but if you're yeah the the turning radius at that entrance looks a little wonky but but thank you for doing this appreciate it yeah that's just I got two one one at Josh oh yeah yep I think this the plan on the screen actually has an additional parking space that is not shown on this plan not that that's a big deal but I just think there's one space that is cutting it like that the truck can't go past do you see what I'm saying yes so whatever he we the track I'm not concerned like you guys took care of we've got plenty the the issue was that uh that we discussed because I know the board has seen it at other dealerships um no car carriers are going to be unloading along Route One everything has to be unloaded in the site and so what you have there is a demonstration showing you that that can happen okay yeah that was my only concern so thank you appreciate it got it just to clarify do you have a question yeah this says 10 spaces but the PDF says 12 so is it 10 in the sort of short the area along route one that's what she was just saying this plan is accurate that one is outdated okay cool say say that again this isn't a site plan review so um the plan that you have uh demonstrates the compliance with regard to getting the truck carrier off of the site and um sense we would if you would like to reference that plan in your decision that's that's perfectly fine as as well um the other item uh again is the uh is the parking waiver that we're requesting the bylaw uh requires 67 parking spaces um and of course as this board has uh has determined in other auto dealerships um that really is uh way too much parking given the way people buy vehicles and this kind of also goes to uh lighting of the whole inventory section that which is appropriate when you've got people walking around the inventory as they used to do years ago but that's really not the way it's done now it's mostly online so um is that is that generally and again I haven't purchased a new vehicle in a while so what is the um what sort of the you buy online and you pick out your vehicle and you go once to the dealership as opposed to years past you would online means the internet I know yes I have I have purchased a car online I'm just asking if it's been a while ago so well you know years AO it used to be that you'd bring the kids on a Saturday afternoon the dealership would be having hot dogs you Ro sales oh yeah yeah that's really not the way it's done anymore so much so uh rather than four trips to the dealership you're making one got it maybe two so it's just different and we've got 20 employees we um anticipating probably eight customers over an hour time MH um and so we are providing 36 customer and employee parking spaces that's going to be more than enough uh so we've requested the waiver from the 67 down to the 36 if for some reason there is an an issue that that's not enough we've got plenty of uh of area for parking but we would request that uh that waver Sor inter I'm so sorry to interrupt you said the which plan was the more was the accurate the accurate one for purposes of the parking spaces it would be the one that we handed out tonight which so would that number then for the waiver be not 36 but 34 because Tim mentioned that take a couple away all right then they've taken two off then 34 I still think we have no I just wanted to for accurate purpos W then we'll go with 34es 34 parking spaces so right is that correct yes well cuz it was it originally proposed 36 36 okay yeah okay yep so in the decision y or yep right that's what I that's why I wanted to okay um I don't have the only question I have is um uh there were some additional engineering comments I think just issued today just today oh just sorry to interrupt um we had engineering comments um a week ago there were just some like minor or just a little tweaks to a couple like two or three just um the last couple ones they're just a minor tweaks so so the pertinent date we're looking for engineering memo just for and and the applicant's willing to include as a condition to be compliant with any engineering comments in their memo of November 12th yep uh yes we would certainly take a condition that the applicant will work with the engineering department to address the comments okay adhere to all the conditions and comments in the engineering division memo yep dated November 12th yeah that's typical language Mr chair my laptop died but I'm wondering if is there storm water management concern here are they address that was one of the conditions as to whether that uh is triggered if storm water um permit is required if it is yeah see uh then we'll have to comply with that are there oil water separators and all that storm water management on that site presently not presently but they would be installed potentially dur in the the only area that's going to need it because we're not having vehicles stored inside the building mhm so it would be in the service area and the project engineer will be working with the town engineer with regard to um what's required in the building inspector because of course that that's a a building code as well as uh as the engineering department issue as to what bless you as to um what oil and gas separators we do anticipate that they will be required and they will be installed man yeah I mean it's kind of unique in that you're not coming with a cyan I understand you're not building a building but you're changing the use from a retail to a car storage repair slash showroom so it seems like we're asking you to do all these things so it's it's a little unique I would say that you're not asking for site plan I understand understand that you're not building a building but the use is changing to this type of use so that's why we're going through all