##VIDEO ID:wiFTnINVfyU## for e e e for for e for e for again until like the other day I was like oh my God it's on there again okay great well good evening everybody why don't we start so we're here for the um uh for our public meeting of the danver's planning board so it's uh uh January 14th 2025 it's a little bit past 7:00 in the even even we're here at the Danver Senior Center um I'm leis George I'm the chair and joined here today by um uh uh Jean hartnet our clerk uh Jim Sears Tim spittle and Michael dulis and Josh Morris is here uh with uh from town staff okay let's begin with our uh agenda here so our first agenda item is tras Lane uh partial release of Covenant so this is a request for partial release of a covenant established on August 28th 1972 which is associated with the definitive subdivision plan entitled proposed access to Folly Hill development Danvers Massachusetts and dated June 2nd 1972 And also known as tras Lane danver's Mass I see the applicant is here and before we begin I just wanted to mention this is a this is a continuation from a meeting from a a previous planning board meeting and so we'll we'll be doing today is I'd like to you know like to hear from the the applicant uh we also do have our Town Council here today uh who will be presenting and we'll be uh you know taking questions uh from the board uh in addition although this is uh this is not a public hearing uh if we do have members of the public who do have uh you know questions uh you know specifically related to the covenants involved here uh I'll also be um entertaining some questions from members of the public as well so um with that being said why don't you begin just identify yourself for the for the record and for those watching at home good evening thank you Mr chair um my name is Miranda sasco I'm with glovsky and glovsky in Beverly and I represent um corkran tras Lane LLC the applicant for this matter um we have a couple of uh members that are also joining remotely um so we have verify thems that would be great sorry if you identify them though be please thank you um so on behalf of the applicant we have Tim corkran and Peter Mahoney um we also have their traffic consultant uh Rebecca Brown from Greenman Peterson and uh Council Dan Bailey from Pierce Atwood and um I'm joined by Emily Pothier who's a colleague of mine at glovsky as well um so I just thought it would be helpful to recap uh briefly where um where this started and and where where it sits right now um we were here um before the board in November um to present the formal request for the partial release of the Covenant from 1972 um we uh did a brief presentation on sort of what the project entailed and in particular what it entailed in danverse um and we reviewed um a potential peerreview scope that was uh sort of forecast by the Covenant um following the meeting that we we sort of had not agreed on a scope there was some tension about how how wide that scope would be um and in the intervening period there was some discussion with staff and um then there were there was an exchange of legal memoranda between uh corkrin Council and uh Town Council um which culminated in a December 18th memo um from the town's Council that was shared with us um agreeing with our analysis that um the Covenant is not enforcable because it um has extended its enforcable life and I I will let the other lawyers uh talk more about what that argument is but um the the headline line is that uh I think that the town's council at least agreed with the analysis presented by corkran lawyers at Pierce Atwood um so the applicant went on to say that you know we would still like to work cooperatively with the board to um help do some review of the um of the traffic impacts in danverse provided that the scope was appropriately uh limited to those ways actually within the board's jurisdiction um and so we've had some back and forth in the in the meantime and um we have proposed formally that the scope be reduced to two intersections off of exit 44 um being the intersections of TRC Lane and Wayside Drive and the the intersection of tralan and Folly Hill Drive and just to um maybe elaborate on the thinking behind that uh first of all any of the other J roadway intersections that were identified and studied in the applicant's uh traffic assessment fall within the jurisdiction of mass do and so all of those intersections will be studied by masso do they will be uh approved by mass do and they will be um really a priority during the traffic review of the meepa process um so we we're not turning a blind eye by any stretch on the implications for those intersections but rather saying that there is already significant State process in place to uh review those impacts so um I think to from the applicant standpoint and I I know the board um probably has questions and comments as well but from the standpoint where we stand tonight is is hoping to come out with an agreement as to this reduced scope so that we can um proceed to to get that work done whether it be by a third-party reviewer or by the town engineering department um I think we we can have a discussion about that but um that's what we are we are hoping to achieve tonight sounds good um just a question just you know in terms of your intro and thanks for the thanks for the recap on this in terms of um if you can just more for the um also for those who may have missed this the the first time around the the relevant parts of the Covenant I believe is a uh paragraphs 13 and 14 was that right that is correct yes um just can they relate to so the Covenant I mean what the Covenant said in 1972 was that um if the number of units in Beverly served by tras Lane exceed 554 that the applicant would come back to the planning board and the planning board would have an opportunity to review traffic impacts on ways within its jurisdiction purely with respect to the safety of those ways um and so that that was what precipitated um our first trip here to the board do you have anything further from any of uh I don't think so I I you know I'm I'm happy to ask question to answer questions and we have folks here from the team available to answer questions but I think at this point I imagine the board would like to hear from Town Council and um and we can take it from there members of the board do they have any any questions before we move on to uh town councils I have a lot of questions but we can wait till the Town Council okay you want yeah okay why don't we ask Town Council then to okay come to the podium introduce yourself and give a I have copies of the ex sumary not sure around okay sorry I just passed that s good executive summary okay you thanks okay um my name is ety singer I'm here on behalf of Dave Duca um Town Council um so I'm going to start by reading into the record the executive summary that I just gave you and then um I can answer any questions about the initial memo that was sent on December 18th um anything in general um okay is the mic okay very uncomfortable with the mic um okay so the TR Covenant established in I'm calling the TR Covenant the Covenant that we're referring to um established in 1972 is a restrictive agreement between the town of Denver and I'm sorry could you speak up a little bit and a little more slow do the mic again okay so it's the TR Covenant established in 19 1972 is a restrictive agreement between the town of Danvers and HDC Incorporated under Mass law such restrictive covenants generally expire after 30 years unless specific actions are taken to extend them in this case no such extensions were recorded meaning the Covenant likly expired in 2002 Massachusetts law places a strict limit time limit on land use restrictions with limited exceptions although the TR Covenant has likely expired the board may wish to reserve the right to evaluate whether any avenues for enforceability exists however the likelihood of successfully pursuing enforcement through these exceptions remains speculative even if the Covenant were still enforcable is Provisions restrict the board's Authority primarily to addressing traffic safety concerns in tra in paragraph 13 and 14 as we just discussed in conclusion the TR Covenant has likely expired nonetheless the board can investigate potential avenues for enforcement if they wish to preserve the covenant's original intent um by the last sentence I just want to iterate that 99% of the door has has probably closed there's probably like a 1% chance that to get any kind of enforceability of the Covenant which would be traffic uh paragraph 13 and 14 um but like daveo says you can't look in a crystal bow I know exactly so that's where we stand at this point thank you um okay having heard that I guess I'll turn things over to turn things over to to the um members of the board for uh for questions um um why don't I begin with um Jim so just in in in plain English just for the the members of the audience the neighbors and and for the members of the board uh as far as the Covenant do we want the Covenant or we do do we not want the Covenant it seems that if we do want the Covenant it gives us some input if the Covenant is not enforcable and has expired then what is our purview so um if the Covenant was still relevant was still was not expired the only um the only Power that it really gives the board is the traffic safety y because the rest of it is not about is not relevant so if it expired which it likely did um that mean the traffic safety wouldn't be in the purview of the planning board if the applicant is willing to agree to do that to work with the board um that would that could limit the scope but it could give you some scope to be able to do the traffic safety study so I guess to push the issue if if we say we need peer review and the applicant says we don't believe you need it uh CU we've limited the scope of that to just the the two roadways are we had an pass or do we not have authority to require the additional review I wouldn't say you don't have authority I think there's still um there might be some room and there also might be just some agreeable to just agree to do that that would probably be the easiest thing um yeah I wouldn't say that you have no Authority at all and then to take it even a step further would the board you know be able to say we don't like this project and we want to we don't agree to it because we think there's too much traffic or impact on the town I think that's a reach yeah I guess it's good to hear from Town Council as to what our limits and the scope of our um actions are this evening and and at perhaps a further meeting so it would be difficult for us to say what you're saying is it would be difficult for us to say no we don't like this because it's too many units it's overburdening the roadway it's not really uh a development in beveryly is not really assisting the town in any way granted we don't use our water or our schools but it's it's going to burden our roadways additionally this one particular roadway where there are alternatives that the applicant could use in Beverly it'll be at 62 or through the golf course right but they haven't explored those yeah but the regarding the project in general there's nothing in the Covenant that would given even if it was still active would have given the board um the ability to just to have a say over that unfortunately it was very limited to the traffic safety which is yeah which is yeah that's all that's all it gave that's all it gave the board so if we ignore the Covenant then are we saying she doesn't even have to be here I'm sorry what was the last thing are we saying that she does the applicant doesn't even have to be here if we ignore the Covenant and say the covenant's expired does she even have to come to this meeting well I would that's a it's a good question I'm not I don't have a perfect answer to that but I do think because the tra the intersections and it does burden Denver's traffic I think it is appropriate to be before this board well if I'm building a warehouse in Topsfield do I need to you know on the line in damis line do I have to go to a damis board I wouldn't think they would need to even be here if it's expired but what but the thing is that we are talking about those um intersections that will be burdened so it's do they need to be here I don't know the answer to that honestly yeah but it sounds like the appropriate thing to be here no I I'm glad they are but I mean if if you're telling them that the the things expired then what's our jurisdiction I don't have an answer to that right there but I I I think that um I think we at the point where the conversation is already going about you know what like what are we going to do about the traffic safeties I think we're at a good point with that um I mean the applicant