We'll be starting in just a couple of moments. We're just waiting to see if um one of our members is is arriving. Yeah. No, you're going to have what, a dozen people? Really?
How many? Yeah. I don't know. What is Washington? How we doing there, Tim? We Oh, other Tim Decat. Tim, what's up? All right. I think we probably That's right.
We probably should start. All right. Yep. Okay. Oh, he's he's actually here. So, okay. How you doing? Welcome. Looking all right. Yeah. Walking good. Yeah. All right.
10 weeks. Okay. All set. Okay. All right. So, why don't we begin? Um, good evening. We're here for the uh meeting of the uh the Danvers Planning Board. It's uh Tuesday, July 22nd, 2025,
a little bit past 700 p.m. We're here at the TUMI room at Danver's Town Hall. Uh my name is Lewis George. I'm the I'm the chair. I'm joined here today uh by uh Gene Hartnet, our clerk. Uh members um Jim Sears, uh Tim Spiddle, and Michael
Dulis. And we're also here uh joined today uh Josh Morris uh principal planner with the town of Danvers and also be um uh joining on one of the agenda items today the trass lane agenda our uh town uh council David Duca. So
thank you. Very good. And so, um, uh, just before we begin the meeting, just want to remind folks to make sure if you have a cell phone, make sure that it's, uh, it's silenced. And, um, why don't we, uh, and if also if people have any sort of, um, you know, sidebar conversations
or anything, if you please make sure to, you know, just step outside if you do find you need to do that just because, um, so other, so out of respect for other people and people can hear. So, so why don't we begin with our first agenda item. This is the uh this is a public
hearing for uh 12 and 17 Cherry Hill Drive. It's a request for site plan review pursuant to section 4 of the zoning bylaw submitted by EMD Millipur Corporation for properties in the industrial 2 I2 zoning district. The applicant proposes parking lot
expansions on both properties for a total increase of approximately 146 parking spaces between both properties and related site modifications. Map 37, lot 38, map 29, lot one. Um Josh, do we
have I I think we have a note on the agenda that the applicant's requesting a continuence. Yes, that's right. The applicant has requested a continuence to our next regularly scheduled uh meeting on Tuesday, August 12th.
Okay. Very good. So, we'll need then a um So, that's going to be that. So, what we'll need then is we'll need a uh I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing at 12 and uh 17 Cherry Hill Drive to our August 12th,
2025 planning board meeting. Can someone make a motion? Motion to continue the until the next meeting. Second. Okay. Motion's been made uh by Tim uh and second by Jim. Any discussion on the
motion? Uh hearing none. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Opposed. None. Okay. So, we'll move that to the that'll be at the our next planning board meeting, August 12th, 2025. Okay. The second agenda item is Tras
Lane, uh full release of Covenant. It's a request for a full release of covenant established on August 28th, 1972, which is associated with a definitive subdivision plan entitled proposed access to Folly Hill Development, Danvers, Massachusetts, and dated June
2nd, 1972, and also known as Tras Lane, Dan Denver's, Mass. So Josh, you want to just give an intro on this? I know we we have the uh the applicant is here as well, right? If that's okay, if you wanted to start, if that's all right. Yeah, if you can just go to the podium and introduce
yourself for the record. And I know we've been we've we've talked about this before and several occasions. So, if you can just uh give us a bit of a you know, just a brief update in terms of where we stand today and what you're requesting. Sure. Thank you very much. Um, good evening. My name is Miranda Samasco. I'm
with the firm of Glovesky and Glovesky in Beverly. on behalf of the applicant which is Corker and Traslane LLC um as well as the trustees of the Folly Hill Associates Trust. Um I know I I
spoke briefly with um councelor Duca uh before the meeting and I know he wanted to say some words of introduction. So I will be very brief. I think it's it's been a few months since we've been here um with the request. Um we've asked uh
the board to put that on hold while we completed the MEEPA process. Um but we are now ready to resume uh with the request for the full release. Got status on the MEEP process or is that Oh, I'm sorry. the the MEPA process has
concluded with the issuance of a a final certificate from the secretary in June that uh confirms that the project is confirmed to proceed with the rest of its permitting.
Okay, got it. Thank you. So, Duka, did you want to say a few words? Yeah, thank you again. U members of the board, um glad to be here. Um this has been a sort of a considerable odyssey for uh for your board uh on what appeared at first to be a rather
straightforward matter. Uh the co the covenant that's the issue here is uh is cons is from 1972. Um and statutoily uh it is exhausted. Uh there's no enforcability of a of a land use
covenant uh beyond 30 years. Uh that brings us to 2002. So we're well beyond that statutory point. Now that said, uh there were substantive provisions of that covenant that were were of some concern particularly with respect to
traffic uh and um uh the condition of the road and uh uh for that um you know we uh here in town uh paid very close attention to those provisions notwithstanding the fact that they are
uh technically exhausted. Um uh we still did pursue uh uh through the uh development uh department um uh all of the process that's necessary uh for uh um for approval just to be sure that uh
the public uh interest was uh uh was uh um properly considered. Uh if for that um uh there was uh work that was done uh by a peerreview consultant uh that uh confirmed um that uh the work that was
proposed by the applicants uh traffic consultant was uh was fair and reasonable. Uh and uh those two uh agents re reached consensus sometime in March of uh 2025.
Uh there was uh additional concern from our engineering department about the viability of uh of the the the roadway both above and below the surface uh in Danvers. Uh and uh in in that respect um
uh that was referred to uh the MEEPA process and as you just heard the the the certification was issued by the Department of Transportation uh sometime thereafter in the spring of 2025.
Uh that caused obviously some delay uh for final consideration of this covenant. uh and uh I'm prepared to recommend uh to the board uh the full release of the covenant which obviously clears uh the cloud on the title uh for
the applicant here but at the same time assures the town that this remains a private way and will remain the responsibility of uh those persons uh that uh are resident at the on the public way and in this case the developer uh that's considering
additional improvements on that public way. Uh so with that um we have drafted a release of covenant which um uh is the substantive motion uh before the board. Uh I'm not sure that they have copies.
Josh, you each have copies? Yeah. Uh and uh uh with that, as I said, I'm comfortable with the recommendation for your board to uh uh approve this um uh release of covenant. Very good. Thank you. So, do you have
anything further to to um No, no, I think that was a very complete summary of of where we've been and where we are right now and we are um in full accord with the recommendation that uh councelor Duca is making.
Okay. So, I'm just going to come back to the Josh. You have anything f anything further to add before I I'm going to turn it to the board to see if the board has any any questions at all? don't have too much to add just you know we did do the peer review with um you know our third party peer review um the
applicant did you know wrote a response to the peer review and then our peer review you know wrote a you know a final kind of memo saying that um their responses were satisfactory so just another just in forformational so the responses to the to the traffic
peer review were were satisfactory yes okay to to our third party peer review so okay on those two local intersections. That was the um right they were supposed to be reviewing. So, right because I remember that was an issue that in terms of there was a limited in terms of we had a lot of
discussions about the scope right of the peer review. Correct. Okay. Got it. Okay. Um I'm going to just come back to the for uh members of the board if they have any specific questions on this. Um uh why don't I start things with Mike Doulis.
Um thank you for that. Appreciate it. Uh, I don't think I have any comments. It sounds like we can't really comment on anything anyway, so I think I'm good for now. Thanks, uh, Jean. Jean? No, I don't have any questions. Jim Sears,
all said, Tim Spill. Um, no, no questions. Okay. Um I mean coming back to me I guess the only and I think you've answered the the question but the only um I guess the when we when we last had
um council from your office come to attorney Duca come in and talk to this we were really talking to those discrete provisions of the covenant. I think it was paragraphs was it 13 and 14. 13 and 14, right? And in terms of um and so uh and that and that based on the
analysis those you know the 13 and 14 were not you know because of the passage of time that they were no longer you know enforceable for lack of better word. Yeah that that is uh the that is the long and the short of it Mr. chairman that uh because of the passage of time
uh and the statutory requirement uh that um uh that any any kind of covenant like this be extended uh it would have needed to be extended um from 2002. Mhm. Uh that not being the case, um we would
be uh faced, I think, with an insurmountable uh obstacle in terms of trying to enforce that covenant. It's just simply not in the public interest to do so. And that sort of that same analysis though is is applicable to as to paragraphs 13
and 14 is applicable to the entire of the covenant because I know remember there was some language in the initial sort of analysis that well there that there's certain provisions could have language that sort of keeps keeps it alive. That that that's correct. Uh and and then it may be true also uh with respect
to a conservation um covenant or uh in some other context. Uh and in this one uh uh it's it's limited to traffic only uh and um uh those uh substantive provisions just are no longer enforceable. Okay.
That said uh I think you know the process which was followed for uh the peer review to be conducted uh for the for the peerreview consultants each of them to reach consensus and then ultimately for the uh department of transportation to review and approve uh
the uh uh the project. Mhm. Uh with you know very specific conditions uh again supports um I think the the um the public interest and in resolving this particular issue now. Okay. So the public interest was at least was in your view the public
interest was was followed in terms of the process. Correct. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Very good. So um so seeing no no further questions from uh from the board. This is not a public hearing, but if there's any members of
the public who have any questions, uh, since we do have town council here, if they can, uh, they can say so. Mr. Bates, and direct any questions or comments to the chair, please. Good evening. Bill Bates, town meeting member, precinct 4, um, through you, Mr.
Chairman, if Mr. Doulus could just expand on his comment that he's not allowed to say something in public. It wasn't about not allowing. I was just saying there's not much we can comment on because there's things we can't change, I guess, cuz the covenants
expired is what I was referencing. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry about that. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Joanne Vaguchi, town meeting member, precinct 2. Uh I have one question for uh
attorney Duca, where the developer is responsible for the updating and the um improvement of the um roadways in that neighborhood. Will that continue into the future?
Meaning responsible for the plowing, for the maintenance of the roads, um you know, and that sort of thing. Okay. Yes. Okay. That's one question trying to look at as I see it. Again, this is a first of all, we're going to focus on uh
the portion of the private way that's in the town of Danvers. uh in in uh in that case it remains a pirate private way and it'll be the responsib responsibility of the residents u abudding that private way uh including the developer here uh to uh to
maintain uh that roadway both above and below the surface of the road that will continue so no cost liability to the town at Danvers no I I can't exclude the possibility that
DPW will get the first phone call if there were a real problem, but ultimately the financial and legal responsibility for this roadway remains uh remains with the um the private residents. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Um and then
just one quick comment. Um, I I just want to I know I've commented this before at previous meetings on this covenant and I think it's a big disappointment for the residents of that area to have to in you know deal with the increased traffic
um on 62 and those neighborhoods and the noise and what's all going to come with it. Um, I hope the town, and this is something that can be addressed to our town attorney and to the town manager, that we need to look and make sure that
we have no other confidence like this that we need to make sure they're up to date and we're not caught, you know, 30 years or 20 years later down the road and not being able to have any recourse. Um, I just feel bad for the residents
over there having now to deal with this and the town has no uh say in it and we don't get any tax dollars from this development. We get nothing but headaches and more traffic. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anything further, Mr.
Brad? Bill Brad Street, town meeting member, precinct one. uh only because I'm old. Can someone explain to me what a covenant is first, please? Yeah. Through the town council.
Very simply, um um Mr. Chairman, a covenant is an agreement. Uh it it is sort of an old English term, but uh it is in essence an agreement between parties that is recordable uh and it has been uh recorded at the registry of
deeds. Likewise, the release of covenant would also be recorded. Uh but it's a uh otherwise an enforcable agreement between the parties to that covenant. Another another question if I could s uh it was mentioned that the covenant only
lasts 30 years. Is there a reason why it only lasts 30 years? It it it that's a legislative decision that has been made. uh as I said uh it's chapter uh 184 section 23
uh uh that uh uh you prescribes uh uh that any land use agreement um uh or covenant as we have here uh has a time limitation of 30 years unless extended um um by the parties um in 20-year
increments. uh that um uh just as as I said is a matter of statute. So our excuse me so our legislature with their infinite wisdom could change that if they chose to.
That that is correct. Okay. I guess I understand. And may I ask I know since it was just raised I mean how common are covenants typically um extended in terms of a situation? because it seems like if they're extended for 20 years, this this
scenario would have been the the town would have already had to go and have have would have had to do an extension times two. Correct. Um hard for me to say uh um really off off-handedly. It was just an off. Um, but uh I I do I do have some
experience with uh covenants that that exist with developments and they are common with developments sometimes subdivisions uh in order to place responsibilities uh on an ongoing basis um among among parties that you know
each of whom uh you know have uh uh um interest in play. Uh so um uh I think it's it's not generally the case between um you know private parties but certainly in in the development scenario it's uh pretty common.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. I see we have a question. We'll take one more question and then we'll come back to the board. Yes. Please identify yourself. Excuse me. Just please identify yourself for the record. Yeah. I'm just about to. Linda Deer um precinct 2. Um, I just wonder um if
there's a move to break this covenant, can we make a move to keep it can if you there's a move to renew it? Okay. How do we go about that? Renewing a covenant. Well,
I turn it over to town council to address Thank you. Unfortunately, I Sorry, I'm hard to hear. You got to speak up. I'm turning it over to town council to address that question. Unfortunately, I do not see that as an option here since we're 20 years out from that 30-year
limit. Uh it uh um would be a legal uh I think a legal impossibility uh to to seek to extend that now uh some 25 years beyond uh the legal limit. It's a 30-year limit with 20-year extensions
as long as they're completed within the 30-year period, but we're well outside of that um uh that statutory period at this time. Uh and I I simply cannot advise uh this board to seek that kind of relief. Um since I I I don't I don't
believe it's legally possible. Is there a a definition different as a of a covenant than the one I understand it to be? Is a promise? I'm sorry. your the what the word covenant to me means a promise.
As I said, it's a it's a a promise, an agreement between private parties to uh uh to each of them to serve uh certain interests. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to come back to the to the board. So, um I don't have
any further I don't have any further questions. Members of the board, have anything further? Josh, can we provide an update about the line of sort of inquiry that we opened with the city of Beverly? Um, close.
So, for background, at the last meeting, um, I brought up the idea of a resolution to the city of Beverly to open up another point of access. Sure. On the Beverly side, so that way all traffic wasn't going through Danvers. Sure. So Brian and I, the planning
director, we did reach out to the city of Beverly um and they did inform us that um that there are several kind of legal um instruments that were put in place in the 70s
um that would make uh a connection to some of those side streets, particularly I think what was discussed, I think previously, County in Beverly. Um, from a legal standpoint, it appears that
it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to to do that. Um, there was an easement currently that would go to County Way that was from the 70s. It appears that's just for emergency access and utilities.
And there's also a 200 foot wide what we call in this plan that I'm looking at from the 70s like a 200 foot wide buffer strip that was put in place I believe with the city of Beverly I think around that same time.
So, it appears that um those types of connections that I think that were being alluded to from a previous meeting um would be very difficult if not um possible without um the city of Beverly you know amending
these these legal instruments from the 70s. So, is that you refer is that your question? Yeah. Okay. I think, you know, if this was, you know, all in one town, I imagine that town would be pursuing other points of access rather than having all traffic funneled through one road. We, the
neighbor, are now taking all of the traffic. I'm not necessarily satisfied with the answer we've gotten from them. I think I'd prefer something in writing documenting what they've attempted to do to open that point of access. I think that's was what I would expect of a good neighbor. Um, so to the extent we can
pursue potentially a resolution or or some sort of formal request for more information about why they have or haven't considered opening another point of access, I think that'd be worthwhile. Yeah. I just I don't know. I'm not sure.
Yeah, that is a possibility. I guess it's still in sight plan review in Beverly, correct? Yes. Yeah, it is. Y um has there been I guess a question just picking up has there been an has there been an ask I guess in terms of I know it sounds like there's been some in some
inquiry has there been an is there been an ask of can you you know so can you do this I guess from I guess from the planning the danver planning staff's perspective we would be requesting from who we would requesting what from
the Beverly city council or the Beverly mayor's office or the Beverly planning department why other connections haven't been been sought or you know is that yes okay
um okay I mean I think that would pro you know I think from a reality standpoint it's very unlikely that we would probably receive something of that nature but if that's I'll take low chances
it's greater than zero you know, if that's, you know, the will of the board, I guess we could do that. Um, it just, um, it see, it's just so illogical not to have access to your own town. Every kid that
goes to school has to go on the highway. Like, that's silly. And we're Danvers is absorbing all of that traffic on an already very busy highway and on one small residential road. I think if they want to tell us to screw off and they're going to do it and just jam all the traffic, have them do it in writing.
Okay. Um I guess is that some is let me just ask in terms of other you know hearing Tim's point, what are other members of the board feel about that? I want to also be mindful we're we're here also for the release of the covenant.
So, this is a separate sort of inquiry here, but just um Jim, what are your thoughts in terms of that? Um, if it's just a matter of writing another letter and trying to get something in writing, I'm I'm fine with that. James thoughts.
Yeah, I totally agree um with Tim. I think we we should do everything we can to get the city of Beverly to one give us a reasonable answer on why they're not doing it and hopefully have them open up another point of access because
it's not fair to the town of Dammers. Rick, any thoughts? Yeah, I would just second what or third maybe even what everyone else has said. I I the only question I guess I have is I was just looking at a map here and county way is the one that Tim is originally suggesting and then there's obviously Oberlin and then if you like
connect from County Way through Beverly Golf and Tennis there's another county way on the other side. I don't does does anyone know if that ever used to connect through before the golf course was there. It just seems odd that there was a connection potentially the same road name. I don't know. So it seems like
they cut off a point of access and now they're trying to use Danverse as the point of access. So, I don't know that it matters, but it's just an interesting as you look at a map. So, I but yeah, I I agree with everyone else. I think that we should formalize it because I agree with every with what everyone else said. Yeah, I I would I would tend to agree
with that. One question I do have is because we do have the um I know obviously you'd mentioned about Josh and is did the applicant did you are you aware of any anything in terms of the the city of Beverly with respect to that in terms of the the right of way?
