set to start. >> Okay. Oh, I'll just make sure the mics turn on. Okay. >> Hello, Jean. Can you hear us? >> Yeah. >> Okay, great. >> Okay, sounds great. All right. Well, good
evening. Good evening, everybody. Uh this is uh we're here for the uh meeting of the Danver's Planning Board. It's uh January 13, 2026. Uh a little bit past 7 o'clock. We're here at town hall in the
TUMI room and um my name is Lewis George. I'm the I'm the chair and I'm joined here today. I'm joined uh uh virtually by Gene Hartnett who's our clerk. Uh also joined uh today in person by our members uh Michael Dulis and uh
Jim Sears and Josh Morris is here for the town of Danvers, principal planner with the town of Danvers. And uh because we do have one person participating uh remotely today, we will need to take any votes uh by a roll call vote. And so I
do have the agenda here. Um and just before we begin on the agenda, I just wanted just to take a moment just to um just to just to acknowledge um uh just the uh the passing of um of Andrea Dailyaly. Um she was a you know a a follower. She and her husband were were
were frequent followers and watchers of our planning board meetings. Uh she was also a long-term town meeting member uh over 40 years as a town meeting member and also served in not on the planning board but served on our zoning board of appeals uh for for quite a few years
during particularly in the 1970s uh and 80s and I believe she was the first woman to actually serve as a member of the zoning board of appeals. Um she passed away just before the new year. Um and I just wanted to acknowledge you know her passing and really all that she had done uh for the town. uh during her
life uh in you know in in addition to her volunteer activities she also served as a uh as a teacher for the Danvers public school. So I just wanted to extend condolences to um to Mr. Dailyaly and uh and her family. So um so then I want just to now move on to
the uh to our agenda. So uh so our agenda first item on the agenda is our public hearing for uh 200 Endicott Street. It's a request for site plan review submitted by Raising Can's Restaurants LLC for property at 200 Endicott Street uh map 62 lot 5 pursuant
to section 4 site plan review of the zoning bylaw. Uh said property is in the commercial 3 C3 zoning district. The applicant proposes a standalone restaurant with a drive-thru and associated site modifications. Um then we have a notation here about a request
for a um for a continuence to the January 27th, 2026 planning board meeting. Uh the applicant is is here. Can you um just introduce yourself and introduce your request?
>> Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCann. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Raising Canes Restaurants LLC and we have been working with staff since uh the last meeting. uh to finalize the traffic review and to uh
work on draft conditions for approval for the board's consideration. And we are in that process and we think uh we're getting close. So uh we think we can wrap that up in time for the next meeting which would be January 27th. So we're requesting a continuence until
that time. >> Okay. Got request for so that' be two weeks for our till our next meeting January uh 27th. Okay. All right. Very good. Um, any questions by members of the board? >> Nope. Jim
Jean, any questions at all with respect to that? >> No, no questions. >> Okay. Uh, just Josh, in terms of town staff, is that uh in terms of the agenda, that looks >> good for our next >> Yep. >> meeting. >> Yes. >> Okay. I have no I have no questions. So,
I'd like to entertain a uh a motion. a motion to um continue to the what was it January 27th meeting? >> Yep. Yep. >> If you could maybe say the address or the application. Uh sorry, >> I don't have it in front of me. Sorry. >> Just two 200 Ender Street. >> 200 Endicott Street to the January 27th
meeting. >> Okay. We have a motion made by Mike Doulis to continue the public hearing on 200 uh 200 Endicott Street site plan review. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Second by Jim Sears. Okay. I will call um call a roll.