is here to talk about it so I guess we take it from there okay that's all I have at the moment thank you thank you Tim questions yeah maybe one question for Town Council before we move back back to the applicant um in the memo from Town Council I didn't see any mention of the jurisdiction with respect to the which intersections and the geography that is covered by the Covenant is that something you've opined on no because the um the Covenant itself didn't speak about specific um um intersections and we would just we only did a a study of the Covenant itself and the mass regulations okay thanks else for Town Council okay Gan questions for Town Council no I think you answered everything I was wondering thanks Mike questions for Town Council none for Town Council thanks I just have a few questions for um uh Town Council and I guess this comes down just picking up I guess the question is in terms of the intersections and I'm taking a look at the um I'm just taking a look at the language of the Covenant now again and I I know you you you you stated that the that the Covenant likely expired but in the event that it's that it is not um then the language I'm just you know looking at the language of the Covenant in particular I'm looking at at 13 paragraph 13 um that it says you know uh that at the time you know HDC will not construct more than 554 multif family dwelling units without the prior approval of the town's planning board the approval of the town's planning board will be rest restricted to consideration of traffic safety on ways within its jurisdiction so does that um me I guess the question does that again looking sort of at at the scope of of what the you know you know in terms of even looking at the traffic safety and in terms of are we looking at the you know are we looking at the area of um you know are we looking at the intersections of know of TR Lane and Wayside or TR Lane and Folly Hill Drive or can it because I know at our last meeting we talked about even a sort of a broader scope to other other intersections that weren't directly at that area would the would that Covenant provide um from reading the plain language of the Covenant I think it would I'm not familiar with the names of the Cross intersection so I'm assuming anything within the Danvers um jurisdiction it would it would allow for Traffic Safety on that I don't think it's restricted to any specific intersection I don't believe so okay got it okay that's the language yeah just passing me the language here from the from the Covenant blue I actually do have a question yeah go ahead Mike so when you say it's limited to the traffic safety I think is is the word use the verbage used Traffic Safety that's the Covenant yeah so the traffic safety what does that actually mean though cuz if let's say the Covenant was not expired they came to the board the board said we feel this is going to be unsafe to have all these cars on this road would they then have to find a safer way to get the cars out of that would they have to not do the project like what if the Covenant was not expired and we said we don't feel it's safe because that's the only jurisdiction we have is the traffic safety right what would the next steps be so the next steps I believe are in paragraph 14 where um I'm just going to read from the memo that I wrote that they would agree to try that the HDC which would be the applicant and the town would agree to hire a traffic consultant to evaluate the project um and then it would be reviewed and finalized by the um I mean the relevant sections would be reviewed by the Mass Department of Public Works so I think it would be um I don't believe from the Covenant language it means that wouldn't be able to use those intersections I think there would be a study to see on its effect and I guess work from there of how to make it safer I'm not exactly sure of that so even at worst case they're just going to review those intersections which it sounds like they're agreeing to do anyway am I understanding that correctly or am I missing something should asked the applicant that what they I'm not sure what they agreed to do could the applicant come to the podium and just just say which one that'd be great thank you um so the applicant has agreed to review two of the intersections that are danverse public ways accessed off of exit 44 those are ways within jurisdiction of the Town um just just so board members are aware what's proposed there um as part of the project are some modest um striping and signage improvements to make it more clear for residents um um coming to and from the the property um so we're we're talking really a pretty lightand um of improvements so you know that we have agreed to do that the applicant's trying to be cooperative we we are trying to work with the town given the the changing information that both you and we have regarding the enforceability of the Covenant I think if we had had these opinions to start with we probably would not have set down this this road um because um the the improvements within the town's jurisdiction again are really quite limited they would not in and of themselves um trigger any planning board jurisdiction they might re trigger you know a review with the engineering department or Public Works to make sure that the signage regulations were complied with but um had we had the opinions that you have before you now we we would not be here okay just a um just a question Mike did you have I I don't have another question I guess just to clarify if everyone agrees it sounds like we're saying that even if we disagreed with this in the Covenant was still intact all we would be getting is the traffic study which is what we're still getting now is that a fair statement I think for someone to agree with yeah I I don't want to like that's up to you to decide but it's um speak at the microphone from the language of the Covenant it that it would be extremely limited the planning board's um jurisdiction over this and it would be only be traffic safety and paragraph 14 I just was finishing to read that it does say that if there was you know anything had to be changed the traffic C there would be like traffic control devices would be installed at the expense of the applicant like it is a very um it's not giving like a lot of discretion to the board okay and then in addition to that I forget what the number was 554 or something like that that's coven if they now that the covenant's expired does that mean they can then continue to build more units in the future and that there's no more that's beyond the scope of this I can take that yeah that's yeah I mean I think that would be governed by the zoning in Beverly independent of the C board would still have no review process over adding 300 more units if Beverly was okay with it correct okay um just a question I had just in terms of talking about and I know that you know um Town Council was just making a point about the the the limited scope and I know that the that Mike was mentioning about the um you know sort of the that the applicant is at least has agreed to be looking at the at the at a a peer review of those two particular inter you know intersections for lack of a better word but I but also it's been you know during the course of your own of your traffic study you did Cover you know other um you know other intersections in Danvers and so that's why I think at the last meeting we I don't think we were we we pulled some of these I don't think these numbers you these other intersections came out um you know arbitrarily I mean I think there was from their the study so how does that and this is I guess question for the applicant how does the the how does the you know what you what you've reviewed in the traffic study how does that sort of inform what a peer review should be I'm going to take a stab at it and um if uh Rebecca if I if I go astray can you jump in but um the the the reason that those the um the more extensive body of intersections was included was a result of both um the city of Beverly's desired scope in its traffic review as well as um anticipating what would be required for meepa and those intersections are all I think this is this is where need you to check me they they are DOT intersections because they directly relate to um the interchanges I believe that is correct yes so all of the intersections along Elliot Street that we were previously looking at those are all within uh mot's jurisdiction as well as all the uh ramps to and from Route 128 so the only two locations that we're really talking about are the TR Lane and Wayside Drive intersections um where the highway ramps meet those roadways and just for the record again could you identify yourself again just for the yes sure I'm Rebecca Brown from Greenman Peterson and we're the traffic consultants for the project okay thank you okay um any other any questions from the I know that we have the applicant here and we've had Town Council uh speak any um any further questions from can I if I could just jump right in on that question what about the Conan Street State Road intersections are those within dos those were in the traffic study but yeah so uh we had in the traffic study the intersections of uh Conan Street State Road Burley Street Liberty Street where those kind of come together in a triangle um those we were asked to look at by the city of Beverly even though they're not in um the city of Beverly itself uh but when we did go through the traffic study and looked at that uh those intersections what we found was that there really wasn't um a reason why traffic to and from the site would be going through there so it's not a direct route for anyone getting to or from the site from um any of the major uh roadways that they would be traveling from um and that information was all just recently reviewed by the city of Beverly's PE review consultant and they agreed with the distribution that we had assumed um for how traffic would get to and from the site um So based on that information we wouldn't have any impact um on those three intersections anymore understood um if I may I wanted to go through a handful of questions because I there's a we haven't seen one comprehensive presentation here so I'm sort of piecing together a few different memos from all of you if you don't mind if I just go through them and ask a few questions so sure we had an original memo before our first meeting from you attorney sasco dated September 4th we had a follow-up Memo from attorneys Bailey and hire December 2nd which was the bulk of the sort of content of uh your response and an additional memo today January 13th so I'll just order from you attorney assist Masco so if I can go through those quickly um so the I have mostly most of my questions are for the memo from attorney Bailey so maybe I can direct them towards him um um so let me read some quotes here from the memo first one being quote at the at that meeting being our November 12th meeting the board expressed that he had broad authority to disapprove the project quote and or require mitigation outside the areas of board jurisdiction if I can also read a quote from the meeting minutes from that um board member seers asked do we have the ability to deny the project essentially based on traffic staff member Brian zelly said you may request to have legal council available we agreed yes so is there a reason attorney Bailey why you misstated that we expressed that we had the authority to disapprove the project because it seems pretty clear that we were asking for Town Council to weigh in on our jurisdiction um not sure I understand the question um well you said in quotes that we expressed that we had the brought authority to disapprove the project the word disapprove did not show up in the the meeting minutes we very explicitly asked for Town Council to weigh on our Authority so it seems like that's a misstatement or mischaracterization of the record uh well I don't agree with that my recollection of that hearing is that this board quite clearly expressed some intention and asked staff whether under this Covenant it had the ability to not approve this project and our response to that as stated in our memo to town coun is that the board does not for the reasons stated in that memo and confirmed by Town Council in its memo right but at as of the November 12th meeting so from your original memo um attorney sasco quote there are handful of conditions in Co in the Covenant which on their face have continuing Force right so as of that meeting we thought the Covenant would still had Force we have since learned and you said quote in your memo attorne attorney Bailey this approach our expressed our alleged expressed uh broad authority to disapprove compelled us to revisit the scope