these things so I think it's helpful and in light of the fact that you're going to upgrade the site to this new dealership it would seem to me why not do the storm water management now even though you might change the layout of the footprint of the buildings well we would do storm water management to comply with the storm water bylaw right I think that's what you're asking me to the extent that that's triggered but remember we're not changing any of the surface any of the existing surface we've got some impervious we've got some gravel none of that is being changed to the extent that anything is triggered under the storm water management bylaw we will of course do that um one of the conditions that came out in the engineering Department's comments today is uh this may require the service area to have an oil and gas uh separator and also item number five uh will comply with Title 5 requirements for septic systems so those those conditions are perfectly fine those are code issues outside of zoning that have to be complied with MH and we understand that okay it does by virtue of storing vehicles does that trigger it what you're storing vehicles on site doesn't that wouldn't that trigger it on its own trigger what storm water management no not it by itself no not by itself no Josh in terms of storm water management that that that's sufficiently covered in terms of between the engineering comments and the and the general conditions right if that was an issue or concern um I believe that those that would have been that would have been indicated in that memo okay yep got it okay okay any other questions from the members of the board this is a public hearing so is uh are there any public I'm seeing a headshake we got one left we have one left what's that oh not at this time not at this time okay thank you Mr Brad street okay then I'm going to turn it back to the board any further um any further comments before I entertain a motion to close the public hearing is there a motion to close the public hearing y go ahead go so moved okay Tim got it is there a second second second Jim okay there's a motion been made to close the public hearing all in favor I I I any opposed none okay moving back to what is before us here and so we have this is for the uh respect to the special permit okay and you should have the decision here Jean I think there some a couple of conditions which we want to make sure we get in there yeah have we have the um the staff with respect to lighting y snow removal and storage again working with staff and I guess if we could just talk about those for a minute not interrup um was the condition applicant shall provide a plan that shows snow remove snow storage areas was that was that the condition I believe that we what we discussed was that what did you get jean applicant will provide a plan showing snow showing snow removal and storage I don't know how it would show removal that's why I was so snow storage areas yeah that's what usually all right to everyone applicant shall provide a plan that shows s Snow storage areas and then appli Town staff yep and then applicant shall provide a plan that shows proposed lighting is that what is that what we were thinking about for lighting M okay specs and prop she has she has it proposed cut sheets oh okay lighting specifications so maybe on that same hand all that good stuff okay applicant shall provide a plan that shows the location of proposed lighting and lighting cut sheets sound good okay so proposed locations of lighting and specifications and Lighting to town staff okay okay was there anything else we uh comply with Department comments stated 11224 I think we already have that in there yeah okay y so I can take that out yep all right and the only other thing was the um was there anything I have something here about reference car carry oh the yep so reference we'll reference this plan and then maybe we'll also revise the other plan to the parking needs to be modified right so we revise the decision so it's 34 parking spaces based on this plan we have exactly okay all right so do we have a a motion from the clerk Grant of special permit for 24 Newberry Street date of application October 10th 2024 date of hearing November 12th 2024 date of decision November 12th 2024 this is to certifi that at a meeting of the danvas planning board held on November 12th 2024 having been requested under Section 30.5 in table one table of allowable uses of the zoning bylaw for property located at 24 Newberry Street assessors map 48 Lot 8 it was voted to approve the request submitted by mag re Holdings Danvers LLC and McGovern Auto Group for a special permit to allow Motor Vehicle sales outdoor as shown on the following plans mag re Holdings Danvers LLC 24 Newberry Street Danvers Massachusetts prepared by Kelly Engineering Group Incorporated dated October 10th 2024 consisting of two sheets the planning board grants a special permit pursuant to section 30.5 of zoning bylaw required findings for issuance of special permits and finds all of the following criteria have been satisfied scroll down one social econom or Community needs which are served by the proposal two traffic flow and safety including parking and loading three adequacy of utilities and other public services four compatibility with size scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood five impacts on the natural environment and six potential fiscal impact including impact on Town Services tax base and employment the following requirements from the zoning bylaw have been waved section 10.1 Point D parking planning board waves the parking requirement of 67 parking spaces for a reduction to 34 space parking spaces based on the following findings a no substantial detriment shall result B any decrease in number of required parking spaces will not create undue congestion or traffic hazards C any such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the neighborhood conditions of approval the project is subject to the following conditions one prior to issuance of a building permit this special permit decision sh shall be recorded at the southern Essex registry of deeds two the applicant shall adhere to all the conditions and comments in the Danvers engineering division memorandum dated November 12th 2024 three if there are any changes to the approved plan the use or the conditions on premises planning staff will review if deemed a major change by staff the applicant will have to apply for a modification to application to the special permit this project is subject to the attack uh what are we up to those are applicant will provide a plan to the to town staff showing proposed lighting locations and specifications five applicant will provide a plan to town staff showing snow storage areas this project is subject to the attach list of General conditions any approval of this special permit shall elapse within 3 years from the grant thereof if construction has not begun by such State okay motion's been made is there a second on the motion second hey second can I ask for a clarification uh the general conditions were attached to your decision but those are site plan conditions those are not uh applicable to special permits they're just general I mean they're just general conditions so why is that an issue okay are these General conditions I mean they are generally with site plan but they're they're I've never seen them attached to a special permit in the situation it's not a site plan application but this requires written certifications from town engineer for water andore and utilities and all that kind of stuff it it isn't applicable so if it's not applicable then you know to a uh use special permit is there site plan conditions is there ones in particular that you we can modify them are there ones in particular that well I think we've we've agreed to the conditions that the board wanted on this use um these they're just not applicable this is not site plan review okay by Josh we typically include any these General conditions on a on a special per yeah we we do very few special permits as you you know this feels it doesn't meet any of the triggers of site plan so there's not a site plan application but they're pretty applicable um they are they are in every site plan decision they not we don't do a lot of special permits right we don't do a lot of projects or we just do special permits especially not projects of like this where we're ranting a special permit for the use but clearly there are site things happening right so if there's is there something in particular attorney mccan that you think is that should not that I mean I don't think that there are any that are that handcuff the project or the use in any way but let's um I just don't think they're applicable um we've discussed MH the conditions that are applicable to the use special permit this does not trigger site plan review so you're talking about um written certification from a registered engineer for site Improvement we're not doing site improvements okay so it would it be applicable obviously then um planning board and buildings receive written certification from the town engineer regarding utilities that's under building code and under the building permit this is um aren't you installing new utilities like new there's new utilities being installed it well only as required under the plumbing code isn't there new water sewer and service and everything that has that's one of the issues that's covered under the condition of the engineering department which this board has already covered mhm in its condition I mean if we if in order to ensure continued compliance of an approved site plan well there isn't an approved site plan that's not what's applicable here these just don't apply if there's something here that you want we've already agreed to the snow storage to provide that um if the I mean if this these just aren't attached to special permits because we ve we do very few special permits where on their own where there's like you there's like been one special permit we've done in three years that was just the use that's like an interior tenant if the board and or the group doesn't think they're applicable and wants to remove the general conditions I I'm fine with it I'm fine with it I just thought some of them are applicable some might not be I'll the will the board that's fine I I don't have a I don't have a strong recommend if the board was doesn't think that they're necessary I'm I'm F I'm fine with that okay let's see so it's attorney mck your your view is just the the you want the general condition you want that General conditions just stricken or yeah they're just not applicable mhm these are the general conditions approved by the planning board on January 27th 2004 and February 27 2018 are special are special conditions for site plan approval and that's not what this is right what about any of the other conditions you know in terms of Prior issuance of building permits and construction if there's something in here that you want as a condition of this is a use special permit so the conditions that you're imposing are relative to the use MH not to construction right okay so in terms of for example looking at the one of the conditions in terms of the water use mitigation fee the W fee yeah is already mentioned in the engineering comments we could be fine we could be fine getting rid of it okay they are very general MH you know as the name States um um if we want to strike them I'm I'm I'm okay with that so staff so that's fine