Um again again it seems like it's more ours is between us and the town of and the city of Beverly but I wasn't sure if there's anything that you were aware of in terms of the background on that. Yes, I'm aware of um some of what Josh
mentioned is that there are agreements going back to the 70s that made explicit that the access from the back of the site down to um County Way was purely for
emergency access only and um was always conceived of that way. And there are, as uh Josh also mentioned, there are buffer zones that preclude um development other than for, you know, very limited purposes.
Sure. Um, I do know that this was a um this was an issue that was broached during the MEPA process and and there were comments requesting the city to consider having the secondary access within the MEEPA review process and the
city's uh response was as it has been that that is not something that they um are able to undertake and um and that the MEPA process was concluded. Um notwithstanding that. So I don't know if that's helpful. I I
realize it's not necessarily a satisfactory response, but that's the same response that we have had during this process. Luke, can can we just confirm is that for Oberllin Way as well, because you mentioned County Way? Is that also for Oberllin Way that they have the same Oberlin Way? Um this this site that is
being developed now has no right to use Oberllin Way. Okay. Okay. So, it it is an interesting development in that many of the ways there are privately owned and there are different residential villages, if you will, that
control those rights of way. Gotcha. Thank you. Dean, did you have a question? Yeah. Um so my question is since this covenant that we are talking about releasing um from the 70s has expired have those other agreements that
maintain the buffer or the right of way have those expired or is it the same sort of legal facility? The simple answer is that they have not. They they are structured as easements which are in perpetuity.
Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Got town council, do you have anything to add in that? No, I just sort of it seems like the will of the board of the interest of of of requesting from the city of Beverly. Yeah. And I I would caution the board because that's not on the agenda. Uh that item is not uh what's on the
agenda is a covenant. Um it's fine for to involve some discussion and I'm sure it will continue with uh the development department. Uh but uh that really uh in terms of a motion or vote should be a separate agenda item. Okay.
Very good. Okay. Thank you. So let's come back to the um let's come back then to the uh the matter at hand then. I think we're good with any further council. I think we're good with any further questions. But um back to the matter at hand with respect to the the
release. I do see a um Mr. Brad Street. Do you have a question with respect to this the release? Yeah. Come to the podium and introduce yourself again. And Bill Brad Street town member precinct one because this covenant is in Danvas.
Is Damas itself responsible for monitoring this covenant to see that what is or did or could happen doesn't or or will happen. Uh I'm just looking for
responsibility is the town responsible for monitoring say this covenant or any covenant that exists in the town of Danas. Okay, please Mr. Chairman, as as as to land
use covenants of of this variety, uh it remains the responsibility of the parties to the covenant uh to uh um to administer uh to monitor uh and to uh execute on on those covenants. If that means um uh seeking
an extension, which would obviously be the matter of some negotiation going forward, yeah, remains the responsibility of those parties in terms of monitoring from this point forward. Um, you know, the the there there is the the ability of of any of the residents
uh and in particular those people that are resident on the public the private way uh to uh uh to monitor the the the progress being made. This is an unusual case where we have uh all of the development in one town but yet the access in a separate town. Um so uh the
the town of Danverse is in fact limited uh to the uh the the portion of the roadway that is in Danverse. Okay. I again my question was the responsibility the attorney is the pies involved not
the community where this covenant exists. It's you answered the question that is the that's the responsibility of the parties. Okay sir. All right. Okay, coming back then to the um uh so
we do need to um any further questions from members of the board before we go to the the actual the motion itself. So we do have a a motion in the package for the um for the release of covenant. I'm going to ask the uh the clerk to read
the motion. Full release of covenant trle and danverse. Reference is made to that certain covenant made by HDC Incorporated as trustee of Folly Hill Associates and Trust, the developer, in favor of the Danverse Planning Board,
the Planning Board, and recorded with the Essex South Registry of Deeds in book 5903, page 166, and filed with the Essex South Registry District of the Land Court as document number 143317.
The covenant. The covenant secures the performance of work relating to the definitive plan entitled proposed access to Folly Hill Development, Danver, Massachusetts, dated June 2nd, 1972, and recorded with the Essex South Registry
of Deeds in Plan Book 125, plan 51. The plan relating to a proposal proposed access road in Danver, Massachusetts, leading to Folly Hill development and now commonly known as Tras Lane. Whereas the developer substantially completed the initial construction of said tras
lane in accordance with the covenant. And whereas the developer has completed MEPA review for the proposed commons at tras lane eea number 16859 and will comply with the requirements of the certificate of the executive office of energy and
environmental affairs dated June 13, 2025. Whereas the developer will wave and forgive accounting and refund of shurity and performance bond provided in connection with general provision number four of the covenant. Whereas the
portions of TR lane located in Danver in the town of Danvers are recognized as a private way. Any maintenance or repair of the roadway or structures there and shall not be legal or financial responsibility of the town of Danvers. We need to Oh, the whole thing. Okay. Now
therefore, the undersigned being a majority of the planning board hereby acknowledge that except for the foregoing conditions hereby agreed to by the parties, the covenant is of no further force and effect and shall be released in its entirety, executed by the undersigned as a sealed instrument
as of July 22nd, 2025. Thank you. Motion has been made for the full release of the covenant. Is there a second on the motion? Second. Second by Jim Sears. Any further discussion on the motion?
Hearing none. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed say no. Motion passes. Covenant is released. Thank you very much. Uh if we could get signatures from the board members, I'll be able to notoriize
the document. Okay. Take a quick signature break. I can breathe science myself. Just going to fill in the date as well. Uh, yes, please. Thank you very much.
Thank you. pass it over. Let's hope Oh, sorry. Okay. Thank you. I will provide this to uh the applicant. It will be their responsibility to uh that might not be the same order. Yeah. To uh to uh bear the cost of the recording.
Perfect. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. All right. So much. See you. Have a good night. Okay. So, our next agenda item, agenda item three, uh, public hearings, 83 Elm
Street and 5 Essex Street. Request for special permits, waiverss, and site plan review submitted by MJP Properties, Inc. and Johnson Construction Management LLC for properties at 83 Elm Street, map 51, lot 250, and 5 Essex Street, map 51, lot
249, pursuant to section 18.4 4B density bonus requirements, comma, waiver from table 181, section 18.5.D.5A, parking reduction methods, on street parking offset.
Section 18.13, design special permits, sideyard setback, street facing transparency, ground floor. And section four, site plan review of the zoning bylaw, request of additional waiverss pursuant to 18.6E, 6E building stepback and street
enclosure figure 18 and section 18.8B10 outdoor amenity space types 10 pocket park/playground table 18-9 of the zoning bylaw said properties are
in the Danvers Town Center CPS DTCC zoning district. The applicant is proposing a redevelopment of the properties with a mixeduse building consisting of firstf flooror commercial space and 16 residential units on the upper floors and associated site modifications.
And so we do um uh I see the applicants here. Attorney McCann, if you can just um and I just wanted to just to give a quick uh just a recap before you begin. I know we were last here. I believe it was May 27th uh where you presented before the um before the the board. The
matters were were continued from from that meeting. I know that at the at the last meeting we did have um you know a fair number of uh sort of questions uh at the uh at the end. So if if you could sort of as part of your presentation, I
would imagine you if you could cover sort of uh give us a bit of an update in terms of where where we you know where you've been since then um any sort of outstanding matters that were uh were addressed. And so so once you once you present then it'll be you know come back
just for members of the public it'll come back to the uh members of the board with any questions or comments they might have. Um then it is a public hearing. So we'll turn it back to uh members of the public if they have any questions or comments. I do m you know
mind we do have the minutes from the previous from the last meeting. So we are aware of of comments that were made at the at the last meeting. So um so again to the extent you are able to if you can address what's you know what's discussed today um that would be that
would be great. But without further ado I'll uh I'll turn things over to the applicant. Thank you very much uh members of the board. Mr. Chairman, uh my name is Nancy McCann uh and I am here representing the applicant uh relative to the development
at 83 Elman 5 Essex Street in the DTC Corps. With me tonight are the applicants uh Robert Johnson uh from Johnson Construction Management LLC and Mike Panzero from MJP Properties. Also with me tonight is the project engineer
Giovanni Federo and the project architect Eric Zacherson. And as uh as you just stated, we did appear before you on May 27th and made a very full presentation at that time. And the board uh granted us a good deal of time uh to
make a very detailed uh presentation. And we left with uh a list of some items uh that the board asked us to uh address. And since that time, we've been very busy doing that. Um, we have responded to uh engineering department
comments. It's gone back and forth a couple of times with the engineering department and we're in uh in very good shape uh with the engineering department and uh we can go into more detail about that. Um but we have no contested items with regard to the engineering
department comments. On June 20th, uh we made a a uh submission to the board with revised architectural drawings, uh revised engineering plans, and a registered arborist's report. Following the last meeting, we had a registered
arborist go out to the site and do a full inventory of the uh of the trees on the site and make the uh recommendation. uh and that has resulted in an increase in the number of trees proposed on the
site uh from 13 trees to 17 trees. Um and uh and so we'll go into more detail on on that as well. And then um we also appeared before the affordable housing trust on May 28th. You have received a letter uh very recently in your package
um a unanimous support for uh the project and a uh request with regard to one of the units of the affordable units. Remember there are three affordable units being offered where two is required. That that third affordable
unit be for uh 60% AMI rather than uh the standard 80% area median income uh level. That was a request of the affordable housing trust and the applicant has agreed to that. Um
this is uh a mixeduse project as you know uh with commercial uh units on the first floor. consisting of the existing dental office is going to be to remain and expand a little bit and then there'll be some additional commercial space um where the Bank of America uh
used to be uh which has been vacant for some time and then a second and third floor uh added to the building for residential purposes, eight units on each floor for a total of 16 units. This zoning district does permit a four-story
building. This is a proposal for a three-story building and um we have um fam, as we discussed quite a bit at the last meeting, family housing with these units being three-bedroom units, all of them being three-bedroom units, including the affordable units. We have
a large playground area giving us more than twice the amount of uh outdoor amenity space as required under the bylaw. Uh when we left the meeting uh the last time we uh had um had some
requests for some architectural changes uh specifically as they relate to um increasing the transparency on the first floor uh particularly along Elm Street. Uh we were asked to uh replace uh the uh
artificial turf with pavers and and that has been done. and we were asked whether um some trees could be looked at and uh and we did that and have increased the uh the tree count on the site. Um
at this point, since most of the items really revolved around architectural issues, I'd like to turn it over to Eric, our project architect, who will go through those details. Giovani is also available for any questions with regard to changes that were made to the civil
plan in response to the engineering department comments. And um then we'll be happy to answer any questions. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. And again, just as you're going through, if you can if you can focus on areas, you know, I mean, holistic view is great, but also if you can sort of focus
on areas that were responsive to some of the board and public comments, that would be great. Absolutely. Yes. Um, so can you just introduce yourself again for this? Yes, I'm Eric Zacherson, uh, architect for the project. Uh, my firm is Context and we have done a number of projects
with Robert Johnson and and pleased to present this to you today. Uh, next slide, please. So, we're talking about these two properties here, the existing building and the existing surface lot which faces Essex Street. uh a little walking radius
so people can understand how close we are to High Street. Next next slide. This is the existing building. Most most of you are going to be very familiar with the existing dentist and the the uh commercial space that used to be a Bank of America uh space and we both of these
will be retained as um commercial spaces. Next slide. So um we have updated the table here uh but rather than go into the individual numbers uh because a few specific changes have been made it's probably going to be easier to show them in
graphics and if we need to we'll come back to this. So next slide. So the the project for those uh um as a broad overview Elm Street is along here on all of these plans and Essex Street runs along the bottom of the page. The entrances to the commercial spaces will
still be on Elm Street. The entrance to the residential lobby is is here. And that's the what we refer to as uh five Essex Street. And then there's a uh entrance for park uh covered parking. These spaces here are all under the building. And then there are a number of
spaces in the rear of the building uh that would be open to the sky. Along here, we have a 4,500 square foot green space. And then we have about 1500 square feet of uh green buffer between us and our neighbors. Next slide.
So uh a little a quick parking count. There was some discussion in the last meeting. There are a number of tandem spaces here. These tandem spaces would be sold to the same unit. So uh just so people are are comfortable and understand these are to be sold to one
unit owner. You would not have to share with your neighbor, but you might have to share with your spouse or you arrange with your spouse as to or whoever's living with you to as to move in and out. Next slide. Okay, landscape plan. One of the one of
the questions that was brought up was there are these very tall trees out here. Can we can we keep some of them? There were uh seven there are seven of them back here, four up here, and then two in the front here. Uh a number a couple of them are in bad shape, but the
reality is most of them almost all of them are Norway maples, an invasive species. city ordinance uh asked us to remove them. So, we town ordinance, sorry, town ordinance asks us to remove them. We did increase the tree count, but we still have to
remove the Norway maples. Um back here, there's a small area off of the amenity had been astroturf. We've removed that. We're putting permeable pavers. It'll function in much the same way, be a little bit more pleasant to look at. Next slide.
So similar, we're going to be using a lot of very local uh um plants. This is the same slide as previously. Next slide. Just for people's orientation, the existing commercial building is this box here. And the parking would be behind it
and adjacent to it along Essex Street. And then the two floors of residential, eight, eight residential units on each floor on these two floors. And we'll go to the plans of that next. And then the roof deck. So that that's fine. Um, yeah, that's all I So, on here we have eight three-bedroom apartments,
three-bedroom, two bath. All of these are arranged to be family units. So, there's a primary suite with a primary bathroom, a walk-in closet, and then two bedrooms uh that share a bathroom that would also be shared by the living and kitchen space. Each of these has a 100
to a shade over a 100 square foot walkout deck and that's meant to be able to give the each of these tenants in addition to the 4500 square ft of green space on the ground floor and the 1500 square f feet of uh common roof deck each of these has its own 100 foot deck
and so you know for those of you who are familiar 100 square feet is a room it's not just a a little stand you know two people standing next to each other you could have three or four people sitting at a table so it's a it's a comfortable deck And there's one for each of each of the units. Um, but they are all
three-bedroom, twob arranged to be family scale units. Next slide. And this would be the third floor. Nearly identical. Um, next slide. On the t on the roof, there's a 1500
foot common roof deck. And we've consciously pushed this very far from Elm Street and somewhat off of Essex Street. put in green uh planters on either side of it because we want this to be pleasant for the residents. We want their um enjoyment to be uh
somewhat secluded from the neighborhood. And so we've we've created very wide areas of uh empty roof space in between the edges of the building and this 1500 square foot roof deck. All of that is similar to pre previous presentation.
Next slide. So, one of the the biggest concerns was design. What does this building look like? We had um we have a charge from the the DTCC uh zoning to um express ourselves in New England village style
architecture. And so, some classic images of of Danvers to get ourselves in the in the kind of right mindset. Next slide. Uh a little bit older image of of downtown. Next slide. um building about 1,200 square feet uh
or 1,200 feet away from here. So not not right next to us but um one of the larger um homes on Peabody Avenue. Next slide. Some of the existing um commercial buildings that are not also not far from here. So we wanted to kind of remind
ourselves of the context that we're going to be uh proposing this project in. So next slide. And you get you get smaller buildings right on on on main streets and you get larger buildings. Next slide.
And then uh looking down High Street. Next slide. Which is as I said within the 500 ft of this or 500 walking distance. So what is it? What is New England historical architecture? Uh we wanted to do a deeper dive because
there was some skepticism that what we were designing was was the right kind of building. and we wanted to we looked at some of our favorite examples and I I wanted to put them up here. Um and I was trying to figure out a little bit of how of the the question I think the board
asked is why are these buildings a little bit different than the commercial buildings that are on Elm Street? And so I was I was thinking about that quite a bit. And what maybe helps explain it is that many of the buildings on Elm
Street, while they have a commercial use, were probably not built as commercial buildings. And if you flip to the next slide, you you'll see that. So a number of these were residences at one point. And while they function really well and some of them have some
very nice um uh actions taken to make them uh feel more commercial, the majority of these styles or all of these styles would have when they were built in the village center would have been a little bit more square, probably taller.
Uh go back a slide, please. You would you would have seen more square roofs because the buildings would be wider. You might have seen manerts. You might have seen um just a a typical kind of box. Not to interrupt, but just for the record, what what images are you
pointing to just for people at home who might be able to see it? Okay, so this one here is from uh Kendunkport, Maine. Uh a village down downtown shot from Stow, Vermont. This one is uh Manchester by the Sea. This is a building in Melrose uh downtown.
Classic Manard uh St. Alburn City in Vermont. And then one from Rockport, Maine. So not not Danvers, but not far. Rockport, Maine or Rockport, Mass. Rock, sorry, Rockport, Mass. Okay, got it. Yes. Uh, Rockport, Mass. So yeah. Um,
next slide. And then these are 74 Elm, 66 Elm, 61 Elm. I would say all three of these were probably originally built as residences. And all three of them are functioning very well right now in commercial in a
commercial respect, but they're also in a spacing that would have been atypical of downtown village um if they had been built that way. And I would argue they're also probably small for what would have been built uh for that. So 32
34 Maple, you see a little bit more of the um the the the taller and the more square. And then you see again Six Park Street. And then 35 Elm is a an interesting kind of hybrid building. Next slide.