Any further discussion by the way on the motion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll call the role. Mike Dulis, >> yes. >> Uh Jim Sears, >> yes. >> Gene Hartnett, >> yes. >> Uh and I say yes. So motion motion
passes. Okay. So it's continued to the January 27, 2026 planning board meeting. Okay. So, our next um next agenda item is the uh public hearing on 83 Elm Street and 5 Essex Street. Uh request
for 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 four site plan
review of the zoning bylaw, said properties are in the Danvers Town Center Core DTCC zoning district. The applicant is proposing a redevelopment of the properties with mixeduse building consisting of firstf flooror commercial space and 13 residential units on the
upper floors and associated uh site modifications. So I have here that the applicant requests a continuence to the March 10th, 2026 uh planning board meeting. So, attorney m attorney McCann is that? >> Thank you very much. I'm here on behalf
of the applicants, Nancy McCann again for the record and we are requesting a continuence for two months to your meeting of March 10th. Um, we have uh, as I've indicated in the letter, there
has a title issue related to the partial release of mortgage that is out of the developers control that we're trying to get resolved. uh before the applicant moves forward with making the final
changes to the site plan for submission uh to the board. So, um it's a bit of a complicated deal how this is structured uh just between the uh the developer uh team and the current owner of the
property. Um this original special permit was granted back in July. Mhm. >> Um at that time uh the development uh as approved by this board was reduced by three units from 16 units down to 13
units which has a dramatic impact on the proforma for the the development but that's been uh been worked through. um the decision although the um the vote was taken in July, the planning board's decision wasn't filed with the town
clerk until September, which means the appeal period didn't expire until October, third week of October. So, um we really didn't know whether we had a final decision without appeal until that
time. Um the applicant although was there was still that outstanding issue they were going forward with the proforma trying to make sure that things would work. What would have to change on the site plan if anything in order to make that that work with the building
have to be a little bit smaller. Um so those are still in process. there were some comments from the engineering department that uh had to be addressed. And so the applicant now um determined
again with the change in the economic upside of the project, let's just put it that way, with the reduced number of units, how much more money is going to be put into the site plan review process until the developer
controls the property. So that's where this all starts to intermingle into the partial release. >> Okay. >> So >> because I was wondering how the title what the title had to do. >> Yeah, that's a well there are currently
two units on the site. So to get really into the weeds on what has to happen here is that the existing site has to be condoed >> based on those two units with a phase development for the additional units.
So, and then the developer would purchase one of the units. The current owner is going to remain in one of the units. >> And in order to get that unit that's going to the developer under the current situation, there's got to be a partial
release of mortgage. M >> that's where the that's where the rub is right now is what's the lender that currently holds the mortgage going to be requiring for a payoff for that partial release.
So we've got a number of things in play here. We have a a downsized project that affects the performer. We have the developer weighing how much more to put into the site plan review pro preparation and
there's not a lot of changes but there are some >> putting into that process before he controls the the site. And we think that issue with regard to the partial release and what and whether the
close on th that condo aspect can go forward um should be able to be resolved in in by the March 10th meeting and allowing us to do the changes to the site plan. >> So that's the that's the reason for it.
It's it's a little complicated. It's a little unusual, but that's it. So the devel just just to be before I just clarifying question. So the developer then would be looking at controlling so the owner would control one part of the property and would the developer control all of the the additional units?
>> Yes. The the owner current owner would control one unit >> the dental office. >> Um the rest the other unit that's there now used to have the bank >> that's going to be owned by the developer together with the development
rights. for the additional phases. So the condominium documents will be a two condo >> which it is now with a phase in of additional units. >> Okay. And so in order to do all that
that's why you're seeking the additional time just knowing that you've already sought it, you know, some a fair amount of time already, >> right? >> Okay. Okay. I'm just going to turn it over to the board if they have um they have questions with respect to the um to the
motion. Um Jim, I'm just skeptical. I mean, obviously this has been going on for probably a year in planning and typically, as you know, when you go to buy a project, you run the title before you you purchase it. So, they I'm sure they knew there was a mortgage on there and this step
had to be done. So for this to come up as a reason for a 9month or 8-month delay now seems a little disingenuous in my because I'm in the
field as you know. >> Yep. and and and I know that they knew that they would have had to do that and why wouldn't they have gotten the number back, >> you know, years almost a year ago >> or or at least at least had the conversation with the current lender,
you know, and I'm not, you know, this is something that happens. They know that there's this debt and typically the bank would want to get all of it paid, but because they're staying there, they're going to allow them a certain amount for partial release, but >> right, >> I don't know.