you could remove that's that's fine okay is there anything is there anything else in the general these General conditions that would be that staff would recommend that are not included in the engineering memo or elsewhere I mean I understand this is a unique situation so this is a little bit that's why I felt they were kind of right sort of appropriate in a way yeah but I inter see it's still a special permit decision as well so I I get the because because they didn't have to recite plan they would never be in it but right okay it's it's F it's fine I mean a lot of this the snow storage we talked about it there so that's fine I mean it talks a little bit about our of construction there's no residential nearby right so I think that's fine if we want to strike them that's fine okay all right you need fing with you're making the motion so you've seconded the motion so you just want to amend the motion to delete right I think we just the subject to the general conditions I'm okay okay all right so the so a motion's been made as as recited with the exception of the uh the language this project is subject to the attached list of General conditions which that specific langu language is struck um you can't make the motion what's that you can't make I'm not making the no I was I was just reflecting what she said in terms of the motion okay jeene made yeah she has to amend her own you okay can't because you're the chair she has to amend her motion okay um so revise the motion amend the motion amend the motion uh everything I just stated with the exception of removing the general conditions is there a second second second by Mike very good all in favor I I any opposed none okay thank you very much good luck okay great just keeping under Robert's Rules no I keep you under Robert's Rules that's important okay good all right I think our last item thank you very much good luck okay I think our next uh agenda item were meeting minutes we had minutes from our I believe it was the July 16th meeting everybody had the chance to review and Y okay is there a um I'd like to entertain a motion motion to approve the minutes Tim has made a motion to approve the minuts is there a second second okay second all in favor please say I I I any opposed none Josh anything further we got so just upcoming meetings uh our next meeting November 26 so we will have the subdivision rules and regs conversation and we will have could you speak up a little bit again sorry yep sorry the subdivision rules and rs conversation that was continued from tonight yep we will open the public hearing for the zoning amendments for February town meeting yep and 95 90% trying to confirm or um we will have an informal presentation about um potential future plans at putam putam pantry and we might have there was a condition for the maple Square project that they have to come back to show to present to the board the sign package and that will likely be on that evening also okay and you said the informal from puton Pantry that's a proposed development but it's just sort of a this is sort of a a a a a peak of what they'll be it's a peak it's not an official formal application it's a sort of hey sort of opportunity for someone to get a little bit of feedback from the group which we've done before I think with yes yep we did with public meeting but not a public hearing neither just completely informal but no public input uh that would be the discretion to Lou I guess discretion of the chair but okay great sounds good is that here it all the meetings will be here just in terms of uh for the for seable future just some of the items having potential larger groups I just wasn't sure um tonight how many people were going to come and then previous to this was the election stuff in the Tumi room sure um maybe go back I think the idea or goal would be move move back to Tumi in maybe J probably maybe January is or um just depending on that trash Lane item I just wasn't sure how many members of the public were going to come so okay um I wanted to have a bigger room for that just was stilling at the zoning stuff we'll be doing in January w we what's that I'm sorry special town meeting stuff what about yeah we'll be doing that in January also so probably keep it here right that's what I was kind of thinking I was kind of thinking until we things are a little slower I like Tumi just because it's it's easier to hear yeah and it just we don't have a fan behind us and I just I like this the the fridge or whatever going on here I like I like to space it to me better but I get this is this is a better room for for for that come you up less for bigger items it's a little easier is there really nowhere else in town besides this for a bigger meeting cuz this is pretty terrible um not that I'm aware of I know they Gordon room but I felt like uh speaking to one of my colleagues like Gord at the library like there's like no there's not a lot of Decat technology yeah you got to have this is there a room in the school that is accessible that has any of the technology that's better potentially I could look actually the multi-purpose room over at the uh middle school has been used I know when we've done some sort of our um sort of land use Summits and that's a pretty good sure that's a pretty good space sure um I could look into it if yeah that might be worth checking out just to see in terms of an option the sound is not good at all here right because you have to you probably get tired of you keep saying could you I can't hear you yeah yeah no I know that's F yeah I hear all of you okay all right sort of sort of when I when it's not like okay fling my ear okay entertain a motion to adjourn motion to oh Jim and I are not in sync today so moved okay second second all in favor I thank you