So we looked at some kind of common buildings, a little bit heavy, a little bit blocky. Next slide. And then as an exercise, we kind of looked at other buildings that could be
designed. And these some of these are generated by um AI. It's like what would you if you g if I gave you this term design for me an image of midscale three-story uh building with two floors of residential over a story of commercial
revival um Georgian colonial revival shingle and stick. These are the images that were generated. So, it's that's probably not the most useful uh study, but it it did kind of uh give us some ideas of things we could incorporate.
Next slide. So, this is this is the uh Elm Street elevation. I think that where you know we we kind of start here and we do the Essex elevation and we kind of just keep going around around the building. One of the main concerns was the fact
that we were taking um the transparency of the the uh existing bank building and um trying to kind of make it too cohesive with the other and that took our transparency down from 38% to 16 or 17%. And people
were not comfortable with that. And so that was the the the main place we started. So instead of uh mimicking the windows here, we tried to come up with a window style that would feel cohesive with that. And so we we opened up these very large windows within the bays,
basically making the bay into a a plate glass window and then smaller uh transoms up above and then kind of followed that through. So we pulled up that same detailing into the windows in the mansered zones. We also went to
these um square shed dormers which are uh fairly typical in maners but we we replaced them with more gables. Um I think there was a definitely an expression that people were looking for to see more angle in the in the roof line. So we made all of those changes
that brings the transparency of this zone almost back up to the 38% it was originally. So now we're at 34% in this in this whole first floor and much higher in this zone. Next slide. Okay. So we've got that elevation and
then th that same express group of expressions comes along on Essex Street. So we we took the um window style and the dormer the gable dormers. We brought them along along Essex on the second and
third floor. Um, and we opened up a little bit more of the both the garage area here and the uh residential lobby here to really just push that transparency as high as we could within within a a traditional language. Next
slide. There's definitely some concern. I think I skip uh moved past these a little bit quickly last time, but um elevation uh for the Essex neighbor. And so you can see kind of the same level of detail is brought all the way along on Essex. Same
thing on Elm Street where we've we've got that driveway next to us. We're going to bring that same level of detail all the way to the back of the building. Make sure that if you turn the corner, it's not one of those situations where it becomes less interesting. It becomes feeling cheap. We really want to pull that all the way across, all the way
around the building. Next slide. uh transparency calculations. Not to belabor the point, but you really get to see where these bigger windows bring us back much closer to the the um desired percentage of opening. Next
slide. And then on the upper floors, uh, just with with the a little of the changes up here, the transparency went up just a a tiny amount, but we're well over the required transparency on those upper
floors. Next slide. Color. Lot of people did not like our green building. So, so we we um tried to pull some colors out of the Elm Street like and a little bit off of asex but mostly just look up
and down Elman and and and find some kind of muted muted blues and green grays and this option. This is my favorite option. Next slide. Uh kind of flipping it a little bit and having the the light lower level be a little bit lighter. And that's because
we can't get to that transparency. At least if we can make the the ground floor lighter, it might feel that way. Third option, next slide, to make it even like a a lighter color that might be a little bit more um sunshiny and happy. Uh bring it bring in some a very
light yellow or off-white. Next slide. Uh the landscape plan. Again, I think I I was Yeah, I was originally going to talk to to uh the trees being removed here, but I think that's it. Um with that, I think we're ready to open up for conversation.
Um thank you. Um I think we we have made uh some changes on the civil plans. Giovani is available to discuss those. They were in response to the department comments. they were technical in nature. We're
happy to discuss those. I'll leave that up to you, Mr. Chairman, if you want us uh to make a presentation on that. Otherwise, uh we think that we've responded to the comments that uh we heard at the uh at the last meeting and we really feel we've designed a project
that meets the intent and the purpose of the uh downtown core zoning district. Um, and it also is, we believe, a financially viable project. And that is very important that we go through all of
this and we end up with a project that that will work and that will be a benefit to the town and to the residents who are going to live there. Um, again, you do have a letter from the affordable housing trust. I'm happy to read that in if you'd like. No, we have that. Um, I'm sorry.
No, we have that. We have that in our pack. you have that already. Um and uh we are uh proposing uh public benefit improvements uh as required under the bylaw. We have to uh provide public benefit improvements and those
consist of an additional affordable housing unit. having that additional unit uh be 60% AMI as opposed to 80% AMI. Uh which is a significant um difference in the rent uh between 60%
AMI and 80% AMI. And again uh that was fully supported by the affordable housing trust. We have the full replacement of the sidewalks on Essex Street and on Elm Street. And we are proposing two uh street trees as well.
Um, and we uh we believe this is a a good project to bring some family housing into the downtown area and we would be happy to answer any questions. Sounds good. Before I turn it over to the board with questions, I just wanted just just wanted to see if attorney McCann if you can just touch upon um
just from the last meeting. I know I think I had um I know I had asked towards the tail end of the meeting with respect if if you can just take a moment to comment on the um uh sort of the on the on the special permit criteria as
well as the waiver criteria because it's my understanding that in terms of um that special for a special permit you're you know to go above what's matter a matter of right. um if you can explain what you you know what sort of what what meets
the special permit criteria and then also I know in terms of um waiver it's my understanding for a waiver to go beyond what's the special permit uh amount in terms of density where you'd be um I believe you have to show it's in
the public interest and so I know that we had um I know I had even asked at the last meeting about even potentially about an additional unit uh affordable unit so I wasn't wasn't sure where that where that was and so that was that was something that I had I had asked at the meeting. So if you can just touch upon
sort of the where this falls within special you know as right special permit and um and waiver. Yes. Um this uh this site by right uh it's nine units by special permit 13 units and uh we are requesting uh a
waiver to allow us to have 16 units. The special permit criteria um is uh outlined in the application and also we discussed it at the last meeting but we have to meet certain requirements um that the the project is consistent with
the purposes of section 18. Um that uh the social, economic and community needs are served by the project. Um, we're providing active first floor commercial use. And again, we're dealing with part of this building right now is vacant and
has been vacant for a very long time. And that is not in the public interest at all to have a vacant um storefront in the downtown area. And we are also able through this project to retain the existing uh long-standing dental practice um which we believe is in in
the public interest. We're also expanding the housing choices by having three-bedroom units, which you don't see typically in a multif family or mixed-use project, particularly in the downtown area. We're able to do that here because we have the land that allows us to have a playground area, a
very large playground area. Again, twice the required outdoor amenity space um for this project than required under the zoning bylaw. Um we have to provide adequate safety for traffic flow and access and parking which we have demonstrated through our plans. Um and
adequate utilities and public services are provided. Um we have positive impacts on pedestrian comfort and safety. Improving and replacing the sidewalks along the frontages on both both of the streets Essex and Elm. We're
also improving the um the pedestrian experience, if you will, along Essex Street by uh right now we have an often vacant, no uh buffering at all parking lot, commercial parking lot there. We're
going to have an attractive building front there. The parking is behind uh this the building. It's under the building, but it's it's shielded. It's behind the building. And we're also creating a lovely park uh setting as
well. Um fiscal impacts with municipal services uh tax base employment are all uh positive. Um we're having the additional um business space for tax revenue and employment opportunities. Um
the residential units will add significantly to the tax uh revenue. This these are apartments. Um the uh the parking spaces will be assigned to the units not sold but uh these these are
rental uh units and um we believe that uh and I mentioned the public benefit improvements sidewalks street trees and the additional affordable housing unit and that is an
additional three-bedroom family housing unit. We've added to that during our discussions with the affordable housing trust uh having that additional unit be 60% AMI uh rather than 80%. So for three total for three total
three total units this uh development would under the bylaw require two. We're proposing a third and that third unit meets the criteria for uh the special permit public man uh public benefit
improvement. Uh with regard to the waiverss, the bar is a little bit different. it is that we are uh not uh it's not detrimental and we are also uh providing a public benefit.
Housing in the downtown area, particularly family in the family housing in the downtown area is a public benefit. It is a a need that this town has recognized um by by virtue of all of the zoning changes that have been done and and
certainly the studies that have been done. So it meets that bar if you will for the waiver requirement. Um is that what you were looking for? That's uh and the only thing just a correction I think you indicated that
the that by right was nine but it's my understanding I believe it was 11. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. 11 uh and 13 by special permit and then 16. Okay. Uh by uh by the waiver. Okay. Yes. Um
and you had asked about an additional affordable unit. We did discuss that that is not something that we are able to do for this for this project. We have added a a full additional u unit over the required number of units. But we
were able to make this work with the 60% AMI. Okay, great. I'm going to I'm going to turn it over to members of the board if they have any uh any any questions. Um why don't I start with uh um with Tim Spiddle.
Um no, I mean so I just to reiterate I I'm participating in this one after having watched the video so I wasn't here last time. Um, but I did catch up on all those materials. Very extensive um, set of materials and it's nice to see such a
targeted sort of addressing of of a lot of the comments that I saw in that video. Um, I don't have necessarily any questions. I think you laid this all out very well. So, I might withhold any further comments because I suspect we'll have probably lots of public comments. Okay,
Jim. Well, I think my major concern at the last meeting was the density. I mean, you're allowed 11 units by right and we talked about the density and you know, you're allowed 13 units by the special permit. I just don't feel the public benefit
justifies 16 units. I think with the three bedrooms, which is kind of unique to a building in Danvers, uh I just think it's overbuilt. I don't think there's enough parking even though you're allowed one and a half spaces per unit. I just I'm just worried about the
density down that end of the street and you know if we were to allow the 13 units um you're getting two additional units and you'd be allowed by right. So you're asking for the 16. I just think you know
we didn't see any presentation taking into my comments which were made at the last meeting and concern of other members of the board and the audience that this is far too dense. So that's how I feel. That's it. Okay. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to the
parking comment? Sure. Just to remind the board that this project requires 24 parking spaces for the res to to meet the residential requirement and we are providing 28 parking spaces
and we have sufficient parking uh for the project. A total of 41 spaces are required. We have 41 spaces on site. Given the tandem, uh we do uh need to uh account for four
spaces on the street parking, but on the site, we do have 41 parking spaces. Uh but since we can't count tandem spaces for commercial requirements, we're looking to count, if you will, and again, it's not reserved, but count the
the parking spaces. There are four of them along Elm Street. So, we are actually over the parking requirement uh for this project, particularly as it relates to the residential use. Can I just check with staff on that, Josh? On the one and a half spaces per
unit, is that does that go up based on whether it's a two-bedroom or threebedroom? Yes, that was recently it was recently modified. That That's correct. The three the three the two bed um the two the twos twos and not it's two
plus two three twos and three bedrooms are 1.5. Yep. And we're providing more than two and it's only 1.5. Again, two trees, one affordable unit in the sidewalk. It doesn't justify three
more units to me. Um and I'm one of five. So, back to Koulis. So, I have a clarification question for staff before I make any comments, but I was reading the bylaws and one of the comment, one of the notes under the uh
section 18.1 is encourage highquality housing production for a variety of age groups, household types, and income ranges. Does that mean that there needs to be various types of units within a building? Because household types to me would be defined as different bed
counts. Is that what that means or is that not how it's read? Um let me see. I'm on real page 69. Um 78. Oh, real page 69. Yeah, right at the top. Number three.
Yeah. General purpose and intent of the characterbased zoning district. So you're sort of asking what's the definition of household types? Is that your Yeah. How I would define household types and I'm looking for clarification is different amounts of people in the household. Right. Different. Right. How I would view it.
Two people, one person, four people, six people, so on and so forth. Sure. And I think that's just across Right. Um Yeah, I would agree with that. Right. Different household types, demographic, right? a married couple or
a family with a couple kids or you know that types like housing for different demographics. Is that what that Yeah. So I if I'm understanding it the way I'm reading I'm saying we're not doing that. Am I misunderstanding or misreading the representation of that?
Well I think um the rest of the board can comment too. I'm just I'm curious what if that's I'm just trying to understand other comments. How I would view this is maybe not particular project. I think it's looking at it across across the entire kind of
downtown as a whole, right? We wouldn't want onebedroom apartment. We wouldn't want to build 1,000 one-bedroom apartments for the entire character bay zoning district. Not in a specific development. So, so if you read it that way, but but a little but it's a little bit
of both. It's a little bit of both. But um cuz if you read it that way, the number one that says reflects the scale, design characteristics, and settlement patterns to me that means every project, not just one project here, not the next project, right? I I'm just trying to clarify to make
sure I'm understanding. But what the things we actually have a say in Yeah. I mean, I think that I think I think it's it's kind of bo It's kind of bo It's kind of both in that it's looking at it at downtown as a whole and sort of Yeah. and in a in a
development by development, you know, in a development itself, right? You're trying to always find that balance in both, right? Okay. You don't want to have we don't want to build 10,000 studio apartments downtown. We don't want to build all of the same
and in each project, right? I mean, uh, everything being equal, it would be beneficial to have short different, you know, different, um, bedroom types. I mean, I think, you know, I think you're always trying
to find the balance, um, in the neighborhood and the, you know, downtown as a whole and in each individual project. um you know um I don't think they the one ne right next door if one was to come next door
if someone proposed the same thing three three maybe we wouldn't want to build a project next door with 20 apartments but that doesn't mean I think how I view it this is approve this is doing three but there's probably there are very few three-bedroom apartments across downtown
so how I look at this if that's sort of like you're kind of bringing up that issue, right? Oh, do we want a project with three three with all just three bedrooms? Because I don't know if that's necessarily a negative because
downtown overall probably has very few. Sure. So, it's scarce right now. Now, if they were proposing all studios, maybe it wouldn't have that same community benefit because um because from a community standpoint
and the affordable housing trust could probably weigh in or just, you know, threebedrooms particularly particularly, you know, family housing in Metro Boston is scarce and and expensive. And if since they're providing three, you know,
three three, just for context, like Maple Square, 145 apartments, they probably didn't even have they probably had like five bedroom and they probably only had one affordable three-bedroom out of 145 from a community standpoint.
They're provide they might provide their or they're proposing three, you know. So I think that uh you know I might have said too much but I think sort of your is it an issue that there's all these are three bedrooms or or you
know not like an issue but like is that something that we should be doing because I feel like it is a it does have a community benefit aspect to it and because it is it's scarce and not common throughout the whole downtown. I wouldn't necessarily view it as
an an issue. Okay. if that but sure but I yeah I think that um right I think you were looking at it I think it's it's at a downtown as a as a neighborhood level and on a development project it's just sort of
you know yeah I think if you look at as a whole I understand you're saying I think when I read that variety of age groups household types and income ranges I don't feel like it does that with this but I understand where you're coming from that it's the whole district versus that so just a comment in general I guess Um, a few other
comments I had was I know you're looking at um um openness with the glass on the first floor and stuff like that. Are the glass garages there to help that number? Because I feel like it feels very car dealershipy. You don't typically see glass garages on
residential buildings. So, I'm just curious like if you could explain that a little bit. There would be the the glass on the garage itself. Sorry, the glass in the garage itself would probably be translucent. So you sense movement, you sense lights behind it, but you don't actually see the cars. And so on that
zone, we want to have some kind of sense of movement inside so it feels safe and and you see that that there are, you know, lights and people inside. But I would agree with you. We wouldn't want to play class just looking at a garage. Okay. I I personally think if it was
just there to up the transparency numbers that I would rather not have it and have lower numbers. That's just my personal opinion. Um, do you have any more renderings? I know you had renderings last time. Did you produce any renderings with the new just just the color studies? No, the 3D renderings back in into threedimensional.