of the board's Authority where you then realized that it had expired so my point being that as of that meeting we all thought it was still active now we know it's not our push back there was not that we thought we had brought authority to disapprove the project but that we were communicating some skepticism about the traffic that was being pushed and asked very explicitly for Town Council to weigh in on what our Authority was that may seem like a small thing to call out in question but it's quite frustrating to see a mischaracterization of what this board had expressed as what we thought our Authority was so my next question is can can can I jump in and respond to that please by all means um first of all I don't at all appreciate misar you know characterizing anything as Mis characterization as you have heard from my client and from attorney sasco we here to try to be cooperative it would have been much easier to take the approach that this is unenforceable and we don't have to talk to this board at all uh instead my client chose to come to this board and have a discussion about a covenant that we all knew was very old and of questionable durability this board then took a very aggressive position that included raising the question of of whether it could deny the project outright even though the materials we had submitted had been extremely clear about the board's limited authority to address traffic safety concerns within your jurisdiction the board overstepped those boundaries that's when we said okay we have to revisit this we wrote the memo we did we sent it to your Town Council and your Town Council agreed with us so that's where why we are in the position we are today um if we had had a more Cooperative approach roach initially we wouldn't have taken such a line in our memo thank you I mean it expired one way or another right whether or not we took an aggressive approach which I disagree with we were asking for Clarity on what our Authority was which we've now found thank you Town Council it was expired you just didn't do your homework we would we wouldn't be in this position if you did your homework before the first meeting so let me ask a question specifically about the actual content of the memo rather than my Petty grievances about the mischaracterization so in the memo you say quote no changes are proposed in the ways within dver jurisdiction but you've just said now attorney smasco that you are proposing some modest improvements to tr clean so which which is it are you proposing improvements as I said we're we are restriping existing roads and adding signage so we are not we are not widening roads we are not redesigning roads is what I I meant to so the memo from attorney Bailey that says no changes is incorrect because there will be changes I would argue those are no changes to the road layouts which I think was what was intended okay understood the word changes might be ambiguous um so in terms of from the memo today from you attorney sasco you said that uh let me read this in our view and consistent with Town council's opinion this scope of review should be strictly limited to those intersections of Wayside Drive Folly Hill Drive and Wayside Drive TR Lan but Town Council today said that they actually didn't opine on that I think what I was referring to again we're not trying to mangle anything here I think the memo that we received suggested quite strongly that the board's review was quite limited under the Covenant and so I am suggesting in my letter that that limitation um necessarily limits the review to those roadways that are outside of mass do jurisdiction and just within the town's jurisdiction gotcha and again apologies because my the reason for pestering on some of these questions is I can I don't have one comprehensive and consistent summary these memos and what you're saying seem to conflict in some ways and it's hard to piece it all together um let me see if I got through everything so far so Okay so we've talked about the intersections the improvements um so last question for attorney Bailey the the last paragraph of the memo says we ask that you advise the planning board and staff to that effect which is our limited Authority such that the next planning board meeting can be more productive than the last um so are you of the opinion that our last meeting was not productive I am of the opinion that the last meeting the planning board was stating that it seemed to think it had authority to deny this project and I wanted to make clear that the board did not and I wanted to make that point to your Town Council who ultimately agreed with us let me take a step back seriously if if we had wanted to just pick a big fight about this we never would have come to you we would just said we have blown off that Covenant and said we'll deal with it another way but Oran is sincerely trying to work with the Danvers planning board with Beverly planning board yes we have a project and there are a lot of people don't like that project but that doesn't mean that we want to go and ignore comments and ignore input um you know we're here tonight in a spirit of cooperation um you know my job is to work with developers and I've worked with corkin for 30 years and there is no developer I've worked with who is more willing to try and work with the community on these types of things so maybe we can agree to disagree about some of you know the sort of initial underlying maybe we didn't you know do a good enough job of you know explaining why we were here and you know um why we didn't really think you you know there was Authority uh but um you know our interest now is to try and work with the board on matters that within that are plainly within the Covenant you know if it were enforceable that you have authority over yeah so look I I've said this before at the planning board I'll say it again is you know everyone's acting in their own interest this is by definition an adversarial position applicants want to make money Council wants to get them as much as they can we're here to represent the people that's always going to have a bit of conflict so don't take my question in saying like you're you know I can't believe you did that but you can see how it's a little frustrating to read all these memos and see these what I said are mischaracterizations when you know our job here is at 0 an hour so I'm reading these things and feeling like wow that's that's not my recollection of what we said and it's unfortunate they thought that wasn't productive even though it compelled them to go do their homework so I would just appreciate in future correspondence um a bit more care in that regard let me ask this question then which is what is the sort of rationale for seeking release of an expired COV Covenant like I understand you're saying you're trying to be cooperative you've been ahead of us um already when we didn't know that it had expired and so you'd like to just continue this and make some much improvements which is appreciated but I just I worry a bit about um two things one being precedent I don't know of any other time I've been on this board that we've voted on something that had no force that sounds um strange but the second being that there's a bit of a predetermined outcome right we can't actually vote no because you can just walk away we can only vote Yes and it just seems like it sort of biases the entire process a bit and so have I I don't know if there's so much a question I'm somewhat stating my own opinions about why I have some hesitancy about voting on this but you know why are you seeking release from an expired Covenant well the original reason was because a covenant shows up in the title to the property and as part of your due diligence in getting ready for financing and selling the property you try to clear up any incumbrances buyers title compan companies want to see that as a paper record not necessarily they don't want to do what unfortunately we're asking you to do which is go back and forth between all these legal memorandum and make a judgment right a buyer doesn't want to do that they want to see it released so that's why we came here to begin with um and you know in the in the followup you know we think that we have developed legal arguments now and a record that is sufficient to uh make a buyer comfortable on this but that's why we originally came here and you know as as a practical matter we'd like to get it cleaned up it has no if if we all agree that it is not enforcable um and that I think what the what the applicant is willing to do here is to say we will cooperate with you on a scope of peerreview and even though the Covenant doesn't you know the Covenant says that the parties need to agree on the the the cost of the peer review or whether the developer necessarily has to pay for it we will do it as long as it is limited in scope and I think the the other ask would be to get a release of the Covenant on the record to the extent that the board is satisfied that it is not enforceable got it okay that's helpful Jim anything further and so is it right that excuse me we've heard the so we've heard the rationale for which intersections are included we've heard you make mention of striping and signage for the improvements is it right that we would see that sort of formally represented once the peer review of the traffic study is completed right that yes okay yeah no other questions Jim any further questions of the applicant of our town coun so I'm just want to be clear so are we are you agreeing to the peer review because AG to a view you know I I I made the case to to the planning staff that really if we're talking just about striping and signage customarily that would be something that would be handled internally um it seemed like the engineering department wanted no part of that I heard from Josh this afternoon that's fine I get it I spoke to our client um you know if the peer review is limited as we've suggested and we can all agree on that they will they will pay for that provided that scope does not expand so we'd like to see the scope before it's signed off on by by the peer reviewer and if so we will pay for it the town already has money on hand from the applicant so we can get this going um so you need is that clear a new quote reducing the scope yeah the first quote was like what 13 Grand or something so reducing the scope to just those two roadways yes getting that and then going forward Y and then just just a quick comment on behalf of Tim I mean and just for further clarification the reason why as Tim mentioned you know this is a very rare thing uh for any board and we have some members who have not been on the board for a long time I have been on the board for a long time and I can tell you it's the first time I've seen this something like this so I think to ask the Town Council to be present to help us and assist us with you know some edification and some guidance was was prudent um you know what are our options can we you know deny something or or or put in further control so I think it was a prudent thing to do and it wasn't meant to you know slow down the process and I'm I'm glad that you did come in front of the Town even though you didn't necessarily we found out that you needed to um but I think it's it's it's helpful to get it out there and to um explore it to the extent that we're able to so I appreciate just to uh that's it okay Jean anything further for the no Mike all said thanks yeah the only thing I I would say and I I think he answered the the the question I had with respect to the um you know to the respect who would be performing a peer review in terms of you know either would be Town engineering staff or outside reviewer so I'm happy that having you know that with Town engineering staff not you know uh being able to do it to be that you'd be agreeable to having the private uh peer reviewer and just sort of just also to pick up with on some of the the comments that were said a little bit earlier in terms of you know in terms of the previous meeting and really you know I mean my you know I think that the board's intention was really to you know I think this is not something as was said that comes that comes across this you know every day and I think that this is something that you know so I think respectfully we wanted to get additional information which meant in terms of getting additional information from Town Council in terms of seeing what indeed could we do and so I think that you know I don't see the there was any uh there was any sort of pre-ordained you know uh intent or feeling from the previous meeting it was just to get answers and to find out what indeed what was the the scope of our of our jurisdiction with respect to the Covenant and so I'm I'm glad that the