Chain Bridge

Chain Bridge

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Excerpts of 12/20/17 Planning Board Meeting Minutes- Evergreen

3. Public Hearings

a) Evergreen Commons LLC
18 Boyd Drive and 5 Brown Avenue
Definitive Subdivision (2017-DEF-01)
WRPD Special Permit (2017-SP-05)
Continued from 11/15/17

Chair Sontag said the working session would examine the Horsley Witten (HW) review results
and recommended conditions. Outstanding issues remained for other boards and commissions.
Director Port distributed a working draft of findings and conditions with the original special
permit attached. The Water & Sewer Commission previously would not comment until a final
plan was available and should be given another opportunity for feedback. CSI’s letter late today
said plans complied with the original OSRD and made additional minor comments. Tonight’s
focus should be on the WRPD SP and incorporating additional conditions to protect the public
water supply. Draft findings and conditions incorporated both the Definitive Subdivision and
WRPD SP decisions. Chair Sontag said the Water & Sewer Commission, per Chair John
Tomasz, agreed that any approval should include items noted in Section B of the December 11,
2017 HW report and all special conditions from the board’s March 1, 2017 SP findings and
conditions for the OSRD.
Attorney Lisa Mead, Mead, Talerman, and Costa, LLC, 30 Green Street, said three issues from
last night’s Conservation Commission meeting required board input: 1) demarcation between
lots and open space; 2) type of monumentation; and 3) signage, both educational and for open
space. She would propose a signage plan for the board’s approval to avoid littering the area with
signs. The quality of the Conservation Restriction (CR) was discussed also. The CR did not
require an Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) approval but could not be in perpetuity as
requested by the Conservation Commission, without an EEA sign off. Best efforts would be
made, otherwise, the local Conservation Commission would sign off. Timing for certain things in
the draft decision was important overall. The CR had to be filed before the first building permit
was issued. There was a lot to be done. Open space should not be deeded to the HOA until all
work was done, or before the first building permit was issued. But work needed to continue after
the CR was issued. The Conservation Commission tightened up HOA documents last night. A
plaque in the garage by the door to the house would that the property owner is subject to an
HOA, that there is one landscape contractor, and that there are certain lawn products that are not
permitted for use in the subdivision. Chair Sontag said the board would use the draft documents
as a checklist for issues covered in last night’s Conservation Commission meeting.
Engineer Steve Sawyer, DCI, 68 Pleasant Street, reviewed minor changes on the CR use plan.
The wooded area was not to be disturbed, the ILSF area was added to the open space plan, some
foundations changed, drywells were updated, and typos corrected. Plans had not changed much
since May. He would wait for CSI comments before issuing final Mylars. ‘No Parking’ signs
would be installed, as well as demarcations in the back of lots. Chair Sontag verified with Mr.
Sawyer that three foundations HW identified had been corrected.
Neal Price, senior hydrogeologist, HW, 30 Green Street, concurred with Mr. Sawyer. The ILSF,
SHGW, and pollutant loading potential were all acceptable. He added approval conditions, also
added to HOA documents, regarding mosquitos, pesticides use, and pool water, which could not
be drained into the ground when performing maintenance. The Conservation Commission had
decided against a pool water condition. Jay Billings, Northeast Geoscience (NGI), 97 Walnut
Street, Clinton, explained that backwashing pool filters discharged pool water with chemicals
designed for ingestion and were not too toxic. There were no related WRPD restrictions. Mr.
Price said chlorine reacts with the organic matter in soil to produce restricted compounds that
could get into drinking water. His WPRD condition tried to minimize that effect, but it was a
minor concern relative to the chlorinating process. Members were uncomfortable with the pool
water risk because water entered the system untreated. Julia Godtfredsen, Newburyport
Conservation Administrator, said the commission did not have the benefit of Mr. Price’s
knowledge at their meeting. When it was initially thought pools should not be allowed, Mr.
Billings explained that pool chemicals were benign. The risk of a chemical interaction with the
organic matter in soil was not part of the commission’s review.
Chair Sontag asked if all pool water had to be hauled offsite if the condition was included?
Director Port said yes, pool water was not permitted in the sewer system. Ms. Godtfredsen said
pool draining occurred when backwashing filters or lowering levels at the end of the season.
Both processes released chemicals into the ground. Attorney Mead said a condition, such as
requiring non-chlorine pools, could be added. Ms. Godtfredsen said some filters did not require
backwashing. She would find best practices. Members said blow up pools that came as a kit with
filters and chemicals included were breakable. Attorney Mead said homeowner’s ability to build
in ground pools was hampered by the low percentage of impervious surface that could be added.
Members said that would encourage the use of blow up pools. Director Port said chemicals in
use could change over time. He would not rely on full compliance with a condition that required
homeowner’s to haul substances off site. Attorney Mead said homeowners could not do
numerous things already. Mr. Billings asked Mr. Price if he knew of other towns with similar
pool water and chemical restrictions? A bigger issue was the Water Department’s chlorination. It
seemed unlikely that a pool located 1,000 feet from the well could affect the drinking water. The
condition was overly conservative. Chair Sontag said Mr. Billings was not considering all the
other factors that made the site unique, other than untreated water going into the system. Mr.
Billings said everyone in Zone II should be held to the same standard, including pools on Boyd
Drive and Brown Avenue. The City would be testing for trihalomethanes. Chair Sontag
reiterated the expert opinions that the issue was minor and could be controlled through testing.
Members said if testing found trihalomethanes, it was too late. Attorney Mead showed a satellite
image of several pools on Boyd Drive and two on Brown Avenue, identified the stormwater pipe
that drained untreated into Zone I. She said there was no evidence that restrictions were needed.
Members said the existence of neighboring pools did not mean the same privilege had to be
extended to Evergreen homes. Justifications would not be based on neighboring pools. Many of
the 38 homes could add pools over time. Would that increase the odds for having a problem?
Mustard and black algae in pools were chemically treated. The board could avoid perpetuating
the risk. Each lot’s distance from the well should be evaluated as to risk. Attorney Mead would
work with Mr. Price to develop parameters for revising the pool condition. Mr. Price said
language for two conditions added to the HOA documents implied they were prohibitions for
everyone in a WRPD, rather than conditions for this development only. Attorney Mead would
correct that and said the applicant’s response to the HW report had resolved everything.
Conditions were added for monitoring wetlands and for wetlands to be built and planted in a
manner that ensured plant survival, per the Conservation Commission.
Tom Hughes, Hughes Environmental Consulting, 44 Merrimac Street, responded to conditions in
Section B where conditions scattered throughout the report had all been put into one section.
Well monitoring would be monthly, or more frequently, with or without the condition. He agreed
to over site by a wetland scientist and to replacing dead or dying containerized plants for two
years. The 300 tubelings that provided after-growth for fuller coverage were, like seed, not all
expected to survive and would not be replaced. A requirement that work within the wetland
occur during the winter impeded getting ILSF work done right away. He had only seen gophers
that were hunted by hawks and recommended phasing the disturbance to allow animals a chance
to relocate. He had suggested an alternative to the conditions for working within the resource
areas that were agreed to by HW and the Conservation Commission. The alternative gave him
flexibility and created a stable site. He would not put anything on the slopes that could wash into
the wetlands. The commission wanted signs big enough for homeowners to see. That would
result in fairly large signs. Attorney Mead would accept a condition to submit a signage plan for
approval that addressed language, location, size, and incorporated educational signs. There
would be funding for an annual report by a qualified person on the conservation areas to manage
encroachment issues. Mr. Hughes agreed to the remaining conditions.
Attorney Mead addressed issues on the draft of the Definitive Subdivision and WRPD SP
decision. Sections had broad titles such as ‘Occupancy Permits.’ Some items listed were not
appropriate at the beginning. The applicant was willing to have the City hold a CR to be recorded
when the conservation area was completed or, alternatively, to not record the CR until issuance
of the last occupancy permit. The open space should not be deeded until work on the
conservation area was complete. Chair Sontag asked if the timing issue was only on the CR?
Attorney Mead said no. Timing related to the SP and Definitive Subdivision also. Ms.
Godtfredsen said homes built one-by-one, by a new builder as each home sold, would affect
when the commission needed the ‘as built’ plan. Chip Hall, a development principal, said interim
‘as built’ plans would be used to release the bonding. A certain number of homes would be built
on spec. When sales provided sufficient funding, additional homes would be built. Final ‘as
built’ plans would be held until everything was completed and released for recording.
Members did not want the subdivision division conditions looked at in isolation from the WRPD
conditions. Everything that protected the City’s water supply should be completed before any
home was built, including grading and other similar processes, because of the WRPD. Attorney
Mead agreed and would address that in a sequencing plan. Mr. Hughes said permits needed to be
included in the final pollution prevention plan. Members said the first occupancy permits would
be released when the City was sure the water supply was protected. Attorney Mead said
refinements in the working draft would address that. Easements and deeds in the conditions
under ‘Prior to Release of Lots’ would not get transferred until the very end to avoid insurance
and indemnification issues. Director Port would follow up with the applicant offline to develop a
timeline and return to the board with a marked up version that protected the City.
Attorney Mead said outstanding commission items had all been addressed except the
demarcation on lot’s back corners. Director Port said a physical marker was important for
determining the public right of way, private property, and open space areas. Ms. Godtfredsen
said the commission recommended split rail fences to prevent mowing into the conservation
area. Attorney Mead said residents would not mow their own lawns. One maintenance person
would do everything, including winterizing driveways. Ms. Godtfredsen said no language
expressly prohibited homeowners from performing maintenance. Director Port said the provision
for a single, licensed lawn care professional to establish a unified program for lot maintenance
was on page 12 in the original OSRD SP. Attorney Mead said HW added the provision to the
HOA documents. Director Port said draft conditions concerning the HOA documents addressed
the provision as well. Attorney Mead would add a provision that homeowners could not perform
specific maintenance on their property. Members said the OSRD disallowed privacy fencing
between the front of the house and the street. Attorney Mead said granite bounds were fairly
permanent. A split rail fence was easy to move around. Chair Sontag said yearly monitoring
would catch whether a fence had moved. Members preferred granite bounds. The construction
monitor would catch erroneous mowing. Director Port said CSI would visit the site as needed.
Members asked if there would be weekly reports? Director Port said monitoring was ‘as needed.’
Weekly could be specified. Attorney Mead said all major milestones would be reviewed.
Members noted that Mr. Christiansen’s letter was not typical. A portion of the letter regarding
daily inspections to protect the City’s water supply was read aloud. Should a condition be added
for a representative to be on site full time during infrastructure construction? Mr. Sawyer said it
was unusual for Mr. Christiansen to comment on daily inspections, which was overkill. Chair
Sontag said the letter’s subsequent paragraph explained that Mr. Christiansen was guarding
against past errors of inappropriate fill or something similar, from occurring in the future.
Members accepted weekly monitoring due to the expense of a daily report. Did the commission
require weekly wetlands monitoring? Ms. Godtfredsen said monitoring would be for two years,
but not weekly during construction. A wetlands scientist would oversee construction.

Public comment open.

Peter Hatcher 15 Boyd Drive, asked who maintained the open space if it was deeded to the City?
Attorney Mead said it was not deeded to the City, but was public land. Maintenance was paid for
and performed by the HOA. Mr. Hatcher asked how homes with so many restrictions were
marketable? Director Port said the restrictions necessarily protected the water supply from salts,
chemicals, and landscaping pesticides.

Ann Marie Vega, 21 Boyd Drive, said Cherry Hill’s pool restrictions, that were under fire, were
an example of pool restrictions that could be examined for that was workable or not.

Rick Vega, 21 Boyd Drive, said a pool had to have a fence. Chair Sontag said that was a
different type of fencing than one that delineated the yard from the conservation area.

Public comment closed.
Chair Sontag said there was only part of January to get issues clarified. Members asked if any
experts would be involved in the review? Director Port said yes, by legal counsel as well as the
Public Services Water and Sewer Divisions’ feedback. The Planning Office would finalize
conditions without the Water and Sewer Commission’s feedback, if necessary. Chair Sontag said
the final rough draft should be the only document reviewed by Water and Sewer Commission.
The review would have to wait for their next meeting. Members asked if HW and CSI would
participate in the review? Chair Sontag said HW would participate. Director Port said there was
no need for CSI feedback. He could send CSI the final version. Chair Sontag agreed that CSI
was concerned with stormwater and engineering, whereas the issues under review concerned the
WRPD. Waivers would have to be reviewed as well.

Mary Jo Verde made a motion to continue the Definitive Subdivision and the WRPD Special
Permit public hearing to January 17, 2018. Leah McGavern seconded the motion and all
members voted in favor.
Motion Approved.

Excerpts of 11/1/17 Planning Board Meeting Minutes- Evergreen, 1690 House, West Row Cafe , Minco Waterfront Condos

b) Evergreen Commons, LLC
18 Boyd Drive and 5 Brown Avenue
Definitive Subdivision (2017-DEF-01)
WRPD Special Permit (2017-SP-05)
Continued from 10/4/17

Attorney Lisa Mead, Mead, Talerman, & Costa LLC, 30 Green Street, was waiting for
completion of peer reviews. Engineer Steve Sawyer, DCI, 68 Pleasant Street, had worked
extensively with reviewers. Comments were received from the City solicitor on the conservation
restriction. She distributed a color-coded plan delineating open space by conservation and
passive or active recreation that was submitted. Members asked about the water feature? Mr.
Sawyer said a small pond, pleasing to look at with surrounding vegetation, would be dug. It
might dry out in the summer. Bridges crossed a newly functioning wetland currently not
functional. It was not a pond. A center channel would hold water at least half the year, especially
during a large storm event. Chair Sontag said there were questions on a draft conservation
restriction whose language was reviewed by the City solicitor. Attorney Mead sent comments to
the solicitor Saturday. He was also waiting for a baseline documentation report that would be
created after the open space work was completed because no baseline existed now. Director Port
said the solicitor wanted to be clear about the intent of the open space. Attorney Mead said a list
of activities prohibited in the conservation area was provided. Chair Sontag said the question
about the central gathering place concerned its maintenance for health and safety issues.
Attorney Mead said the solicitor had not had a copy of the plan and could not determine what the
central gathering place was. The open space plan was in review by Horsley Whitten (HW) and
the Conservation Commission (CC). Members asked if any perimeter woods or vegetation would
remain? Attorney Mead said numerous plantings were part of the conservation plan. Mr. Sawyer
said the existing tree line at the perimeter would not change. The perimeter along Interstate 95
should be named a conservation area. Members requested a designation on the plan.
Public comment open.

Jane Snow, 9 Coffin Street, asked for August meeting minutes and CSI’s report to be posted.
Director Port said Mr. Christiansen had been making revisions. Attorney Mead said Ms. Snow
was referring to the answers to former Chairman McCarthy’s questions.

Peter Hatcher, 15 Boyd Drive, asked if there was a second HW report? Director Port said yes.
The second report would be posted when HW completed their review.

Public comment closed.
Attorney Mead said two different HW reports were due next week - one for the board and one
for the CC. She requested a continuance to November 15.
Director Port said the second HW report would be a set of conditions appropriate to the project.
Resolution to those conditions would be a revised set of plans requested by City engineers and
HW for water supply protection. Members asked for a draft decision a week before the next
meeting. Director Port said seasonal high groundwater was still undetermined. A draft decision
by November 15 was unlikely until consultant feedback was in hand. Members said voting the
same evening as the discussion would be difficult. Attorney Mead said peer review engineers
could present the important conditions on November 15. Director Port would send a draft
decision to the board within 24 hours of getting the second HW report.
Anne Gardner made a motion to continue the Definitive Subdivision and the WRPD Special
Permit to November 15. Andrew Shapiro seconded the motion and eight members voted in favor.
Tania Hartford abstained.
Motion Approved.
During the course of discussion

c) Berkeley Investments c/o Lisa Mead, Esq.
260, 268-270, 275-276 Merrimac Street
Special Permit Amendment (2007-SP-03d2)
Continued from 10/4/17

Attorney Lisa Mead said the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) approved the
preservation restriction (PR) and restoration plan for the Samuel Morse House. Documents
signed by the property owner would be submitted next week. Interpretive signage and placement
submitted to the NHC was undergoing changes with the help of the Newburyport Preservation
Trust (NPT). The NHC also requested interpretive signs for the Towle building describing the
two structures’ relationship. The plan showed a small, bricked sidewalk extension where people
could step off and face each building. The Towle Building, owned by a different entity, was
removed from the development in 2009 and was not part of the special permit. It had separate
financing that would be affected by the PR now and in the future, with potential resale issues.
The owner agreed to a PR on the Merrimac Street façade and window openings, but such a
limited PR was not well received at a meeting between Erik Ekman, Berkeley Investments, 280
Congress Street, Boston, Director Port, and NPT members. Owners agreed to a PR on the whole
building with conditions: a) The 9/27/17 Berkeley Investments letter listing items removed and
accompanying photos shall serve as the inventory of items removed prior to construction, b)
Install two interpretive signs on the property (details described), c) An NHC PR on the Towle
Building, d) Upon approval of the decision, five occupancy permits may be issued, e) Upon
recording the Samuel Morse House PR, the remaining four occupancy permits may be issued,
and f) Upon completion of the Samuel Morse House restoration, installation of two interpretive
signs, and recording of the Towle Building PR, the occupancy permit for the Samuel Morse
House may be issued. She presented a list of key architectural features on the Towle Building.
Members asked if the signs were on land relating to the SP and owned by Berkeley Investments?
Attorney Mead said yes. Was there a date certain to include on the restoration plan? Mr. Ekman
did not have a firm date and expected restoration to take about five months. Attorney Mead said
the Morse House buyers were waiting. Members asked about an interpretive sign along the
water? Attorney Mead said interpretive signage along the water, required by Chapter 91, could
be impacted by CC permissions. Members and Director Port suggested language changes for
condition (c), from ‘including’ to ‘which are’ and from ‘is’ to ‘are.’ Director Port was reasonably
confident there would be a permanent PR for the 1690 House. Members asked if the Towle
Building NHC PR had a springing renewal? Could there be a renewal in perpetuity? Director
Port said counsel believed there was enough case law to support that with the document’s
language. Members wanted to see more evidence. Attorney Mead said the grantee gave
permission to the grantor to sign the document for renewal. Director Port said both parties agreed
to the language. The springing restriction should cover any event.
Chair Sontag said all language could be replaced by specifying a perpetual PR. The applicant
would come back before the board if necessary. Attorney Mead asked for a vote tonight that
signed off on the series of occupancy permits. Members requested a completion date for the
signs and asked for correspondence from NHC. Chair Sontag, who asked the NHC to add the
Towle Building PR to their agenda, said they chose not to discuss it. The board agreed at the last
meeting to make the decision if no word came from the NHC. She was uncomfortable releasing
occupancy permits before any documents were recorded. Five occupancy permits had already
been approved with the understanding that the board would not release any more until condition
#11 was met or rectified. Attorney Mead said circumstances had changed significantly. The
Towle Building was not a part of that conversation. Chair Sontag said the Towle PR was a result
of non-compliance with Condition #11. Members asked if there had been restitution and if
loopholes had been closed that would let the PR expire? The board wanted an absolute guarantee
the PR was in perpetuity. A member was in favor of approving the decision as written.

Public comment open.
Tom Kolterjahn, 64 Federal Street, co-president, NPT, said the Trust made a number of accepted
changes on the 1690 House exterior restoration plans. He worried about execution, specifically
contractors chosen and quality of work. They should not get credit for meeting Condition #11.
He would delete Condition a). The signs were good. The problem with Condition c) was that a
permanent PR should go through the MHC, who had expressed their interest. The escape clause
should be deleted. It was reasonable to release five occupancy permits, but no more.

Stephanie Niketic, 93 High Street, supported releasing five occupancy permits only and no more.

Rick Taintor, 10 Dexter Street, asked if the document envisioned whether future owners could
upgrade or was that prohibited?

Jeanette Isabella, 1 Lime Street, supported withholding occupancy permits to maintain leverage.

Public comment closed.
Members discussed removing the escape clause. Attorney Mead said it was illegal to rely on the
actions of a third party or be subjected to someone else’s discretionary actions. Director Port said
the ‘or’ in the escape clause sentence should be changed to ‘and.’ Attorney Mead agreed and
would add language about a non-profit third party holding the PR. Enforcement was built in by
the need to finish the Samuel Morse House because it was under contract. Mr. Ekman said the
occupancy permits would recoup funds used to make reparations on the 1690 House. $1 million,
or 10% of total construction costs, had been retained. Construction loans had to be paid down.
There was every incentive and intention to work with the City and the NPT to finish the work
properly. Three members suggested holding back two of the four occupancy permits with the
1690 House. Chair Sontag said the PR must be recorded to begin restoration. Director Port said
removing Condition a) would address the integrity issue.
Leah McGavern made a motion to approve Condition #11 as revised: remove a), wording of c) in
escape clause change “or” to “and” plus add language about seeking a non-profit to hold the PR,
e) three occupancy permits, f) occupancy permit for Samuel Morse House and one remaining
unit. Ann Gardner seconded the motion and eight members voted in favor. Tania Hartford

Motion Approved.

f) David Pierre, West Row Café and Bar
35 Market Square
DOD Special Permit (2017-SP-83)
Andrew Shapiro read the notice. David Pierre, owner, said extensive renovations were done
because the rear door to the kitchen was not to code. A fire inspection required removal of the
deteriorated side door. Work proceeded for over four months before regulations came to his
attention. He went before the NHC. The incorrect mortar would be redone. The brick was
supposed to match over time, but was an eyesore today. A professional mason would act as
consultant. The NHC agreed the new door could stay for the service entry. Staff needed to see
through the doors. The NHC recommended covering the side door with black wooden panels.
Member comments: If current staff had been in place would the incident have been prevented?
Director Port said abutter notifications were still relied upon, but the primary trigger would have
been application’s need for approval from another board before proceeding. A zoning denial
form would have been issued. Members said downtown projects required a pre-construction
meeting to understand the DOD. Did the NHC ask for a fake façade over the door? Mr. Pierre
said yes, replicating the existing door in black. Would bricks be taken away? Mr. Pierre said yes.
Members said the door would be in the wrong location if set in from the brick. Cleaning up the
brickwork and filling the space with brick was a better solution. Chair Sontag said the door used
by servers was an all glass, metal-framed industrial door. She suggested something similar to
what other Inn Street restaurants used. Members said seating facing the door would cause it to
read like an entrance. Chair Sontag said the door was similar to backside doors on State Street.
This door would have a front. She proposed replacing the door.

Public comment open.
Tom Kolterjahn, 64 Federal Street, co-chair, NPT, said Katy Ives, who noticed the work,
contacted Jared Eigerman, who filed a complaint. Work done in downtown Newburyport without
Planning Board or NHC approval was a concern. He showed a picture of the doorway filled in
with the wrong kind of brick. The loss of original brick around the repositioned rear doorway
was disturbing. New brick did not match original brick that was sandblasted long ago. He
showed a photo of the brick front, in need of replacing soon. He concurred with the two NHC
recommendations. Inappropriate bricks should be removed and replaced with Federal Period
bricks using lime mortar. Also, sign attachments should go through mortar joints rather than
historic brick, under supervision of a professional mason consultant. Richard Irons, in particular,
had the skill to match the mortar. He agreed with comments about what should have happened.
Mr. Pierre said his intention was to have all new brick repointed.

Jeanette Isabella, 1 Lime Street, could not understand how this happened. Chair Sontag said the
new process starting in January would catch this type of occurrence. Ms. Isabella asked how the
patio area was given to Mr. Pierre? Director Port said the City Council licensed the use of public
space for outdoor seating.

Laura Cortland, owner, 26 and 28 Inn Street, said five years ago she made significant changes to
her building. Mr. Calderwood stopped by daily to check on his numerous requirements. She did
not understand how this happened. Why wasn’t she consulted about the taking of public space?
Director Port said that was not a decision the board controlled.
Jane Snow, 9 Coffin Street, said the entire front of the building was poorly done.

Public comment closed.
Member comments: Should the board accept NHC conditions? Members agreed historic bricks
should be used. The most egregious brickwork was over the back industrial door. Everything
should be re-mortared. Mr. Pierre said removing the brick would shut the restaurant down. The
bricks would not stand out so much if re-mortared. Members wanted the door and the brick on
the back replaced. Some members thought the side door should match the door on the back.
Would the recommended consultant be used for all work? Mr. Pierre said yes. Chair Sontag said
the original contractor would do the work under the consultant’s supervision. Some members did
not like the filled in arch. The majority were okay with leaving it. Another treatment could be
used on the interior so the restaurant would not have to close while that brick was replaced.
Replacement of the back door would be subject to review by the Planning Office.

Leah McGavern made a motion to approve the DOD Special Permit with the revised conditions.
Mary Jo Verde seconded the motion and five members voted in favor.
Motion failed.

Members agreed the archway would be replaced with historic brick instead of a wooden door.

Leah McGavern made a motion to approve the DOD Special Permit with the newly revised
conditions. Mary Jo Verde seconded the motion and seven members voted in favor. James
Bugger and Joe Lamb were opposed.
Motion Approved.

4. Planning Office/Subcommittees/Discussion
a) 92 Merrimac Street (2017-SPR-05)

Chair Sontag said the applicant’s information was not received in time to be reviewed. A process
for continuing should be discussed. Karen Pollastrino, MINCO, 231 Sutton Street, North
Andover, requested an application completeness vote. Director Port said waivers were too
substantial to schedule a hearing last time. This time, there was insufficient time for reviewing
information. The application was still incomplete. Members suggested reworking the process,
wherein the Planning Office reviewed completeness and content reviewed by the board during
the site plan review, forgoing the informal process. Substantive discussions should be made with
public input, but the ZBA wanted the board’s input beforehand. Did the application meet criteria
for the Waterfront West Overlay District? Should the applicant go to the ZBA first? Director
Port said the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) for the district was the board. Members
Planning Board, Planning & Development Committee, and Committee of the Whole
had concerns about any variances ahead of the NED overlay district proposal. The architectural
scale and features had already been determined acceptable. A member opposed a precedent for a
fifth story. Members wanted to know what specifically the applicant could not do under the
Mixed Use zoning that they could do under the Waterfront West zoning?
Joe Lamb made a motion to consider the site plan review and special permit incomplete. Don
Walters seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
James Brugger made a motion to continue the site plan review, the special permit, and the ZBA
recommendation. Tania Hartford seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Motions Approved.

11/15/17 Planning Board Meeting Minutes

The meeting was called to order at 7:03 PM.
1. Roll Call
In attendance for the Planning Board: James Brugger, Anne Gardner, Tania Hartford, Joe Lamb,
Leah McGavern, Andrew Shapiro, Bonnie Sontag, and Mary Jo Verde
Absent: Don Walters
Andrew Port, Director of Planning and Development, was also present

2. General Business
Chair Sontag introduced the Zoning Administrator, Jennifer Blanchette.

a) NED/Waterfront West Update
Director Port said Waterfront West joint public meetings would resume after the holidays.

b) The minutes of 11/1/17 were approved as amended. Andrew Shapiro made a motion to
 approve the minutes. Leah McGavern seconded the motion and all members voted in
Motion Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

a) 223 High Street Lot 1 – Request for lot release
Chair Sontag said the lot release would be continued because documents were not yet recorded at
the registry and there was no confirmation of adequate lot access yet.
Attorney James Kroesser, 254 Bay Road, South Hamilton, requested approval of revised plans.
A bulkhead, initially two feet outside the original footprint, had been moved. The front entry,
initially outside the original footprint, was corrected resulting in the removal of front entry
columns. Composition materials had been submitted and the road was completed.
Leah McGavern made a motion to approve the building plans and elevations for proposed
construction of a single-family home on Lot 1, as submitted. Mary Jo Verde seconded the motion
and all members voted in favor.
Director Port said documents for preservation and conservation restrictions were submitted from
property owner David Sabatini today. Given the history errors with the previous owner, the
documents needed to be checked against the requirements before the lot could be released.
Attorney Kroesser said he would file with the registry once documents were approved. Director
Port said a vote of approval could be subject to prior Planning Office review and approval.
Andrew Shapiro made a motion to accept the covenant, preservation restriction, Homeowner’s
Association documents, and conservation restriction, subject to the review and approval of the
Office of Planning & Development, with the stipulation that matters would return to the board
for further review if necessary. Anne Gardner seconded the motion and all members in favor.
Motions Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

b) Application completeness vote – 255R Low Street (2017-SPR-07)
Director Port said new parking would be built behind the Maritime Medical office building on
the last piece of land from the Tropic Star acquisition. He recommended approval.
James Brugger made a motion to deem the application submitted for site plan approval at 255R
Low Street complete for the purposes of scheduling a public hearing, such hearing to be held on
December 6, 2017. Joe Lamb seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

Motion Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.
c) Request for minor modification – 496 Merrimac Street (2016-SP-07)
Attorney Mark Griffin said the proposed home in the rear was pulled back 10 feet due to its
proximity to wetlands and mature trees. The ZBA and the Conservation Commission approved
the change. There were no dimensional or design changes. Chair Sontag asked if the move
affected the abutting structures or views? Attorney Griffin said there was no impact.
Joe Lamb made a motion to deem the requested change as a minor modification to the originally
approved plans. Tania Hartford seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

Andrew Shapiro made a motion to approve the revised site plan layout and building footprint for
the new rear dwelling to be constructed at 496 Merrimac Street, as submitted. Anne Gardner
seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Motions Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

3. Public Hearings
a) New England Development
83 Merrimac Street and 90 Pleasant Street
Definitive Subdivision (2014-DEF-02)
 Continued from 11/1/17
Chair Sontag said this was the garage plan. Members asked if the release of the statutory date
was covered as well? Director Port said yes.
Leah McGavern made a motion to grant the applicant’s request for a continuance of this public
hearing until continue December 6, 2017. James Brugger seconded the motion and all members
voted in favor.

Motion Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

b) Evergreen Commons LLC
18 Boyd Drive and 5 Brown Avenue
Definitive Subdivision (2017-DEF-01)
WRPD Special Permit (2017-SP-05)
Continued from 11/1/17
Attorney Lisa Mead, Mead, Talerman, and Costa, LLC, 30 Green Street, noted that Don
Walters’s absence would disqualify him from voting. Neil Price, senior hydrogeologist, Horsley
Witten (HW), 30 Green Street, said that after reviewing and commenting on initial plans from
the applicant, he worked with the Conservation Commission on the main tactical issues of
seasonal high groundwater (SHGW) and isolated land subject to flooding (ILSF). The applicant
submitted revised materials addressing those issues. The average high groundwater depth
observed over a long period of time in the spring (SHGW), was not the highest level recorded
and was usually lower than flood levels. One method of determining SHGW was examining test
pits for indications of minerals leeching through the soil. Another method was a comparison to
USGS well readings. He had asked the applicant to do both. The two methods were in general
agreement with each other. He concurred with the findings. The highest determined floodwater,
or ILSF, was ascertained through observation or modeling. The applicant initially used
modeling. HW had recommended the applicant use observational and surveyed data. The
Mother’s Day Flood level at 56.2 feet was less than the high water mark of the 100-year storm.
Site grading was altered. HW ran the model at 8.3 inches and came up with a proposed top
elevation of 55.25 feet. The land use conveyed more water, but it all fit. It was important not to
take credit for the SHGW. The mark between SHGW and the 100-year flood was the space that
would get filled. There was another ILSF closer to the City wells that were impacted heavily by
the pumping levels. No accurate, direct comparison between the City wells and the test pits
existed. The change in land use from golf course to OSRD, with appropriate stormwater and
sewer engineering, was beneficial because here would be less pollution loading.
Members asked if the OSRD was still a better use accounting for potential for pollution in light
of the tight restrictions on the golf course? Mr. Price said there were also restrictions on
homeowners. An OSRD was still a better use, however, it was in the City’s hands to determine
whether the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) restrictions were the best fit for the situation.
Chair Sontag asked if questions of mismatched plans were resolved? Mr. Price said not yet. Mr.
Sawyer said he waited on the groundwater issue before finalizing plans. Everything would be
incorporated, along with Phil Christiansen’s comments. Updated plans would be submitted
tomorrow. Attorney Mead said the Conservation Commission requested incorporating the annual
turf management review into the HOA document, with a limited time for review, before it was
submitted to the City. The applicant agreed.

Public comment open.
Ann Marie Vega, 21 Boyd Drive, asked if the timing of groundwater mounding related to the
flooding of Boyd Drive homes? If development foundations had to be 56.25 feet, how much
higher should foundations be on existing Boyd Drive homes? Attorney Mead said Mr. Sawyer’s
topography and elevation changes showed Boyd Drive elevations compared to the golf course.
Mr. Sawyer showed on the plan a large paved area that was part of the original stormwater
calculations. He raised the elevation by three feet or so because stormwater on the street could
not be increased. He demonstrated on the plan where a collecting and closed drainage system
directed water away from Boyd Drive and ended in a small pond. The discharge pipe was higher.
Water that previously entered the ground would be conveyed to the rear of the property. Boyd
Drive was at an elevation of 61 feet. Today’s elevation was 59-60.
Ms. Vega said her house was lower. She worried, in the event it would not work. Mr. Price said
he would review that issue when he received revised plans. Mr. Sawyer said there had been
multiple peer reviews examining his work on the issue. The mounding was in reference to the
ILSF. Mounding on City property was isolated from the site by the bedrock high. Experts
concluded that water was limited from flowing away by the bedrock high, producing the
mounding. The stormwater systems would not prevent mounding from occurring, but the total
water balance of the site was not changing. The development did not bring in more water.
Ms. Vega said the HOA needed to submit reports to the Water Department, but there was no
penalty for failure to submit. How would the submission be ensured unless the board wrote it
into the decision? Chair Sontag asked Mr. Price to take that into consideration.

Jeanette Isabella, 1 Lime Street, asked if the City hired an expert to verify the findings? Chair
Sontag said Mr. Price was the City’s expert. Ms. Isabella asked if Philips Drive would be
affected by the stormwater design? Chair Sontag said Philips Drive was not part of the project.
Jay Billings, Northeast Geoscience, 97 Walnut Street, Clinton, MA, said roof leaders directed to
infiltration trenches in the form of small rain gardens and some small dry wells would address
water from increased impervious areas. Two peer review engineers had reviewed calculations.

Jane Snow, 9 Coffin Street, said the golf course was no longer active and had not been fertilized
in a long time. Were there records showing how many chemicals were used when the course was
active? Mr. Billings said the golf course was currently active. Records of all chemicals used
since 2014 were compiled and soil testing performed. Mr. Price had a list of products purchased
and used by the course since August 2016.

Peter Hatcher, 15 Boyd Drive, said the new site proposed to dig a ditch to expose groundwater.
Would that make the groundwater more likely to be polluted? Mr. Price said there would be an
expanded buffer to catch pollutants before they reached the water. Mr. Hatcher asked if the new
design was safer? Mr. Price said yes.

Public comments closed.

Member comments: Would a larger pond of standing water attract bugs in the summer and
require more pesticide use? Attorney Mead said because the wetland was active in summer,
organics would be brought in to help plants survive in wetlands. Mr. Price said a properly
functioning wetland needed mosquitos. The new system should be better than that. A condition
should be added that no pesticides could be sprayed. Members asked if Mr. Price would drink
this water? Mr. Price said the proposed was an improvement over current conditions.
Chair Sontag said after additional input from HW and more dialogue with the applicant a
decision would be drafted for a vote. Director Port said when HW’s review and report were
completed those findings would be included in the decision. Members would also review the
HOA documents. He did not receive any feedback after first notifying the Water & Sewer
Commission in the spring. He let them know their comments would be appreciated at their
meeting this evening. The Conservation Commission did the same. Chair Sontag said Director
Port had recommend including formal responses from the Conservation Commission, Water
Department, and Water & Sewer Commission in the board’s decision. Members wanted to
formalize the request for a letter of final review before making a decision. Attorney Mead said
the Board of Health provided formal input in July, approving the subdivision and WRPD special
permit. The Water & Sewer Commission’s next meeting was December 13. The ordinance
required a response within 60 days of the filing, which was in May. Director Port had provided
them with the HW report and said all parties should look at the conditions. Attorney Mead said
the Planning Office and the Conservation Commission had given multiple rounds of feedback on
the HOA documents. She requested a timely draft decision. Chair Sontag said a decision would
not be drafted prior to the final HW report and the Water & Sewer Commission review. The first
review would be on December 20. Materials were needed for review at least a week in advance.
Leah McGavern made a motion to grant the applicant’s request for a continuance of the public
hearing to December 20, 2017. James Brugger seconded the motion and all members voted in

Motion Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

c) Newburyport Manager, LLC
Brown’s Wharf, 58 McKay’s Wharf, 72 Merrimac Street
Definitive Subdivision (2017-DEF-02)
Continued from 11/1/17
Mary Jo Verde made a motion to grant the applicant’s request for a continuance of this public
hearing until December 6, 2017. Joe Lamb seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

Motion Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

d) Parker 2 Realty Trust
2 Parker Street and 151-155 State Street
Definitive Subdivision (2017-DEF-04)
Major Site Plan Review (2017-SPR-06)
VI.C Special Permit (2017-SP-07)
Continued from 10/18/17
Attorney Mead, representing Joe and Ed Hill, principals, Parker 2 Realty Trust, said the project
was in B1 and R2 districts. She presented plans that were undergoing a Conservation
Commission review that required one more meeting. Permits for a two-family use in the R2 and
for a multi-family use in the B3 district were granted. She received a variance for a multi-family.
The project started with in a tech review meeting with the City in April when it was unknown
where the bike path would be. The applicant put $50,000 toward construction of the path. After
the filing, the City decided to locate the path along Parker Street, entirely changing the
stormwater on the site and requiring a redesign. The lot included 23 units on 96,000 square feet
of land. They did not use the multi-family density bonus, keeping with what fit on the site as it
existed, instead. The resource area was not on site because there was a pond in the rear, but the
buffer was on site, which was the reason they were before the Conservation Commission.
Engineer Chad Branon, Fieldstone Land Consultants, 206 Elm Street, Milford, NH, reviewed
pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities, drainage, landscaping, and erosion control. The multifamily
condo development on 2.07 acres was designed to be sensitive to the resource areas. Plans
addressed comments from the fire, water, and planning departments. A 22-foot wide roadway
met the definition of a court because the condo development was one lot. The fire department
required Hines Way to be 20 feet. Derrick’s Path was 16 feet wide and serviced three units. Both
roads were curbed with vertical sloped granite. A five-foot concrete sidewalk was on the west
side of Hines Way. The east side had a mailbox kiosk with a pull off, two visitor parking spots,
and a bike rack. The project, serviced by municipal water and sewer, would install an 8-inch
water main on the west side of Hines Way and two hydrants whose locations, along with ‘No
Parking’ signage, were specified by the fire department. The pump station would tie into the
existing force main servicing the project. Electric and cable were underground.
Stormwater management had changed substantially for the space changing 10-foot wide
intermodal path. The redesign was undertaken collaboratively with the City engineer. Runoff
from the front of units # 6-17 on the north side was captured through a closed drainage system
with deep sump catch basins conveyed toward Derrick’s Path to an infiltration CULTEC system.
A rain garden on the west side of Derrick’s Path captured runoff from the backside of units # 6-
17. The topography rose up from Parker Street. Runoff from the southern portion would be
collected through another closed drainage system running south down Hines Way into a
subsurface tech system. Runoff was directed to good sand on the west side of the site. A small
swale went to a rain garden off unit #1 and tied into the nearby chamber system. Another northto-south closed drainage system ran under the intermodal path. A drainage manhole connected
with a short section of pipe for water quality and swale drainage. Two catch basins were at the
low point of the Hines Way entrance. More catch basins were on the Parker Street side to catch
today’s runoff. Another catch basin on the east side tied into the closed system. There was no
negative impact on groundwater quality. All City regulations and stormwater guidelines were
met. CSI’s review letter arrived November 9. The majority of comments had been addressed. He
anticipated resubmitting to CSI tomorrow.
Mr. Branon had specs from the City for the 280 feet long intermodal path. The site entrance was
constructed of concrete to driveway specifications. The 10-foot, downcast, pole-mounted LED
lights met residential grade lighting standards, not parking lot lighting. Landscaping was
significant with objectives of providing a residential feel, blending with the natural surroundings,
and providing good buffering elements. Landscaped areas were in front of the units, along Hines
Way, at the intersection of Derrick’s Path and Hines Way, and in the cul de sac interior that
featured a walking path and flagpole. He was working with the Conservation Commission on
drainage improvements, including additional landscaping inside the 100-foot buffer zone and a
white vinyl stockade fence to help with buffers. Attorney Mead showed renderings.
Member comments: Sidewalks on the right and visitor parking on the left? Mr. Branon said yes,
there were ‘No Parking’ signs on east side of Hines Way and along Derrick’s Path, but there was
parking along the cul de sac, the west side of Hines Way, and two parking spaces for each unit.
The City asked for street trees at least 10 feet off the curb. The site line exceeded requirements.
Did the intermodal path cover the property boundaries? Mr. Branon said the path extended to the
closest driveway on the west and the end of the property to the east. Did the developer
contemplate an entire plan with ANR approvals? Attorney Mead said no, the applicant did not
own enough property at the time to do that. Were there renderings of the front units? Mr. Branon
said no, but front units had the exact same architecture and landscaping that tied in with the rest
of the development. Attorney Mead said the new units were a smaller at little over 2,000 square
feet. Was the road privately maintained? Attorney Mead said yes. Was the sewer grind and pump
station above ground? Mr. Branon said no. The current above ground pump station would be
replaced and put underground. Did units in back have decks or walk out basements? Mr. Branon
said the ‘at grade’ design provided space for usable deck areas. Was there a retaining wall? Mr.
Branon said Hines Way came off the road at 2% and transitioned to just over 4%. A proposed
block retaining wall with a fieldstone façade on the west side of the project addressed a knob in
the topography and provided ample backyard for those units. Were there set back issues? Mr.
Branon said no. What about snow storage? Mr. Branon said the Conservation Commission was
addressing snow storage now. There was some storage in two locations off Derrick’s Path in the
rear and on one side of the cul de sac. Closed drainage would also offer snowmelt drainage.
Were sidewalks on both sides considered? Mr. Branon said, typically, he would with a through
road. The road was safe for residents to cross to reach the sidewalk. There was less impervious
area without sidewalks on both sides.
Chair Sontag said a court accessed only three or four units. Attorney Mead said the subdivision
regulations were different. A court served no more than two lots. One lot was being created in
the back. The two lots in front accessed Parker Street directly, but the Conservation Commission
did not want two additional curb cuts. CSI asked about this in their review. Did each condo have
one garage spot? Attorney Mead said yes, plus one driveway spot. Chair Sontag asked for a
definition of a closed drainage system? Mr. Branon said he used low impact development
techniques, but it was hard with the road design. A closed system described the catch basins
along the curb line with a pipe system to convey runoff to the infiltration chambers. The
StormTech systems had an Isolator Row, the first chamber in the system, which took on the
water quality volume and accepted a sediment load in two locations. There was a net reduction in
runoff for the site. Infiltration basins sent everything into the ground. Attorney Mead said the
Conservation Commission was worried about the health of the pond in back. Some water was
directed to the pond to keep it healthy. Mr. Branon said the subsurface system created less
impact on the surface for more usable yard space. Was driveway parking meant to keep cars
from obstructing the road? Mr. Branon said yes.
Attorney Mead said a ‘by right’ plan was in the packet. Two two-bedroom affordable units and
one three-bedroom affordable unit for sale were includable for the DHI with a long-term deed
restriction in perpetuity that met Section VI.C special permit (SP) requirements. The intermodal
infrastructure would be constructed for $100,000 per linear foot. She reviewed other VI.C SP
requirements. A variance for use allowed two three-unit buildings. The area was zoned for
residential use. No other developable land was there. The Smart Growth district was adjacent.

Dan Mills, principal traffic engineer, MDM Transportation, 28 Lord Road, Marlborough, said
the original study was for 31 total units. Trip generation and findings were generally the same.
Parker Street carried 5,000 vehicles a day. Morning peak hours had 12 trips, the majority exiting.
Evening peak hours had 14 trips, with cars returning. There was a .5 or 1 % impact on the
roadway with low additional traffic on Parker Street. The development had no material traffic
impact. Members said people biking on the intermodal pathway would cross the private road.
Mr. Mills said site lines were adequate for speeds of 35-40 mph. Attorney Mead said there was a
transition from concrete to asphalt as cars exited the site to indicate a driveway entrance.
Members asked if there was a buffer between the trail and the road? Director Port said there
would be a few feet of grass. Chair Sontag asked if the standards were adjusted for density? Mr.
Mills said no, because it would not make a difference in the analysis. Chair Sontag asked if
exiting cars would get backed up? Mr. Mills said there was an ‘A’ level of service at Parker
Street and ‘D’ or better at State Street. Most traffic onto State Street would turn right. Chair
Sontag thought there should be consideration for the intersection at Parker and State Streets.
Members said the intersection was already bad. Attorney Mead said it was rated ‘D’ before the
development. Mr. Mills said the City had already engaged the state to improve the whole area
because the rotary was overdesigned. Mr. Branon said Mr. Mills used the appropriate land use
code for accurate results regarding the density and traffic impact.
Attorney Mead reviewed the SP criteria. The Water & Sewer Department said all City systems
could support the development’s 15 two-bedroom units and eight three-bedroom units consistent
with R2 and B1 zoning. A new sewer line was installed already. Although there was a waiver
request for the environmental and community impact analysis, a study was submitted showing
the project could produce five additional students, at most. The Conservation Commission
wanted more plantings in back, where the applicant would clean up trash and install a fence to
keep abutters from impacting the wetlands. Members asked the price of market rate and
affordable units? Attorney Mead said the Towle project’s affordable two-bedrooms went for
$280,000. Market rate was $6-680,000. The project met the 10% affordability threshold.
Member comments: Director Port said the adjacent 40R was 25% affordability. Members said
the SP was discretionary. Consider extending the bike path or reduced incomes for the affordable
units. Attorney Mead said they were building the bike path on the property for the cost of a unit,
a contribution in excess of any other VI.C. SP. Members said the project was larger than any
other VI.C. The applicant would spend five times as much as the $50,000 originally offered for
the intermodal path. Members asked if the estimate on construction would be based on the
prevailing wage? Director Port said construction was not subject to that because it was not a
municipal project and would pay less. Attorney Mead said the intermodal path was not only 10
feet of pavement, but also the underground infrastructure for drainage with a lot of carry over
costs. Chair Sontag asked whether drainage construction costs would have to be included if the
path extended to the cemetery? Mr. Branon said the ditch petered out as topography changed
along the roadway. The cemetery’s fence was in the right-of-way, it was necessary to stay on the
backside of the utility poles, and grading was needed. Details would have to be worked out to fit
the path, but it would not be the same extent of drainage required in front. Members asked what
the path connected to? Attorney Mead said it connected to the back of March’s Hill. Director
Port gave more details of the entire placement of the new path. Extending the path in the area
that was essentially grass so it would not dead end suddenly at a driveway would be a benefit to
everyone. Although outside the 40R, it was quite large. Members considered that buildings
looked the same, but did not take issue. The area, deliberately omitted from the 40R for a
transition area from dense to lesser density, was meant to be less dense. As proposed, there
should be a higher affordability percentage, in numbers and/or affordability. However, the 13%
affordability exceeded the 10% threshold. Lowering the AMI requirements could be beneficial.

Public comment open.
Tom Kolterjahn, 64 Federal Street, was concerned about cars crossing the rail trail and ways to
make it safer. He preferred the opinion of a City attorney on the court issue.
Chair Sontag read from the regulation. There was no question about how it was written.
Members said the red responses on that section of the application confirmed the applicant’s
attorney’s response. Attorney Mead said CSI also addressed the issue.
Steve Jayne, 2 Melvin Court, said the development was an improvement to that parcel of land.

Public comment closed.
Anne Gardner made a motion to grant the applicant’s request for a continuance of this public
hearing until December 6, 2017. Joe Lamb seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.

Motion Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

e) Newburyport Renovations, LLC c/o Lisa Mead
43 Liberty Street
DOD Special Permit (2017-SP-09)
Director Port said the submission requirement to file with the Newburyport Historical
Commission (NHC) was missed. Attorney Mead said that DOD SP requirements were not
triggered. Director Port asked if a DOD SP was needed? Attorney Mead said the building
inspector had said a Section IX modification to a pre-existing non-conforming structure SP was
needed for the addition. The board was the special permit granting authority (SPGA) in the
DOD. Director Port said the SP trigger was that it was a contributing structure in the DOD. Chair
Sontag said changes to the exterior meant the board needed NHC input. Members asked whether
the zoning administrator could look at it?
Attorney Mead showed a plan of the William Dodge Greek Revival home listed as contributory
and one of the few residential single-family homes downtown in the B3 DOD. It was nonconforming
for just about everything. The were no new non-conformities. The lot coverage
extended a bit by demolishing 10.27 % of the exterior walls for a modest addition that increased
square footage from 1,105 to just over 1200.
Architect Scott Brown, 29 Water Street, said the worker’s cottage, in a slight state of disrepair
and vinyl sided, had been stripped of its riginal windows, crown moldings, and front entry
surround a long time ago. He proposed a high quality project. The left side addition, adjacent to a
two-car tandem parking space, was set back from the front with a new covered entry. Roof
pitches matched. The addition was no higher than the existing ridge. Another addition on the
back enveloped an existing one-story porch, the only section proposed to be demolished. He
distributed elevations and renderings. At the request of an abutter, windows on the right side
would be removed. Attorney Mead said the added roofline gutters would infiltrate stormwater.
She distributed letters of support from neighbors. The design was sensitive to the size of
neighboring structures. She requested a Section IX SP.
Members wanted to hear from the NHC.

Public comment open.

Gloria Poirier, 2 Liberty Street, said the back addition was one foot nine inches away at the
closest point and three feet away at the furthest point. The developer would correct her flooding
due to the property’s overflow, but too much house was being squeezed onto the lot.
Stephanie Niketic, 93 High Street, said the modest addition on a 1,000 square foot home
increased the mass by 50%. That was a large change on a small lot. Many smaller, historic
homes were being enlarged resulting in a loss of modest, historic homes. She supported seeking
comments from the NHC.

Jeanette Isabella, 1 Lime Street, agreed with both comments.

Public comment closed.

Member comments: Would this trigger the sidewalk repair ordinance? Director Port said no,
because a unit was not being added. The sidewalk ordinance was evaluated only in the building
department. Developer George Hazeltine, 8 Boardman Street, offered to repair the sidewalk for
the two-bedroom home. What would go in the addition? Mr. Brown said a laundry room, a back
entry, a mudroom, more kitchen space, extra master bedroom space, and a second bathroom. The
proposed addition on the back would go no closer to the lot lines than the existing one-story
porch. The additions were not closer to abutters. Water from gutters would go to a drywell on the
property. Attorney Mead said in a similar situation on Lime Street, approved by ZBA, the
neighbor’s flooding issues were alleviated. Mr. Hazeltine said the house would use cedar
clapboard and hardy, non-combustible siding.
Andrew Shapiro made a motion to grant the applicant’s request for a continuance of this public
hearing to December 20, 2017. Mary Jo Verde seconded the motion and all members voted in

Motion Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

4. Planning Office/Subcommittees/Discussion

a) Master Plan Update
Chair Sontag noted the importance of the Master Plan for grant funding. There was no
implementation plan as a result of its removal from Chapter 14. Director Port said the only
change was in the work plan. A new 11 x 14 format in Chapter 14 named the boards and
departments responsible for stated actions, as well as listed potential funding sources. Members
asked if edits matched the spirit of the Plan? Director Port said yes. Architectural design
standards were important for the ZBA, which had no references, nor enough criteria, to explain
to applicants why a proposal was not good enough. The priority going forward was a strong
emphasis on higher quality design, architectural standards, and processes.
Anne Gardner made a motion to adopt the final 2017 Master Plan update, as previously prepared
and distributed by the Office of Planning & Development and Community Opportunities Group,
Inc., a copy of which shall be posted on the City Website and remain on file with the City Clerk
and Office of Planning & Development. And further, that said 2017 Master Plan shall replace
and supersede the 2001 Master Plan as a guidance document for the development and operations
of this City for the next 10 years and until such time as the City drafts a new comprehensive
City-wide Master Plan. Said plan may be updated and amended from time to time, as the needs
of the City evolve. It is the recommendation of this board that all City boards, departments, and
agencies work cooperatively to implement the recommendations of this plan to achieve the
vision, goals, and objectives contained therein, and to recommend adoption by the City Council.
Leah McGavern seconded the motion and seven members voted in favor. Tania Hartford

Motion Approved.

During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

b) Complete Streets Policy
City Council met on the policy last night. The goal was to codify what the City already did.
Complete Streets could not be incorporated into every project, such as a reconfiguration that
included wetlands constraints or when the cost was disproportionate to the benefit. Director Port
asked for a continuance to December 20.
Andrew Shapiro made a motion to continue the Complete Streets Policy to December 20, 2017.
James Brugger seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Motion Approved.
During the course of discussion and consideration of this application, plan(s), supporting
material(s), department head comments, peer review report(s), planning department comments
and other related documents, all as filed with the planning department as part of this application
and all of which are available in the planning department, were considered.

c) Other Updates
Director Port reminded the board that the December 6 meeting would begin at 6:00 PM.

4. Adjournment
James Brugger made a motion to adjourn. Mary Jo Verde seconded the motion and all members
voted in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 10:48 PM.
Respectfully submitted -- Linda Guthrie

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

1/23/17 ZBA Agenda- Famous Pizza

1. Roll Call
2. Business Meeting
a) Approval of Minutes
3. Public Hearings:
Minco Development Corporation
92R Merrimac Street Continued from 11/28/17, request to continue to 2/27/18
 2017-054 - Dimensional Variance
construct a multi-family building requiring variances for lot area, open space, height, and front- and
rear-yard setbacks
Newburyport Signs and Famous Pizza
2 Storey Avenue Continued from 12/12/17
 2017-089 - Sign Variance
allow a free-standing sign
Kathleen and William Kilmartin
9 Basin Street
 2018-004 - Special Permit for Non-Conformities
construct a second story addition intensifying the pre-existing non-conforming side setback
Alfred G. Clifford
4 Chapel Street
 2018-005 - Special Permit
allow a two-family (Use #102)
Brian McCloskey and Karen McCloskey c/o Mark Griffin, Esq.
3 Wright's Court
 2018-002 - Special Permit
allow an in-law apartment (#109)
Michael and Janine Callahan c/o Mark Griffin, Esq.
1 Marlboro Street
 2018-003 - Special Permit for Non-Conformities
remove existing rear addition and replace with a two-story addition which will extend the pre-existing
non-conforming lot coverage

Emma Andrews Library and Community Center Commission Meeting, December 18, 2018

Emma Andrews Library and Community Center Commission Meeting, December 18, 2018

Revolving Fund Financial report from the City
Book Fund report
Building projects update:
        •       Marlboro Street fence replacement
        •       basement stairs
        •       basement windows
        •       dehumidifier
        •       water leak going down the stairs
        •       new book slot
Upcoming program and events

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Excerpts from 12/12/17 ZBA Minutes- Famous Pizza

2017 089
Address: 2 Storey Avenue
Sign Variance

Allow a free-standing sign
The owner of Newburyport Signs presented the application. The last time the applicants appeared
before the Board for a freestanding sign, they did not have photos and information on lumens.
Renderings of the proposed freestanding sign were presented to the Board. For comparison, photos of
the old signage were also presented. The new sign would be 150 lumens and could be dimmed further.
The location of the sign would be neat the intersection of Storey Avenue and Harnch’s Way (12’ from
either street). It would be low profile, lit from the sides of the letters, approximately 5’ wide, 3’ high on
27” stone base.
Chair Ramsdell opened the hearing to public comment.

In Favor:

Linda Lambert, 58 Merrimac Street
Ms. Lambert lives on town and commented of the improvement of the property through recent
renovations. The proposed sign would be a big improvement over the old one.

In Opposition:

Bob Solazzo, 7 Ferry Rd, also on behalf of Ray White, 3 Ferry Rd
Mr. Solazzo and Mr. White were concerned about excess signage, current signage lighting being on 24 hours per day.

Bill Morrill, 1 Ferry Rd
Mr. Morrill was concerned with lights on 24 hours per day and too much signage on the property.

Stephanie Niketic, 93 High Street
Ms. Niketic was concerned with the location being a gateway to the City and High Street. The structure
seems well signed and lit already, so she sis not see reason they need another freestanding sign. She was also not clear on the hardship argued for the variance. No freestanding sign would be an improvement.

Tom Kolterjahn, 64 Federal Street
Mr. Kolterjahn was concerned with excess signage in this primarily residential area.

Mark Griffin, who represented the owner in the original project decision, noted that when in front of
Board it was contemplated and discussed at that time that this freestanding sign application would be
coming along and was part of the overall project.

Questions from the Board:

Ms. Bourdeau has concerns on what audience was not being captured with existing building signage. It was argued that with summer growth, coming from Storey Avenue, you cannot see building signage
clearly until it may be too late to turn into the parking lot. Ms. Bourdeau did not agree with the

Mr. Zaremba agreed with Ms. Bourdeau.

Mr. Goulet asked about the traffic and pedestrian safety with the proposed location of the signage.

Ms. Bourdeau commented on what seemed to be a vision obstruction with the sidewalk. The applicants
argued that the sign was far back enough to not impair sight lines. Mr. Goulet suggested if anything,
perhaps move the sign back to the corner of the building.

Mr. Ramsdell commented that it is eastbound traffic only it seems the applicant is trying to capture. He questioned the amount traffic coming from that direction that has never been there before. The
applicants argued that in the summer especially they get a lot of new business.
Mr. Zaremba asked if the site plan showed a second freestanding sign. No, just Storey Avenue side sign was proposed.


Ms. Bourdeau thought there was sufficient signage on the building and did not agree that they are
missing an audience without a freestanding sign.
Mr. Ramsdell commented that the sign that was removed never had a proper permit.
Mr. Goulet commented on the abutters not supporting. The safety aspect was also real. He felt there
was sufficient signage on building.
Ms. Pomeroy felt safety, lack of hardship argument, and the purpose and intent of the sign ordinance
not being supported was reason to not support.
Mr. Zaremba agreed.
Mr. Ramsdell understood some sort of sign to indicate the driveway perhaps, but not this 5’x5’ sign.
Hardship needs to be better argued.

The applicant requested a continuance to discuss changing the sign with the building inspector and
planning office.

Motion to continue application 2017-089 to 01/23/18 made by Ms. Bourdeau, seconded by Ms.

The motion passed unanimously.
Votes Cast:
Ed Ramsdell– approve
Robert Ciampitti – absent
Richard Goulet – approve
Renee Bourdeau – approve
Maureen Pomeroy – approve
Christopher Zaremba – approve

Friday, January 12, 2018

Excerpts from 12/19/17 Conservation Meeting- Evergreen Golf Course Development

6. Public Hearings
Evergreen Commons, LLC
18 Boyd Drive and 5 Brown Avenue
Notice of Intent
DEP File #051-0973

Tom Hughes and Lisa Mead represented the applicant. In response to the first two comment
letters from the peer reviewer, the applicant submitted an updated set of civil plans, a stormwater
report and a letter to Horsley Witten on November 20. Horsley Witten issued a lengthy response
letter on December 11 that included both its initial comments and new comments on the
applicant’s responses or revisions to the plans. Since that time the applicant and peer reviewer
have discussed their areas of disagreement and most issues have been resolved. The applicant
revised the plans accordingly and submitted a response letter to Horsley Witten today. The final
mitigation package has not yet been completed, but elements of the mitigation plan were
included in the narrative and on the civil plans. The applicant will submit a variance request and
updated landscape plan to the Commission.

Ellie Baker reviewed the comments made in the December 11 Horsley Witten peer
review letter. The letter includes recommended conditions to be considered by the Commission,
along with comments on the Homeowners Association Covenant and the Conservation
Restriction. In most instances the applicant has adequately addressed Horsley Witten’s
comments. The peer reviewer is satisfied with the compliance of the stormwater management
system with the MASWS, the current and proposed boundary elevation of the ISLF and its
boundary during the 2006 Mother’s Day storm and the seasonal high ground water elevation
across the site.

The comment letter included the following recommendations:
• homeowners should be made aware that while the foundations are all above the ISLF boundary,
some areas are likely to flood in certain situations and clean up will be necessary.
• the applicant should submit a wetland mitigation plan that describes existing and proposed
conditions, methodology, sequencing, monitoring and reporting.
• the Commission should make a finding the project meets the standards for a variance because
the restored wetland would function better than the existing wetland in terms of water quality
and habitat, which would create an overriding public interest.
• the Homeowners Association Covenant shall prohibit the draining of swimming pools onto the
land and the use of pesticides in the wetlands and the Conservation Restriction opens space
• education should be provided to homeowners on prohibited activities and the value of wetlands.
It was decided signage could be placed in the garages.
• the annual landscape plan should include information on the name of the landscaper, the
maintenance practices intended to promote turf health, a schedule for the application of fertilizers
and pesticides, a list of allowable products and a description of pesticides and fertilizers used the
prior year.

The comment letter recommended the Commission consider the following conditions:
• the applicant shall monitor ground water levels within wells 3 and 6 prior to construction and
adjust elevations within the IVW to provide sufficient hydrology to support the wetland habitat.
• a wetland scientist should monitor the IVW and ILSF during construction.
• work in the IVW should occur during the non-growing season.
• work in the resource area should be done early in the construction process.
• any area in the wetland or of a slope greater that 3:1 that is not worked within two weeks must
be stabilized. Wood chips, mulch or other materials that might wash into the wetland area
should not be used. The applicant agreed to provide a list of erosion control materials to be used
two weeks before construction begins.
• the applicant shall monitor the IVW for two growing seasons and shall replace any failing
materials. The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the long-term monitoring of the
• the applicant shall install permanent signage along the boundary of the no-disturb zone
prohibiting the dumping of debris or yard waste.
• the Conservation Restriction shall indicate the party financially responsible for the monitoring
of the open space.
• because the open space must be constructed before the Conservation Restriction is recorded,
the applicant shall submit a construction sequence.
• the maintenance of the open space in the Conservation Restriction area shall be a perpetual part
of the order of conditions and the Homeowners Association shall provide a report documenting
the third party maintenance of the open space area.
• educational signage shall be installed in the open space area.
• the applicant shall provide a wetland scientist during the construction of the stormwater
overflow feature of the constructed wetland to provide varied flow characteristics to create
• the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 14 days prior to any land
• the applicant shall provide an inspection and maintenance plan for the infrastructure outside of
the rights-of-way to be in effect after the City accepts responsibility for the maintenance of
roadways and stormwater facilities in the rights-of-way.
• the applicant shall provide a signed illicit discharge compliance statement prior to any earth
The Commission and peer reviewer must have time to review the materials that were submitted
today. The Commission also wishes to receive a letter from the Water Department. Steve
Moore moved to continue the public hearing to the January 9 meeting. Dan Bourdeau seconded
the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.