Okay. I I think one of the things I noticed in the elevations was that the head house and the roof deck are pretty prominent in the elevations, which obviously aren't true because you're not from a rendering standpoint. So, that's why I would like to see the renderings. They're pretty invasive in those elevations. And and I would have liked to see it from a 3D perspective to kind of see from what
areas and where you'd see those. Um, I I don't think they helped the case in the elevation. So, that was just a excuse me, a comment I had. Um, sorry, my comments are kind of all over the place. I I don't want to repeat, but I echo what Jim said about the density. So, we'll leave that where it is. Um, and
then, um, one other last comment, I guess, is I know they're not required due to the amount of units you have, but is there any, um, thought to having an an accessible unit? So, um, all of the units would be designed as group one. Group one, right? Are there any ideas of
having any group two units? We discussed it. Um, yeah, given the size of the units, it could be something we could definitely talk. Yeah. Okay. I was just curious. That's all I have. Thanks, Dean. Um, I I have a clarifying question for
the applicant. Um, the three affordable units, are all three at 60% or just the additional one is at 60%. Just the additional one. Okay, thank you. That's all. Okay. Yeah, I just have a couple of um questions just in terms of questions, I
guess, in and in and I guess comments as well. And I'll I'd also um I'd be interested to hear what the public um has questions or comments about as well. But just just picking up from uh from our from the discussion at the last
meeting and hearing um both in terms of what our you know fellow board members had to say and uh as well as members of the public. I do have some concerns about the density uh and in particular with respect to the
uh to the to the waiver in terms of seeking over the um you know so looking at what where we we are is like it would be 11 as a matter of right and you know 13 by special permit and taking a look at the uh at the special permit language
and looking at uh and even looking at the at the narrative that you all you know that that you provided. I think you know as you know that that the special permit has you know has criteria certain criteria that can be uh that can be met and it can be met by you know I'm just
looking at some of the language here you know a density bonus requirement this is under you know 18.4b um that you have that you provide additional affordable units above the number required by this section. So I think that's you know that is uh you add you have that additional af you know
affordable unit. Um you also you know sidewalks and pathways is another you know is is another provision you're you're doing that as as well. So in terms of in terms of ticking the boxes in terms of getting from the 11 by right
to the 13 special permit you know I I can see that you know I can I can see the work. I can see the that it's the the additional um you know that that additional affordable unit um the you know the the sidewalks the um you know
the 60% you know the the the 60% affordable you know along with the you know the the two that were required as a matter of right which are the which you know which are you which would have been required anyway those are at 80%. but then getting into to a waiver and I
don't see a lot of you know and again I'm not sure if Josh can I don't see a lot of definitions in terms of what is you know you know so for special for the for the special permit it's pretty clear what needs to be shown for a waiver it to me it's it provides it's a little
more you know amorphous you require public interest you know it has to be in the public interest and so I mean looking at the in the original in the original narrative, you know, the the waiver for the 16 units was noted that and I I noted in the narrative that
there was adequate parking provided and residential style, you know, of three-bedroom uh meets a significant housing need not often found in the downtown area. Um, and hence the waiverss in the public interest. I'm just paraphrasing from the narrative,
but I just have some uh I have I have concerns because of the you know maybe because of this particular location where it's where it sits and just also I have a concern about the you know the in terms of whether there's been a
demonstration that the public interest has been met there to go from the you know again going from the you know from the 13 special permit to the And so that's where I have that's where I have concerns. And so that's where um
you know that's really where I I have concerns in terms of what's what's in in front of us is is the is the public interest been demonstrated. There's been a lot is you know this I know that and people have talked about how this you know a lot of you know time has gone
into the a lot of time a lot of discussion went into these um you know you know into these zoning you know into the bylaws into the into the density numbers and such. And so um in order to to to wave that I would I see that there
that there needs to be a really a you know um a a public interest and I just don't see that from from what I see. That's my you know that's my you know comment from what I've what I've heard so far. Oh, and I do have one other one
other note just to just and again just for Yeah, and I noticed from the public um from the affordable housing trust. Uh, I noticed also there was a a mention too, and I'm sure you're you've seen it, that there was a mention, again, this may have pic picked up a little bit with what um what Mike Doulis was mentioning,
is that it was not part of the formal vote, but there was strong consensus among trust members regarding additional affordability considerations specifically, and it was Carla King and uh Stacy Bern uh Bernson emphasized the need for one-bedroom units, a recommendation that received broad
support from the trust. So yes, that was in that was in their letter. I just wanted to point that out. Yes. And uh I did see that it was not part of the vote or part of the discussion. It was uh it was part of the overall discussion but not with regard to the support of
the of the project. There was a recognition of the uniqueness of this project providing three-bedroom family housing in a setting that also provides the playground area. Um and then that
that kind of parlayed into well we also need one-bedroom units and and the fact is Danvers needs onebedroom, two-bedroom and threebedroom units. So a project that can provide three additional units within the building that's being
constructed is a public benefit. If we can provide three more units of family housing in the downtown area, there's a need for it and that's in the public interest. The building is the size that it is and we
can fit three uh additional units there. So, if we take those three units out, the building doesn't change. It's still the building. It it is what it is. We've got enough parking, which is not always the case. It's usually parking that
dictates how many units we can really develop on a site. We've got more parking, significantly more parking, quite honestly, than we need for the residential units. So why not when we have a building that is large enough to
provide three additional family units and a playground for the kids that will come with that and the parking it is in the public interest to take advantage of that what I'll call is a unique opportunity. So you're talking about those three additional units. These are these are
non-affordable just the three addition above the the waiver the the waiver requirement and you're right the bylaw doesn't give you the criteria that it does for the special permit which we have met. The bylaw gives this board the right to
look at a project and say it's in the public interest if we can get three more housing units in this case family housing units here in the downtown. You don't see it very often. And can we do that? Can we by
giving a waiver get that benefit for the town? You have the authority. You have the power to do it and it's within your power to say it's in the public interest to do that. The bar for the special permit much
higher. We've met that. And now the bylaw gives you the ability to say, "Okay, in this case, that's the building that's going to be built. We can fit three more units there. We have plenty of parking, more than the required parking, and it is in the public
interest to provide that." Lou, can I ask a clarifying question? So, I think I asked this last time, but I apologize if I did. I just can't remember the answer. If if we have the special permit at 13, that's the right number, right? Are we still required to have two and then you're providing an
additional or does that number go up because of the three additional units? Maybe that's a question for Josh. I'm not sure. The 13 units for the special permit uh requires two, right? And the one of the public benefits that supports the
special permit is an additional. So the extra three doesn't affect the affordability quantity of affordable units. Is that an accurate statement? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay, that answers my questions comments. Any other questions or comments before I turn things uh before I ask members of the public if they Tim,
did you have anything you wanted to Yeah, I think most everyone commented on the density and I I tend to disagree. I think um you know the letter versus the spirit of the law. I think when Danvers Hardware came in front of us, they likewise were
asking for a waiver. They came to us with and I think we set the precedent there that the special permit requirement was for the public realm improvements. They came with I believe it was a sidewalk and trees and we said nope, we need more and we got the extra affordable unit. They're now coming with about the exact same situation and we
seem to have changed our position of whether that's sufficient or not. In my mind, you know, I could take this same building, I could make it much, much bigger, right? It's not as big as it could be. I could do the fewer units and just make more bedrooms and then having the exact same number of bedrooms. So
the density is a little arbitrary in terms like what are we actually trying to control for? Is it number of people? Is it size of the building? And I think in both respects like we saw the numbers in the presentation three bedrooms is just non-existent in the town. So I I do tend to see there being enough of a public improvement for
offering this type of housing, especially with what they brought for the public realm improvements. Um yeah, so I see the concerns. I mean, we hear this every time there's a building that's going above the letter of the law, but it's up to us to say like, is it meeting the spirit of the law, and I think this is. So, you know, I think
there might be some disagreement. We'll have to see how we all lay out in the votes, but that's where I stand on that. Okay. Thanks, Tim. Anything further from any of any other questions or comments from before we any members of the public have questions?
Good evening. Lauren Steves, precinct 3, town meeting member. Um the first thing is I'm I'm going to agree with Mike's interpretation of the bylaws regarding um the mixed use basically one-bedroom studio, two-bedroom. You're talking about families, single parents, couples.
Um so, so I think that the way that Mike interpreted it would be also be the way that I would interpret it as well. Um, as far as approvals for special permits and waivers, the LA in the last three years, there's been an approval for 44
additional units by permits and by waiverss, 17 Elm Street, 63 Maple, and 10 School Street, and Maple Square. Um, and then I want to talk a little bit about the compliance for or the
approval of a waiver. It says in our bylaws that stake strict compliance with the provisions of the site plan may be waved for any of the requirements only if it is determined that literal strict compliance is impractical due to the nature of the use of location size, depth, width, shape, grade. Um the
zoning bylaws are clear that the byright unit cap is 11 for this project. Um the developer request 16 which exceeds both of the thresholds. Um a waiver may only be granted where compliance is not feasible and where the waiver serves a public interest. I don't see a hardship
or infeasibility with this law. If they can build 16, then they should be able to build 11. Um, I don't I don't see the need for the approval of the waiver and nor do I think they meet the criteria of that waiver. Um, waivers and special
permits are meant are are not meant uh simply for economic convenience or developer preference. Um, and almost every time a developer gets up here, it's paired with an offer for an extra affordable unit. It feels like a a quidd pro crow. We'll give you an extra this
and you give us more extra units. And it feels like transactional bargaining and not focusing on community focused plenty. That that one unit helps one family, but the added density time and time and time again for each project, you also have to think about the
community as a whole and what that's going to do to this community. And while it may while it may meet the letter of the law, sometimes it doesn't feel very ethical. Um, I think we're all just asking for the town to slow down with the added density. Maple Square is now open and there's many additional
projects in the pipeline. You have 10 School Street, you have Dammer's Hardware um that haven't even been built yet. If we overbuild now, we can't go back later and undo these approvals that we're giving. um if we stretched our infrastructure or our traffic capacity
or our public services too thin. And I think it would be prudent to pause additional density increases until the data has been collected on how it's affecting our town. And just some data for you for population standards is in
2010 our population was 26,493. The July 2024 estimate puts us at 28,590 with a 6% annual growth. Now, to put that into perspective, we have 2,623 per square mile in this town, which is three
times the state average of 895 people per square mile. With current and pending developments, a conservative projection adds 500 plus residents downtown in just the next 1 to two years, increasing our annual growth rate to 1.75%, almost triple our historical annual
average over the last 15 years. It feels like Danvers is trying to bear the burden of solving a national housing crisis alone. And we've met and continue to exceed our subsidized housing inventory quota. Danvers is a town and it is not a city. Many people choose to
live here for its small town feel. And people shouldn't be shamed for wanting to keep the character and small town feel that so many of us grew up with and love. If others want a more city feel, there are many cities that provide that. Um we we don't want we don't want the
town to be eroded with overbuilding and increasing traffic. Um which are things that come along with overbuilding. And something else of importance to note is the consistency and the fairness of voting between the zoning board of appeals and the planning board. In
January, Miss McCann came in front of the zoning board of appeals on a different project for Pine Street and was not denied. They continued without a finding because they were not going to approve one singular extra unit on Pine Street. So, the inconsistency between the voting of the boards on additional
density is something that should also be considered. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Please, please, please let's keep order. Keep order. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to respond individually or at the end?
I think why don't you respond at the end if that's all right. Okay. Thank you. Any other um comments? Yes. I do want to note as well just as we are doing public comments, we did in addition just sort of late received uh
um uh paper, you know, uh documentation, we did receive in addition to letter from the the the affordable housing trust, we did also uh the planning board did receive a letter uh from uh from Ted Blake um uh resident of the town of
Danvers uh who uh expressing his um his opposition to the to to the proposal. I did want to make it it's it's in it's in it's it was shared with the members. It's in our packet, but he's indicate he's not present today. So, he um he we received an email today. Uh it was last
night and was sent to the board today. So, thank you. Uh Noah Le member precinct 7. I have a question um for the applicants if that's okay and then a comment through the chair. Yep. So my question would be is there any market research data on the need for
they refer to family housing three-bedroom apartments? Do we have any sense in terms of the market need um any data that they could share about sort of the need for that sort of housing in Danverse? Sure. Attorney McCain, is that something you can address?
Um, I think the town has addressed that in the recognizing the need for affordable housing and the affordable housing trust has recognized the need for family housing as well as all of the other different types of housing. The
bylaw, the purpose of this bylaw is to provide housing and in recognition that housing is is needed. Um, and there is not a requirement. I'll uh respond to a an additional comment that has been
stated. There is no requirement in the bylaw that there be a mixture of bedrooms within a project. The the uh purpose of the bylaw and that is the character-based zoning districts uh as as they are defined under the bylaw.
There is the purpose of those is as a group to provide a variety of housings, variety of income levels, uh but not certainly not a requirement that within an individual project there be a variety of bedroom counts.
I guess the only qu and I'll Mr. level in just a moment. But in terms of term mechanics, the only I guess the thing I'm the that I see that come into variety is if you have for example for a number of affordable units in a in a development that you need to have that they can't all be studios or they can't
all be one bedrooms that it has to match the housing type within it. That's correct. For affordable units, the bedroom count for the affordable units has to match the percentage of each type if you have different types. In this case, we don't uh but it has to
match percentage-wise. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Um so yeah, I mean I'm broadly in support of the project. Um I want to thank the applicants for the changes. I was here at the last meeting, so it's been good to sort of see some of the updates, especially the design, the transparency, the colors. Um I think
it's a much warmer feeling building that I think fits better into that neighborhood. Um regarding the density, uh I'm in favor of the density. I brought up the question about three family just because I want to make sure that the density as it is is meeting the needs of the community. Um I think that
there are needs there are needs for all types of housing. There are need for for family housing. Um but I do respect sort of the concerns around do we want to have a mixture of units. Um and I look at that again only from making sure that we're meeting the community need so there is a diversity of types of units
to meet that community need. Um, I would also just echo some of the comments from other uh members of the board that I think the public interest speaks for itself in the need for housing. There is a need for housing. There's a need for housing that is affordable, which this will add some units there. Um, and there is a need for
families who want to move into our town. Um, I think that 16 units, I think, you know, people will talk about the small town feel. I think this fits really well in that neighborhood. It's on sort of the edge of that commercial district. Right across the street is the the decap building, which is a taller building.
So, to me, it doesn't feel in congruous or that neighborhood. It's walkable to downtown, which I think is really important. I know people are always concerned about parking. Uh, but if you're living a quarter mile from downtown, you're walking downtown, your car, you know, maybe you're going to and
from work. Um, so I think it really fits well into that neighborhood, which I think is um which I think is really important. So, I just wanted to sort of support it. um you know support the density, support the need for family housing um and I think this will go a long way towards creating more housing
options in the community. So thank you. Thank you M. Reguchi. Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, uh town meeting member U from precinct 2, Joan Muchi. I I really can't say it any better than my
fellow town uh meeting member uh here to my left. She did a wonderful presentation and kind of hit the mark on a lot of concerns. I think this at 16 units as some of you have expressed is too dense for that
neighborhood. Um, everyone sort of, well, not everyone, but there has been a lot of talk about the public need, but no one has really talked about the other need, and it's the residents that have to live there
and that do currently live there. and their need is for not overinccreased traffic, not overinccreased noise, um just not overinccreased everything.
So I think that needs to be really taken in consideration um as well. Um, and there is just sort of a little sidebar. There is so much talk about we need more affordable housing. We need more
affordable housing. We need to build build. And this is not just dams. This is everywhere. And it's sort of the narrative that's being fed. And what I want to say is what the need is is the need to build affordable homes
that people can afford to live in and to build wealth and to build generational wealth and to have something at the end. So in that respect, there's a big drive
for a lot of this type of housing and it concerns me that at the end of the day, there'll be a lot there'll be a lot of people without anything to show for after they've paid rent. Affordable to me is affordable to
have a home to pay a mortgage on and to have something at the end. what we did years ago, this country did after World War II and built affordable homes, not just threw up affordable housing and threw money at the problem. So that's my
philosophical um take on the whole housing issue, which is well beyond the scope of all of us here. It's a national issue with uh interest rates and so forth all down
the line. It's a big mess. But um getting back to my points on this, I I think that if we stay within what is allowed by right, um my colleague here mentioned about all these special permits and waiverss that are
given out. And then of course the next developer that comes along is going to say, "Well, they did it. Why can't we? We're going to give you a couple affordable housing units." And we are going to find that we that where the years went into working on these zoning
laws so hard that we are still going to be in the position where we wanted to prevent overdevelopment that we've overdeveloped because everyone will want what the next what the previous guy got and then they want what the next guy got and it's all
going to be you know kind of again well we'll give you an extra affordable housing unit which is great cuz I know there. You know, I I understand that, but we can't keep doing this as a town. You know, we just gave away Tras Lane
and we just gave away Route 62, which is already jammed every day, which is probably, I think, in town. I have to look at my traffic report, the number one traffic accident hot spot in the town.
So, when you increase that is someone here at Elm Street when they have a medical emergency a you know something that the police requires and they're tied up over there what's going to happen and it will happen and and people say well these are scenarios they'll happen so we really
have to look at the broader sense of what the town is doing and it may be to look again I as I say to tweak these zoning laws not get rid of them but tweak them but as of right Now, I think we need to go as by right. We we can't
keep giving waiverss and special permits out. We're just we're we're we're cutting our nose off despite our face. Why even have zoning laws? So, um but I would like to comment. I do like the new design. Thank you very
much. Um we're getting there. I do also don't like the idea of a roof deck. I think that brings a lot more noise to the neighborhood. And where these are apartments and not condominiums, condos have sort of a self-governance within
them. So, time limits and things like that. And there's there can be consequences, fines on their units and things like that if they're violating those condo laws. Um, here I don't know how it would do. So, with the outdoor
decks and the roof decks, I don't like um things can hang off the decks. People will use the decks as storage. I see it. This is not Metro Boston. I will correct um somebody who said that this is
suburban Boston and we need to remember that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any further Oh, Miss McKenzie, I saw you had your hand up before. Hi, Lois McKenzie, precinct 3. I just
had some questions. Um, going back to the last meeting or two, they said that their tenants, Davis Dental, would stay in the building while they're doing the construction. How can they do that? OSHA will let that happen. Yeah.
Can the applicant address that uh that question about the the existing tenant and what because I think I remember we did talk about that at the at the meeting. Yeah. And the plan is that the existing walls and the existing ceiling are all going to stay in place and we're basically building this building over
the top of the dental office. You're erecting steel over an existing building with cranes and they're going to allow that. That's Yeah, that's the plan. Okay. Um, you mentioned buying parking spaces.
Is that true? Or they are assigned to the units? They're assigned. Okay. How many tandem spaces are there? 28. Like 28 parking tand. So there's actually 14. Correct. 14 pairs.
14 parking spaces. Yes. Correct. And you're asking for 16 units and four on street parking? Yes. No. No. Okay. Um, there are also parking spaces under the building that are not tandem
that are included in that 41 total. 41 spaces are on the property and then four are uh on the street. I live in in a neighborhood where there are a lot of tandem parking and that tandem parking ends up with cars parked
on the sidewalks on the streets. You guys know River Street constant on both sides. Grew up on Water Street, one one lane basically. That's just my point. Um, bringing up the three
bedroomedroom for all in in one building. Um Josh mentioned, well, you might not want it all threebedroom here and then you have another building and they're going to build a threebedroom. If you
allow one, you can't then say to somebody else, you can't do it. You're setting that precedence. And what was the other one? You you're saying that the density is not that bad. I believe in looking at
the plans from the last meeting, you're asking for relief for relief on one side setback already where the building's too close to the line. Why can't that be pulled back or any additional part of the the building if it's being built on
that line be pulled back onto your property? the the exist the the some of those those setbacks are because the building part of the existing building new construction is set back from the they all are in code. Yeah, I believe so. Yes. No.
Okay. I just I agree with Wait just a second. I I I heard one person say yes and one person shaking their head. Where's the concern? Uh the six foot on the corner. Yes.