applicant is uh uh you know has is cooperating and is coming has come to uh has come to us as well and we' be able to find out further on this blue one here go ahead Josh I don't know I know I mentioned that if they go to put 300 more units in here and Beverly okay is it then we still no have no nothing to do about it is that something that we should like look at as a town to avoid this in the fut or not avoid this but to have I I guess like my point is if they go to do 300 more units they're not going to come back to or they don't have to come back to us so are we is is it just is what it is or I'm um Can can I jump in on that I was asking Town Council but after ask you want to Jos it's up to you where you want to defer I mean I could take a stab and then get corrected but yeah okay but if it's not if the Project's not you know that were jurisdiction that was you know we keep talking about I mean if it's not in the town of Danver um I'm not sure how you know we would be able to you know opine or you know if it what would be the application in front of the Denver planning board I guess from forgive my lack of legal knowledge but like this why was the Covenant creating the first time was it cuz the road was created or what was the reason behind it yeah correct okay so there's not like a covenant that could be created because there's no Road being created or anything like that is that in layman's terms sure I mean there's lots of different legal layers and legal instruments for all sorts of things but yeah right CU there's not a new road being created right there's no subdivision there's no Covenant so okay Our Town Council do you have something to add to that or I actually agree okay you agree okay and did the did the applicant have something you wanted to say as well I wasn't sure if I heard yeah Dan if I if I could yeah Peter please go ahead could you could you identify yourself just yes yeah Peter Mahoney with John M Corr and company thank you I just want to clarify uh you know in terms of our project and our 80 acres um we've already been very clear with the with the city of Beverly that you know the the the 440 unit proposal that we have on the table is what we have on the table we've talked in our behind the idea of a a either a covenant or a restriction um to prohibit future development on the rest of the parcel that we control obviously there's other land owners up there we don't control those but if if there's concern about the extra land that we have uh as part of our project in future development I I can you can rest assured that we've committed to to no further development there and that's aided um uh is that part of the it it's we're in the process obviously and so uh you know we'll have to work out the mechanics of how it works but there's some Trails out there we're where we've uh committed to trying to make those available to the public um you know beyond beyond the scope of where our buildings are okay got okay question yeah will that expire in 30 years I I can answer that we'll make it yeah no I mean one of the exceptions to the 30-year expiration is a conservation restriction uh that runs to a uh nonprofit conservation organization so the mechanically the way that it works is orran would continue to own the land but there would be a conservation restriction running to Green Belt some trustees organization potentially the Beverly Conservation Commission but some nonprofit conservation minded entity that would hold a restriction that prohibits any further development or any further structures Improvement Etc on the areas that are not the subject of development here thank you okay there and I mean just to elaborate on that ultimately those that type of CR has to be approved by the State Department of Conservation Services which readily approve them it's not a big deal but that's how you make it permanent good thank you um just one other just a a followup question I we're talking about various approvals and the state just the it it um uh rung a bell in terms of uh Mass do or I guess you know it's the predecessor Mass dep Department of Public Works back in the Covenant days yes so Mass do uh what is the timeline for potentially for the approval where are you in the approval process there because I know you mentioned that there these other approvals that are dealing with a lot you know some of these other intersections um Dan I think you might be better off explaining where that stands with MEA I don't sure happy to um as Miranda and others have explained we are in the meepa process which means that the project has submitted a environmental notification form to the state Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office uh that environmental notification form resulted in a certificate from the uh Secretary of environmental Affairs that said here are the things that you need to study one of the big things that we needed to study was the traffic impacts uh we have done that um and there is now a draft environmental impact report that we submitted uh three weeks ago or so uh pending before um meepa uh the comment period on that environmental impact report uh expires I think it's February 14th maybe it's February 7th but it's it's sometime in February um and that is where Mass do collects the comments from various interested parties and me collect comments and evaluate those comments and ultimately Mass do will have to issue what's known as a highway access permit because of the proximity of the project to Route 128 and the amount of traffic that uh will be generated on Route 128 and if you get want to get even a little more wonky Rebecca's here and she can really drill down on the details on average daily trips and all of the other things that require Mass do approval but ultimately the project needs a highway access permit from Mass doot and you mentioned uh attorney Bailey that there was a a comment period is that a is that a um a public comment period so if people have interested in making public comments they can do so absolutely okay and how would they find out the the link for that or how would they find out uh where they'd be able to to make a comment if if you need it we can provide it to you we'd be happy to do so but it if you just went on meepa uh you know Google Mass uh you know Mass government meepa or mass Environmental Policy Act you will get all the information you need to make those comments okay if you can provide that also to town staff I think that would be good well Town staff have already been engaged in the comment process process so okay yeah could I could I just ask one a question of Josh as far as uh do we have a uh essentially a motion to be made to if uh that we're voting on and do we have a um just for belts and suspenders for the title uh for the applicant would we be um signing a release or someone um for of the Covenant for the what what they need for title purposes um I can comment and give a little bit of guidance um because this conversation wasn't sure exactly where this was going to go a lot of moving parts and people involved [Music] um I think where staff where we came from was um there would be some type of motion on some type of scope MH whether it be third party you know it appears as I informed everyone it appears that town Town engineering staff is um not available to do it so I think we're both groups is talking about a third party peer review and I think ultimate what we're looking for guidance for staff is looking for some type of motion indicating what is the scope that the planning board wishes to move forward with um the development team is clearly proposing in their what what they language are saying limited scope those two intersections so the board could do a peer review with those two intersections that are be that the applicant is clearly um you know um in agreement that's what that's what they're proposing um I guess on the table is not that this is my recommendation or just informational but if the board wishes to you know move forward with the um third party peer review that includes more than those two intersections then clearly that's you know decision tree that is possible they could do that but clearly there are probably ramifications for that going that Avenue so um does that answer your question Jim I don't think I guess in somewh but I think if we're are it sounds like we're limited to the the two streets in the peer review which you're agreeing to so the question is do we after we take public comment which we haven't done yet but do we um you know vote on a motion that's all inclusive in the sense that it um you know subject to the peer review uh assuming that's [Music] adequate I don't does that Grant the uh approval for the release or do they have to come back yes for an additional meeting I guess is the question I think that's where I said yes so it's so come back for a sub so so so it's a two-parter like do a motion for a peer review and of assuming that board agrees to like a limited scope peer review and then coming back after the peer review is completed correct that's how I view the situation moving forward yeah I I would say In fairness the only request we have in front of you is the original original request which was for a partial release of the Covenant um so you know I think now in light of what we have learned we would amend our request but we have not yet done that we would we wanted to have this conversation tonight and see where we all are um but I think we would amend the request for there to be a release of the Covenant um as a in exchange for completing the peer review so take it further you were asking for essentially a full release not a partial what were we partially releasing I I mean it was partial before because we were assuming it was enforcable for the sake of trying I mean um partial in terms of because it we're looking we were looking just at like paragraphs 13 and 14 was that partial and and you know there were certain conditions that were continuing and there were certain conditions that would have expired and we were dealing with it from a conveyancing standard right we were just trying to get it cleaned up um I think now with the new information that um it's not enforcable we would ask the board to um consider granting a full release if not we would be happy with the original partial release that we proposed but I think it just it muddies things unnecessarily if you've got something out there that's not enforcable yeah and then um so if you ask for the full release contingent upon this peer rreview peer review comes back right our next meeting I don't know how quickly they can do it what's the point at that point I guess for the peer review I mean what we going I'm not asking for it now I think we would ask for it what are we gaining from the peer review well I think what are we what we are anticipating from the peer review is that they will issue a report um we will respond to it we will come back here and answer questions from the peer reviewer and the board okay um to the you know I think the peer reviewer um obligations are to you know make sure that GPI has the correct information so there aren't mistakes that are made that we've um appropriately considered town of danverse regulations right and so if they find that we haven't we would be on the hook to correct that okay um so I think they we're not saying it's a moot exercise I'm I'm just sort of forecasting that given what we've learned um I I think we'd amend that request to be a full release and assuming we're all working cooperatively together right then I I think that's a reasonable and what's the timeline uh Josh to have the peer reviewer act and get us a report so they can be reviewed what are we looking at for time so there's a lot of moving Parts clearly from these conversations um depending on if the board agrees to the scope that's proposed or a modified one or any kind of any of those scenar any type of uh peer review um I will have to from a staff's perspective I will have to reach out to the private consultant that was um going to move forward with the larger one you know and at least you know that is it it is a you know it is a significantly different kind of exercise right so I guess if the you know with the new revised scope and send it to them if they are willing to do it or not or you know potenti I it's there's a lot of different scenarios um So that obviously I would have to have a conversation with them you know this is a new scope is this something that you're still willing or wanting or available to do and if the answer is yes then we just proceed if not then I guess we sort of have to start the process in a way again with a much smaller scope and the only thing I wanted to add as well just with respect to the um