MINUTES - Joint Public Hearing with Planning Board - 7/19/2006 528
CITY OF SALEM
J U LY 19, 2006
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING BOARD
A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and the Planning Board was held in the
Council Chamber on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 at 6.00 P.M. for the purpose of
discussing a proposed Zoning Amendment for Drive-Through Facilities. Notice of this
hearing was posted on July 7, 2006 at 10.46 A.M. and advertised in the Salem Evening
News on June 29t" & July 6, 2006.
All Councillors were recorded as present.
President Jean M. Pelletier presided.
Council President Pelletier opened the meeting by asking Dan Merhalski of the
Planning Department to make a presentation and introduced Mr. Walter B. Power III,
chairman of the Planning Board.
Mr. Power, Chairman of the Planning Board, introduced the other members of
the Planning Board that were present, Gene Collins, Timothy Kavanaugh, Pamela
Lombardini were in attendance. Timothy Ready arrived late.
On the matter of the proposed Zoning Amendment for Drive-through facilities.
Councillor Furey stated his concerns for this Ordinance on drive-throughs that
was put in by Councillor Sargent.
Councillor Veno requested point of order— the only matter before us is the
Zoning Ordinance.
Councillor O'Keefe objected.
Councillor Veno — stated we can discuss drive-throughs but only the zoning
ordinance that is before us.
Councillor Blair asked if the member of the Planning Department Dan Merhalski
could do his presentation.
Dan Merhalski of the Planning Department explained drive-throughs and where
they are currently on the map in Salem. He explained that this ordinance will be for the
B-2 zone only and that they are specific for fast food and banking. Notice to grant a
Special Permit would require a Public Hearing and a Traffic Study would also be
needed. Mr. Merhalski read the proposed zoning ordinance for the audience.
529
CITY OF SALEM
J U LY 19, 2006
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING BOARD
Councillor Veno — regarding the standards for drive throughs, how did the
Planning Board arrive at these standards.
Dan Merhalski of the Planning Dept. stated that the City Planner Lynn Duncan
checked around locally to draft this ordinance.
Councillor Furey asked are there any drive-throughs that would be eliminated?
Mr. Merhalski stated no that all current drive-throughs would be grandfathered.
Councillor Pelletier asked how could this matter be before the Planning Board for
their meeting tomorrow night?
Councillor O'Keefe asked for a definition of the B-2 zone.
Councillor Blair asked about speakers for drive-throughs, Can there be
something to tone down the volume? We should put controls on that.
Councillor Sargent stated that we talked about certain deciples of noise over
property boundaries. He stated that this matter is on the Planning Board's Agenda for
their meeting tomorrow night, does this give enough time to digest public comment?
He went on to explain how this matter of drive-throughs came about when he and
Councillor Sosnowski found there was nothing in our current zoning to regulate drive-
throughs. This is why we have one regular ordinance that's been passed for first
passage until this zoning ordinance is in place. Compare Canal Street and Highland
Avenue, drive-throughs on Canal Street are a problem. The ones on Highland Avenue
have not been a problem. If Planning takes this over, this should be a separate vote for
drive-through permits with a review yearly in case there are problems that arise. If you
do it right you keep your permit, if you don't you loose it. It's a quality of life issue.
Timothy Reddy of the Planning Board arrived late.
Councillor Pelletier opened the Hearing for public comment.
Councillor Pelletier asked if there was anyone appearing in favor of this zoning?
THERE WAS NO ONE IN FAVOR.
Councillor Pelletier asked if there is anyone opposed to this zoning?
APPEARING IN OPPOSITION
530
CITY OF SALEM
J U LY 19, 2006
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING BOARD
Pat Donahue — member of the NRCC stated she is opposed to changing the
zoning ordinance. There's no need for any special permits. We have enough drive-
throughs, there is no need for more.
Kathy Meadowcroft — 22 Foster Street, stated she is opposed to this ordinance.
Pat Murphy — 27 Foster Street, stated that we should be very careful voting for
this ordinance change.
James Rose — 25 Linden Street, commented that Mr. Bertini proposed a CVS
and Dunkin Donuts where Eastern Bank is on Jefferson Avenue. They'll want drive-
throughs.
Georgeanne Kalat— 326 Lafayette Street, stated that Canal Street already has
enough drive-throughs.
Meg Twohey — 122 Federal Street, stated that the NRCC members spent a lot of
time on the drafting of the NRCC Ordinance. She questioned why is this special permit
to be issued by the Planning Board and not the Zoning Board of Appeals. She stated
this proposal would allow drive-throughs within a 100 feet of a residence. She is
opposed and doesn't want this change.
Darrow Lebovisi — 122 Federal Street, stated this is a complicated Ordinance. It
changes where drive-throughs could go and how they can be constructed. He urged
the Council to do this carefully. It should not undo the NRCC.
Rita Markunas — 19 Federal Street, Stated she was shocked when she heard
that they want to amend this ordinance. We want to preserve the quality of life. You
have more noise and trash etc. with drive throughs. People will want them to be open
24 hours, then you're not preserving Salem.
Jim Treadwell — 36 Felt Street, (comments were provided in writing as follows):
As preface, it is noted that the NRCC mixed use district zoning amendment, as
adopted on December 6, 2005, lists "Drive-through facilities" among its prohibited uses
and was the subject of a most thorough review by the City Council prior to its adoption.
Further, said amendment was based on the NRCC Neighborhood Master Plan which
was developed with input from the general citizenry of Salem, the citizen NRCC
working group, consultants Goody, Clancy and Earth Tech and staff of the Salem
Department of City Planning and Community Development. I would submit that the
drive-through prohibition was based on the Plan's Transportation objectives as well as
the appropriate development/"image" objectives of the Master Plan.