Sorry talking about one more. You just were there. It's not It's not It's not on the You just had it Josh with the It wasn't on that. Just pull up a site. I can show you where. Yes. Oops. Sorry. Um one sec.
It's just not on the landscape plan. What's I believe it's on Joe Campbell's property line. It just Yeah, right there. Josh, if you zoom in on the middle. Yep. back right that little it's pulled back more than the existing building
right the existing building is here this is pulled back from there but yeah it's not it is not there on that on the first floor or on the corner it's not on the first floor sorry right here this is the first floor plan this portion here is six feet I'd
forgotten that okay but I mean it it's just the concern about the density too. How much are we going to squish into one piece of property and as Lauren brought up, three family
for the entire building just seems like overkill to me. Um I realize everybody says we need housing. We do need housing, but I don't think this is the right way to do it. I think you do what's by
right. I don't know why we have these bylaws that we've spent so many years on trying to figure out the best way for the town and then if you give basically money to the town, you're going to get
back what you want. That's all I have to say. I see Miss Em. Hi. uh Nova Seminary town meeting member precinct one. Um I am generally in support of this project. Uh I'm not I
don't have a problem with the density. In fact um I'd much rather see 16 units in this building than a building that's four stories um and only has 11. This is
nicer for the uh community in that way. It doesn't block as much light. Um, I love the fact that each unit has its own deck. Um, I think it's really important for people that have outside space of their own. Um, I I do have a question
for the applicant. If um if they were allowed, say 13, say they get the special permit for 13 units, would the building change or would they just make the spaces inside different? Mhm.
It's the same size. It probably be the same size. I'm sorry. I I can't hear. Sorry. It would probably be the same size. So, I I imagine that a lot of people are disturbed also by the size of the building. So, just keep in mind then that if it's the building itself that
you just don't want this big giant building in the area, that's not different. Um, we just would have three more units than than that, which is a few people. It's not really a huge difference. Um, I am happy about
removing the Norway maples. I'm excited for that. So, thank you on that part. Um, I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments from members of the public? Yes. Good evening, Linda Pulkari, uh, Pine
Street resident. Sorry, it's pretty cold over there. like shivering chilly in here. Um, so I just had a few questions, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind. Um, I just was curious, what size units do we have at the Maple Square? Do we have like different ranges? I'm
unfamiliar with it. Yeah, it's my understanding that they're different size units. Three, they're all three bedrooms. And um Josh, it's like there's 145 units. Um there's five to seven threebedrooms and but I think the m significant
majority you know 50 plus of the units are studio studios and onebedrooms but um and two bedrooms also. Yeah, two bedrooms also probably like 30 or something like 30 or 40. Okay. Um for a total of 145.
Okay. Uh, so I would like to see a smaller um I would like to see the 11 and maybe we don't really need that many if we only have three. I mean um how many I'm sorry, how many three bedrooms? I think there's only like five or six
three bedrooms in total in Maple Square. I feel like it's just a lot of people in that one little area. Um, and especially I don't know how we came up with 1.5 parking spaces per unit, but um, it does
affect the neighborhood. And I'm in the middle of that where I live on Pine Street. I have condos kind of down the street and there's one uh particular uh resident there and they have eight vehicles
and they're all in front of my house and I have to go pounding on their door to because the oil delivery is coming and they have boats and vans blocking the way for them to get into my yard. You know, it's a big pain in the neck and the neighbors aren't going to be
happy. I'm not happy about where I am, you know, it's a lot on the neighborhood. So, I wish that you would consider that. I mean, it's just it's draining, you know, and I see the school bus trying, you know, trying to get through and all that. It's
a big mess. So my other question is um the parking lot uh isn't part of the area meant for the business of this project. This is the parking that's that's currently sort of behind
the dentist office and the bank. Is that So it goes on the side, right? There's like a side entrance and then the first bunch of spots are for I thought those that was meant for the business and then the residents are in the open area in the back. That is correct. That is correct.
Yeah. If you could explain that a little better, I think that would be helpful. Absolutely. So there are uh parking spaces here as you enter the garage here. There are spaces uh along here uh two accessible spaces, van accessible um parking spaces as well as um one, two,
three, four, five, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 um single spaces. Okay. The idea is that we've got the residential parking back here. I don't know that there would be a gate or anything, but these are the assigned residential spaces and then there will
be commercial spaces here. Okay, I understand that now. So, how many residential are there? The tandem ones. Those are all the residential. So, the Yes, there are 28 tandem residential. Some of these I forget exactly if it's two or three of these
are also for the residents. Single the singles and then the rest of this is for the commercial spaces. Okay. But I thought earlier I heard that you had 41 41 total which isn't meant for the residents. It's meant some of it's meant for the business and some of it. So
that is correct. We're required to have 41 for the residents and the businesses. We have 41. However, because we can't count them all uh can't count all of the tandem spaces for the res uh for the residents in the way that we would like
to. We uh have are counting a couple of these out here. But we are required to have 41 spaces. We have 41 of them. It's just that a few too many are are tandem at the moment. Okay, I see. I know you worked very hard on this. This isn't a personal attack on you, but that's a lot
of vehicles. I mean, a three-bedroom could easily have four vehicles, you know? Yeah. I mean, that's maybe it's a couple and they have a few children. You know what I mean? That's a lot of cars, you know? I hope you guys really consider this. There's going to
be a big mess on that street. It's just too many. And if they're not really allowed to use, you know, and then if they have guests, like where are they gonna go? You know what I mean? It's people have guests come over, especially there's a nice yard there. You know, that's a lot
of that's a lot of congestion over there. And I'm just really concerned about that. Um, and is there a garage door? Yes, there would be a garage door there. Yeah. So that when you're walking past it's
soent, but there are garage doors. Is it is it going to be like open during the day or do people have a button? Motion detectors when cars approach that'll they'll open and Okay. Okay. So that will activate any time like any time if someone needs to get in there it'll open. Okay. I was
just confused about that. Yeah. No, absolutely. We want a sense of security separation from the there. Okay. But also Yeah. Okay. All right. I think that's it. Thank you for your time. And and you raised also a good point. I just want to ask just about about parking like what's the anticipated for
guest parking? Is it a sort of thing that you would that that either someone parks in an an empty tandem or they go to the the the public lot down the street? We would assume that if they're guests, they're probably going to be someone off hours from the dentist office from the other commercial space and they would
likely be able to use some of these spaces. Would they have a clicker to get in? How how does a guest get in there? the door will open for anybody who pulls in. So, anyone can pull in that. Yeah, because some of these spaces are public for the dentist coming to the commercial spaces.
Okay. There is also, as you just mentioned, I mean, large municipal parking lot right down the street uh from this as well. So, the bylaw does not require guest parking. It could have. It doesn't.
I was just asking a question. So, where uh guests are going to park and others, there's a municipal parking lot right across not directly across Essex Street, but slightly down on the other side of the bank. Got it. Where the railroad tracks were.
Okay. Thank you. All right. I think I'm done. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or comments from members of the public? Yes. Linda Deers, precinct 2. Um, has anybody considered the integrity of the current
building? Does it need um upgrading before you add two stories to it? Okay. The Dammerous Pharmacy originated there, I believe. Yeah. And it's probably over 50 70 years ago. Is that speak to that a little bit?
Yeah. Just a question about the I guess. So, it's not saying the building was built in 1950. Exactly. We're not going to set the bill, set the new construction on top of this. There will likely be uh columns inserted along the perimeter and especially down this middle here,
potentially along this as well, but they'll be inserted within the exterior wall and they'll have new some new foundations being dug along here. So, basically, the new building will sit on legs that kind of we extend through the existing retail. Um, but the the
intention is to be able to do that largely on this half and a little bit on the perimeter of the dentist office. Okay. I'm not up to speed. What is affordable housing? What's that in rent each month? Do we have the tech? Well, technically
it's, you know, it's from the federal government. It's calculated. It's 80% of the area med income for the metro. So, Metro Boston, the the federal government comes up with a, you know, the household med income. Um, it's for Metro Boston
and it would be 80% 80% of that number is would be So, what's the figures? So, attorney have the chart. McC uh the uh 80% area median income rent is
$3,441 a month for a three-bedroom unit, which these are Say that one more time. I can't hear very well. 3,000 $3,441 a month. And the 60% AMI unit,
3,441. Is that the Is that 100% or is that the That's the 80%. That's the 80%. So what does that equal as an income? Yeah, it's 91,000 for a single person. Mhm. Is 80% in Massachusetts.
I can give you the exact numbers if you want. Please go ahead. Uh if we consider a threeperson household, let's just talk about that since these are threebedroom units. Um 119,100 is how much? 119,900
of the area median income. I still didn't get it, but the unit that will be at 60% AMI is significantly less. It makes a difference that 60% to 80%. The um the
unit at 60% AMI is 2580 a month. Okay, that's about $100 a month. A thousand or sorry, $1,000 a month difference, right? So, it's significant. Okay.
What do people do only live on social? Pardon? What do the people do for affordable living for social security only? They don't live on a three. That's not affordable in my book. Yeah. Okay. I just agree that it's too dense
for the neighborhood. They're overbuilding. They don't need two stories. One would be sufficient. I think they need to fill up what they've already built before they build more.
How well is Maple Square getting filled up? I'm not. Do we know the figure on Maple Square? Um I just looked at the three bedrooms. One of the four is available on their website. I would say I've anecdotally I've heard
that Maple Square is filling up very quickly. Yeah. I didn't hear what he said. It said that's that's been it is a Yeah, it is almost full. I don't have the exact number, but it's filling up very very quickly. And when's the retail going in?
That's We're not here. That's I'm not sure that's Germaine. I'm not Yeah, I'm not sure that that's germaine of the conversation here with respect to this. One more thing. I don't know if this is appropriate now or later, but I had an incident today where I live.
75 Silvin dug up their parking lot without any warning to our neighbors. Okay. It was like an earthquake hit constantly all day long. They didn't address us when we tried to talk to them.
Sure. They just ignored us. And um if that's the way commercial and residential get along, then it isn't going to work. And our area in Tapleyville is particularly being
bombarded with condos. And I think it's time to move it around the town a little more. Go put it up in uh the prep. Okay. Let's see what happens then. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bates. I think I saw that you had a
your hand up. Thank you, Bill Bates, town meeting member precinct 4. First and foremost, I've got to start by thanking you folks on the planning board for your service to the town. the work that you do is so
appreciated and so important. Um, I I've been a town meeting member for 30 years. I worked on the zoning that allows this type of project and I am torn as far as I'm I'm glad I'm not
sitting in your seat because I don't know whether the number is 11, 13, or 16. I would like to ask through you, Mr. Chairman, if you take away the three units and you
went down to the 13, the building size would stay the same. Could somebody explain that to me, please? All right, that's something that the the applicant can address.
So the the current units are um designed as uh three beds that are 1300 square feet. If we were to um be forced to move down to 13 units, those 1300 square f feet would be a little bit more
spacious. Maybe they're 14 or 1500 square foot. They might be three bed. They could be three bed plus office. A lot of work from home people. So we could start to introduce additional amenities into each into each of these units. But as you can see, all the other building metrics, we could even pull
back the the six foot could meet the both the guidelines and the zoning code. Thank you. And we could add a story. You know, I I want this. You could do what? And it could be a four-story building. Like we could conf reconfigure it in a different way in order to uh do that
because those are all within the zoning code allowances. Aren't you seeking a waiver for the the height? So we are and I I was going to talk about that a little bit. Um the building could be four stories. What happens is above 35 ft we are
required to set back on these two street faces. Um in order to do that uh we would either have to kind of set set significantly back on the third floor or we could uh we had initially looked at a strategy where we would tear off the
building the roof of this building in order to bring the whole thing down 10 in. But we are asking for what equates to a height variance of 10 in. But that has to do with the setback. We actually could go up to 45 ft if we set the You're asking for a waiver for this plan. For this plan. Yes.
And we're not forcing you to go to 16. You're asking to go to 13 and then you're asking to go to 16. That that is correct. You're not being forced. You're asking us for waiverss. We are we're not we're not being forced to go to 35 foot 10 along this face. We are asking for
So you could comply with the 35. We could. Yes. Or we could we could comply with the 35 or the 45. It would just change this the um texture of the building. Does that include the elevator shaft? The 35? No, the elevator shaft is not included. And um the stair head houses are not
included in the 35, but they're under the 45. M and even if they went above the 45, I believe there's a zoning um uh rule that allows um emergency and elevator shafts to go above that that height.
Your elevator override is below 45 with the 35 foot building. Yeah, I think so. It's only it's only 13t above the top of the here. The the So 35 plus 13 is above the override itself at the very top um would probably be over 45.
Yeah. Okay. That's what I thought. It'd be 38 foot 11. Yeah. Or 48 foot 11. Got it. Um may may I Mr. Chairman? Sure. Um the other thing I wanted to go back to the gentleman at the May 27th meeting that's
a resident of Essex Street had the real concern of the the old trees that he had. You mentioned they had a a tree expert go out there, but I kind of missed why the town is telling them they got to take those tree trees down.
Yeah. When they, you know, the gentleman wanted them there for privacy. Okay. Can I ask about the trees like sort of the that the gentleman's question? So the a Norway maple is one of a number of trees and plants that the the state
of Massachusetts considers an invasive species. The town of Danverse has ac has adopted this the same rule so that when you uh do work in a property like this, you are required or I believe required or at least requested to remove the
invasive species. I'll have to do some more homework on on what that means, but thank you. Um, as I said, you know, I'd like the project to succeed. Um, three bedrooms, don't forget two. Um, that's a single mom and
two kids, one boy, one girl. That's a very un under underserved population, and these homes could help them with that. I like the three bedrooms. Um, I have no problem with them all being in one building. There's there's not enough
three bedrooms. Um, but we have to be, like I said, I don't know the right number. If it's 11, 13, or 16, it's got to be a viable project. I understand that. Um, but let's work together and again, thank you for your hard work.
Thank you. Okay. Any further questions for members or comments, members of the public? Mr. Bradstreet, I see his hand. Oh, Miss Nastic, you didn't did you have your She did. Okay. Was I going Miss Nastic? Go ahead. Karen Nastic. I didn't see your hand.
Um, Danver's resident, 40 years. Um, Maples, uh, 15 Lley Road. Um, so I I I looked up the zone the um what tandem parking was like. It's on the website. And do we have tandem parking
in other places in Danvers? Mhm. Yes. To two or three cars parked tandem. Um because on here you you have pictures that three is okay too. So I mean if the zoning allows it. I mean,
I don't know if we have any instances where there is the three, but here is two. Yeah. Right. I don't think that's what's being proposed here. But you do allow Danvers to park nine cars together, three deep and have to
back someone up past three cars to get out. I think that cuts out a lot of people. Um, and I think it makes bad blood, unfriendliness to your neighbors when you're backing out past other people's cars. Now, this this proposal is for two
cars piggybacked, which they call tandem. So, you have to back up. And here I'm reading from your listing. Two parking spaces in tandem shall have a combined minimum dimension of 9 ft wide by 30 feet in length. Right? So that is the amount of space
that you have to back straight up and not hit anybody every day. I think that is untenable, unfair. I don't think it's Danver's friendly. You know, Danvers I I had occasion to look over the survey of
2017 by Blue something. You know what the name of it? Blue Earth. Blue Scott. Blue something. It's it's on it's on the Danvers website right now so far. Um and it said that 95% of the people who lived
in Danvers were happy the 700 that answered the survey were happy with the way Danvers was. That's the same year the zoning was redesigned for downtown. I don't get that how that happened. 2019 COVID happened. Guess what? The how that
the it was redone. The zoning was added to The the whole thing is is making me really unhappy with the history that I moved to Danverse for, which was when they built the library underground to accommodate
the children's library. They made the the new police station look like the House of Seven Gables. Countless the the new island that made eight new parking spaces downtown by not adding any changes except for this little island, this little triangular island. Now you
could park on both sides of it. They were so smart in the way they made changes that it's just just doesn't seem like my Danvers anymore. Although there was a lot of controversy about the elimination of angled parking in Danver Square just who's talking about angled parking.
Oh, I'm sorry. You were talking about the downtown. So, do you have anything further? Yeah, I do. Thank you. Thank you, George. I Mr. George, I appreciate you're serving on the board and this is and you all are are spoke very well tonight. Thank you. Um, is this this is
going on the original footprint of the U Bank of America? Is it right on the guy's property line still? Yeah. Now, our our upper stories are pulled back along the the driveway. Let me let me show you the neighbor to the the neighbor to the
left. It was on his parking. It was on his property line. So, the existing building is here. Um, can you flip for forward so I can show Do you want the architecturals Eric or the architectural be a couple slides down? So go back here just a second.
Um, up or down? One more. The other way. Uh, sorry I forgot. I forgot that I have this in between. Keep going. One more. One more. You start to see it here. The next one will have it. So, this is
the existing building. The upper stories are pulled back away from their property line. Right along the front here, we have a small portion that is um at this zoning required setback. And then back here, we have it for pulled back even
more in order to to keep from casting too much shadow onto their driveway. So this is the existing building, this very light line here. This is the proposed level two and three and it's it's pulled back from that line. That make sense?
It does make sense to me that the upstairs the second story is going to be not on the property line. Not on the property line. Right. I don't think that affects them that much. Thanks. Okay. Right. Um I didn't I didn't like your saying that. I just wish you had said a number
of tandem parking spaces that you introduced it as that instead of saying 28 which is a lot of parking spaces that people have to slide back through. I think that that points to more than anything the fact that this building is
one floor too big. The top floor should not be not exist. it it's going to have this fiveway intersection that we have at town hall have this whole street added to that intersection we're going to require a
light a traffic light at that point which I don't know nobody's mentioned the that possibility of a traffic light but how are you going to get those five streets plus all the traffic that's coming in from Elm added to that without having other
consequences starting and stopping all the, you know, the cars that go off and have to restart again, you know, it's it's just going to add a lot of pollution. And I think that this because of 28 parking spaces are tandem.
And who who said, well, what if someone comes in and takes, you know, just can they do they can they just take a tandem spot? Well, what if somebody thinks that and blocks someone in? Who do they call? And who and and who's going to police that upstairs garden? I do not know why
that you decided to move that upstairs garden toward the residents and not toward the street because it's the residents who are behind your threestory building all of a sudden that are going to be impacted and not be able to
you don't really when you're upstairs on a third story you think about someone who's two stories down below beneath you when you're making noise and talking to your friends. I don't think that's that's that's where it that I don't think it belongs on top of the building
in a residential area. It's inviting noise. What else did I have? Um, anything further we have to you you Yeah. I I think you're a a floor too big with this whole building. I don't like if if the dental office is
upset about the 10-ft ceilings they need. If you drop it down a floor, that's not an issue anymore. you can keep that and um then you then you'll be within the limit that you're allowed to have for the height of the building.
Um I traffic light I think. Thanks for listening. Thank you Mr. Bradstre. Again, Bill Brad Street, town meeting member, precinct one. I live on Essex Street and
this project is too dense, but at my age, I'm not going to have to live with it long. Everybody else will. It's too dense. Move some of the housing that they need.
There's a lot of open space in town. Move it out of the center of town if you want to disperse the homes. I don't think the people in the outer reaches of the town would appreciate people encroaching on them
the same way we don't appreciate this encroaching on our life. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any further comments from members of the public? Yes. Um, hello Derek Wittington. I live on Essex Street. Yes. Um, can you guys talk
about what the garbage pickup's going to be like? Yes. Can they address the So, there's a there this would be a public uh privately managed building. There will be uh regular pickups. They'll sync it within the the building
um on the ground floor uh in this area. So, we can flip back to it, but there's a an area for dumpsters. They would be they would be pulled out through the garage to the sidewalk when the truck is there. So, it wouldn't be a a time when they're just stacking uh garbage out
there all day. It'd be brought out when when the truck is there to be to be doing pickups. Okay. A private company. They have their own thing. It's not on the town. Yes. Yeah. And then um could you could you uh talk about when you're developing
something like this, where does when does the tandem parking come in? Is that your first pick? So, um I you're doing a development, everything's perfect. Do you say let's do tandem parking?
I don't know. Tandem parking is allowed within the city. No, asking you where does you know like directing questions to to the chair, please. Quantitatively. Qualitatively, where does tandem parking go when you're on a development? Is it
your first pick? Is it in the middle? Is it a last resort? No. Yes. With with respect. Um the the reality is we looked at we look at all the things that are affecting the site and we we really very much wanted to make sure that we had a large green
space. Now, there are a number of different ways that we could we could provide the open space requirements. Uh, roof decks are encouraged. Decks are encouraged. We could have um paved the whole site or not the whole site, but the majority of the site as the existing
building is um and potentially gotten to 41. We felt like having a large green buffer here, having green buffers around was going to be uh ideal. And how do you get to 41 parking the required 41 parking spaces? We look at the different things that the city offers or
encourages and we and we work within that. But it's part of a whole holistic like look at how to maximize the site. So if you paved the whole parking lot with no green space, how many more spots could you get?
I don't know. Um but I I don't know if it'd be more parking spaces. I think we could potentially get to around 41. But my point is it seems like it's a last resort. the tandem parking as a last resort to meet the repart the parking
requirement and still ask for three or four spaces from uh public street parking. Is that what we want to do for a new development? You know, is is that a good idea? We're we're we're stretching it
thin. It's a it's essentially new construction and you know, it that just doesn't make sense to me. they're it's a it's a last resort choice for them to meet the requirement to get as close to
the uh waiver, you know, requirement as needed. Um, let me see what else I got. Yeah, the roof deck, just like a couple people said, moving it closer to the residence. I don't like that. The roof deck in general, everyone in the neighborhood hates the roof deck. That's
what they all mention, you know, like there's nothing else like it. Um, you know, uh, you know, oh, another thing you guys talk about the, uh, parking lot between
this, then there's the bank parking, then there's the parking lot, and then town hall. I don't know what the name of that, uh, you know, road is, if it even has a name. A lot of that is town hall parking during certain hours. A lot of that is commercial parking. most of it's
commercial parking. So, we just throw it around like, "Oh, there's a big parking lot right around the corner." But it's not true. A lot of it's commercial parking, a lot of it's town hall parking. So, just to say, "Oh, all the guests are just going to go over there." There's probably there's probably like seven spaces over there. You know, it's
a big parking lot that is the length of Essex Street, but there's really only if it's not assigned to Town Hall at any time and not commercial, it's only like seven spaces, you know. So, the overflow traffic is going to go on Essex Street,
the overflow traffic is going to go on Elm Street, you know, maybe even Putinham. There's going to be so many people there, they're going to be parking on Putinham, you know, and I didn't write anything down like she suggested, so you're going to have to bear with me. Okay.
Um, try to keep it as concise as you can. Okay. I'm I think I'm doing pretty good. Okay. Another thing, the tandem parking, you could pitch to the people, you can walk downtown. You know, our
apartments are so great. You can walk downtown cuz you're going to have to walk downtown cuz your roommate blocked you in. You guys should put that in the in the pitch. Okay. Right. Thank you, dude.
Mr. Witting, you're out of order. Can you just I think I'm doing I think I'm doing fine. I think I'm doing fine. You're out of order. No, you can't you can't insult the applicant or the members of the board. You can't you can't affront. This is not a This is not for you to get applause.
This is you to make a statement or ask questions. I think I think I'm doing fine. He's I'm I'm a resident. You are who is 100 feet from this development. We understand that he's telling me I'm out of order. What did I do? Order insulting others. How did I insult somebody?
This is just for asking questions of the applicant or making your statement. This is what you're This is what you're allowed to do. That's what I've been doing. Okay. You threw me off now. Sorry. It's okay.
Let me see. There's one more thing I want to talk about. The trash we got tandem parking. Well, you guys threw me off with uh you being out of order and I lost my train of thought. I'm not out of order, but uh
thank you guys. Thank you, sir. Any further comments by members of the public? Attorney McCain, did you have anything you wanted to add to that before we go back to the members of the board? I know there's Can I add one more? I'm sorry. One more thing.
Just one more. Go to the go to the podium, please. Derek Whittington, Essex Street. Yes, sir. The transparency thing. This was a point from the first meeting. They said that it wasn't appropriate to make the
dentist office more transparent for the privacy of the patients. So, we all understand privacy. What about the privacy for the residents of Putinham and Elm and Essex Street
with threestory decking? What is 100 square feet 10 by 10? I think the estimate was and a roof deck. We understand privacy but not the residence. We understand privacy when it
fits the direction of the development. Thank you. Thank you, Tony. McCain, did you have anything to um No, you go. I will just briefly um with regard to the tandem
parking spaces. When you rent a unit here, you will know whether you are getting tandem spaces and you will either be comfortable with having tandem spaces and if you're not, you won't rent here. No one is going to force anybody
to live here. Tandem parking spaces are specifically a permitted parking layout under the zoning bylaw. So, there's nothing unusual about tandem parking spaces. Lots of single family
homes in the olden days, including mine when I grew up, had single lane, two parking spaces, and if cars had to be juggled, they had to be juggled. And if you're not comfortable with that, you don't rent here.
Roof decks. 17 Elm Street was approved with a roof deck. So, this is not the first. It is specifically a permitted outdoor amenity space that is recognized in the zoning bylaw and I was certainly
part of all of the hearings that went on and roof decks were encouraged and are encouraged as a gathering space for the residents. So that is a permitted use here. The bylaw is huge. The bylaw is complicated.
So when we look at a site, do we look at one thing first and nothing else? No. It is an overall review of how we can redevelop a site that is currently partially
vacant to meet the needs of the bylaw and the intent of the bylaw. And we think that this project certainly does. The design of this project started over a year ago. many meetings with town staff, with the
development team, trying to determine how best to lay this out. We have a three-story building in a district that permits four stories. We have all of our required parking spaces. 41 spaces are
provided on site. We need to take uh credit and not reserve, but credit for four of the spaces along the street. We have an additional affordable unit. We're meeting the housing uh needs in the town, at least making steps towards
meeting those needs and providing family housing. Um we think this is a a project that does in fact meet the intent of the character-based zoning districts and the elements that we've included here are elements that are permitted under the
bylaw. We request your approval. Back to the board. So, any further uh further questions or comments by members of the board having question?
Yes, you may speak one more question. We're back to the board for deliberation. Linda data precinct 2. Yes. Is the downtown improvement association still in effect? No. So, what are we building these
places for? For what do we go and shop at downtown? Because the downtown doesn't seem very active. Yeah, that's not I mean the I'm just I'm just asking because I think that needs to be worked on before we build all these apartments to have
people walk downtown to to what? Mhm. Ma'am, as this was mentioned earlier, this this this zoning took years that this board worked on for several years. We had over 30 meetings with
towns people, invited town meeting members who represent the town's people, and this was voted on almost unanimously. I think unanimously unless Mr. Zuber voted against it if he was still on the board. But other than that, it was probably 99.9% voted.
So to for people, it it always amazes me when you look at social media and people are saying over improvement, over improvement. This is what the town voted for. This is what the town media members voted for. Voted for this type of building of the Yes. Okay. This was voted and this was
extensively studied um over 30 meetings that what happened to the improvement association? I don't know. I'm not sure that's relevant because it doesn't seem like it it needs to go hand in hand, doesn't it? I mean
there is no more improvement association that's probably gone for probably 10 15 years. So we have a planning staff. We have town meeting members who participate in the zoning of the town and we've had I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to say I've lived here a
long time and the downtown was a vibrant place once. It's no longer. And the people who live here that come in, you know, treat it as a bedroom community, but they don't shop here. You
know, we don't even have the Liberty Tree Mall to go to anymore, you know. So if we want to be vibrant as a community, we need to develop the downtown area that goes handinhand
with people living here coming in like this. And I think that's part of this and that's part of I think what has been done with respect to this very wellstudied, you know, these zoning changes to bring more people to downtown to be able to bring it a more vibrance to the downtown. I
think that's been that's part of I I'm probably comparing apples to oranges, but I don't see it being the same way it used to be. That's all. Thank you. Jake, so back to the um back to the board. Any
So, are we closing the public hearing before we uh I would think we'd have to do that before to stop the comment. Yep. I think we have a I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Um,
Mr. Chairman, are you I guess I would like input from staff as far as what you're closing what hearing you are closing it on. You have site plan uh and you have the special permit. So, I think we do special first. Yeah. Yeah. I think we're you could be
prepared to vote on both elements or perhaps you're voting on the special permit and waivers. I would anticipate we'll be looking at the special permit and the waivers. That's right. Not not the not So you don't want to close the public hearing relative to the site plan,
right? That's correct. Y would motion to close the public hearing for uh special permit and waiverss. Okay. Motion has been made by Mike Dulis. Is there a second? Second. Second.
Okay. Second by Jean. Okay. Any discussion on the motion to close the public hearing on this on the special permit and on the uh the waiverss? Any further discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? None.
Okay, let's back to deliberation on the um on the special permits. uh in the waiverss. So um any discussion in terms of from the uh
in terms from from the board? Unless anyone's position has changed from shared earlier. I don't think mine has move question. Okay. I just um found something for a point of reference. The average uh price for a three-bedroom home in Danvers, Mass is
around $738,000. Um, and I know that there was some discussion about the price of even the 80%. It seems high, but it's very low compared to buying a home with the same number of bedrooms for the average price
of $738,000. So, that's all I have to say. Okay. Okay. member Sears has asked to move the question. You can do Mike's comment. You can have Mike's comment if No, no, I don't have a comment. I I was
just asking, are we voting separately or is it Yes. Okay. So, which one are we talking about right now, I guess, is what I'm trying to ask. Special permit and then waiver. Yes, we're voting on that. Yeah. Waiver should be fair. But waiver should be first, right? Because if you say yes to the special permit, you're saying yes to the waiver.
Correct. I mean, if you say yes to the waiver, you're saying yes to the special permit. Correct. Well, I think it's two separate contained within the two though. It's contained within the motion. It is contained within It is contained within the It's all part of the motion. The draft motion. Yes.
Okay. which covers but I guess the question is though right is what is the um what is the will of the board in terms of I know we've had uh you know so we would need to have a motion on you know because it's contained within within it and I know we've talked about
certain members have uh you know I think they have a number in mind in terms of either special permit or the uh you know I'm not sure you can do that I think you have to vote on the motion as presented with the with the members.
We can't you can't bifrocate the the motion. We have a motion and it's going to be voted on by the five members of the board. The applicant needs a majority of of of votes to for it to pass. Mhm. Simple as that. Right.
Mr. Chairman, you don't have a motion so at all right now. Um the applicant requested various things. you should be making a motion on each of the items
uh each of the special permits that have been requested and voting on each. Mhm. Uh the decision that's ultimately written, right, can be uh written as as kind of a combination. This is what was granted.
But you should be voting on each element, each special permit, okay? in each waiver. And to Mr. Dulis' point, yes, I think you have to vote the special permit first. That's what we're doing. And then the waiver
or the the the density or the number the density special permit first and then then the waiver. Mhm. Okay. So then it's really the way it's presented to us is it's all one motion. It's like one decision.
We could we could but based on the will of the board, I think we can break it down in terms of as the applicant's requesting, I think we can break it down to a specific motion as to the special a grant of a special permit and then a specific motion as to a waiver as well.
I think that's okay. Right. And that was how it was actually advertised is separate elements. So you should be voting on each separately. Okay. So, I'll turn to the clerk in terms of I know we have a draft. So, I'm reading the special permits
first. for special purposes. I guess the question is do we do separate do we do a separate motion separate motion first and it's I think that's I think that's way cleaner right and that it could be all in one decision but so it's all or nothing
yeah I think that why don't we have a motion on the the density right and then we'll just go special you know there's several special permits not just one so why don't we just vote on well there's several
or essentially waiverss to get you right. There's there are different there's yeah there's there's there's specific waiverss that are requested. Okay. And then there are also um uh and then there's also the special permits and I think we it makes sense to go through the special permit
except sure except that one waiver it's just that waiver of the density is sort of like a different one in a way compared to the other ones but yeah I I think the draft decision that uh that I believe you have actually sets
this up very easily for you to vote on each separate element. Um so you would do each special permit. Um you have one, two, three, right? And then you have two waivers. Mhm.
So you should have a motion for each of the three special permits separately and vote on those and then a motion on each of the two waivers. And that what's the second what's the what's the the two what's the when you say two
waiverss are you referring to the height and then referring to what's maybe there's three there's the there's the density one and then there's the building step back and there's the trees right okay okay so those are the the three waivers
okay this way never done it this way we've never done this before y separately like that. Mhm. You have a motion. You vote on it. We I don't have a So what if we
attorney Duka, you have a cell phone? But it's like if we read this so what we normally do, we just read this decision and that would be the motion, right? So you're saying Jim and you're saying you went up down. Well, I don't remember ever
in my 30 years never done that. We've never picked apart a motion. the motion. We've got it laid out there. People either agree with it or they disagree with it. Whether we I think, you know, it's obvious potentially that
um the feeling of the board potentially. Mhm. And her way of doing it was the applicant's attorney. Yeah. Who's advocating for the for the applicant. Could we even possibly approve the site plan if we only approved part of the
waiver? because it would be then disconnected. They're not asking us to to close a public hearing for the site plan. Yeah. I think they're waiting to see the response to the special permit. Right. Right. And then they'd have to come back with a new site with a modified site plan. Yeah.
Which they could even if we rejected the entire waiver and special permit application, right, Mr. Chairman? So voting would have the benefit voting on each one would have the benefit of a more targeted relication should they come back. So I do think there's I mean I hear your
point that that's not normal but that would be more efficient. Mhm. Jim, uh, what happened I think earlier this evening was perhaps a premature closing of the public hearing because normally
what this board does is go down the row and tell how you are feeling about the project and that really didn't happen. There were questions, but there there isn't an indication necessarily, having
heard the audience and heard our responses, um there isn't an indication as to the feeling of the board members on on these items. So that the public hearing was closed before that
interaction with the applicant, which typically happens, was done. you had the opportunity to pull the board, which I think you could have done. Are you asking for that now? I think it would be helpful to the board and helpful to us.
Yeah. And um perhaps what you can do is reopen the public hearing and poll the board and allow us to have um the usual interaction that we typically have. That's where the conditions sometimes
are are generated is during that uh discourse. You want to make a motion? I'm fine with re I make a motion that we reopen the public hearing for the uh
special permit and waiverss for the sole purpose of polling the board as to their opinion. Okay. Well, and and allowing the back and forth that we usually have during that process between the you're either reopening the public hearing or you're not. So, Right.
Right. We've had the back and forth throughout this meeting. We've had discussions. You've presented right and we've heard it and you know if we don't if the board votes
against the number the density issue then you have the ability to come back with a with a different plan because we haven't closed the public hearing as to the site plan. No, I would disagree with that. If you vote against it,
then it's the waivers. I beg a pardon. Sorry, Mr. Reaguchi. Currently, right now, the public hearing is closed. So, I'm sorry. The waivers. So, you guys open it for yourselves. What a joke. It's not opening it for ourselves.
the um if you vote against the special permit then we can't come back during the site plan process and present something different right it's true we are barred at that point without going through another whole
starting process and asking permission and it it it's going to add an unnecessary step that I think isn't really intended I think we should have a polling uh you should reopen, you should pull the board.
Let's figure out where because we don't know quite honestly where you stand and we normally have that uh that information and that back and forth and we could hear something from you and we could say well we want to address that.