to the to the limited you know release versus the full release I would just want to make sure that there's uh because our consultations from Town Council that related to the uh it's more of a reservation you know just is that that are consultations with Town Council related to the paragraphs 13 and 14 and so I would just want to make I would want to be certain that if we are um releasing any um any um if we're releasing the entirety of the Covenant that there is not one paragraph there through because of some language in there that might differ from 13 and 14 that is enforceable yeah that's I think that's that's the only thing I would want to make sure before we went forward with that that we got Town Council sort of blessing that okay okay um can I ask one more question sure yeah Josh is it a are you able to pull up the list uh that this what you sent us the list of the intersections yes on the screen yes one moment I just want to double check because there's 20 intersections in damers and I just want like we sort of glossed over why some of them are being excluded just want to make sure we're super sorry um just for informational um they're not not all 20 sorry yeah 20 and a subset of those are Dam my mistake but you still like me to bring it up yes please yes sir just because I think we know why we're down to the two but I just want to make they're numbered so we might as well just through one moment please and maybe just to read because I think what I see in the memo is the December 2 memo um Route 128 as well as the access ramps Associated therewith are within mot's Souls jurisdiction Soul jurisdiction excuse me um so I think that's why intersections two and three as well as 19 and 20 would be sorry I'm getting ahead of myself but I get anxious so you're trying to figure out from this 20 why it's down to two in your mind so yeah 20 minus the eight that are in Beverly so I believe so the Beverly ones are not in bold mhm so so let's go through them one State uh Elliot Street and State Road I don't think that's a 128 access ramp but is that still within Mass doot yeah because it's a state route Route 62 right so anything I believe that touches Route 62 and um Rebecca if I'm wrong feel free to chime in um yeah so um the state's jurisdiction does extend from state road all the way through Liberty Street there um because those all operate as a coordinated signal system and the State Road intersection actually um operates on the same traffic signal controller as the southbound ramps so that's why that's all under Mass cot's jurisdiction that uh numbers 1 through 4 great and then 567 excuse me um you had mentioned that the Beverly peer reviewer had agreed that there was no impact on traffic and so those are being excluded by virtue of us just trusting that finding and not having our perer reviewer also look at that correct that is correct that yeah based on um roots that actually lead to and from the site there really isn't any reason why someone um entering or exiting the site would travel through those intersections um so that's why we have no impact there um the number of people that would travel through there would be negligible okay and are we all comfortable with that that we because a peer reviewer would check that right that would be part of a peer review process but we're comfortable just taking their finding I mean they could probably just provide us with the Beverly peer review right you said there was a peer review done of those sites is that something we could you could share with us yeah be good do that all right and so then I our distribution will get reviewed also by mass do great um as part of the meepa review process so it'll get reviewed twice okay and then 8 19 and 20 are all again massot that leaves us with 17 and 18 well 19 and 20 are what they're agreeing two there's two 17 and 18 right okay sorry just want to make sure we were clear on all that thanks anything else from members of the board before I um entertain some any public uh comments so if any members of the public have a question want just come up to the podium and direct any any questions uh through the chair and again this is a good opportunity as well because we do have the um we do have the uh the development team here as well so that hopefully they'd be able to address any specific questions you have as it relates to traffic or what have you great thank you Mr chair uh Joanne wuchi uh uh town meeting member Precinct 2 um my first question is does the town have any position to insist upon or to ask that the developer explore the more so explore the alternative exits and entrances in Beverly rather than Danvers um what can the town do that that's my question I'm not sure if it's for our Council or my question is is from the town standing do we have any right to ask or even insist uh upon the developer to explore the alternative exit and entrances that were me uh in Beverly that were briefly mentioned here in the meeting tonight I think one was through the golf course and one I can't remember where the other one was in Beverly might have been addressed as well before but the Town Council can say and also if the applicant has something they want to add to as well do you have anything to yeah I don't why don't you go to you have to go to the podium yeah sorry are you whatever I have a few questions so we'll time just stand by yeah that's fine I don't really have an answer to that the applicant can speak to it perhaps we haven't looked into that matter of alternate um entrances okay um I can tell you that uh the city of Beverly's position uh expressed uh consistently and strongly is that they would not allow those other access points to be used for um anything other than the emergency access that they currently are so you explored that with the city of Beverly we we have yes okay yes okay so with that answer I would ask the town to insist upon the city of Beverly to explore those exits and entrances and to rethink uh their position um reason being I'm going to probably I'm going to speak from I would say a strong majority of the um residents here in Danvers and what I continually hear from my constituents and constituents in the other precincts is the traffic in Danvers has already become unbearable Route 62 and so forth uh it's it's already a road roadway even Conan Street I that should be included I think too but even Conan Street those intersections are just you know commuting times are you can't get through it's it's it's really a nightmare it's not only it's a public safety issue I think too if um there's a medical emergency or another emergency so I would really hope that the town um lean on Beverly to really look at those Alternatives another reason being is um my question is does the town of Danvers get any developer fees from this project where we are signing over these two roads of town roads to access this development Believe Josh Town staff any I'm not sure what you're referring to by what was the term you said Developers fee we we Danver has a developers fee I think one goes to transportation and then if we project yes and affordable housing whether we get I think we'd get units so right no um not to go to into it but the transportation fee is only for projects downtown and because the Project's not located in Danvers we would not be receiving any I think that the project is offering and proposing affordable units but okay it's not that would be technically for the town of Danver that would be under B residents could apply for it and you know so Danver would get zero dollars from this development am I correct no tax dollars are going to come to Danvers not going to be funnel through Danvers no developers fees nothing I guess the way you're pring am I correct well I'm I'm just wondering is there any other monies that are going to come in to Danvers it also will not be taking any in terms of schools and utilities and such will not be they'll be but we do have the liability of keeping up those access roads which we do now but I think with the increased traffic on those roads there's going to be more wear and tear on those roads so down the way into the future there's a financial liability to damers possibly probably um I just want to bring that up whether it's I know it's probably out of your scope but I want to bring that up for the town yeah I'm just mentioning it because I know there's not much you guys can do about that but um so that's a concern again um I I can tell you the residents of Danvers have the abutters on these roads been yes notified of this project yes okay have you heard from a lot of them um we received a couple public comments or letters okay and and may I ask just briefly what the feeling of those comments were um I guess to paraphrase you know sort of you know not necessarily um um you know this the typical the typical the typical concerns that you would think or be concerned about for a project you know of this of this size being located next to you right um so that means that their quality of life is impacted here I could uh that's not a question to paraphrase no that's okay it's not a question I can find them one moment yeah just just give her a moment fine just give Josh a moment um I have them handy here Josh I have three of them there were three public want would you like you want me or you to read them or I don't know I need Josh why you go ahead okay um so here is one from just Tom McDonald he okay he doesn't give his address but um regarding the 440 DSE packed Apartments contained in six buildings planned to go in and spill out onto one Route 128 with no other means of egress gives nothing to the town of ders except more traffic clogged intersections and resulting accidents in aggre aggravation for all concerned Beverly has already unequivocally said that they will never open this development to an additional egress onto Elliot Street and so to this I would remind you that they will be putting e 80 parking spaces for 880 more cars but what about Super Bowl Sunday game days visiting friends celebrations birthdays you name it and yes it's going to bring in even more traffic and it doesn't matter if Beverly did open Elliott Street as as the result would be the same printing more lines on the street and adding 43 seconds to a traffic light won't do anything either except generate more traffic caused by the signal delay in that direction Danvers has the power to stop this and I believe we should by using the power of what we were given in the original Covenant based upon safety also of note is the placement of site a and site B being neatly tucked in with the existing development which creates much open space for even more future expansion what we do now will change the Fab of our community forever and set a precedent for future development thank you for your time sincerely Tom mdon Thomas McDonald so that was one of three but um and we received two others two others um put them on a screenshot and yeah sure we don't need to I don't think we need to read them in full okay just just address the briefly their concerns yeah so they just there was an email another email from Matt Jones um similar s similar kind of concerns about the traffic um and then there was one more from beus Hines at 17 con oh she appears she's a Beverly resident um she was a Beverly resident but she uh right reached out to us her concerns so similar just similar like traffic concerns you know not necessarily in favor of the project but okay okay which I thought they would be so I I I uh can't strongly stress enough that I hope the town takes some action to look at alternative uh exits and entrances that go through Beverly that do not come through the town of ders we have too much traffic for our roadways to handle as it is now um we do not have enough officers in our Police Department to handle the public safety needs as Danver is right now um I don't believe even like they say Conan Street I think the traffic study should be even more expanded because it's going to impact more of the Town people are coming from different work sites um whatever different activities we have a mall we have many things in ders that people can be coming to and from um you know you have the coming Center in Beverly people are coming in and out of you know with workwise appointments wise I I I strongly hope that the town can insist upon that this should stay in Beverly one quick fact I was reading um at the end of the year and this is just a quick comment um Money Magazine puts out every year the list of the worst communities in each state in the top 20 this year in Massachusetts I think they were I they were 15 or 18 I'm not quite sure Beverly showed up on it and the reasons why is because of overdevelopment lack of infrastructure and the traffic and