>> Yeah, >> it just >> But but I guess I do have to say it hasn't been eight or nine months. The appeal period was up in October. >> And then we have the holidays and then we have and >> they knew about the mortgage being on the property probably last year
>> when they when they when they when they you know >> certainly but they need there was a a weighing of the risk and the upside to that risk when they were going to get 16 units. Now >> no one's only guaranteed them 16.
>> Absolutely not. They knew by right they could get 11 I believe >> and they got 13. So >> they got 13 units and that changes >> the upside which changes the amount of risk that the developer wants to take before he controls the property. And so
it is >> it it is unusual, but the appeal period wasn't up until october and they're going to be moving forward. But they have this issue with the payoff and
hopefully they they will get that resolved within this time period that that we are requesting. >> Okay. Any other questions? Nope. Okay. Um, any questions from Gene Hartnett? >> No questions.
>> Okay. Uh, Mike Dulis, questions. >> Um, I just have one question and I I'm sorry I didn't do my due diligence and maybe Josh, you can help me out a little bit, but I know that there were a couple other continuences. I don't know if this is the second or third or fourth one. I don't know if anyone knows off the top of their head. >> It's probably four or five. But
>> so I This one sounds like it was for the reason that you're stating now. the other three or four were they for the same reason but we just weren't aware of that or were there other re I guess I'm just trying to understand like to Jim's point like there's obviously been a long process I know you're saying October now but the decision was from August and I'm
just trying to understand like what where that all kind of played out and if you could explain that a little bit >> the init the after the the vote on 13 units there was a period of time where the proform had to be reviewed >> and to determine do we even have a
project >> and that took some time. So there were some continuences one or at least during that period of time when they were really trying to decide whether they could go through forward with this project at all. >> Then that decision was made. Yes, we
can. But we've got to make some changes to the building and we have to and do we want to let the engineer go and the architect go on making those revisions? Well, let's figure out what we have to
do with the uh the partial release and how soon can we control the property. And my client certainly would have wanted to control the property before now and is ready uh to close on the property, but can't do that until
current lender um and it is a sizable mortgage on the property right now. the current lender says how much that partial released is is going to cost. >> Yeah. No, the statement now makes sense. I understand that. It's just there seemed to be three or four continuences
before this before we heard anything about this, which is more what I'm questioning now than I am this one, I guess. But >> because I I mean when we Go ahead, Josh. >> Yeah, Mike. Just for information purposes, this is the the third the third just the third. >> Oh, third total. Okay. All right. So, that's different than fourth and fifth. >> Okay. So that's good news because I mean
and again I'm sure it was just in the moment of the meeting but in the meeting in July or August whenever that was there was a comment about the building not changing even if we >> and that was certainly hoped and then you do the performant and you find out gee we better shave a bit off of this. I imagine that was just a heat of the
moment comment during a meeting, but it just >> Yeah, it it could have and it that was the intent was, well, we don't really have to change this >> until you put the pencil to the paper and you've lost three units, which is probably all of your profit and now you got to
>> figure out where the the money is going to come from. Yep. No, I understand. And that usually involves making the building smaller. >> Yeah. Okay. >> But I don't, you know, I have not seen the plans that that make that change. >> Sure. Okay. Yeah. Uh that's my only comment I guess. Thank you. >> Just a question. This is more of a
question maybe for I'm wondering for for staff. I guess a question with respect to the recording of the you know attorney McCain mentioned that there was a delay. Could you sort of walk through just sort of what >> Yeah. So just you you have once
to file a decision is 90 days after um the public hearings closed. So at that time there was the belief or the thought process that the site plan would be uh voted you know voted on approved you