We want to continue and and come back or something like that. We don't know. We don't know right now and that's not how this board typically works. Jim, you move Jim, you move to reopen the public hearing. Is he Are you willing to um move to reopen the public hearing just
as a straightforward? Yeah. Okay. So, moved. There's a second by Tim. There a motion to reopen the public hearing. First by Jim, second by Tim. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Opposed? None. Okay. Public hearing is reopened. Turn.
I would ask that we poll the board. Okay. Poll the board with respect to the project. Okay. All right. Tim Spill in favor. In favor, Jim.
Not in favor. Not in favor. Yes. In favor. Can I just clarify this is everything or nothing right now? How is your What is your poll requesting, Attorney McKenna? Are you requesting we vote and as the entire project or are you asking us you have a
specific question? Oh I think I as we typically do I'm asking to pull the board how you feel about the elements of the project. So I am not asking for an up or down uh on the whole project. If you have certain elements that you like certain elements that you don't
uh let's those very good Tim you said in favor nothing. Jim not in favor. Not in favor. Okay. I don't know that my question was answered. I think the I think what she's asking is what she I think she's interested in a discussion in terms of if you have specific things.
So, it's not a vote. No, this is not a third person that Yeah. Yeah. I I think this is your opportunity to say what you what you like about the project, what you don't like about the project. Sure. I think I guess and a followup, sorry to delay this more for everybody.
I apologize, but I think Attorney Man, you did a very good job explaining the special permit and what your team has done to meet the special permit. Josh, a question for you on that. If the way this is all written, and I apologize for
my lack of knowledge on this, but if they are doing the things and meeting the things that are in the zoning requirements, are we then here to vote yes or no on they're doing those things? Is that make sense what I'm asking? Or is that
if we feel as a board or me personally that they're doing the things that Attorney McCann laid out, then is that what would grant a yes or no vote in terms of the special permit or is there more to it than that? I guess I'm not Is anyone understanding what I'm asking there's discretion?
Is there discretion? I guess or special permit has criteria. So there's there's by right which obviously you have by right. There's the special permit which in my opinion you've laid out what the special permit items are and you've done a good job successfully meeting those things. So therefore is there discretion beyond
that or is it they've and I'm not saying I'm poor against I'm asking a question there's even discretion even the special permit like the special permit is a discretionary permit. So even the correct, but what are our votes based on? Are they based on successfully accomplishing the things that are listed
in the zoning bylaws as items in particular? Are we talking in I guess are we talking about the density in particular? Is that the I'm talking about all the items that attorney McCann laid out that they said that they met and I agreed with them meeting. Or is that where the we're
saying yes, they should be granted a special permit or is there more discretion based on that other than just meeting those requirements that are listed in our zoning bylaws? Am I confusing everybody on the board a little bit? No, I I had the same concern when we talked on Danver Hardware, right? Because there's a special permit,
there's the waiver. The special permit, there is discretion. They could do the whole list of public realm improvements. You can just be like, I don't care. I don't want to do it. Right. Right. For sure. Same thing for waiver, but it's less clear what the actual requirements are beyond. more discretion for the Okay. So then then I guess because there is discretion, I'm going to go on the
stance that if you meet the letter of the law for those special permits, I agree that those things are okay in my book for special permits. I have um less certainty about the waiverss. Is that that's that's is that clear what
I'm stating or all of them are the the I'm talking about the density right now. Do you want to talk about the other ones as well or it's just the height one? You have an issue with the the other ones. It would be helpful to know that, too. So, what I'm hearing is No, no. I'm just referring back to what they are. So, sorry. I apologize. One of them is the height. That's the 35
ft. Height doesn't bother me. And then the other one is the trees that they need 23 and they're providing 17. That's for a waiver. That's just a waiver. So, that's just a simple Yeah. So, I guess I'm talking about the density as a whole then, right? Sorry for the long-winded yes or no
answer. Back to you, Lou. Jean. Um, yes, I think that there is a need for this housing. Um, some people don't like renters. Um, but
I do think that it's a good stepping point for people who want to move to our community to save money to buy a single family home. Um so yes I am for this project. Okay. Um, coming back to me, uh, I think
that I, um, uh, I think I I probably telegraphed it enough in my comments, but just in terms of my my my thoughts in terms of, um, to, um, to poll me in terms of my voting, in terms of and I appreciate all that's been done,
especially in terms of some of the, uh, you know, some of the architectural, you know, concerns we had, as well as the color, the the ground, the ground level transparency. I think that was definitely a concern I had. Uh the in looking at the
at the at the the zoning bylaw and the uh I am I would be in favor of I I would not limit it to just the matter of right. I think that the applicant has has provided a with the addition of the
affordable unit with the additional you know the additional sidewalks. I mean this all that falls within the density bonus requirements. Uh particularly that additional you know that additional um unit being at 60% and the other two
which were required anyway to be at the 80%. Um I I appreciate that. I think that definitely you know so I am I would vote yes in favor of 13 um 13 units by special permit. It's set forth within the uh it's it's set forth within the
zoning bylaw. the the waiver. I am I would vote against it. Uh I just I I don't think that the uh that and I understand I and I hear what the applicant is saying about the and I'm not going to discount what they say about the uh about the the number of
units that the particular style of the three-bedroom units. Um however though, I also do want to be cognizant too of the of the residents of the neighbors. Um, uh, you know, I was I've been born and raised in Danvers, so I, uh, you
know, so, so I am, uh, I definitely want to take into consideration the resident's concerns as well. And so, uh, and so given that the there's, there's language within the zoning bylaw allowing up for the special permit, I think that they've satisfied the special
permit criteria. So, uh, I would be in favor of the 13. U,, but I would be against the the the 16. the other uh aspects, other waiverss, other special permits requested. I don't have concerns with those. The density is where I have the issue.
All right. Um so I Mr. Dulis hasn't given us his opinion on the waiver density. I thought I did waiver density. Oh, I I the special permit which was up.
Yeah, I said yes to the special permit and I was leaning on no on the waiver side of it. Yeah. Um, can I have a moment with my client? Thank you. Shall we take a Can I use the bathroom while we have a moment?
Should we take those break? Let's do a five minute break. Probably should have made a motion to pause last time. Probably should have made a motion to pause, but whatever. Just say motion, just open it up again or whatever. Okay.
Okay. We had a short break and we're we are back. We had a short break and we're back. Attorney McCann, did you Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, yes, we have had an opportunity to uh digest all of the comments.
Sure. And um um we would like to proceed forward with the 16 units as proposed and we would do two of the affordable units at 60% AMI
and one at 80%. So we're giving an additional 60% AMI. And remember, that's $1,000 uh a month roughly uh in lowered rent for that unit. Would that make a difference to uh
board members who were opposed to that waiver? Okay. Are you asking for a few further? Yes. Poll, please. Okay. Is those who are re who were um who are not in favor of the
waiver. Jim. Yeah. I'm still stuck at 13. It doesn't move the needle. Yeah. Mike, my issues weren't with the affordability. So, it was more the density issues. So, I would agree with Jim.
Yeah. And I, you know, again, it's I I appreciate that. Um, I was concerned. I'm also concerned with the density as well. So, that would change that would not change my um that wouldn't change my view. They could come back with 13 units of
four bedrooms and have more bedrooms, right? So, I just have a hard time getting so hung up on that number when or 16 and reduce the bedrooms from three to one on some of them. Well, Tim, you couldn't though because then you'd have to go up
and make bigger units and then you'd have to do your set back and then you wouldn't you couldn't necessarily vertical space. Correct. You'd have to set back. So, make very tiny bedrooms since we can't Yeah. conrict the size of bedrooms. Well, you can in Massachusetts state code you can.
Yeah. I'm just saying that it Yeah, it feels like we're close. We're going to stick on the 13. It's going to be the same size building. can be almost the same some number of bedrooms. Yeah. I think part of mine leans on the fact that we came It's not as if this zoning
is is super outdated. It's relatively new. And I think that if we just have zoning and if we're not going to even look at it, then that's what I guess my concern is cuz then if it's one building and then the next building and the next building and the next building, then what's the point of having the zoning
bylaws, I guess, is where I'm like kind of stuck on. That's sort of my opinion. I don't disagree with you, Tim. I think that we need housing. I think that yes, they could come back with more bedrooms. I think that all those things are possible. I think I don't have an issue with a lot of the things people said tonight. I think that's where I'm kind of hung up is
what's the point of the zoning bylaws if we're just going to continue to bypass them. And that's where, and I'm not saying it doesn't mean that 16 isn't the right number. Maybe it is. I I mean, I agree that we need housing. I just like that's where I'm like the point of us being on the board, I feel like, is to
read the letter of the law. Well, they're getting two extra units with 13 than what they're than what they're allowed by the law. Correct. So, by by conceding 13, we've gone a long way. Mhm. They're getting two extra units.
Pardon? We've given an extra affordable unit to get to We're aware of that, right? To get to that special permit. If you're allowed by right 11, you're asking for 16 like any good developer would. And you know, we're willing to give you two
extra. At least it sounds like some of us are. Yeah. And I guess where I'm falling to too is just the Yeah. And I think the the additional affordable unit that that does that gets you to the to me that gets us into the that gets you to the
special permit. But I'm just concerned I'm I'm concerned about the density. I'm concerned about, again, I think picking up on what what Mike said too, the the the recency of these, you know, of these bylaws being revised and um that you can
go up to, you know, you know, you know, the the the density can go up if you know, for special permit purposes. And I just don't um so I'm I'm really I'm kind of again this is a very this is this is you know this is this is these are never easy but I just don't see the um uh I
think just going you know I'm very I I feel very good about 13 but I don't see um going beyond and the proposal that the that this project came in on was um to have three
affordable units And then we and that gets us to the special permit level. We added in the 60% AMI for one of the units to get us to the waiver. Um,
right. We we took one of those afford. You're looking at me confused. One of the affordable units. Um, we made that 60% AMI to help with the waiver request to get to 16 units. If we uh go to the
13 units, which is the special permit level with the additional affordable unit, all of the affordable units would need to be at the 80% AMI, which is what the bylaw calls for. I know when we did the zoning uh going back just looking at the different sites and we talked about the
145 apartments that was a 40A and that came in 40R 40R I'm sorry that's 40R and that came in it was kind of a unique situation that was kind of the precursor downtown and then when we studied the downtown area the focus the primary focus for the MBTA zoning was
that main thorough Pro fair starting at the old fire station all the way to 128. Right. So the main focus on that was you know building up that downtown area so that we could attract more residents mix of a first floor retail two stories
above for residential. And then as that legislation went along and progressed we started adding and expanding it now into the neighborhoods. But we didn't want the neighborhoods to be as dense as Maple Street and High Street because we had more residents. So we had different
names for those zones. And therefore we had a situation where it's not going to be just like Damis Hardware. It's not going to be just like um you know the apartment was its own the the 145 Maple Square was its own animal because it was
uh tied to transportation and all that which disappeared. Um, so the ide intent, my feeling on the intent was when we got back into Essex Street, which is at the very end, the perimeter
of that zone, was to not have as intense as we had on Maple and High Street, because it's not as businessoriented because now you're getting into the neighborhoods. But the feeling was, well, we've got some mix of, you know, some commercial in those neighborhoods
and, you know, and some a lot of multif family zoning where you have the five and six units in some of the buildings. But I think the intent was clear in my mind when we were studying that and and voting on it was to try to not make that street, Essex Street, as dense as we
might on the downtown thorough. But it's the same district. It's DTC core. No, it's the same district as Danver's hardware. Yeah, the red is the core and the yellow is the work.
Just so we're right next to the live work. Yeah, but we're still in DTC core. I understand that. But same as Danver Hardway. That was included because of the commercial the commercial building, right? But but it was included,
right? because of the because of the damis pharmacy or dentist building and all that because it was commercial. That's why that was extended. But the my feeling of the intent and I'm just telling you my feeling was that we wanted to be less intensive and that's why we had the other zoning
right. I agree with you in the live work district is not where this project is budding it. Could I make a recommendation because I think one thing that concerns me about this is we're being inconsistent with what we did with Danver's hardware. I think we had almost the same package.
They asked for a waiver. We approved it. That doesn't mean that our hands were tied that we have to prove it here. But if we're going to negotiate now, well, what is the sort of clawback of public realm improvements that get them to just special permit and not waiver? The economic difference between trees and sidewalks and affordable units is
pretty vast. And so I'd like to line up how many more units did they get at Danvers Hardware? What did they provide for that? And what are we talking about here? Just to make sure we're being consistent. And I don't think that we might have that information in front of us right now. Um, I could quickly gather that, but I
mean I think Yeah. Well, it sounds like we should probably continue to the next hearing. Well, anyways, if we're not ready to approve as is, not to speak for the chair, but that does seem to be the vibe. Yeah. Um, well, I think it Yeah, I think where I
sit on that is I mean, I know, you know, I think each project does kind of sit on its own to be honest. I don't think that this pres not to take away, but I think we're being inconsistent with what we're doing here. I don't know that like we should be I don't think that necessarily like each
project it's like there should be I think every property stands on its own. I think every property stands on it own what's being demonstrated. Danver Hardware I think had other aspects that were they were it was the utilization of the of the historic building that was nearby as well. I think it covered a uh
frankly I think a more you know vast area than what's than what's covered here which is more of a defined sort of almost like you know landlocked area. So that's where I have some of these concerns about uh about density. Um, and
so that's where I'm, you know, and that's where I'm I'm and again, I didn't I haven't seen the the sort of the the support for the, you know, for the waiver. And frankly, even the, you know, the um the special permit, I mean, you
don't get an automatic up to up to 13. It's up to the maximum established by the table. So I'm not they start pulling away other aspects on this on the um you know on the uh you know in terms of in terms of the afford the affordable units
that uh some you know understanding that that's that was that was meant to be I guess responsive to the waiver request versus responsive to the special permit. The special permit talks specifically about additional affordable units. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't mean to advocate for I'm just saying if we're going to get back to the special permit number
that feels like a tricky spot to get to in the moment right now. I would like to have the information see for informationational. So not that I want to dive into it especially at this time but the um diverse hardware required four and they provided five. So
one additional well I'm talking about what was the density that they went above the the waiver was the waiver was a significant yeah significantly greater w the special permit number was 20 and they were approved at 30 so
wasn't 28 it was a waiver we got eight additional yeah it was it was spread out over different buildings but it was it was eight in the rear it was eight in the rear and 22 in the front right for so a total of 30 Mhm. when the special permit number was 20
units. And so just for cont for context, every project sits on its own. It's not precedent. You know, it's a a special permit is a particularized like decision. But
but they in that instance they had needed to provide four and they provided just they provided five. So one additional which is similar to this. So for context. Okay. All right. So So it looks like
then um so you're still you're proposing to move forward with the 16 units um as proposed with the with two of the of the of the three units of the three affordable units being at at 60%.
That's what I proposed and we pulled the board and it didn't seem like we had the the votes for that. Right. Is that correct? Uh, the other item I proposed was 13 units at all three at 80% AMI.
Would you like to pull the board as to that? Yes. proposal. Tim in favor. Jim in favor. In favor. Do they have to come back to present that new? No. Now or no, that's just and then they'll
come back for site plan or how does that work? Well, yes. Okay. So, yeah. Yes. In favor? Um, I'm disappointed that it would that the that the number of the 80% AMI
um is reduced, but I would uh I would vote in favor of the 13. Um, and with regard to any of the other special permits or waiverss, were there any issues with those? I think the board
members were given that giving their opinion for at least to some of you with regard to the density only are if we go forward with the 13 units by special permit all three at 80% AMI
are board members all in favor of the other special permits and waiverss that were requested and I asked that because if that is the case then we can go forward with the decision as written in one y be in one motion. Sure. Just modify that.
Is that going to change the parking tandem? Can we have less tandem parking if you reduce by three units? Can you We have to come back for site plan, right? Yeah. So, we may if you're not going to build the
parking, I think we'd rather have you have more parking. Please just Johnson applicant. So when we first brought this to the board, they actually asked us to reduce the parking because we had too much parking. So that was actually, you know, planning staff's
first opinion about it. So we actually had more parking spaces the staff. No, just recommendation from them. So we actually pulled, you know, parking spaces off the back, made it 41. So if we were to keep more, I mean, so I I do projects like Melrose.
The less parking, the less cars. If you want 41 spots, you're gonna get more cars. It's just inviting more cars if you want the parking. That's just my opinion. So, to answer your question, you're not voting on site plan tonight. So, if we
um But aren't you getting a waiver? Are you getting a waiver for the tandem? No, that's just tandem's permit. But there was a there was a special permit related to the parking to the parking uh use designating the street parking. I'd like you to go ahead
and vote on that with the understanding that during the site plan phase we may be able to eliminate that need but let's I would request that you go ahead and vote on that tonight. So were there any other issues with any of the other special permits or waiver? Only other
thing I want to make sure of and be insure of. All right. With respect to the special permit um is the I just see here. I just want to pardon me. I'm just it's it's late. Um
I just want to see in terms of the yeah the special permit in addition so um so in terms of the number of affordable units for for special permit but also we would remain the and I would insist on remaining the replacement of the existing sidewalk as well as the
street trees. These are the additional um these were the the additional sort of part of the special permit. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So, the only the only part of the special permit, at least as written here, that would be revised, right, would be the uh would be the would be
the um would be the AMI. So, with so you'd still have three affordable units, but they would be 80% um AMI. Yes. Okay. So, were there any other issues with any of the board members on any of the other special permits or waiverss? Tim,
anything further? No. Jim, no. I don't. Oh, Jim. Was the transparency anything part of that or no? Yeah, but it was it was just it was it was improved upon as from last time, but it doesn't meet
it doesn't meet zoning. No, because it's 60. That's going to be one of the special per That's what I'm asking. Yes. Yes. Um it it's required to be 60 and it's now 34 on Elm when just for information last time last year
34 includes a dental building or that's new includes all do you have any idea what the new is off the top of your head but I can tell you the original design was at 16 right and now we're up to 30 okay yeah no thanks I'm I'm good otherwise
all right so I think we're um so attorney McCanna, you sounds like the board has reached a consensus based on the polling. Um so that um we could move forward as you
more typically do with one motion eliminating the 60% AMI. The other items um reluctantly. So Lou, do we need to close the public hearing? We will in a moment. Yeah. Okay. Um just forformational for
whoever is going to if that's the way just the way this seems to be going um when we do the motion you wouldn't read this the way it doesn't that waiver that first waiver about has to be revised on the or it just has to be just not read not said basically just
don't read that the waiver about the density one and then yeah just the only me the only. Yeah, just the mention of the 60% area mean income that's mentioned a couple times. Yeah. So, Jean, just that first like waiver,
the density waiver on the bottom of page one. Okay. That won't be that shouldn't be included in the motion if that's not what the board wants to do. And the special permit adjusted to Yes. out the one 20 when it says 16 units say 13 units.
And it also shouldn't say instead uh you know to 28 units per acre. It should it should be to 24 units. Correct. Correct. Which is the special permit criteria. Exactly. And then I think so I don't the planning board grants a waiver and a special permit. I would say just a special permit and then I would
adjust the number and me and Lou can help you I guess. Okay. I think I got it but I will Yep. Okay. We need to um we need to I need to entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So move for for just you say for the special permit.
Special permit. I'm sorry. For the special permit part. Sorry, just about to be that person. Say that again. Just one more time. Motion to close the public hearing for the special permit and waivers. In waivers. Second. Section. Second. Okay, there's a there's a motion. All in
favor, please say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? None. Public hearing is closed. Back to the matter at hand. So turn it to the clerk to read in a motion for the um uh the grant of special permits and
waiverss. Okay, it's five pages long. Grant of special permits for 83 Elm Street and five Essex Street. Date of application, May 2nd, 2025. Date of
hearings, May 27th, 2025. June 10th, 2025. No testimony, July 22nd, 2025. Date of decision July 22nd 2025. This is to certify that at a meeting of the Danver sorry needed. Yep. I already
need to change that first sentence, but yeah, it was the typo by me. Held on June. Keep going. Oh, okay. Held on. I wasn't there yet. I know. I know. Held on July 22nd, 2025, having been requested under section 18.4B,
18.5 D.5. A and section 18.13 of the zoning bylaw for property located at 83 Elm Street assessor's map 51 lot 250 and 5 Essex Street assessors map 51 lot 249.
It was voted to approve the requests submitted by MJP properties incorporated and Johnson Construction Management LLC for special permits to allow a mixeduse building shown on the following plans. 83 Elm Street, Danver's Mass 01923.
Architectural plans prepared by context workshop dated June 20th, 2025 consisting of 36 sheets. Permit set plan proposed mixeduse development 83 Elm Street and 5 Essex Street, Danvers, Mass 01923 prepared by Foder Fodera. Did I
say that right? Sorry. Engineering dated April 24th, 2025. revised to July 11th, 2025, consisting of seven sheets. 83 Elm Street landscape plan Danver's Mass 01923 prepared by MDLA dated June 20th,
2025, consisting of two sheets. Supporting material include lighting plan and associated detail sheets, stormwater report prepared by Fedora Engineering, Hancock Associates. Sorry, that's a mistake. Yep,
not Hancock Associates. dated January 21st, 2025. Revised to July 11th, 2025. Entry study prepared by Plant Healthcare Consultants Incorporated. Dated June 2nd, 2025. I don't read the waiverss. Special
permits. One, section 18.4.B density bonus requirements. The planning board grants a special permit for the development to exceed the special permit d to meet the special per Yeah. To meet the special permit density of 24 units
per acre, 13 residential units, the public benefits provided with this development are the following. One additional affordable housing unit above what is required for a total of three afford affordable housing units at 80% AMI. I mean, you just you don't even have to
say that period. Yeah. B. Replacement of six of existing sidewalks with new concrete along sidewalk along Elm Street and Essex Street frontages. C2 Street trees. The trees shall be planted slashinstalled along Elm Street and/or Essex Street and
the installation of trees shall be coordinated coordinated with the Danver's Department of Public Works. Two, section 18.5.D.5. A parking reduction methods on street parking offset. The planning board grants a special permit pursuant to
section 18.5.D.5. A of the zoning bylaw, parking reduction methods on street parking offset to allow four parking spaces located along the corresponding lot frontage to meet the minimum parking requirements. The following criteria have been considered. A the supply and demand of public and
private parking in the district. B mobility management program and services. C that parking provided in excess of the minimum requirement does not result in underutilized spaces, excessive and excessive impervious services. Three, section 18.13 designed
special permits. The planning board grants a special permit pursuant to section 18.13 of the zoning bylaw design special permits and finds that the following criteria have been satisfied for varying from specified requirements associated with
the development site and building design set forth in section 18. A consistent with the purpose of section 18 in general. B consistent with any special permit eligibility requirements as indicated elsewhere in the section 18. C. Social, economic, or community needs are served by the proposal, such as
expanding housing choices. D. Adequate safety of traffic flow, access, parking, and loading are provided. E. Adequate utilities and other public services are provided. F. Positive impacts on pedestrian comfort and safety. G, potential fiscal impact, including impact on municipal services, tax base,
and employment are positive. and H such relief shall not result in substantial detriment to the ZBZD or surrounding neighborhoods. Do I have to write say that out? Character-based learning district. Okay. The variations
in design from the design specific specifications stated in section 18 are as follows. A section 18.7 mixeduse building. One, sideyard setback is required to be 15 feet and the applicant proposes 6 feet and 13.9 ft in
two respective locations. Two, street facing transparency is required to be a minimum of 60% on the ground floor and the applicant proposes 34% on Elm Street and 28% on Essex Street. Waivers from section 18 of the zoning
bylaw. One, building step back and street enclosure. 18.6e 6. Eating stepback requesting a waiver to allow the building to be over 35 ft at the street right-of-way line. The planning board grants a waiver to allow 35 ft 10 in in height at the street right ofway
line with no step back. Two, pocket park playground design standards. Section 18.8B 10 outdoor amenity space types. Pocket park/playground table 18-9 requesting a waiver from the required number of trees to be planted. 23 trees in the pocket
park/play playground. The planning board grants a waiver to allow the 17 trees to be planted in the pocket park/playground where 23 trees are required. Zoning regulations of the planning board. The planning board finds the project to be in substantial compliance with section 7
character-based zoning district design standards of the zoning regulation of the planning board. Conditions of approval. The project is subject to the following conditions. One, prior to issuance of a building permit, this special permit decision shall be recorded at the Southern Essex Registry
of Deeds. Two, prior to a demolition permit being granted, the applicant must submit a construction phasing and sequencing schedule to be reviewed and approved by town staff. Three, prior to the issuance of a building permit and pursuant to section 18.11.D
transportation mitigation fee of the Danvers zoning bylaw, the applicant and or property owner shall provide a payment of 25% of the 78,627 transportation mitigation fee associated with the new square footage, 26,29
ft times $3 per square foot of the increased net floor area. The remainder of the fee must be received in full no later than the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If the net new square footage is modified, the payment amount will also be amended. Four, the
applicant shall replace the existing sidewalk with new concrete sidewalks along Elm Street and Essex Street frontages. Five, the applicant shall provide two street trees. The trees will be planted slashinstalled along Elm Street and or Essex Street, all to be coordinated with the Danverse Department
of Public Works. Six. Prior to the certificate of occupancy, the applicant and or developer shall provide three affordable residential units to Does this need to be changed? Yeah, just you just delete that part. You say the applicant or developer shall hire
the applicant. Yeah. Right. Uh, the applicant and or developer shall hire a monitoring agent, prepare and sign a regulatory agreement that is filed at the registry of deeds, and provide a marketing plan to the town town of Danvers. The applicant and/or
developer shall ensure that the three affordable residential units are added to the state's subsidized housing inventory. If the number of net new residential units is modified, the the unit contribution and/or payment amount will be amended. Seven. Prior to a
certificate of occupancy, all public public related items, including but not limited to the new sidewalks, repaving portions of Essex Street, must be com complete to the satisfaction of the town. Danverse Department of Public Works. Eight, the applicant will work with planning staff to implement water
conservation measures such as but not limited to rain barrels for the purpose of irrigation in the pocket park. Nine. The applicant will satisfy all the comments in the Danver's engineering division memorandum dated July 17th, 2025. 10. The applicant will satisfy all the comments in the Danver's electric
division memorandum dated May 27th, 2025. 11. The applicant will work with planning staff to create a formal snow removal plan. 12. The tandem parking spaces shall be utilized for the residential units only, and both parking spaces shall be assigned to the same
residential unit. 13. Employees of the commercial tenants are required to park on site in the covered parking. Employees are prohibited from utilizing the parking spaces along the frontages of Elm and Essex Street. And 14. 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 the application to the special permit. Any approval of these special permits shall lapse within three years from the grant thereof if
construction has not begun by such date. Okay. Thank you, Jean. Uh motion has been made. Is there a second on the motion? Second. Second by Tim. Um any motion's been made and seconded. Is there any further uh
any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please say I. I. I any opposed? None. Okay. So, the special permits and waiverss have been granted. We still need to move to
continue the public hearing on the site plan review. That's correct. Is that what your Yes. motion? Okay. Yes. So, I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing on the site plan review part of this application for 83 Elm Street and 5 Essex Street.
So move. Uh just continue to date. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Is August 12th? Okay. Do you want August? I mean, well, I'm just That's our next meeting. How many things are on that agenda? August 12th, I think, is getting kind of
full. Um it is. What? Sure. I don't I don't know. Would you uh How about the second? Do you have a second meeting in August? No. No, we do not have a second meeting in August. We have a meeting September 9th is the next one. September 9th. September 9th per Steven's comments today. He's
looking for groundwater, you know, testing to determine elevation. So, I think it's going to take longer than two weeks to get that. Okay. Plus, we don't have we haven't bought the property. So, going to the seller at the moment, say, "Hey, we're going to rip up your asphalt and start doing
borings is usually a sensitive topic until you close. We're going to need more time for that." Okay. I I would I would defer to you. It was just the default obviously is the next meeting, but if you want September 9th, it's just we should we should say the motion like with the set date, you know.
You speak of the mic. Oops. Did you want me to talk? Oh, before Sorry. Yeah. Could you just go and just um identify yourself again and just Robert Johnson, applicant? Okay, that's all I had to say. Um, so we we should just we should
motion we should our motion should motion to continue the uh site plan review to September 9th 2025. Okay. Second. Do we have to extend the action date? No, we don't. No, we don't do that anymore. It's just a public hearing. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. So, so a motion
has been made and seconded to continue the public hearing on the site plan review uh part of 83 Elm Street and 5 Essex Street to the uh planning board meeting of September 9th. You looked at that was definitely the date on the meeting thing. Unless my work calendar is wrong, but I hope it's not.
Tuesday, September 9th. Yeah. Okay, that's fine. Just give me second Tuesday. Checking making sure. Just give me 10 seconds. It's the second Tuesday is September 9th. So, unless there's some reason that that gets I just sent it to Lou. I'll look at an email Labor Day throw anything off.
Uh Lou, it's a long night. I'll be I'll be likely participating remotely from that uh for that meeting. Fun work travel. Cheyenne, Wyoming. It's a fun one. Yeah,
you get to go to all the cool places every once in a while. One second. National Association of State. At least the meeting will end at an early time for you. You have a two hour time difference. True. It's only uh three hours.
8:44 is three hours. Okay. So, we're all set. September 9th. September 9th. Okay. Okay. So, been moved and seconded. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? None. Okay. Josh. Agend.
What's that? Minutes. Minutes. Thank you. Minutes for you guys. Okay. Thank you. We'll see you soon. minutes. Yeah. Yeah. Why don't we do we have the minutes here? Yeah. Yeah. You're sleeping there. Thanks. Would people like to vote on the minutes
or we want to table it for our next meeting? Hey, folks. Yeah, we can vote on it. Yeah, either way. Okay. Okay. We have our these are the these are the minutes from the planning board meeting on from June
June 10th, I think. Yep. June 10th, 2025. I believe that we were uh we were all present at the meeting uh in person or remotely. So, can we um so I'd like to entertain a Oh, one um let me see here.
Let's try to see. Yep, I think we're I think we're good. So, move to accept the minutes as written. Okay. Move to accept by Jim. Is there a second? Second. Second by Jean. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. I. Opposed? None.
Okay, minutes have been passed. So, just uh for agenda items for our You sure you want to get into the next meeting already? Let's go. And um what do we have to look for? Give me your best auctioneer. Okay. So, 12 12 and 17 Cherry Hill Drive
at L. Do you would you still be interested in doing a site visit? Which is fine if you wanted to. Um does anyone else have any interest? Which it's fine if you do not. It's it just the applicant the offer just site visit the day that it was weird they picked a yeah it's late the day that they picked the day that they wanted to do site
visit was a day that parking wasn't bad so it was like then why did you picked the date you invited to the board and they don't even see a parking issue right now it's like why did you pick that only anyway okay so it was good you didn't go that day but I ended up talking we ended up having two hours there talking about wetlands and with the concom and all
that so it was very hot so you didn't miss anything that's so that's an item potentially or likely um the Costco expansion, the building and the parking lot, the the the demolishing the hard cover, making it parking lot,
moving I know pulling on Jim's heart heartstrings hard cover. Um and then there's one more. Um u canes at 200, right? The old um Romy's location.
I was going to say Mario for the former the former Fidelity, right? Or whatever we want to call that. Yep. So, we'll be the hot there'll be the fried chicken capital of Eastern Mass. And then we have another place for now.
Shacks place is up at Northshore Mall. And they're also maybe opening a one in the Beverly Plaza by me, which and we'll have one and we have one further agenda item. Yep. Uh that the um uh town staff was contacted and and um I was contacted
through town staff to ask by uh Mark Zuber to be placed on the agenda for a discussion of post town meeting zoning uh bylaw concerns that they had and related to those citizens petitions
related to the citizens petitions and as the you know the discretion of the chair I am I allowed him a uh it will be a limited discussion. I think we limited a time uh a time limit to I believe 30 minutes with you know with along with
comments and such about 45 total not to exceed. So what is there to discuss beyond what we discussed when the petition was in front of us? He wanted to he he wanted to have a discussion post um you know after town
meeting with concerns that they I think that they that still remain after um after town meeting. Where does he go on the agenda? I guess Lou and I could decide but probably the beginning I would assume. Does he get the beginning for because I
know we talked about this before years that if a person in the public wanted to talk they they would get in before the We probably would put we probably would put him first. Yeah. Yeah. Is there a new petition? Is there a presentation? That's I don't understand. How does he have the right
Can anyone ask for an agenda item? You can you can you technically can, but but I mean it's already been shot down by us and the town meeting. I understand those things are true. Yeah. I don't know. I'm not suggesting it for this one, but in the future, can we move things around
so that certain meetings aren't as busy or is that not really allowed by Well, oh, I could. You have to hold on certain time period but right we usually have a pretty good idea like next meeting has multiple long items is it is it I'm not saying we do that for this thing I'm just saying in the future maybe we try to
well I I do always not be here till that's always I think that was the I think that was I I don't I things came up quickly it sounds I understand you folks where you sit I do try and not do that I mean you sit here with us I think there was I think there's an agenda item there's an agenda item
that's on the August 12th agenda that wasn't anticip that was pre that was going to be potentially on this agenda. Yeah, I totally understand. I mean, even tonight 2012 and 17 Jerry Joel Drive was supposed to be tonight also. And we didn't even talk about the site plan for right
thing. We only got through one of the things. But again, I made it very clear and I will make sure to enforce it. Also make sure to enforce in terms of a time limit in terms of this as well because I do want to be respectful of I want to be at the same I want to be respectful of you know members of the community who have concerns they want to raise but I also want to be respectful
of your all's time as well. Yeah. You know I do I do always try and think of you all for I tell you I I' I've presented in front of other boards in the past and they have strict time limits. Yeah. that if you're presenting essentially you've got about 15 minutes to present. I don't
care if you got 20 people there. That's your time and then you have audience membersh repetit you cannot you know you'd be out of here in two hours not four hours. That will probably be the issue with
that one is just yeah new new comments you know what I mean new commentary. I I don't know if that's a great president, but we also go back to two meetings a month. That was kind of that was probably the issue like yeah the two summer meetings
the thing is last summer was great. last summer. I don't know if we met. I don't even know if we met. I don't want to I don't want to jinx the beginning of chair. It was just like this is nothing going. It was very um so that's the thing. But then it look it's looking like September if we have that it looks like
we are going to have a bad meeting in August. But um I don't see that like again for a while. Okay. But I do I do always try not Oh I push so many people I push so many people. I didn't. I was just
You'd be s Yeah, there's a lot of um Yeah. Where's your people? I mean, sort just sort. Yeah. Oh, I bet all the all those folks wanted to be on this meeting that are on the next one. I was like, no, no, no, no. Okay. Time to Well, we appreciate your I'm sorry. I can't tell. Are you guys
done? Move to adjurnn. Move to adjurnn. Second. Okay. There's a motion to adjurnn. Made by Jim, second by Mike. All in favor, please say I. Yeah. What is I? I. Any opposed? None. Thank you, Danver. Tat literally had to kick us out. Tat's
like, "I'm good." Like, we're good, right? Thank you, everybody. Gosh, I suggest every meeting we still do food at this thing.