Danvers already has the traffic daners already does not have the in infrastructure to handle anymore and we are looking at our own overlays where we're getting development now too that we have to be careful of so I don't want to see Danver ever in the top 20 in Money Magazine um so I really hope the board can take my comments uh under consideration I see the concern on all your faces and I appreciate apprciate it and I know you've gone through this but um it's a this is a big concern so thank you for letting me comment so thank you any further uh any other uh any other comments from members of the public okay okay coming back then um what's the will of the um what's the will of the board looking at a I think we're looking at a uh would we be um it looks like be some talking with Town staff that we would be looking at a um going forward with a a peer review yeah I think we need to do a motion I would make a motion that um uh we accept the uh peer review uh in the limited scope of the two roadways I believe um Hill Drive and Wayside Drive um upon completion of the review then I would um you know expect that we would have a um a further motion to release the Covenant either full or partial based upon Town Council review whether there were any lingering um you know effects of the Covenant that might carry beyond the 30 years which I'm not sure they would but we'll we'll get opinion on that from Town Council I think just to just to be comfortable and uh you know we go to a further meeting based upon um the reviewer's agreement to the smaller scope and subject to their agreement to this to the more limited scope and then you know U receiving and reviewing said um review peer review same it's a motion we have to too concise we'll have to go for the video for that one okay before we vote can I add a comment is it am I interrupting you can amend or you no not to amend it just to put some information out there um about the meepa process so I saw that the deir was submitted December 16th 2024 um and public comments are due February 7th so uh town meeting members I know that Brian has already submitted a letter um just since it's really out of our hands um with the traffic that's more in massot jurisdiction since it's the state highway so anybody that has concerns I think that that Avenue would be um much more helpful because there's not really a lot that we can do so if you really want to get your voice out there then that then that would be um like the next level up to voice concerns thanks thank you Jean um okay so we have a motion sorry I'm not sure if this is the best opportune time just before we make vote on this motion just one thing I want to bring up just because attorney Sesco brought up the potential full release of the Covenant on our agenda we call this trash Lane partial release of Covenant and haven't been using full maybe this is a question for both of you Town Council as well I know this is an administrative matter but sort of how we've been advertising we didn't necessarily have to advertise it in the paper or notify a Butters but when we did the no paper and send mailings to the ABS we always used partial release of Covenant so if we were to go for the full are we talking about potent I guess in either of your your opinions um are we having to start this whole process all over again or advertise yeah or like you know could we yeah I guess your thoughts on this and maybe Town Council after you comment if yeah I mean um as as you'll recall Josh we had this conversation from the get-go um that this is not a public hearing right um there it you you're required to notice the agenda and make sure that everybody is aware what's on the agenda right um and and I think the town understandably went beyond that and sent everybody actual notice however it is not a public hearing I think that procedurally um amending in a public forum um the request to make it a full release and then publishing when we do come back with the request um having it published on the agenda as a request for a full release would be absolutely fine obviously you're going to have to take um Town council's view of that but that that would be mine and and also I would just I guess reiterate we're fine proceeding for this evening's vote as a partial release you don't have to reach the issue of the full release I I'll submit something after the record you know after this meeting um after we've talked with Town Council about that as well and we can um address that separately and I I think also for the record too I think that that Jim's um MO I think covers of the twep in terms of the peer review and then based on either then later on it'll be either a full or partial release based on input from Town Council so I think that covers you know I I thought so as well possibilities yeah I think so okay does Town Council have anything to add before we yeah I would like to look into the matter I'll get back to you on that sure okay now that sounds so we do have a um uh Jim has made this uh the motion with respect to the peer review um along you know sort of providing also sort of the road map for future um sort of the the future action so is there's a so he's moved is there a second on his motion second okay second by Jean okay very good any discussion on this uh on the motion okay hearing none all in favor please say I I I any opposed none okay the motion passes okay okay thank you very much thank you okay okay see you soon okay all right let's move on to our next uh next agenda item here oh and Josh just for a purpose do we need to set a a next we need to continue this I'm sorry I jum the gun here yes sorry no thank you for yep that so we need to set the next hearing just because this this this hearing does I mean not hearing this meeting does have to be continued it does we do need to send it to a date certain so our next meeting scheduled meeting is January 28th and then the other the next one is in February I was just looking at it February 11th I guess I would I guess in consultation with the development team if there was a preference between those or if there was things that need to be figured out offline I think maybe given where we are we should just continue it to your next meeting and keep it on the agenda we can check in sure see whether there's a peer review at that time um and if not then continue to the yeah just okay okay that seems that Mak sense that seems so we'd entertain a jean can we entertain a motion to continue it to our next meeting so moved oh and that would the date would be the January 20 what did you say 28th 28th 14 days from today yeah 28th okay very good it's been first by Jean second by Jim uh to continue this to our next meeting of January 28th um all in favor please say I I I any opposed none okay the matter is continued thank you have a good evening okay going to move on to our next um uh next agenda item this is a public hearing this is with respect to the zoning bylaw amendments and will be an overview from staff of the proposed zoning bylaw amendments for special town meeting February 3rd 2025 public hearing is regarding several updates to the following sections of the Danver zoning bylaw for purposes of clarity consistency and reflection of current Massachusetts regulations Section four site plane review section 7 dimensional regulations Section 10 off street parking standards section 18 character-based zoning districts section 27 groundwater Protection District bylaw section 30 special permit section 31 flood plane overl District section 37 sign bylaw new section 38 outdoor lighting standard section 40 definitions table one um allow table of allowable uses table 1 a Civic space District schedule of uses table two table of Dem itional requirements residential the hearing also includes the following proposed we'll hear from Josh on this includes the following proposed zoning map amendments one is to include 141 Pine Street map 50 parcel 87 and 146 Pine Street map 50 parcel 98 into the tapleyville overlay District this would not change the underlying zoning District which would remain residential one the other zoning map Amendment includes moving certain town-owned Parcels from Civic space institutional CS inst to Civic space open space csos zoning districts and the inclusion of other town-owned Parcels into the Civic space open space csos zoning District okay Josh you want to say a few words I know we had a there was a um there was a select board uh meeting last week on the on the warrant yep and so I was thinking about not to I was thinking about maybe just going through them briefly or and instead of just um just going over them and then as we get to each article I could comment on something happened at selectboard or not would that make sense or what would you sorry I I think that would be fine I mean I know one of them is Select board action is not sure so if we want to start with that um just to just just so people are aware we start going through all of them that so the the Articles oh I didn't I didn't the proposed um article regarding the Pine Street 141 141 146 resoning um was removed from the warrant at the slbo meeting so um I have the warrant in front of me right now and that article has been is not been removed so has been removed has been removed right so it will not be on February 3rd time meeting so so hence it will not go before fincom and um exactly yep no fincom not going to really talk about it tonight in depth for that ultimately will uh but what but our the meeting today though any if there's any comments or you know Chang you know uh Rec recommendations then that would go to fincom for their meeting this coming Thursday that's right okay got it okay um would it be beneficial I guess for me just to go through them like again I know we've talked about it a couple times but I think for just for purp of members of the public as well I think that would be good to briefly walk through them yep so this is uh February 3rd town meeting 2025 um there's a couple General bylaw articles um these are the zoning Amendment these are the zoning bylaw amendments um the one that we just discussed the tville article 6 was removed um so first let talk about the one of the big one one of the ones uh was Article 5 has to do with kennels and we basically were we basically are proposing to um adopt the state um definitions for kennels and I guess for our policy change the big change although it's a modification is just what we're calling um a personal a personal kennel um it's more than more than four dog more than four dogs so someone now can have four dogs at their house um and not need to go to the zba but they would at the fifth dog so that from a policy standpoint that's probably the most significant um all of the new definitions oh sorry just for the board sorry I did print out word versions in redlined of everything that I'm discussing sorry didn't mean to Y forgot to bring that up and then so that's Article Five so we want to walk through that and see if we have any questions from the board I guess one other just thing just to comment on that is um the use table and all these new definitions were added the use table and um the personal kennel if someone if someone ever had five dogs or more needed a special permit that would always go to the CBA but for all other Kel related special special permits it's sort of what most of our use table set up in that if they require a special permit and it's in a residential Zone it would go to the zba and if it's a special permit in a commercial Zone then it would come to the planning board which is generally how our use table is generally set up most of the like where what special granting special permit granting Authority who usually is granting that special permit I guess y I guess I'm open to questions on okay Article Five any questions from the board on Article Five dealing with Kennels I don't have a question I guess Josh could you just give a super quick explanation of like the review process of this we obviously went over this I thought it was the last meeting but maybe it was two meetings ago so is it the same thing that we're going through is something changed like was there a certain amount time to go through this or I'm just trying to understand the select board did not change any nope sorry the select board did not make any changes or modifications the language other than just removing that article 6 nothing that was presented or discussed um has changed from our prior meeting so is this just a general conversation for the public more so than for our board since we've already reviewed these or I'm just trying just just an overall just summary yeah okay yep and I think it's a good opportunity as well if if there were questions that were raised by members of the select board or if let's say the select board amended a provision rather than removing it it would come back to us and we'd be able to to weigh in with some comments that could go to fin comments agreed but you're saying there was no changes other than the removal of that okay cor so everything else didn't change no comments on no changes to any of the language okay thank you yep any other can I just ask what was the uh feedback on article 6 why was that removed um I was at the meeting so I can L could also comment but what I've heard is that [Music] um there were an a couple people from the public who expressed concern about CH changing the zoning and what the ramifications would that be and I think from the select board not that I was I wasn't there maybe luk could answer a little bit better um there was sort of just this um we're not we don't have enough in we don't have enough information to make an informed decision so let's maybe have a little bit more public discourse on the matter and then maybe we could vote on this in the on the in the future if I articulated that Bri uh Brian zelli was there and he presented and he present just a just a moment and and what and and he presented a a um the you know similar presentation that he gave at our at our last meeting and talked about sort of what you know the concerns I think that it was intended to you know that it was intended to address there were resident concerns that were brought up um uh specifically I think related to concerns of the surrounding area on uh Pine traffic uh that there you know that should be like traffic study done and that there should be just additional you know additional you know you know additional review of it and then that was and then the select board uh voted to um to remove it from the war okay thank you um just one other comment sort of similar um um the in the agenda where we mentioned the the other zoning that the other the the other thing that was removed from the select board I guess I misspoke earlier was um we were going to we were proposing to move some of in Civic space there are three sub zoning districts within Civic space and we were proposing to move a couple of them from institutional to open to what we're call an open space because they weren't developed they were General Parks or play grounds or forest and I believe Brian just indicated to me um that was also the selectboard also I think took that also off the Warren so that was so it was Article 6 which is the Pine Street and then the Civic space stuff was also removed so those two things from the original uh agenda you know the original legal ad those were the two things that were removed and that is also not in the warrant that I'm holding my hand so okay okay and I think that there was a there was a point in terms of even in terms of staff I think that it would anticipate that Josh I think that it oh sorry sorry I'm get just so many people involved it was not from the select board but it was just it was an internal staff decision that it just didn't even get to that point sorry sorry I misspoke I'm sorry for the for the citizen base for the Civic space one the select board did remove the Pine Street Town staff removed the Civic space what point did Town staff remove the Civic space part because we if I recall we the the planning we did vote for it to move on I don't think though at that slbo meeting that was it was it even discussed that night I can't recall so I think that's why because it there must have been some reason internally why we it wasn't ready or there's something about it that wasn't ready for to move forward but we voted not that um it's not in the warrant so okay sort of so Civic space is still there but just it was certain it was certain it's not in here now okay so got it okay so in terms of I think with respect to article six the the old article 6 dealing with the with the Pine Street and tapleyville overlay I think it was anticipated that that would come back at some um you know at some point a land use Summit or something like that to have further discussions about that right M that would be the appropriate kind of of okay time time to have that conversation right any other questions before we go on to the next um next article okay um M Ruchi I know you had a did you have anything you wanted to to add if you want us to go to the podium and just yeah I mean we aren't planning on discussing it further because it's because we moved um sure Mr Mr chair I know you were at the meeting too so uman vuchi town meeting member Precinct too um so what um I proposed last week at the select board meeting was to remove article 6 the inclusion of 141 and 146 Pine into the tapleyville overlay um there were a lot of concerns from um The Neighbors in Precinct too on the overlay encroaching more more onto the neighborhood um like you mentioned traffic um the density the already density of the neighborhood it's it's quite a dense uh area of town um we have the ballpark right across the street in that area so there's a lot of pedestrian traffic as well um the other concern is um I have been in touch with uh the folks over Rebecca nurse the Danver alarm list company um they they have concerns about it and I know I believe I will not speak out of turn for one of the members but um I know they're looking at increasing the setbacks for um in the taply bille overlay uh in regards to uh historic property so that's another big issue so there's just some things that we think need to be looked at improved upon um before this is proposed again and that's why we are glad the select board took it off at this time and to give everybody some time to get together and to work together to make it more comfortable for the neighborhood if in fact you know it does come up again so just wanted to include those comments thank you thank you appreciate it thank you okay uh any further um okay um okay so anything further on Article Five which was the kennel so let's Josh why don't you briefly cover the next uh next item yep so the next one is uh article 7 it's garages um it's fairly simple in that uh we were just the new warrant it's actually article six now right yeah um we're just removing in the definition of garage currently um said located on residential property we you know we were like well obviously commercial can have garages also so we struck the language for that just said that basically the garages could only be on residential property and then we were just amended the use table so that um just in commercial districts when you're doing if you're potentially doing proposing to do more than three more than a three vehicle car garage that it would be a special permit with the planning board okay um so that was okay that was pretty much it thanks Josh any um any further questions on garages from members of the board any questions from members of the public with respect to this article okay let's move on to the next one Josh um the next one is related to the flood plant and it is now article 7 it was previously article 8 um and this is just um a complete rewrite of this section and this has to do with um flood insurance and properties that are located in um the plane um by the federal government um so we um this whole section was um completely Rewritten um it was reviewed and sat satisfactory to a FEMA official that we've been working with and um now there was a date in here that we needed related to some maps that are coming out new maps and the date we just found out yesterday July 8th 2025 okay so um this is just a complete rewrite of this section in the bylaw so does that date need to be inserted into yep it will we we put it in as date to be determined mid January so that date will be included now okay so will that be incl is that going to be something that that um Brian in his presentation to finance committee will recommend that it be you know amended with that date that's right okay any questions from members of the board on uh on flood plane bylaw for members of the public okay hearing none let's move on to the next item um so this is uh it was previously article nine now article 8 this is a groundw protection overlay district and we're simply changing the date of the map of this new map to now be October 3rd 2024 MH and this is because a new map is being referenced because there was a a well that was taken off line in the town of Wenham so in the corner of town there used to be a corner that was in this groundwater protection overlay District that no longer um this over that portion of the map is no longer applicable so we're just we updated the map to take it out and it looked like it's replacing a map that was dated from 2004 so so this is not the type of thing where it changes very that frequently yes okay any um questions for members of the board that item anything from members of the public yes go ahead and you can identify yourself and John Bard from uh Crest Line Circle in Damas I I brought this up at the select board meeting that area up at the top where the uh the well is no longer used uh if you take if you take this out of the groundwater Protection District that becomes Prime territory for someone to develop the other question I had is if there is a a well there that could be used in the future uh where danvas does have a water problem it would be nice to maintain that if we take this protection off really that can be they can build right over the top of the well if they want to there is no protection anymore in that whole gigantic area and that's a concern right now no it it's just maintains this open space and I'd like to see it stay that way uh and I guess the question is do we have to conform I know this is reflecting the new maps issued by this by the state but do we have to go along with the state or could we leave that section up up at the very top alone and maintain it okay Josh what do you I mean [Music] I I mean it's my understanding that right sort of an authority that's above us in that right we are referencing it's like a kind of like a state jurisdictional item in that you know that if the state you know is telling us that this is what should happen or this is like the map you know this is what we're required to reference the most recent that's my understanding you know most recent map yeah I think what Mr Bard is pointing out is that the the fact that the that because the change reflects yeah so this is just an overlay this is just an overlay so there is underlying zoning so it's not like whatever I it's probably I don't have top of my head but um in terms of development it's not necessar it's not necess if the concern is you know over you know significant development in that area the underlying zoning is still what it's probably R1 or R2 it's not we're not changing the underlying zoning in any manner like you know you know like attracting attracting development in that area we're not changing the underline to attract development in that area we're just remove we're just taking away this the ground water protection overly right but if a well so I guess I guess saying so if there's a well that ex is currently existing on a 2004 map that's no longer that's now that's no longer reflected then you would that just by by operation of the well not being shown on the map that protection doesn't extend anymore that's my understanding yes okay okay does that protection moove development though Josh like what what does the protection actually mean like what it yeah I mean there's definitely uses that there's definitely I mean it doesn't stop development but if you read the section it definitely limits some types of use it definitely there you know because it's protecting groundwater and drinking water there are a number of uses in that section that it makes it much more difficult to develop yeah the way it is right now sure if you remove that it makes it much easier to develop because you you you don't have that same protection anymore that's correct and that's my concern do we really need to conform with the state map I can't why can't we just leave it like it is there is a a a usable well there who knows if we may we may need it at some point in the future but if you take this off off that all goes away mhm but if you added if we decided to add a well there or a surrounding Community then it would be added back to the map and then it would come back you know what I mean or does the new I mean does the new map incorporate um does does the new map incorporate additional protections which may not have been on the previous map just one moment I guess what's the harm with leaving it like it is figure out I guess on the other side like what's the harm of changing and I'm not saying I agree with it I'm just trying to understand saying you remove if you tried to do any development in that area now it's virtually impossible so it's because you're anti- development is that a correct statement I'm just trying to understand I'm just trying to limit the amount of development that's that's territory that would be developed um and it would be much more difficult the way it is right now I'm not saying they can't develop it but it be more difficult if you take this off it becomes much simpler it's just a nice looking open piece of land so I wouldn't say that it necessarily it's the swamp off storm so this is so it wouldn't necessarily stop or thwart development if that's a concern but things that I think that most of us would agree probably don't want to be near drinking water so the following structures and uses are prohibited in the groundwater Protection District landfills and open dumps automobile gr graveyards and junkyards facilities that generate treat store and dispose of hazardous waste that are subject to you know household hazardous household hazardous waste centers so I don't know if it necessarily stops de by removing this or keeping it on it doesn't necessarily stop development or make or make it less attractive there just are a number of things that it definitely doesn't allow so so you can still build a house in there whether it's protected or not protected is what you're saying it appears that way and then just to confirm this area is basically Connor's farm and swamp land is that a pretty accurate statement from the map that I'm looking at that's sort of my understanding yeah in this conversation okay and Conor's Farm received yeah tax agrarian agricultural restriction they received well over a million dollars to keep at a farm right years ago so that that's not going to be developed that site will not be developed I I think if the motivation by Town staff is to um you know have current um mapping whether it's FEMA Maps or groundwater Maps you know we have to uh we're subject to the state uh State preempts what we could try to do you know the state laws would would preempt the local law in this case so I'm not sure this is an area that would be developed in large part because a lot of it is either agricultural use restricted covenanted Town paid this property owner to keep it an agricultural use and the rest of it is swamp land I don't think it's all car F okay but but even if it wasn't all car farm so I'm saying it's it's it's somebody's else's property okay but Josh you just confirmed they can develop it either way they have it says any structure or use permitted in the underlying zoning except for those structures or uses specific specifically prohibited in section 274 which is what those kind of right nuisance or things that we probably wouldn't could you restate those again please landfills and open dumps automobile graveyards and junkyards landfills receiving only Wastewater Andor septic res residuals including by D facilities that generate treats store or dispose of hazardous waste that are subject to and it's like Haz hazardous waste so without me you know diving into it I'm doubt very much that any of those things would even be even you took away that this being in the groundwater protection none of those things would be allowed from a zoning perspective anyway you know it's I was while we're talking I was just trying to look at I'd be a littleit myself I'd be a little you concerned as well in terms of I mean understand I I def I understand the point I understand the concern but I I'm I'm also at the same time you know to I you know if if there's a revised you know if there's Al if there's also a revised map I think there you know it would seem to be incumbent upon us to to actually to to to follow that map and if we um and I think as as Jim pointed out I think it could be we could find ourselves being in a in a you know preempted by state law if we don't adopt the most recent map I understand your your I understand the concern but so anything further um Josh anything further on that at all I um yeah I was just for for my so I was just trying to look what the zoning is just in that corner of it I mean Brian should be prepared you know it should it's mostly R3 there's some Civic yeah okay so it's the majority of that kind of triangle that would be removed as was that Tim is that although yeah it looks it's the majority of that triangle that would be removed is zoned currently as Civic Civic space so it's either it's not too much development is going to be allowed there's not many it's very that's a limited very limited and then R3 which is you need you could do a single family house but you need 30,000 sare ft and that was and what was mentioned by I think it was Mike um there is a significant amount of wetlands in that area of town so even if someone was to build a house or several houses um they would need to go to Conservation Commission I'm sure the whole the majority of their lot or their yard would be jurisdictional so I guess if the concern is that we take away this overlay district and you know revise and update this map that this section of town is going to receive a significant amount of development is probably not going to is very likely not going to happen by virtue of the removal of right by virtue of removing this yeah okay okay right any further questions or comments with respect to groundwater okay Josh why we move on to the next um next one I believe this is the sign bylaw so this um this section is a kind of combination section one second I'm just try to pull it up um where were we any amendments let me just uh oh share so signage uh so this exercise for us as staff was we were this is a combination of bringing the down so the downtown all the downtown zoning and signage or the signage for downtown was in the planning board zoning regulations and what we were doing was we really liked the how it was set up and the different sign um the different signs that were available and just the language of that so basically we WR wrote the whole section just incorporating and bringing the downtown signs to just be applicable to the entire to the entire downtown instead of just being applicable just to downtown so the whole section is Rewritten but it's just a marriage between the current language of section 37 signage and the downtown language right so it covers everything for the entire for the entire town instead of just so if someone was looking for signage for just downtown they'd be like where is it we can't find it and we were just trying to put all the signage in one place there was very minor or sort of insignificant like policy-ish changes um but basically just kind of putting it all together and having a section for signage that was um comprehensive for all the zonings is you know every everywhere in town okay so thanks Josh any questions for members of the board with respect to the sign bylaw okay any uh questions for members of the public okay Josh why don't we move on to the uh to the next I believe the final one y so this is a brand new section in the bylaw we currently did not have a lighting section as we speak um we put together this new section um the impetus for this was really came out of a lot you know just several kind of complaints or just kind of concerns from generally from residential when uh when Commercial Lighting was kind of um light pollution and just going into people's houses and so we thought that um since we're getting you know a fairly decent amount of calls on this that it's something that we should probably uh Implement so this is a brand new section of the bylaw um there's a section regarding residential and there's a section regarding commercial okay um luckily you know it's nice as we do have um you know a light or we have our own Electric Division so we reached out to them to review it for us do you know we're not all experts on lumens and all the uh wattage and all the all the fun lighting lingo so uh they did review it they if they had if they had any comments or concerns they were Incorporated but they thought this was satisfactory um so um we think this is a something positive and something that you know uh you know we we should be you know we're promoting the you know dark light sky dark sky you know type of you know as lighting kind of keeps moving towards LED and higher technology and we want lights you know shine down we don't want lights shining on you're buing um neighbors so that's what we hope that um this is doing so okay uh any questions from members of the board no no only question I have Josh just in terms of um most of the comp two questions most of the complaints has it been downtown area no I wouldn't say not any not any geographic area but just um I would say mostly commercial shining into residential units Andor Residential Properties okay but and who would be who would be the enforcing it would be it would be the planning office or BR Brian as the zoning enforcement officer okay Brian Kelly the plan people have lighting complaints and such they can reach out to the planning office yeah don't tell everyone but yes okay very good all right no no questions from U from the board any questions for members of the public with respect to this this item okay is that I think that um does anyone um anyone else on the board have any questions about these these articles we do have just in terms of the schedule this does I'm looking here at the warrant so the finance committee will review the warrant at 700 p.m. th in the Tumi hearing room on Thursday yep on Thursday coming Thursday January 16th MH okay and so then it will so um so upon the finance committee then it will go uh review of these these matters the whole warrant then it will be going to the upcoming special town meeting on February 3rd at um at the high school yep um I would um just in case there are any changes or modifications at fincom um our staff recommendation is is to continue this item to our next meeting just in case there were any changes or modifications so we would have the opportunity to weigh in or comment or but so so we'll continue the so we'll continue the public uh just before I I we went through each individual one but I asked about generally about the board if they had any further questions about it do we want to uh move with to a positive recommendation to forward to the fincom I think that they I don't know if we have to do that technically because reflecting what was just changed oh what was changed from the last time we met we nothing was changed well two things were changed well so I I I would make the motion that we move with a postive recommendation to forward the present amended version to the finance committee at their next meeting okay motion is a first is there a second second thank okay very good um all in favor as to Jim's motion I I I you opposed none so it's forwarded with our uh positive recommendation um so I would enter a motion to continue the public hearing make a motion to continue the public hearing to our next meeting January 28th 2025 okay second motion by Jean second by Mike okay all in favor please say I I I any opposed none okay very good so let's move on to I think our just our next agenda item we have a couple of sets of minutes Josh I think we have one from November the 12th MH and then from November the 26th um I did make a note just looking first of all at the first uh meeting minutes very minor knit um on page seven I think there was a reference to a vote by um uh a motion by uh Mike spittle yep I can make that change so this was on the November 7th you said November right that that involved it was a motion to forward this with the traffic report um Howard Stein Hudson for TR Lane it was a motion by Jean and second by Mike's bid so I'm not yep so I could look out of that friend's calling M right just yeah I will Rectify that that sounds that sounds fine okay um aside from that I didn't uh I entertain a motion to accept move to accept the meeting minutes from November 12th okay motion by Mike is there a second second second by Jean all in favor I I oppos None okay uh November 26 meeting minutes didn't see any I didn't see anything but move to accept the meeting minutes from November 26 is that what we said yep 26 second okay first by Mike's second by Jean all in favor say I I oppos None okay I think that's it for our agenda what is our um um Josh we have our next yep so our next scheduled meeting um looks sort of similar to tonight and that it's the two items that were continued there is the trash Clan item that was discussed earlier and the public hearing for the zoning amendments so very good anything further by any members of the board move to dissolve ajour is a motion to adjourn by Jim second second second by Mike all in favor I I I any posos none right have a good night everybody