know at a following meeting or two. >> We were trying to just line line it up >> so that they would be at the same time. The appeal period would be at both all of the conditions in both would be the same and it just >> everything be equal. It's much cleaner, right? They're just filed on the same
day. They have all the same conditions. All the plans in it are the same referenced. >> So everything being equal, we were just trying to line it up. >> I see. >> So that was the reason. It's generally not what happens. We are afforded the opportunity. We afforded 90 days after
the close of the public hearing to file the decision. Um we didn't even go I think even past um 70 or 80. We were just trying to like we were basically just trying to line it up. So I guess that was the idea of trying to line it up. If if if the town was aware, not
saying that they that the applicant knew this, you know, but if the town was aware that this would be that the site plan would be continuing further, then you it probably would have been filed sooner. >> Correct. Yes. >> Yep. Which is generally what you know within generally within 10 days um of
the meeting. Yes. That was not common. That is not a common situation. We were just that was the that was the rationale. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Got it. Okay. Um, yeah, I don't have any um I don't have any questions. I guess just, you know, it's more just of a and
and I appreciate you you sort of explaining where where we're at and sort of what's leading to this just because because this has been you so we've been carrying this on our on our docket for a little while. It's just sort of um I'd like to you know know more in terms of
what's going on in terms of um you know so I appreciate you coming here and and and uh uh and explaining sort of where things you know where things stand. That all being said I'm I guess I'm not going to you know I guess I can't say that
this is the absolute positively last extension you'll be seeking is that you wouldn't >> I I can't say that. >> Sure. Okay. I can't say that, but I can certainly say if you grant the extension uh to March 10th as requested, I'll come
back on March 10th and I'll explain if I need more and why and what's what's going on at that time. >> Right. Because I know I know even when we we granted the last one, we were sort of concerned in terms of where we were going and I think we even asked for a report like sort of a progress report and sort of where things stood.
>> I don't I don't recall that. But >> didn't we? It was sort of a I think what allude is alluding to is that we would have this sort of you know at that time the request from November to January was >> that I would be here. >> Yes. Or just pro provide provide
>> a narrative to the board like what's happening and an update. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Y got it. All right. >> Okay. Any further um any further questions at all or comments? Okay. Josh, anything further from towns? >> Uh no. Nope.
Right. So, we have um so what we have right now is we do have a request for the u by the applicant for a continuence of the March 10th, 2026 planning board meeting. Um is there would someone like to make a motion
move to continue uh the application for 83 Elm Street and five Essex Street to our meeting of March 10th, 2026. Okay. A motion's been made by Jim Sears uh to continue the matter to of 83 Elm Street
and 5 Essex Street to March 10th, 2026. >> Second. Second. Second by Michael Dulis. >> Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll call for um a roll call vote for those in favor. Um
first of all, um Mike Doulis, >> yes. Jean Hartnett, >> yes. >> Jim Sears, >> yes. >> And I say yes as well. So motion passes u unanimously. >> Thank you very much. >> Good luck. See you in March 10th. Okay.
So our next agenda item here are our um our meeting minutes. So you should have all received our minutes here from the November 12th, 2025 meeting. So let's see here. here. And it looks
like everybody was um looks like we we had uh everybody present. Jim Sears was not present at the meeting. So, has anyone had the opportunity to review the motion? I mean, the the minutes.
>> I reviewed them. Um they look good to me. The only comment I have is the name of the PDF was had the wrong date. ahead um November 25th, 2025. So, >> but other than that, they're fine. >> Okay. >> Catch.
>> Good catch. All right. So, we have a uh very good. So, that's so we have just one minor change in terms of the title of the document, >> but um Gan, were you moving for the um for approval? >> Oh, yeah. Um
>> okay, very good. So, Jean Hart is moved to >> make a motion. >> Go ahead. Sir, I make a motion we approve the meeting minutes from November 12th, 2025. >> Okay, very good. Uh motion's been made by uh by Gan Hartnett. Uh is there a second? >> Second.
>> Okay. Second by Mike Doulis. Um I'll call a roll call vote. Uh Mike Doulis. >> Yes. Uh yes, I sorry. >> Yes. Okay. Uh Gene Hartnett, >> yes. >> Jim Sears, >> abstain.
>> Uh Lou George says yes. Okay. So the motion uh so the motion to approve the minutes passes uh three with one uh one abstension. Okay. Very good. So that is it for our agenda. Our our set
agenda for the um for today's meeting. Our next meeting is uh Tuesday, January 27th. Josh, can you tell us what we have coming up on the agenda? I know from even reviewing the last minutes we have some uh some additional matters that we that we wanted to be covering. I think
um you know housing production plan potentially some you know Liberty Tree Mall. Could you kind of give home a few bars and what's coming up next? >> Yep. So January 27th um there will like very likely be an ANR application
for an address in the Folly Hill area. Um also the site plan for 200 undercut street raising canes that was continued from this meeting to that meeting. Um there will also be another application
for 98 Newbury Street which is an expansion of 24 mobile homes at this existing mobile home park. And >> have they come to us before or that may be a different address? >> It was a different it was a different mobile home park. I believe I believe what you're referring to was 103
Newberry and I believe it's on the on that that was on that was in 2023 and that was >> on Route One North and this is on Route One South. >> Route One South. Okay. >> Um and as you mentioned um I'd be happy
to give provide um a summary or update on some of the more the more like long range planning. uh items, initiatives, um as you mentioned, um such as the housing production plan,
>> when that would come in front of the board and kind of like a timeline of that and then >> an update on Liberty Tree Mall and uh a couple of the other items that we had previously discussed, >> right? So, I'd like to have that as as an agenda item. Yeah. A formal agenda
item so we could talk about this. >> Yep. It it will be >> great. Okay. Good. Um, anything further by any members? >> The only thing I would mention, uh, before you talk about Liberty Mall, there's several areas of potholes that
were not addressed uh, before the end of the season. I don't know. The weather hasn't been too bad this past week or two, but if there's a way they could address the pothole sections in front of >> is there Yeah. Is there an area >> MNT Bank? There's a ton of uh, bottles.
Um Jim, when you say that >> Mnt Bank on Federal Street, the Federal Street section, and they did some utility work in front of Liberty Medical Center on uh Constitution, which has a lot of like open areas.
>> So, there's a lot of hazards out there that have not been addressed. It should at least be patched before >> I I don't think we're going to make it through this uh winter with with those substantial holes. They keep getting bigger. Yeah, we were just driving on them yesterday on some of the perimeter roads just really >> the ring road. >> Yeah, it's like you're it's it's you're
just going back, you know, it's a >> Yeah, it's really >> landmines. >> Yeah. >> Getting worse every day. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> yeah, if we can hopefully get that addressed. >> Is there anything open in terms of with respect to that? I know that since we since we've had them like with when
we've had um >> uh you know when we've had before like Chick-fil-A has come before us you know we've had certain you know requirements that they >> yeah we're in communication with the property owner there and um >> you know once um they're kind of on like
a yearly like maintenance like schedule >> and when things like are brought to our attention andor sometimes they just already know like Um like for instance they recently did the two the the entrance and exit from Endicott Street.
They you know that was recently like redone. >> Um so um they're awareish that the stuff needs to occur and they are in like a yearly maintenance like program but we can um we can reach out
and sort of highlight the areas of concern for sure. >> I think it's being brought to your attention. Yes. So >> quite obvious. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, >> anything else, Jim? >> That's it. >> Okay. Mike, anything you want to >> All set. Thanks, >> Jean. Anything on your end?
>> Nope. I'm all set. >> Okay. Josh, anything further? >> Uh, not at this time. No. >> Okay. Very good. Then I'd like to uh I'd like to entertain a hearing none. I'd like to hear entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So, move.
>> Okay. Motion made by Jim Sears. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mike Dulis. Let's do a roll call. Mike Doulis. >> Yes. >> Jim Sears. >> Yes. >> Gene Hartnett. >> Yes. >> And I say yes. Very good. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, have a good evening everybody.
>> Sure. >> Thank you.