531
CITY OF SALEM
J U LY 19, 2006
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING BOARD
NRCC District: based on land use, development potential and traffic
considerations, only the "Sylvania" site might be seen as appropriate for drive-
throughs. However, per Master Plan objectives for NRCC southwest quadrant, a free
standing bank drive-through at Boston and Bridge would be inconsistent with the
objectives of the creation of an Urban Village and Gateway to downtown, the
development of a Landmark Building and emphasis on an urban/pedestrian
environment. Maybe, with further "objective criteria" guiding drive-through
development, such might be incorporated as an integral part of a permitted, greater
development.
General: I would heartily support over-sight of the drive-through special permit
review process by our elected Councillors. The subject amendment, DOES NOT
accomplish this to any degree. I would suggest, in this regard, that Council review and
approve "rules" to be developed pursuant to Section 7-22-2, sign off on/endorse
Special Permit decisions (Section 7-22-6.2) and review/approve "changes' to
previously approved plans (Section 7-22-6.4)...and, if traffic congestion/other
nuisances result from a drive-through, that the permit be revoked until it is corrected to
the satisfaction of the SPGA and the City Council.
• 1 do not believe that the City has any professional expertise available
regarding traffic planning/engineering. Who will advise the SPGA with
regard to traffic impacts and scrutinize the traffic analyses?
• Has an authority on traffic matters scrutinized this amendment on behalf of
Salem and offered comments?
• Impact on "character of the city" (see purpose) and design. The proposed
zoning should require review by the City's Design Board and suggest the
use of Salem's new (2005) "Commercial Design Guidelines".
0 Subsection 4.1 Detailed traffic impact analysis should be required for all
proposed drive-through projects and not be optional for "other drive-
through facilities"
0 Subsection 2. "land use impact" and neighborhood character should be
added and acknowledge as appropriate considerations for "further
conditions" by the SPCA.
0 Subsection 2. Should posting of bond/other surety be a requirement rather
than optional?
532
CITY OF SALEM
J U LY 19, 2006
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING BOARD
• Subsection 4.1. What's to be the source of funding of the traffic impact
study? Who will select the registered engineer to conduct the study? Who
will provide technical over-sight? (4.1 is silent in these regards.)
• Subsection 4.2. Level of Service (LOS). Is this an appropriate
measurement of increased congestion on our city streets? If relevant,
have the principles of LOS been explained to the members of the Council
and the Board? Is LOS only applicable in the instance of controlled street
intersections?
• Subsection 4.2. Should this criteria address pedestrian traffic adjacent to
the drive-through development site?
• Subsection 5.1. Should there be a control on number of curb cuts? (as
within entrance corridor?)
• Subsection 5.3. It would seem appropriate to define "sufficient setback
from intersection" in order to set a standard/provide an objective criteria.
Have "directional restrictions" worked in Salem? Could previous
restrictions be monitored and reported to the Council/Board/Public. Bad
restriction example: North Street Citgo/Dunkin Donuts. Beverly Co-op
example? (Required follow-up by City Planner)
• Should parking requirements for Drive-throughs be established in this
amendment. The current zoning ordinance does not appear to have such
a requirement.
• Should requirements regarding delivery/loading spaces (i.e., number,
location, etc) to service the drive-through facilities be included in the
amendment? Also, location and other standards respecting refuse areas?
• Subsection 5.11. Noise. The amendment should include the maximum
decibel (db) level that can be generated by; the audio equipment
associated with the drive-through. Further, to be effective and reflect an
objective criteria, the amendment should address the issue of sound at the
property lines of the drive-throughs, especially where such has an abutting
residential use. Further, objective landscaping criteria and objective
criteria regarding height or required fencing should be added to this
subsection. Also, the word "wide" appears to have been omitted after (20).
• Subsection 6.4. In view of interest of the citizens/public in the issue of
regulation of drive-through facilities, it would seem appropriate to require
533
CITY OF SALEM
J U LY 19, 2006
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING BOARD
for a public hearing — as well as for review/approval by the City Council —
of"any changes in the approved site/drive-through plan"
Should the amendment refer to other controls on drive-through facilities —
such as hours of operation, hours for delivery— or otherwise established
such controls in the amendment?
Councillor O'Keefe — stated that he agrees with Mr. Treadwell, the City Council
should have a say on drive-through permits.
Councillor O'Leary moved that the hearing be closed.
Councillor Prevey— stated regarding comments he has serious concerns
regarding drive-throughs. Many of the complaints he receives are regarding businesses
close to residential areas. And there are no drive-throughs. There are problems already
with traffic. This ordinance would undercut the NRCC. He is opposed.
Councillor Veno — This is really about protecting residents and safety issues.
Councillor Sosnowski — stated he is grateful for all the public comments.
Councillor Lovely— Stated she also appreciates all the input. She is concerned
with protecting the integrity of Historic Districts in regards to drive-throughs. She feels
that 5.14 language should be tightened up.
Councillor O'Leary — Thanked Mr. Treadwell and others for their comments, it
has opened the Councils eyes. Drive-throughs on Highland Avenue coming out on to a
residential street are a concern. We need something in place to help us with
neighborhoods.
Councillor Pelletier— stated he has the same problems in his Ward.
534
CITY OF SALEM
J U LY 19, 2006
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING BOARD
Councillor O'Keefe — moved that the hearing be closed. It was so voted.
Councillor O'Keefe moved to refer the matter to the Planning Board for their
recommendation. It was so voted.
On the motion of Councillor O'Keefe the public hearing adjourned at 7.30 P.M.
ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK