1986-PLANNING BOARD • MINUTES OF MEETING
January' 9, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green on Thursday, January 9,
' 1986 at 7 :30 P.M. , second floor conference room. Present were Acting
Chairman Kenneth May, Normand Houle, Abby Burns, Donald Hunt ; Linda
Vaughan, City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh and Staff Advisor Dale Yale.
Walter. Power and Edward Stevenson were absent.
Acting Chairman Ken May called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M.
PUBLIC HEAPING - FORM C, ZIEFF,. VILLAGE AT VINNIN SQUARE
Acting Chairman Ken May read the notice of the public hearing.-
Developer James Zieff was present to discuss this proposal which
involves the subdivision of the remaining 32.5 AC of land adjacent to
the existing Vinn.in Village into four parcels with an access road from
Loring Avenue. The. access roadway, tentatively called "Carol Way", is
planned to conform to subdivision standards, including construction of
vertical granite curbing and a 57' right of way with a conforming
cul-de-sac.
_... The area is zoned R-3 and it is anticipated that approximately 380 units
will be proposed for development.
A pond exists on the site and any construction within 100 feet of it
will require Conservation Commission approval .
Ke^ May read the comments which were submitted by various Departments:
The Board of Hea'l'th concurs with the plan with the following comments:
'The applicant will submit to the following specifications:
1 . The design proposal concurs with the City engineering
Department and City Plumbing Inspector for Utility Tie-Ins for drinking
water, sanitary waste (Sewage) , gas lines, and/or any other utility
service.
. 2. Prior to water service (drinking water) being put into service
that it be tested for pressure and bacteria.
3. Employ an acceptable method for removal of all construction
debris and vegetation waste from site during construction
4. Employ an acceptable method for dust and street cleaning
control during site construction.
5. Employ an acceptable method of cleaning and maintaining the
catch basins.
6. Prior to site start—up and during site construction employ a
licensed pest control firm for site evaluation and service with a copy
of the service invoice sent to the Health department.
Page 2 -
•
7 . Employ an acceptable method or means for the holding and
disosal of trash (rubbish) after site development with a copy of this
method in writing sent to the Health Department. In accordance with
Mass. General Laws, Chapter III, Section 127A, 105 CMR 410.601 of the
State Sanitary Code II - "Collection of Garbage and Rubbish".
The School Department does not concur with this proposal expressing
concern regarding the increase in student population that will be
generated by this. development.
The Fire Department stated that more information was necessary regarding
this proposal and expressed concern regarding the overall adequacy of
the municipal water supply system and its ability to function properly
under .the increased demands of growth within the City.
The Conservation Commission concurs with the plan commenting that any
construction, including road and accessway construction within 100' of
the pond located on the property will be subject to Conservation
Commission review and approval.
The- Engine ering Department has not yet submitted comments relative to
this proposal.
Normand Houle expressed concern regarding issues raised by the Fire
Department with, respect to water supply and Mr. Zieff noted that the LEA
Engineering firm is presently evaluating the system for recommendations
regarding upgrade. Mr. Zieff will do whatever is necessary, including
erecting a standpipe.
Abby Burns questioned the depth of the pond and Mr. Zieff stated that it
would hold approximately 12 - 15 ' of water. Linda Vaughan asked if the
proposed development would would be more than 100' away from the wetland
area and Mr. Zieff replied in the affirmtive.
Abby Burns asked if a traffic study in this area had been conducted and
Mr. Zieff replied that no formal study has been done to date but stated
that most traffic generated as a result of this development will be
off-hour. He further noted that development will not house many school
age children.
Ken May noted that the City feels there may be a necessity for an access
to the west side of the railroad track and Mr. Zieff stated that there
is a small sliver of land belonging to the Cit along the Salem/
Swampscott line which may serve this purpose.
Mr. Seymour Stoll, Mr. Frank Rubenstein, Chairman of the Board of
Trustees of the Loring Hills Condominium Association, Ms. Robin Blake,
Mr. Gerard Popkin, Mr. Edward Rosenthal, and Mr. Peter Hull , all
abutters of the Loring Hills Ave. condominium development were present
to speak in opposition to the proposal with major concern focusing on
traffic generation and over development of the area.
Page 3 —
•
Mr. Popkin particularly requested the Board to make sure Mr. Zieff has
done everything he was required to do in the initial phases before
allowing further construction.
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh stated that these and other issues will .be
addressed during the next two weeks, prior to the next Planning Board
meeting.
Kenneth May noted for the attendees that the Board is dealing this
_ . evening strictly with the Subdivision of land. The developer will be
required to return to the Board for reviews of residential purposes.
Following some discussion, the public hearing was declared closed.
PUBLIC HEARING — FORM C, CAROL GANEY, VISTA AVENUE
Ken May read the notice of the public hearing.
This involves the subdivision of a 9 AC parcel into fifteen
single—family house lots off of Marlborough Road in an R-1 area.
Fourteen lots will be used for new dwellings and the fifteenth lot will
contain the house presently existing on the site. Vista Avenue, which
is presently a "paper" street, will be realigned and upgraded to
subdivision standards. Mr. Erland Townsend of T & M Engineering and
attorney John Serafini were present to discuss the plan.
Attorney Serafini gave a brief overview of the proposal stating that the
requested waivers for this subdivision will be minimal . He noted that
frontage will be on Vista Avenue and that zoning complies with all
current regulations. Mr. Serafini stated that only a minimal amount of
traffic will be generated as a result of this plan.
.Elland Townsend 'noted that the water will be looped and drainage will be
directed to Marlborough Road drainage system.
Mr. Townsend discussed the waivers which are being requested. They are
as follows: '
1 . The required centerline radius of 230' has been decreased in two
locations to 80' and 128' .
2. The maximum roadway, grade of 10% has been increased to 12%.
3. The required sidewalk construction on both sides of the road has
been reduced to one side.
4. Required vertical granite curbing has been eliminated,.
5. Sloped granite curbing is now proposed, instead of vertical granite
as this material is more easily obtained and less expensive.
Ken May read the comments submitted by various City Departments. The
School Department, the Building Inspector and the Conservation
Commission concur with the plan. The Health Department concurs with the
plan with the following comments:
Page 4 -
•
The applicant will submit to the following specifications:
1 . The design proposal concurs with the City Engineering Dept . and City
Plumbing Inspector for Utility Tie-Ins for drinking water, sanitary
waste (sewage) , gas lines, and/or any other utility service.
2. Prior to water service (drinking water) being put into service that
it be tested for pressure and bacteria.
3. Employ an acceptable method for removal of all construction debris
and vegetation waste from site during construction.
4. Employ an acceptable method for dust and street cleaning control
during site construction.
5. Employ an acceptable method of cleaning and maintaining the catch
basins.
6. Prior to site start-up and during site construction employ a
licensed pest control firm for site evaluation and service with a copy
of the service invoice sent to the Health dept.
7 . Employ an acceptable method or means for the holding and disposal of.
trash (rubbish) after site development with a copy of this method in
writing sent to the Health Department.
The Fire Dept. concurs with the plan but expressed concern regarding the
overall pressure and flow for fire fighting purposes in the upper Ward 4
area, and the ability of the existing water supply system to adequately
supply the needs of the neighborhood. Fire Marshal Robert Turner noted
that "accelerated growth in the Highland Ave: area is placing
considerable burden on this water system".
The Police Dept. does not concur with this proposal due to. the current
shortage of manpower within the Department.
Ward IV City Councillor Lenny O'Leary is in favor of the project stating
that it would be a great asset to Ward IV.
The Engineering Department submitted the following comments:
1 . We have no objection to waivers as requested, however it should be
noted that waiver item 4 is not consistent with sidewalk as indicated on
plans sheet 3 of 5. With sidewalk located as shown on plans,
pedestrians must cross roadway at a location on the curve which could
present a safety hazard. We recommend that the sidewalk be continous
along both sides of the road.
2. Datum used for elevations should be indicated. c
3. Additional monuments will be required to establish line of street
and to determine boundary between City of Salem and subdivisions
properties. .
4. Sidewalk base material must be 8-in. compacted thickness.
5. Double grate catch basins should be provided at the intersection of
Vista Ave. and Marlborough Road.
6. Show pavement transition for all three existing driveways onto
proposed roadway.
7 . Sewer depth at Station 3 + 39 must be decreased to provide 3-ft.
minimum cover.
Page 5 -
•
8. It is prefered that utilities in the vicinity of Station 3 + 00 be
located within travelled way.
9. This information must be provided before approval from my office can
be given.
Donald Hunt and Linda Vaughan expressed some concern regarding the
safety hazard involved with regard to- traffic exiting onto Marlborough
Road from Vista Ave. Linda Vaughan also raised the issue of visual
impact of proposed houses on Marlborough Road residents.
Several abutters were present to express concerns regarding the proposed
subdivision. Mr. James Gautreau of 92 Marlborough Road, Mr. Don Saffer
T
of 35 Outlook Ave, and Mr. Joe aurasso of 2 Vista Ave. all expressed
concern regarding possible water problems that could result from this
development: There is also some question as to the best location for a
sidewalk. Mr. Paul Dube of Buena Vista Ave. spoke in favor of the
proposal. Mr. Gautreau also raised the privacy issue. Mr.Townsend
stated that catch basins will be installed to mitigate drainage
problems. The possibility of landscape screening was also discussed.
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh stated that during the next two weeks, the
concerns raised by the Board members and abutters will be addressed. A
site visit was also scheduled.
There being no further discussion, the hearing was declared closed.
PUBLIC HEARING - WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD SPECIAL PERMIT; STANLEY
MIKULSKI, ALMEDA STREET
Ken May read the notice of the public hearing.
"Mr. John Dick of Hancock Survey was present to discuss this proposal
which involves the construction of two single-family dwellings within a
wetland area on Almeda Street. No altering is proposed, but some
filling will be necessary to level an area for the home construction.
The area is zoned R-I and each parcel conforms to lot area and frontage
requirements. There is a wetland area to the rear of the parcel which
necessitates the Wetlands Permit. The proposal complies with the
requirements for the issuance of a Special Permit.
Mr. Dick noted that .after review of this plan by the Consrvation
Commission, concern was expressed regarding utilities. Mr. Dick stated
that they will be serviced by the existing utilities in the street and
that the sewer, which is accessible by gravity, has sufficient pressure.
Another concern was with regard to flooding in the area. Mr. Dick noted
that the average street grade is at 93 across the front of the site and
that the houses have a floor elevation at least 4' above seasonal high
water.
Ken May asked if the houses are within an actual wetland area and Mr.
Dick replied that the wetland area itself is. approximately 25 ' to the
rear of the site.
Page 6 -
•
Mr. John Wright , Mr. Henderson of 83 Almeda St . , Mr'. Jack Anderson of 79
Valley St. and Mr. Clark of 81 Valley St. , all abutters of the property,
were present to express concern over the exacerbation of drainage
problems which could result with this proposed construction.
Mr. Henderson asked how much filling is proposed and if any blasting of
the area would take place. Mr. Dick replied that approximately 80, back
from the existing edge of the pavement will be filled, without touching
any wetlands areas and noted that no blasting is proposed, except
possibly for utilities.
-Mr. Anderson discussed the issue of run-off which currently runs behind
hi's property via a drainage easement and stated that additional
construction could further exacerbate this problem. Ken May stated that
the City Engineer will be asked to address this concern.
Following some discussion, the public hearing was declared closed.
FAFARD DISCUSSION
Attorney John Serafini , Mr. George Seeley and Mr. Danny Drake of the •
Fafard Companies were present to discuss plans for a residential
development project to be located on a 69 acre parcel of land off of
Highland ave. and Swampscott Road.
The proposed residential development is for 520 residential units in
four unit structures in an R-3 zoning district. The parcel has direct
access to First St. which has direct access to both Swampscott Road and
Highland Ave. Of 130 buildings, 84 are smaller "short L" building
types.
Mr. Seeley noted that mature trees will be saved by rotation of
buildings or minor relocation of buildings. New plantings willinclude
mature evergreens in quantity, especially in any area where 'existing
vegetation does not provide adequate screening.
The checkerboard appearance has been softened by elimination of curb
cuts and the creation of interior driveways and eliminates the monotony
of buildings. The visual impact along the western portion of the site
will be minimal due to cut and fill construction techniques which "fit"
the buildings into the contours.
Norman Houle asked how many phases of construction were involved and Mr.
Seeley replied that there would be three phases. Mr. Houle expressed
concern regarding lighting and Mr. seeley stated that streets will be
well lit and each housing .unit will have lighting which will be
photo-electrically controlled.
Donald Hunt asked what the length of the garage would be in the short L
and Danny Drake stated that it would be approximately 191 .
- Page 7 -
•
Mr. Seeley addiessed each area of concern raised by the Board (see
attached) . Attorney Serafini suggested a meeting between the Planning
Board, Rizzo Assoc'iates. and The Fafard Companies in order that several
concerns may be addressed. City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh stated that
site design, visual impact and traffic are among those concerns which
need to be looked at more closely. It was agreed that a breakfat
meeting would be setup for next week.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. The
.. . motion passed unanimously, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10: 15
P.M.
Respectfully .submitted,
Nancy Syatt
U
MINUTES OF MEETING
• January 23, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday, January 23 , 1986 at 7 :30 p.m.
at One Salem Greer., second floor conference room. Present were Chairman
Walter Power, Kenneth May, Donald Hunt , Linda Vaughan, Abby Burns, John
Butler, Staff Advisor Dale Yale and City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh.
Edward Stevenson, Normand Houle and Bob Guethlen were absent.
Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. and welcomed Mr.
John Butler to the Board as our newest.Tember.
FORM B - CALUMET STREET, 'HARRY HEWITT
This proposal involves the extension of Calumet Street and construction
of a cul-de-sac for a five-lot subdivision. Each lot will have in
excess'of 15,000 square feet of lot area and 100' of frontage.
Access to the area is from Dundee Street (Peabody) and Carrolton Street .
Water service will be provided by pipes which will be brought from
Rockdale avenue via an easement. The street width will conform to
existing pavement anthe radius of the proposed cul-de-sac will conform
to the Subdivision Regulations.
5 ' sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of the subdivision, but a
waiver from planting strips is requested along with a waiver from road
width.
Two catch basins will be installed at the low point of the subdivision.
The drainage system will be closed as far as lot 14 hwere a headwall
will be constructed draining into a proposed stone swale and eventually
. into an existing wetland. They plan to file a Notice of Intent and
return to the Planning Board with a Definitive Subdivision plan.
Abby Burns asked 'if all utilities will be underground and Mr. Kielty
replied in the affirmative.
Walter Power felt that the Conservation Commission should address the
drainage issue in detail .
Walter Power asked what material the drainage pine would be and Mr.
Kielty replied that it would be concrete or PVC.
FORM C - VISTA AVE. , CAROL GANEY
This is a continuation of a discussion . on a proposal which involves the
subdivision of fifteen single-family lots on Vista Avenue. Attorney
john Serafini and Mr. Erland Townsend of T & M Engineering were present
to discuss the plan.
40
- Page 2 -
•
Linda Vaughan raised the issue of the excessive amount of traffic that
will be generated on Marlborough Road from all the development in the
area and expressed concern regarding the hazardous blind curve on Vista
Avenue. As a result , he suggested that Vista Ave. be. made one-way, from
the intersetion of Marlborough Road to the end of the subdivision.
Regarding this issue, Mr. Townsend noted that the blind corner will be
"'softened" by eliminating a portion of the existing ledge which, in
turn, would open up the view, allowing better site distance. Mr. Power
questioned whether enough ledge could be removed to significantly lessen
the hazardous condition posed by this obstruction and stated that
approval of this subdivision must be conditional on Vista Ave. being a
one way street.
Attorney Serafini agreed to this provision but questioned the Planning
Board's jurisdiction regarding traffic. He requested that the Planning
Department address this issue.
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh supported Mr. Power' s concern with regard
to the one-way issue but reiterated that this was a traffic issue which
he would address at the next Traffic Commission meeting.
Walter Power noted that the Board of Health, Fire Dept . , Conservation
Commission and Building Inspector concur with the plan.
The information requested by the Engineering Department has been
supplied.
Upon the motion of Donald Hunt and second of Ken May, a letter will be
drafted to the Traffic Commission requesting that Vista Avenue become a
one-way, through the end of the subdivision. It was so voted.
The following waivers are being requested by the applicant .
1) Centerline radius decreased from 230' to 80' in. one location and
128 ' in another to accomodate existing roadway layout within existing
property lines. The Planning Board has agreed to this waiver. because
the roadway will hoepfully be designated as a one-way street. Upon the
motion of Kenneth May and second of Donald Hunt , this waiver was
granted. It was so voted.
2) Upon the motion of Donald' Hunt and second of Abby Burns, the waiver
roadway grade from 10% will be increased to 12% to accomodate existing
dwelling and driveway adjacent to proposed subdivision was approved. It
was so voted
3) Regarding the waive from vertical curbing, upon the motion of Abby
Burns and second of John Butler, the Borad will allow sloped granite
curbing. It was so voted. Walter Power felt strongly that the curbing.
should be extended along Outlook Road to the intersection of Ugo Road to
better define the roadway.
- Page 3 -
•
Upon. the motion of Ken May and second of John Butler, sloped granite
curbing will be extended from the boundary of the subdivision along
Outlook Road to the intersection of Ugo Road. It was so voted.
Attorney Serafini noted that permission would need to be granted from
the City to comply with this request. because the applicant does not have
ownership of t'he land.
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Donald Hunt, the subdivision
was approved, subject to the following_.conditions.
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Subdivision Plan - Salem, MA. ,
Vista Avenue," dated 12/17/85, revised 1/15/86.
2 . Sloped granite curbing shall be extended from the boundary of the
subdivision along Outlook Road to the intersection of Ugo Road,
where permitted.
3 . A certified statement of encumbrances existing upon the land to be
subdivided shall be submitted to the Planning Board prior to
endorsement of the plan.
4. A performance guarantee shall be filed with the Planning Board to
ensure completion of the improvements required under the City of
Salem Subdivision Regulations prior to endorsement of the plan.
5. Location of proposed "One-way" and "Do Not Enter" signs shall be
shown on the plan. Installation of such signs, upon approval, shall
be the responsibility of the developer.
6.. Proposed street names and house numbering shall be subject to the
approval of the Fire Department and Assessors.
7 : ,Burning of refuse, construction debris, or vegetation is prohibited.
8. Utility tie-ins for drinking water, sanitary waste, gas lines and/or
other utility services shall be subject to the approval of
Engineering Department.
9. Prior to occupancy, water shall be tested for pressure and bacteria.
10. Prior to site start-up, a licensed pest control firm shall be
employed for a site evaluation. Copies of service invoices shall be
sent to the Health Department.
11 . Dust control and street-cleaning methods, subject to approval of the
Health Department , shall be employed during construction.
12 . All applicable Board of Health requirements shall be satisfied
-`� 13 . A landscaping plan showing the proposed screening of the Gautreau
house, 92 Marlborough Road, Map 9, Lot 32 ; from the proposed
subdivision shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Board.
- Page 4 -
• 14. A pre-blast survey shall be performed prior to commencement of
construction. Blasting shall be subject to the Fire Protection
Code (M.G.L. , 118 S. 10A .and 527 C.M.R. 13.00) .
15. All telephone, electrical , Cable TV, and other service utilities
shall be placed underground. Electrical cable shall be encased in
rigid conduit unless otherwise specified by the City Electrician.
16. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Planning Board. A Clerk of the Works shall
be provided by the City at the expense of the developer as is deemed
necessary by the Director of Public Services and the City Planner.
17. No construction shall commence before 7 :00 a.m. on weekdays and. 8:00
a.m. on Saturdays. Work shall cease at 5:00 p.n. No work shall be
conducted on Sundays or holidays.
. a. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays or '
-holidays.
b. No drilling or blasting shall take place before 8:00 a.m.
18. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or
Land Surveyor shall be submitted to the Department of Public
Services.
It was so voted, five' in favor, one abstention.
WETLANDS SPECIAL PERMIT - ALMEDA STREET
This proposal involves the construction of two single-family dwellings
within a wetland on Almeda Street. No altering is proposed, but some
filling will be necessary to level an area for the home construction.
The area is zoned R-1 and each parcel conforms to lot area and frontage
requirements. There is a wetland to the rear of the parcel which
necessitates the Wetlands Permit . The proposal complies with the
requirements for the issuance of a Special Permit except for a detail of
the method of utility entry to each dwelling. The first-floor elevation
is 4' above the seasonal high water table.
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Donald Hunt , the Special Permit_
was approved, subject to approval of a plan showing utility installation
for each structure by the Planning Department and Engineering
Department. It was so voted.
SITE PLAN REVIEW SPECIAL PERMIT - 235 BRIDGE STREET - ANNIE HARRIS
This is a continuation of a discussion regarding the development of 19
residential condominiums on the corner of Bridge and Washington Streets.
Developer Annie Harris and Mr. Robin Wunderlich of the Federal st.
Development Team presented the Board with an amended plan which
addressed several concerns raised by the Planning Board, Planning
Department, Salem Redevelopment Authority and neighbors. Major changes
to the plan are as follows:
— Page 5 —
•
1 . No entrance/exit towards Phase II;
2. Entrances in middle of building;
3. . No basement, therefore dumpster;
4. Reduction in // of parking spaces;
5. End walls architecturally articulated;
6. Reduction in mass and height at perimeters;
7 . Increased square footage of units;
8. . Eliminated use of emergency access for other than emergency
vehicles
9. The number of units has been reduced from 19 to 16.
10. The overpass entry has been eliminated.
11 . The,brick wall closest to the Phase II complex is being
redesigned to mitigate its visual impact .
Walter Power asked -if the footprint of the building had been altered and
Annie Harris replied that it had been reduced by approximately 20% with
the elimination of three units.
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh noted that the building may possibly be
moved slightly to the north and that he will be working together with
the neighbors regarding this issue.
Annie Harris noted that the end walls of the condominiums will be
"' • lowered and will be of a brick chimney structure. There will be windows
on every floor. There is 31 ' between the end of the proposed building
and Phase II.
Walter Power asked how the interior of the units has been changed and
Ms. Harris replied that the size of the first floor units have been
increased from 1280 to 1400 sq. ft. which is 88 sq.- ft. smaller than the
... units on the upper floor of Phase II. The basement to the building has
been eliminated to reduce costs. All units remain two bedrooms , each
equipped with a brick fireplace, balcony and masonry walls. An elevator
will also be provided.
Mr. Power asked if the units will be equipped with adequate storage
space and Annie Harris stated that each condo will have several closets
with additional utility storage space provided.
Walter Power expressed concern regarding access to the development and
asked if a card type gate would be considered. Annie Harris noted that
a fenced—in, private lot will be constructed. This type of presence
should go a long way to ensuring the use of the parking area would be
for residents only. Mr. Power further asked if landscaping is the same
as what was originally proposed and Ms. Harris stated that additional
landscaping is proposed due to the availability of more space as a
result of the elimination of several parking spaces .
— Page 6 —
•
Donald Hunt questioned the height of the building and further asked if
all the units were for residential use. Ms. Harris stated that the
height of the building would be approximately the same as the Phase II
building, roughly 42 feet, and stated that all units would be sold for
residential use.
Donald Hunt raised the issue of trash removal and Ms. Harris noted that
one dumpster will be provided which will be screened and fenced off.
Walter Power read a letter which was submitted to the Mayor by the Salem
Condominium Board of Managers expressing opposition to the proposal. with
major concern focusing on density. The letter suggested that sixteen
residential units would be unacceptable to the residents of Phase II.
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Abby Burns, the Site Plan was'
approved, subject to the following conditions.
0
- Page 7 -
•
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Rust St . Condominiums", dated
11/18/85, revised, January 21 , 1986. '
2. Refuse removal, road and ground maintenance, and snow removal shall
be the responsibility of the .developer or his/her successor or assigns.
A copy of rubbish removal plan shall be submitted to the Health
Department .
3 . Salt as a de-icing agent shall be prohibited.
4. All construction shall be conducted in accordance with the following
conditions:
a. No work shall commence before 7 :00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00
a.m. on Saturdays. Work shall cease at 5:00 p.m'. No work shall be
conducted on Sundays or holidays. Inside work of a quiet nature shall
be permitted at other times.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative
effects of construction on abutters such as noise, dust , fumes. Advance
notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours
prior to commencement of construction.
C. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned in order that they
not leave dirt and/or debris on the road as they leave the site.
d. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the
- Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board. A Clerk of the Works shall
be provided by the City at the expense of the developer as is deemed
necessary of the Director of Public Works and the City Planner.
5. All landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
6. Off-street lighting shall be installed and maintained in such a
manner so as to not reflect or cause glare on abutting or facing
residential premises nor to cause glare which adversely affects safe
vision of operators of vehicles moving on nearby streets or driveways.
Locations and intensities of lighting shall be approved by the Planning
Department.
7. Sloped granite curbing shall be installed as required by the
Planning Department.
8. An acceptable method for dust control and street cleaning shall be
employed during construction. All construction debris shall be
appropriately disposed of off-site.
9. Prior to occupancy, drinking water shall be tested for pressure and
bacteria.
10. All utility tie-ins shall be subject to approval of the Engineering
Department and Plumbing Inspector.
Page 8 -
•
11 . Substantial violation of these conditions shall result in revocation
of this permit by the Planning Board.
12. This decision and accompanying conditions shall be approved as to
form by the Planning Department' s designated legal representative.
It was so voted.
PUD - WHALERS LANE - FAFARD
This is a continuation of a discussion on a proposal for the development
of 520 residential units to be located on a 69 acre parcel of land off
of .Highland Ave. and Swampacott Road. Attorney John Serafini, Mr.
George Seeley and Mr. Howard Fafard of the Fafard Companies were present
to discuss the proposal.
The proposed residential development is for 520 residential units in
four unit structures in an R-3 zoning district. The parcel has direct
access to First Street which has direct access to both Swampscott Road
and Highland Ave. Of 130 buildings, 84 are smaller "short L" building
type.s.
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh gave the Board an overview of the proposal
noting that he and the developers have been working to address concerns
raised by the Board and the Department' s land use consultants over the
past several weeks.
Walter Power felt that the elimination of curb cuts on First St . should
be a condition of approval and stated that a sufficent buffer of trees
should be provided, preferably white pine. He also stated that an
additional traffic lane on Swampscott Road should be laid out and that
the bank should be cue back and prepared with a sub-base. Regarding
sewer and water services, Mr. Power suggested that utilities be
installed along the side of the road so as not to interfere with the
flow of traffic.
Mr. Power asked what type of construction time frame the Fafard Co.
plans to work with and Howard Fafard replied that approximately 100
units will be constructed within the first year.
Regarding the existing wetland in the center of the development, Walter '
Power suggested some guidance be obtained from DEQE as to the
possibility of using compensatory wetland areas as ponds for better site
design and open space.
Ken May asked if use of the PUD would be restricted if approved and
suggested that the decision state wht type of units, how many, etc. ,
will be constructed and that the Board have the right to amend these
conditions. Mr. May further stated that any additional subdivision of
this property should be prohibited.
— Page
•
Ken May also expressed concern regarding termination of the permit.
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and second of Abby Burns, the Planned
Unit Development application by the Fafard Companies for 520 residential
dwellings was approved subject to the following conditions.
Traffic
1 . An easement for the future widening of Swampscott Road to allow for
an increase in roadway width and capaci,Sy at some date, based upon
future development, shall be provided. by the developer in a form
satisfactory to the City Planner and City Solicitor.
2. The developer shall work cooperatively with the City in planning the
intersection. of. Swampscott Road and Highland Avenue such that
a'pprop,riate improvements can take place.
3 . Following the comprehensive traffic study to be undertaken and a
determination of the traffic needs on Swampscott Road is made, the
developer will set aside land, together with preparation of land to
accomodate road widening as well as construct an adequate sub—base.
Visual Impacts/Site Design
1.. Each phase in the PUD shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Board under the Site Plan Review Special Permit Process. no building
permits . shall be granted until such Special Permit has been granted.
Through such permit procedure, the developer shall comply with all
Planning Board Rules and Regulations for Site Paln Review Special
Permits:
a. Parking and loading facilities
b. Traffic circulation
c. Adequacy of access
d. Lighting
e . Landscaping and screening
f. Waste disposal
g. Snow removal
h. Drainage
i. Utilities
J. Pedestrian circulation
k. Protection and enhancement of natural features
1 . Architecture
2. There shall be no eight unit buildings within the Planned Unit
Development. All structures shall contain a maximum of 4 dwelling
units.
3. A plan for a passive recreation trail linked with the ancient trail
referenced in the Environmental Impact . Report prepard by HMM Associates
', shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
Page 10 -
• 4. Foundations and utilities shall be constructed and inspected prior
to issuance of a building permit.
5. A plan entitled "cuts & fills" as previously.presented to the
Planning Board, showing the NW portion of site,' shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department and Planning Board.
6. All landscaping and screening within the development shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Planning Board.
a. Mature trees shall be a minimum caliper established by the
Planning Board. Shrub diameters shall be a minimum established
by the Planning Board.
b. Maintenance of-vegetation shall be the responsibility of the
developer or his successors in interest.
c. Following the definition of an adequate per dwelling unit
landscaping budget as determined by the City Planner, the
developer shall comply with such budget.
'7 . Sloped granite curbing shall be installed as required through the
Site Plan Review Process. Final approval of location of curbing shall
be made by the Planning Board.
8. Building colors shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Board. The Planning Board will require earth tone colors or '
colors which are compatible with the surrounding environment.
9. Exterior building designs shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Planning Board. Such approval shall require that each
design be of a residential nature, and includes the use of clapboard,
shingles, texture 111, or other wood products.
10. Curb cuts on First St. shall be eliminated to provide for a limited
access highway. The building should be set back from First st. and
visually screened.
11 . The City Planner shall define areas within the site to be set aside
for open space which could be developed for recreational use by the
condominium association at a future time.
12 . The Developer and the City shall pursue the possibility of creating
water or ponding on the site.
' Waste Water Services c
1 . Adequacy of wastewater pipes shall be approved by the Engineering .
Department.
2. A minimum of 10' horizontal separation shall be maintenaned between
water and sewer pipes.
3. Minimum cover, slopes, and vertical separation distances shall be
maintained.
4. Easements for access to cross-country sewer lines shall be provided
and approved by the City Engineer and City Planner.
Page 11 -
•
Water Services
1 . Distance to fire hydrants from units shall be shown on the plan and
shall comply with the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board and
Fire Department.
2. Method of metering water connections and water hook-ups to
individual units shall be subject to approval of Engineering Department.
Site Drainage
1 . Updated drainage study currently being prepared by developer shall
be subject to ,review and 'approval of the City Planner and Director of
Public Services prior to commencement of re-grading and construction.
2 . Discharge at the low point of catchment S-4 at the intersection of
Swampscott Road and First Street , in the southwest corner of the first
PUD approval , will not be increased beyond its present level of 110 cu.
ft . per second. Such increases shall be minimized through construction
of detention areas as recommended by drainage studies performed by HMM
Associates.
3. Details of erosion control measures at drainage outlets shall be
provided to the Planning Department and Engineering Department for
approval .
4. Outlets for discharges from building underdrains shall be shown on
plans: Both outlets and drainage structures shall be approved by the
Planning Department and Engineering Department.
5. Natural storage capacity of existing wetlands shall be fully
maximized. The Director of Public Services and the City Planner shall
confirm that such natural capacity has been maximized through analysis
of the updated drainage study.
Wetlands
I . Salt as a de-icing agent shall. be prohibited.
2. All proposed fill areas shall have Sedimentation control barriers
installed in areas 'within 50 feet of wetlands before any fill is placed.
3. Any inadvertent infringement on wetlands shall be compensated for in
a manner as set forth in compensation procedures DEQE Order of
Conditions #64-92.
4. The DEQE Order of Conditions (#64-92) shall be strictly adhered to.
5. Copies of all wetland replication plans submitted to DEQE shall be
sent to the Planning Board and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Conservation Commission.
- Page 12 -
•
Emergency Access
I . Each unit within the Planned Unit Development shall have adequate
means to facilitate the location of units quickly in an emergency.
situation.
2. Fire alarm cables and alarm boxes shall be installed subject to
specifications of the Fire Chief and City Electrician.
3. Drives to units less than 500' from Whalers Lane, along travelled
roadways, and servicing more than two units, shall be widened to 20' .
4.. Drives to units greater than 500' from Whalers Lane along travelled
roadways shall be widened to a minimum of 24' .
5. Provisions shall be made for U-turns at dead-end drives. Such
provisions shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and
Department of Public Services.
6. An informational signage plan shall be submitted to the. City
Planning Board prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. Such
plan shall designate street names and unit numbers and their reasons for
such. Unit numbers shall be clearly designated on each unit for ease in
-� location by emergency vehicles.
Health
1 . All units shall be equipped with trash compactors.
2. A licensed pest control firm. shall be employed to perform a site
evaluation prior to commencement of construction. Any necessary rodent
control procedures specified by the Board of Health shall be carried out
by the developer.
3. All concerns relating to public health shall be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Health.
Electrical
1 . All electrical wiring shall be placed in rigid conduit unless
otherwise specified by the City Electrician.
2. Location and installation of street lighting shall be the
responsibility of the developer subject to approval of the City
Electrician.
3 . All electrical utilities within Whalers Lane shall be constructed as
• required by Massachusetts Electrical Standards specifications.
r
- Page 13 -
•
General
1 . Each phase of development will have a separate condominium
association.
2. Upon request of Fafard, any provision of this Special Permit may be
waived or amended by a majority vote of the Planning Board.
3. This decision and accompanying conditions shall be approved as to
form by the Planning Department' s designated legal representative.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. The .
motion passed unanimously and the meeting was declared adjourned at
11 : 10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Syatt
MINUTES OF MEETING
February 6, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green on Thursday, February 6,
1986 at 7:30 P.M. Present were Chairman Walter Power, Kenneth May,
Donald Hunt, Linda Vaughan, Abby Burns, John Butler, Edward Stevenson,
Bob Guethlen, Staff Advisor Dale Yale and City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh.
Normand Houle 'was absent.
Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.
FORM A - PUMP STATION, SWAMPSCOTT ROAD
This Form A involves the subdivision of the 69 acre Fafard PUD parcel
into two parcels, to create a 10,000 square feet piece to accommodate
the construction of a new wastewater pump station. This is necessary to
provide the sewer services for our Business Park Development District on
Swampscott Road. ' The pump station is being financed by a State grant.
Once the plan has been endorsed, the parcel will be deeded from Fafard
to the City.
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Abby Burns, the Form A was
endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. It
was so voted.
FORM A - SALEM LAUNDRY
This Form A involves the subdivision of the Salem Laundry.property,
located between Central Street , Derby Street and Lafayette Street into
two separate parcels for the purpose of ,conveying one lot and building
to C.E. Scrymgeour, which presently occupies the second floor of one
building. Salem Laundry will retain the building and land which house
... .the dry cleaning establishment and Laundromat .
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Donald Hunt , the Form A was
endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. It
was so voted.
FORM C - ZIEFF, VILLAGE AT VINNIN SQUARE
This proposal by Mr. James Zieff involves the subdivision of the
remaining 32.5 AC of land adjacent to the existing Vinnin Village into
four parcels with an access roadway built to subdivision standards from
Loring Avenue. The access roadway includes a 57 ' right'cf-way,
sidewalks, planting strips, vertical granite curbing, and a conforming
cul-de-sac.
Mr. James Zieff has met with the Planning Department previously and has
stated that his future plans for development of the parcels will take
place over a four to five year period. Currently, he has not begun to
prepare site plans or designs for development . These will be prepared
as construction in Phase 11 is completed.
- Page 2 -
•
Mr. Zieff has indicated his willingness to work with the City on traffic
problems, necessary upgrading of utilities, and-overall City access
issues.
The Board expressed concern regarding better traffic circulation in the
area. It was suggested that an easement for a future roadway be granted
and City Planner Gerard' Kavanaugh stated that the City Solicitor should
approve any easement for a future access from Swampscott Road to Loring
Ave.
Mr. Zieff noted that the Loring Towers residents should be consulted
.regarding this issue- as some of their land may be necessary to
accommodate this roadway. Walter Power felt that this plan was very
important regarding the future traffic flows within the City and stated
that this issue would require further discussion. Mr. Zieff stated that
he would be happy to approach the Loring' Towers owners to try to reach a
solution to this issue. The Board felt a layout should be established
and an easement prepared prior to approval of the subdivision.
There followed some discussion, at which time Mr. Zieff requested a -90
day. extension of the Form C to allow for further delineation and '
discussion of the plan by the Board. Upon the motion of Ken May and '
second of Donald Hunt, a 90 day extension period of the Form C was
granted. It was so voted..,
TEDESCO POND -UPDATE
Mr. Carl Gardner and Mr. Bob Whittier of Maine Post and Beam presented
the Board with a revised site plan of this proposal which involves the '
construction of 14 attached units in a cluster subdivision consisting of
4 triplexes and 1 duplex unit around Tedesco Pond. Each unit has an
attached garage plus two off-street parking spaces.
Mr. Gardner questioned the legality of attaching units in an R-1
district and stated that this may necessitate the need for variances by
the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Gardner stated that the main objective of the new plan is to allow
for more separation between buildings, reducing the number of proposed
units to 14 and shifting the second and third units further south.
Utilities remain the same as'what was proposed in the original plan.
The proximity of the roadway to the dwellings has been shifted 30' to
the west, which was made possible by the elimination of several units..
Off-street parking will be provided, allowing two spaces per unit.
Access to the pond for the neighborhood residents has been provided off
of Chandler Road; specific days of the week will be set aside for usage.
The footprint of the building has been expanded to allow more room for
• designs and configurations. Mr. Gardner has consented to a change in
landscape plans if so desired by the abutters.
- Page 3 -
•
Mr. .Ray Gauthier, an abutter, expressed satisfaction with thi.s plan with
minor modifications. He commented on the need for more open space and
usage of the pond .for fishing, skating, etc.
Donald Hunt asked how much space would be in between buildings and Mr.
Gardner replied approximately 301 .
Following the granting of the necessary variances by the Board of
Appeal, the developers will submit forrgal plans to the Board.
PUD - FAFARD
The Board spent considerable time discussing the "umbrella" PUD decision
conditionally approved at our last meeting.
Of particular concern to the Board was the issue of the widening of
swampscott Road for which the developer will be ,responsible, the
elimination of curb cuts on First Street, adequate landscaping and
screening, proper phasing of construction, adequate open space, and
necessary traffic improvements.
After discussion and revision of language, upon the motion of Kenneth
May and second of Abby Burns, the Planned Unit Development Special
Permit was approved with attending conditions. (Decision attached
hereto and made a part hereof) . It was so voted, 8 in favor, none
opposed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JAN. 23 , JAN. 9
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Linda Vaughan, the minutes of
... .the January 23 meeting were approved as corrected. It was so voted.
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Abby Burns, the minutes of the
January 9 meeting were approved. It was so voted.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. The
motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was declared adjourned at
10:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Syatt
Y
MINUTES OF MEETING
February 20, 1986
•
The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday, February 20, 1986 at 7 :30 p.m.
at One Salem Green., second floor conference room. Present were Chairman
Walter Power, Kenneth May, Normand Houle, Edward Stevenson, John Butler,
Linda Vaughan, Donald Hunt, Abby Burns, City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh
and Staff Advisor Dale Yale. Bob Guethlen was absent.
Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7 :40 p.m.
FORM A - SALEM HOSPITAL, JEFFERSON AVE.
Attorney John Serafini, Jr. Dresented to the Board this plan which
proposes to subdivide two parcels of land adjacent to Salem Hospital
property for the purpose of providing additional parking area: Mr.
Serafihi noted that each parcel will have sufficient frontage and lot
area for the zoning district and access to the parking area will be from
Dove Road. Some blasting may be necessary.
Abby Burns expressed concern regarding wetlands and Mr. Serafini stated
that there were none on the parcel and that a large wall of ledge
existed.
John Butler asked if the proposed lot would replace the existing parking
-- . area on Colby St. Mr. Serafini stated that the new lot would be used in
addition to the existing lot , helping with the overflow of cars.
Walter Power raised the issues of lighting and access and felt that
sidewalks should be provided for access to the hospital. Mr. Serafini
replied that at least one walkway would be constructed.
Mr. Power asked if the Hospital would be amenable to a review of the
parking lot plan by the Board when it was proposed. Mr. Serafini felt
that' the Hospital would be happy to comply. A letter will be sent to
Attorney Serafini confirming this.
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Linda Vaughan, the Form A was
endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. It
was so voted.
FORM A - BRAUN, DERBY SQUARE
This involves a proposal by Mr. Morton Braun, owner of the building
housing Kennedy' s and the Derby Square Book Store to subdivide a portion
of land that runs along the west side of the two buildings. This would
allow the rear portion of the parcel to be conveyed separately if
necessary.
. Upon the motion, of Ed Stevenson and second of Norman Houle, the Form A
was endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required.
It was so voted.
— Page 2 —
FORM A — AXELROD, ESSEX STREET
Mr. John Dick of Hancock Survey discussed this plan which involves a lot
containing 752 sq. ft . of land to be conveyed with property of Marine
Gallery, which has been land courted. The plan will make the Marine Art
Gallery lot less conforming.
Walter Power asked what currently occupies the parcel and Mi. Dick
stated that the area is currently being used as a parking facility.
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Abby Burns, the Form A was
.endorsed, approval .under the Subdivision Control Law not required. It
was .so voted.
FORM A — WALLACE, SUMMER STREET
Mr. Frank Wallace presented this proposal which involves the subdivision
of a parcel of land at 59 Summer St. containing two single-family homes
into two separate lots, each for the purpose of selling each home
separately. The Applicant will retain ownership of the front house:
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Abby Burns, the Form A .was
endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. It
was so voted.
PUBLIC HEARING *— SITE PLAN REVIEW SPECIAL PERMIT — PEABODY MUSEUM
ADDITION
Walter Power read the notice of the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Fetchko, Director of the Peabody Museum, Ms. Emily Kuo and Mr.
Fiske Crowell of Kallman, McKinnel and Wood were present to discuss this
proposal which. involves the construction of a 27,000 square foot
addition to the Peabody Museum. The addition will be located to the
rear of the Japanese Garden on existing museum property, and is proposed
to accommodate the needs created by the merger of the China Trade Museum
and the Peabody' s Asian Export collection.
The architects have made preliminary presentations to both the
Redevelopment Authority and its Design Review Board. The review process
with these Boards is still underway and final approval from both will be
necessary prior to commencement of construction.
There will be a loss of parking spaces with this new construction, for
the addition will be located on an existing surface parking area.
Presently, the museum is negotiating with the Parking Board for the
leasing of parking spaces within the East India Parking Garage to
• compensate for such losses.
— Page 3 —
Mr. .Fetchko noted that some landscaping changes and adjustments may be
proposed. Some reconstruction will be necessary in the Crowninshield
Gallery. The existing garden and block house will remain. Access to the
Museum will remain off of Essex St. The loading dock area will be moved
back somewhat.
Norman Houle raised the issue of, parking and Mr. Fetchko stated that the
existing Liberty St. parking lot, containing 18 spaces will remain which
will be utilized by the staff. Volunteers of the Museum will use public
parking.
Walter Power asked if the garden on Charter St . will be moved and Peter
Fetchko stated that it would be moved temporarily during construction.
Mr.. Fetchko explained that it was' his intention to integrate existing
space into the garden and that the proposed design considers the
sensitivity of the garden.
Office space is proposed for the Asiatic Department, a function room
will be constructed, a kitchen area will be available for nighttime
functions and an elevator for handicapped access will be provided. '
Mr. Fiske Crowell stated that in addition to the installation of
• plantings, a glass and steel frame awning will be constructed to soften
the impact of the loading dock area.
Ken May asked if the design of this wing would permit future expansion
of the Museum and Mr. Fetchko replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Power asked if the building could be expanded upward with another
... .story and Mr. Fetchko stated that it could be done, but at a great
expense to the Museum. He felt that it was likely not feasible.
Linda Vaughan asked what construction schedule was anticipated. Mr.
Fetchko replied that construction is scheduled. to begin some time in
April and continue for 12-14 months.
Walter Power asked how the basement would be used and Mr. Fetchko stated
that it would mainly be used as a storage area and carpentry shop.
Walter Power stated emphatically that the Board wanted to make certain
that the Charter St . side of the building was as aesthetically pleasing
as the Essex St. side.
The Board of Health concurs with this proposal with the following
comments:
• The applicant will submit to the folloiwng specifications:
- Page 4 -
•
1 . Employ an acceptable method or means for the holding and disposal of
trash (rubbish) after site developmein. with a copy of this method in
writing sent to the Planning and Health Departments.
2. Employ an acceptable method for removal of all construction debris
and vegetation waste from site as often as necessary during
construction.
3. Prior to site start-up and during site construction, employ a
licensed pest control firm for site evaluation and service with a copy
of the service invoice sent to the Planning and Health departments..
4.. .Submit a detailed floor plan fo the proposed kitchen to the Health
Department showing the design layout of the kitchen and the installation
of equipment.
5. It is respectfully requested that a representative of the Peabody
Museum be present at the next Board of Health meeting on March 11 , 1986
at 7 :30 p.m. This meeting will be located at 9 North Street on the
second floor in Salem and will address the above and any other concerns
of the Board of Health.
The Conservation Commission concurs with the plan.
• The Building Inspector and City Engineer have requested additional
information on the proposal.
Following some discussion, the public hearing was declared closed.
GREENWAY ROAD - PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION
The Planning Board has previously discussed a proposed plan for Greenway
Road which included eleven single-family house lots. This proposed
subdivision was subsequently withdrawn.
In response to concerns of the Board and neighbors, the developer is now
proposing a subdivision with seven single-family house lots, six of
which are to be built upon, with a portion of the final lot to be deeded
to the City and preserved for open space. Mr. Erland Townsend of T & M
Engineering and Mr. David Goodof were present to discuss the amended
proposal .
All lots have in excess of 15,000 sq. ft. and 100 feet of frontage, and
Greenway Road will be formally ended with a cul-de-sac and a new access
road will be constructed to serve new lots. This will have a separate
cul-de-sac at the end. The developer proposes to preliminarily and
informally present his plan to the Board and solicit their input, after
. which a final Form C application will be filed and a public hearing will
be held.
- Page 5 -
•
Mr. Goodof noted that several waivers will be requested if this plan is
re-submitted. They are as follows:
1 . Centerline radius would be altered;
2. Width of the road would be 401 ;
3. Sloped granite curbing;
4. Underground Police/fire alarm boxes
5: Road would be 520-530' , which is 20-30' longer than is allowed
6. Diameter of both cul-de-sacs
Donald Hunt asked if any site improvements are proposed and Erland
Townsend stated that he proposes to create a landscape buffer zone
between the road and house lots. The area will then be re-graded.
Walter 'Power raised the drainage issue and Mr. Townsend stated that new
catch basins are proposed to tie in with the existing drainage system.
Mr. Power felt that the City Engineer should address this issue with
particular concern focusing on drainage from the end of Greenway Road
into Old Road. Mr. Power also questioned whether the catch basin
drainage system on Willson Road is adequate, emphasizing the impact that
water and ice could have. Mr. Townsend felt that the catch basin could
adequately handle the current water flows. Mr. Power felt that there
was a potential for icing problems at the outlet end of the proposed
drainage pipe going towards Willson St. Mr. Townsend will discuss the
entire drainage issue with the Engineering Dept. , and will also submit
drainage calculations to support his proposal.
Regarding lot !/7 , City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh noted that this lot will
be the least visible in relation to the remaining lots and may be deeded
to. the City.
Mr. Theriault, and Mr. Stan Poirier, all abutters, spoke in opposition „
to the plan, with major concern focusing on drainage and flooding. Mr.
Jaworski spoke in favor of the plan providing the drainage issue is
resolved. Walter Power stated that the City Engineer would address
these concerns.
The Board felt that further delineation of what is proposed to be deeded
to the City is necessary and suggested a site visit before final action
is taken on this proposal.
FAFARD - PHASE I DISCUSSION
This is a continuation of a disucssion on a proposal for the development
of 520 residential units to be located on a 69 acre parcel of land off
of Highland Ave. and Swampscott Road. Attorney John Serafini, Mr.
George Seeley and Mr. Ron Killian of the Fafard Companies and Mr. David
• Westerling, Staff Hydraulogist for Fafard presented an amended plan
which addressed several concerns raised by the Board at the last
meeting.
Page '6 -
•
The proposed residential development is for 520 residential units in
four unit structures in an R-3 zoning district. " The parcel has direct
access to First Street which has direct access to both Swampscott Road
and Highland Ave. Of 130 buildings, 84 are smaller "short V building
types.
Mr. Westerling discussed. the drainage issue noting that the natural
wetlands will remain and will be used to store excess run-off. 100 year
storm calculations indicate a 30% reduction in fun-off. The existing
run-off of 440 c. f.s. will be reduced to 340. Mr. Westerling noted that
it is intended to create as much pond area as possible and to create
storage area where needed.
Walter Power asked how many Phases, overall, are being proposed and John
Serafini stated approximately 4 or 5.
Some discussiontook place regarding the number of units proposed and
whether the board will have flexibility later regarding this. Upon the
motion of Edward Stevenson and second of Norman Houle, the requested
waiver under Paragraph J. 7 of the Special Permit which states that ". . .
for construction and use of 520 residential and condominium units. . ."
was approved. It was so voted.
Walter Power suggested a working session between the Planning Board and
Planning department to discuss the issue of open space, recreation
area.s, etc. Walter Power also noted that the Board would like some
input into exterior design; i.e. , casement windows.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. Having
passed unanimously, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Syatt
•
• MINUTES OF MEETING
March 6, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green on Thursday, March 6,
1986 at 7 :30 p.m. , second floor conference room. Present were Chairman
Walter Power, Donald Hunt , Kenneth May, Linda Vaughan, Normand Houle,
Abby Burns, Edward Stevenson Bob Guehtlen, City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh
and Staff Advisor Dale Yale. John Butler was absent.
Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p.m.
FORM A - MICHAEL AND JOSEPHINE FUSCO, 410-412 LORING AVE. , 3 RIVERVIEW
ST:
This proposal involves the re-subdividing of three parcels of land
located at 3 Riverview St. in order to construct a single-family home on
the third lot. The Board of Appeal recently approved variances
necessary for this subdivision.
Donald Hunt asked if these lots would be in conformance with surrounding
lots and Mr. Fusco replied in the affirmative.
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Abby Burns,. the Form A was
• endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required.. It
was so voted.
FORM A - RICHARD LUTTS - FOSTER ST.
This proposal involves two parcels of land in a B-1 zone located at 10
Foster St. One lot is vacant while the other contains a two-family
dwelling ( lot A) . The owner seeks to move the boundary line to offer
more land to lot "A" . Both new lots will have sufficient lot area and
frontage for the zone.
Upon the motion of Normand Houle and second of Donald Hunt, the Form A
was endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required.
It was so voted.
FORM A - RAYMOND PINAULT - JEFFERSON AVE. , LAWRENCE ST.
This involves a parcel of land located at 291 Jefferson Ave. to be
divided into two parcels for the purpose of constructing a professional
office building. The Board of Appeal. recently approved necessary
variances for this subdivision. .
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Normand Houle, the Form A was
endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. It
• was so voted.
1
- Page 2 -
•
FAFARD - DISCUSSION
This is a continuation of a discussion on a proposal for the development
of 520 residential unit's to be lcoated on a 69 acre parcel of land off
of Highland Ave. and Swampscott Road.. Attorney John Serafini and Mr. Ron
Killian and Mr. Danny Drake of the Fafard Companies were present to
discuss the project.
Ron Killian addressed several areas of..concern that were expressed at
the last Planning Board meeting, incluing lighting, landscaping and
waste disposal. It was generally agreed that trash compactors would not
be necessary for each unit.
Danny Drake no that as much vegetation and plantings as possible will
be retained. The cost of landscaping is estimated at $264,000 for Phase
I (approximately $1500 per unit) for a total landscaping budget of
$780,000. On-site ponding has been proposed but DEQE is not in favor of
wetlands vegetation. This will be pursued further with the Conservation
Commission. A pass.ive recreation trail , with appropriate designs and
markers, will be provided.
Normand Houle spoke in opposition to the pond anticipating a lack of
maintenance, mosquito problems, liability problems, etc. Bob Guethlen
• felt that a pond would be a nice amenity, if adequately engineered and
maintained.
Walter Power felt that the Clerk of the Works should be on site during
the backfilling of trenches to ensure proper bedding of pipes took
place. Improper bedding could rupture th'e pipes, particularly under
pressure. The possibility of encasing .pipes in concrete or PVC will be
discussed with the Engineering Dept.
Danny Drake noted that wood sliding doors are proposed. Bob Guethlen
stated that he would like to see the cut and details of the windows
prior to installation..
Regarding open space, City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh felt that 10,000 sq.
ft. is not adequate and suggested a working meeting between the Planning
Department and Planning Board.
Ward IV Councilloc 'Lenny O'Leary asked if trash removal would be the
responsibility of the City and Ron Killian replied that it would be
taken care of by the Condo Association.
Mr. Killian noted that the production manager from Fafard will be
meeting with the Building Inspector to discuss possibly obtaining the
foundation and building permits simultaneously.
The Board will visit the Fafard site on March 16.
— Page 3 —
•
STASINOS = DISCUSSION
Attorney John Keilty and Michael Stasinos were present to discuss a
proposal for approximately 25 AC off Highland Avenue. Mr. Stasinos has
presented a variety of plans to the Board in the past.
This plan proposes 163 condominium units on 17k AC and 62,400 sq. ft. of
office space on 7k AC: A 180'-190' buffer is proposed between the
development and the existing residential neighborhood and a 200' buffer
is planned between the new residential and office areas. The only use
proposed for the R—C portion of the parcel is a swimming pool and tennis
courts. This construction will be subject to Conservation Commission
approval.
The de'velop'er feels the market for residential units is strong at
present. He proposes to construct any residential development first and
wait on the office construction.
Walter Power asked the status of the proposed traffic light for Highland
Avenue and Mr. Keilty replied the light would be properly synchronized
with the light at the entrance to rich' s.
Walter Power stated emphatically that the City Planner should meet with
• the State DPW Commissioner Tierney to discuss the traffic light issue
further. Several issues need to be addressed including the possibility
of one single traffic light serving any new development and Rich' s
together and the impact of the light on Ravenna Avenue.
Linda Vaughan stated that the City—wide traffic study presently
commencing should be completed prior to any approvals for this site.
Walter Power stated very strongly that the Planning Board should be
involved in the planning process for this site. We have been presented
with a variety of plans showing several different combinations of uses,
then the Board of Appeal is presented with different proposals than were
reviewed by the Planning Board. Until the developer is willing to work
in good faith on a proposal, the Planning Board would prefer not to
discuss it any further.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon the motion of Normand Houle and second of Donald Hunt the minutes
of the Feb. 6 meeting were approved. It was so voted.
Upon the motion of Edward Stevenson and second of Abby Burns, the
minutes of the Feb. 20 meeting were approved as corrected. It was so
voted.
— Page 4 —
•
There being no further business, a motion wa•s made to adjourn. Having
passed unanimously, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Nancy Syatt
i
MINUTES OF MEETING
March 20, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem' Green, . second floor conference
room on Thursday, March 20, 1986 at 7 :30 p.m. Present were Chairman
Walter Power, Vice-Chairman Ken May, Edward stevenson, Normand Houle,
Abby Burns, Donald Hunt, Linda Vaughan, Robert Guethlen, and John
Butler. Also present were City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh and Staff
Advisor Dale Yale.
Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7 :40 p.m.
DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE- 19 BRIDGE ST.
This matter involves a proposal by Mr. Paul .Fraser to construct a
single-family residence at 19 Bridge Street, which is on the corner. of
Pierce Avenue. The parcel is zoned B-2 and formerly housed a
fire-damaged building which was torn down by order of the City Council.
Mr. Fraser appeared before the Board of Appeal on September 11 , 1985,
for a variance from density, setback, and use requirements in order to
construct a single-family dwelling on the 1720 square foot lot. The
Planning Board supported the petition in. a letter dated September 10,
1986. The variance was denied.
- ' Mr. Fraser has re-configured his proposal to show frontage and parking
on Pierce Avenue rather than Bridge Street and to better allow for light
and air between the proposed dwelling and existing abutting dwellings.
The Planning Board must make a determination of substantial change prior
to Mr. Fraser re-applying for necessary variances to the Board of
Appeal.
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh spoke in favor of the change stating that
this parcel should be developed as a single-family home. He noted that b
this use of the parcel would be in keeping with the type of zone that
Bridge St . will eventually develop into following the construction of
the By-Pass bridge and roadway.
Walter Power expressed concern regarding the design of the house and
suggested that the Planning Department review the plans and make some
recommendations regarding the appearance of the facade of the house.
Upon the motion of Abby Burns and second of Normand Houle, this proposal c
was voted as showing a substantial change and can now be submitted to
the Board of Appeal for the necessary variances. It was so voted.
DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE - 260 LAFAYETTE ST.
This was originally submitted as a proposal involving a 4 unit housing
development to be constructed at 260 Lafayette St. The Applicant is
re-submitting the plan with a 25% change in density, proposing 3 units.
.The new plan also shows many architectural changes in the development.
This plan has been reviewed by the Historical Commission.
— Page 2 —
Upon the motion of Ed Stevenson and second of Abby Burns, this proposal
was voted as having a substantial change and can now be submitted to the
Board of Appeal for the necessary variances. It was so voted.
PARLEE ST — FORM C
Attorney Thomas Donovan was present representing Richard Malone on this
proposal which involves the extension of Parlee St. , construction of a
cul—de—sac and the subdivision of the property into four single—family
house lots. The Planning Board held a public hearing on August 1 , 1985,
'addressing this proposal.
During' the public hearing, several concerns were raised by the
Engineering Department which necessitated revisions to the plan. The
applicant engaged d.new engineering firm to revise his plans which has
delayed the Board's deliberation on the proposal.
The revised plans have addressed the concerns raised by the Engineering
Department with some minor exceptions.
The Applicant has requested the following waivers:
1 . Granite curbing, sidewalk on one side only
2. Turning radius of cul—de—sac
• 3. Road width
4. Lay—out, design, and calculations of storm drain
.5. Statement of conformance with Master Plan
6. Sign advertising public hearing
7. EIS
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh noted that this subdivision meets all
zoning- requirements.
Walter Power asked if a headwall would be constructed and Mr. Donovan
replied in the affirmative.
John Butler questioned the depth of the sewer and the width of the
right—of—way. Mr. Donovan stated that the sewer was approximately 4'
deep and the right—of—way, 40' wide.
Normand Houle and Linda Vaughan were in favor of sloped granite curbing
as opposed to asphalt curbing.
Walter Power expressed concern regarding the impact that run—off could
have on the wetlands and suggested a site visit by the Board to allow
for closer review of this proposal.
• A site visit will be arranged prior to final action on the plan.
- Page 3 -
•
FAFARD - PUD, PHASE I
Mr. Ron Killian and Mr. Danny Drake of the Fafard Companies and Attorney
John Serafini were present for this continuation of a discussion
regarding the development of 520 residential units to be located on a 69
acre parcel of land off of Highland Ave. and Swampscott Road.
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh stated that the Planning Board was not
ready to grant approval of the entire first phase and suggested the
Board consider approving a sub-phaseconsisting of the two easternmost
roadways that the Board inspected in depth.
Mr. Killian stated that landscaping has been significantly increased to
include 3300 trees and shrubs, large shade trees, Norway maples, pine
oak and arborvitae, providing privacy for each unit.
Gerard Kavanaugh asked what type of landscaping is proposed for streets
within the development and Mr. Killian replied that mostly shade trees,
natural vegetation, and wetlands would exist. Mr. Kavanaugh also
questioned the caliper of the pine trees and Mr. Killian answered that
they would be approximately 3-3k". Mr.. Killian further noted that the
landscaping plan has been reviewed by the landscape designer for the-
Planning Department , Andrea Fish, and has received her input. Mr.
- -. • Kavanaugh felt that 3-3k caliper was not adequate.
.Abby Burns felt that a "natural" spacing of the trees would look nicer
than symetrically spaced trees along Whalers Lane. Mr. Killian stated
that the effect they were hoping to achieve was a "tree-lined
boulevard".
Walter Power asked what would be done about the stone bank along Whalers
Laiie and Mr. Killian stated that it would be loamed and seeded, with a
proposed slope of 2'k: 1 . Mr. Power expressed concern regarding the
mature growth of trees and the adequacy of the subsoil to support mature
trees along the road. Mr. Killian stated that they would address this.
Mr. Killian state that waste disposal will be the responsibility of the
Condo Association and that a contractor will be hired for weekly trash
pick-up. Regarding the creation of ponds, Mr. Killian noted that the
Conservation Commission supports DEQE' s opposition to this because of
water stagnation, mosquito breeding, the possible lack of maintenance,
etc. , and want the wetlands to remain in their natural condition.
Mr. Killian noted that the exterior of the building would include wood
sliding windows and doors. Walter Power questioned what siding
materials would be used and Danny Drake replied that shingles or
clapboard is proposed. Mr. Power suggested copper sheathing be used on
• the windows. Bob Guethlen suggested a woodd trim around the windows and
stated that he would like to see a detail of this. Mr. Drake noted that
skylights would be installed over the lofts and in the bathrooms in the
cape units.
— Page 4 —
Ron Killian noted that sloped granite curbing will be installed in all
major roadways throughout the development and City Planner Gerard
Kavanaugh stated that sloped granite curbing was provided in the first
two phases for drainage purposes. Walter Power suggested that catch
basins be backed by sloped granite curbing to prevent water- from running
off the roadway.
Regarding building colors, Mr. Killian noted that mostly natural earth
tone shades would be used. He stated that their architect was consulted
regarding this. Gerard Kavanaugh expressed concern regarding the
diversity and mix of colors along the roadway. 'The final color
selection should be reivewed prior to construction.
It was generally agreed by the Board that the mailboxes proposed were
not adequate and that a centralized mail area would be desired. It was
suggested that Fafard look at Zieff's mail area for ideas. It was also
felt that the units should be numbered individually. The Fire
Department supports this. Ken May felt that the proposed street names
wer not appropriate and requested that Fafard address this issue.
Upon the motion of Ed Stevenson and second of Normand Houle,
construction of Sub Phase lA of Phase I (48 units) was approved, subject
to the following conditions. It was so voted.
• Visual Impacts/Site Design
1. Landscaping shall be in accordance with plan entitled, "Site Plan,
Ledgemere Country II, Planned Unit Development in Salem, MA,
Landscape, Lighting, and Snow Storage," dated January 16, 1986,
revised March 19, 1986. Such plan shall be amended further with
regard to caliper, types of landscaping, per—unit landscaping
• budget, and other landscaping elements required by the Planning
Dep'artmentl'.' and such amendments shall be approved by the City
Planner.
2. Wood frame windows and doors shall be required on all dwelling
units, and specifications for such shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Department.
3 . Exteriors of 'buildings shall be constructed of wood clapboards or
shingle materials only. Further,
a. A detail of wood trim around windows, and sheathing materials
over bay windows shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. Window dimensions shall also be
submitted to the Department for review and approval.
b. Chimneys shall be of brick construction. There shall be no
metal—bestos chimneys.
C. The developer shall research the possiblity of placing
additional skylights and windows in individual units as
• recommended by the Planning Depatment, and such research shall
be presented to the Planning Board for review.
Page 5 =
4. Exterior building designs, if different from designs approved on
plans entitled, "Site Plan' of Land in Salem, Parcel 1" and "Site
Plan of Land in Salem, Parcel 2" (First Street) , shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Board.
5. Sloped granite curbing shall be installed along access roadways as
shown on Sheets 1 and 2, plan entitled "Ledgemere Country II, Phase
I", dated January 16, 1986, revised March 19, 1986, and shall be
subject to final review and approval by the Planning Department at
any time during construction.
6. All catch basins shall be backed by sloped granite curbing,
which shall be shown on a plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department.
7.. ,All exterior lighting, including locations, fixtures, and levels of
. illumination, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department.
8. All exterior lighting shall be installed such that the degree of
lighting during night—time hours shall be controlled
photoelectrically.
9. Building colors of each building and mix of colors along each
driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department
prior to Certificates of Occupancy being granted.
10. The location, design, and construction specifications of mail
collection areas shall be approved by the Planning Board.
• Emergency Access
1. . Final approval of street names, informational signage plans, and
unit numbering shall be made by the Fire Department and Planning
Board prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Phase I.
Health
�v iya
1. , Al Board of Health requirements shall be strictly adhered to.
2. Trash collection shall be the responsibility of the Condominium
Association and shall be collected in accordance with the Board of
Health requirements. Specifically:
a. Containers or bundles of trash shall be placed at the outer edge
of the sidewalk appurtenant to the premises of the owner not
later than 7 :00 a.m. on the day of collection and not before
6:00 p.m. on the day preceding collection and shall be removed
from the sidewalk on the same day as emptied.'
b. Additional collections may be required as deemed necessary by
the Board of Health.
c. It is the responsibility of the private collection firm to pick
up trash at each dwelling and incur all responsibility for
proper removal and disposal off site at an approved facility.
3. The requirement for installation of trash compactors set forth in
• Planned Unit Development decision dated February 7, 1986, is hereby
waived.
i
- Page 6 -
Electrical
I. Location and installation of street lighting shall be the
responsibility of the developer, "subject to approval of the City
Electrician.
General
1 . Any applicable conditions set forth in the "overall" Planned Unit
Development decision dated February 7, 1986, shall be strictly
adhered to.
2. Violation of any conditions shall result in revocation of this'
permit .by the Planning Board.
Substantial violation of these conditions shall result in revocation of
this permit by the Planning Board.
Regarding the Wetlands Special Permit, Danny Drake gave the Board a
brief overivew of the requirements for the Special Permit and stated
that the proposal was in compliance with the Ordinance.
Danny. Drake stated that all the wetland areas on the site will be
utilized but that no wetlands will be disturbed as a result of the
construction of the units: No pollutants will be used in the area and
only sand, instead of salt will be used as a de-icing agent.
Ken May expressed some concern regarding the closeness of some units to
the wetlands.
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and second of Normand Houle, the Wetlands
Special Permit for the ent.ire PUD was approved with the following
codditions. It was so voted
1.. Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Ledgemere Country II, Planned
Unit Development", dated June 24, 1985, as revised.
2. An Order of Conditions, (#64-92) issued by the Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering on October 4, 1984, shall be
strictly adhered to.
3 . Any floor level to be occupied by human beings as living space shall
be four feet or more above the seasonal high water table.
4. The use of salt as a de-icing agent shall be prohibited.
5. Siltation barriers shall be provided as requested by the Planning
Board and properly maintained throughout the duration of the
construction of the development.
6. All applicable requirements of the "overall" Planned Unit
Development Special Permit dated February 7, 1986, shall be strictly
adhered to.
• 7 . Further conditions shall be imposed during the Site Plan Review
process for each phase of the development, and shall be strictly
adhered to.
,
— Page 7 -
8. Violation of these conditions shall result in the revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Donald Hunt, the minutes of the
previous meeting were approved. It was so voted.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. Having
passed unanimously, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Syatt
MINUTES OF MEETING
• April 3, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green on Thursday, April 3,
1986, 7:30 p.m. , second floor conference room. Present were Chairman
Walter Power, Kenneth May, Edward Stevenson, Normand Houle, Abby Burns,
Bob Guethlen, John Butler, Linda Vaughan, City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh
and Staff Advisor Dale Yale. Donald Hunt was absent.
Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
FORM A - SCOTT GALPER, BOSTON STREET
This Form A involves the subdivision of a parcel of land into two
separate parcels and to physically divide a building to its original.
state of two separate buildings, each of which will be located on its
own lot, with the newly created lot having frontage on Watson Street.
The parcel is located in a B-2 district and the necessary variances to
allow this subdivision were approved by the Board of Appeal last June.
Scott Galper, the Applicant, was present to discuss the plan. Walter
Power asked how many units will be constructed and Mr. Galper replied
that there will be a total of 4 units and 4 parking spaces. He plans to
restore the two buildings and generally upgrade the site.
• Upon the motion of Abby Burns and second of John Butler, the Form A was
endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. It
was so voted.
FORM A - ONE THREE BROAD STREET
This involves the subdivision of a` parcel of land located at 1-3 Broad
St . to be developed into 12 condominium units at One Broad Street and 15
congregate housing units at 3 Broad St. It was noted that the Salem
Housing Authority will take title to 3 Broad St.
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh noted that access easements will be
provided across the back of the parcels for vehicles. Adequate parking
will be provided.
Upon the motion of Abby Burns and second of Ken May, the Form A was
endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. It
was so voted.
MCNEIL SEAWALL
The Planning Board approved Site Plan Review and Wetlands/Flood Hazard
Special Permits for 36 townhouse condominiums to be constructed on the
former Health Hospital site on Collins Cove last October. Construction
has recently commenced on the project.
• -2
-
This past week, the developer informed the Planning Department that a
portion of a rip-rap wall was constructed in the wrong location, below
the 1984 mean high water line. This location was contrary to the
approved site plan and was install.ed improperly due to a survey error.
The developer will be removing the improperly placed rip-rap.
In addition, McNeil Associates is proposing to extend the rip-rap wall,
in its proper location, approximately 400, further than originally
intended on the approved site plan and would also like to apprise the
Board of this proposed change.
Walter Power asked if rock would be randomly dumped and Mr. Southworth
explained that the wall would be vertically placed and set by machines.
Tom Southworth noted that there will be no filling behind the wall.
It was generally agreed this change would be an asset to the project.
FAFARD - WHALERS LANE
Attorney John Serafini, Mr. Ron Killian and Ms. Lesley Dale, Landscape
Architect for the Fafard Companies were present to address the following
outstanding issues: Materials of windows, doors, and chimneys, building
colors, lighting, design of mail collection areas, size, shape, and uses
• of proposed recreation area, street names, landscaping, signage system,
etc. In addition, the remaining buildings in Phase I (Sub-Phase 1-B)
are now being reviewed.
Ron Killian stated that open space has been increased to approximately
30,000 s. f. with the elimination of building #97. There are several
possibilities for the use of the land including having the area loamed
and seeded for recreation purposes, leaving the site for the Condominium
Association to develop, or leaving the site in its natural state with
additional. landscaping, and perhaps some picnic tables.
Ms. Dale noted that as much vegetation as possible will be saved and
that, in addition, extensive landscaping, including pines, shade trees,
evergreens and arborvitae will be planted, recreating a "forested"
effect, and at the same time, providing privacy for each unit.
Decidious trees will be placed along the roadway for shade. The
landscaping budget is estimated at $4000 per unit. Phase I will have
360 pines and approximately 300 shade trees.
Bob Guethlen felt that the open space would be more aesthetically
pleasing left as natural as possible. Ron Killian stated that a good
idea might be to consider a mix of open space and a recreation area.
Mr. Killian noted that copper sheathing over windows is estimated at
$600 each and not being cost effective, anodized aluminum is proposed.
• He stated that they felt landscaping was a more important budget item.
Mr. Killian submitted a new list of street names to the Board for their
review based upon suggestions by Abby Burns of names of ships which were
- Page 3 -
•
Mr. Killian submitted a new list of street names to the Board for their
review based upon suggestions by Abby Burns of names of ships which were
part of Salem' s trade and maritime history. . Regarding mailboxes, Mr.
Killian stated that the proposed design would be designed keeping
Zieff's mail areas in mind, but would more appropriately fit in with the
existing "country" surroundings.
Walter Power suggested a site visit to further address the issue of open
space and Mr. Kavanaugh suggested a working session with the Planning
Department to adequately address these issues prior to the next Planning
Board meeting.
BY-PASS UPDATE
Plans have been finalized for the construction of the Beverly-Salem
Bridge and By-Pass. The State D.P.W. has begun initial land taking
procedures and has conducted a neighborhood meeting at the request of
the City. Monthly meetings have been held at the D.P.W. office in
Boston to update the communities involved on the progress of the
project. Bill Luster of the Planning Department has attended these
meetings, is involved with the project on a day to day basis, and will
give the Board an overview of the proposed project as it now exists.
• Normand Houle asked if any filling along the North River was proposed
and Bill Luster replied that a portion of the River would be filled to
make room available for the railroad.
Ken May asked how access will be obtained onto North Street and Bill
Luster stated that an off-ramp to the downtown will be provided. Mr.
Luster noted that there will be four entrance/exit points to the
overpass: near Bill and Bobs on Bridge St. , at the North St. overpass,
Flint St. , and at Boston St.
Walter Power raised the issue of the excessive amount of traffic that is
expected to be generated on Boston St. as a result of the overpass and
Mr. Luster stated that there is a possibility of Boston St. becoming a
4-lane roadway. He noted that several businesses may be taken in the
Flint St. and March St. areas.
John Butler felt that while the construction of the By-Pass would ease
traffic flow in the Bridge St. area, it would be a detriment to traffic
in the Flint and Boston St. areas. Walter Power felt' that there are
several areas which need to be addressed with respect to the design of
the By-Pass and suggested that the Planning Board forward a letter to
the D.P.W. expressing dissatisfaction with their lack of cooperation in
dealing with the City regarding designs for the proposed roadway.
•
i
—41
Page 4 —
•
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. Having
passed unanimously, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Syatt
•
•
MINUTES OF MEETING
• April 17, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room on Thursday, April 17, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Present were Chairman
Walter Power, Kenneth May, Donald Hunt, Normand Houle, and Linda
Vaughan. Also present were City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh and Staff
Advisor Dale Yale. Edward Stevenson, Abby Burns, Bob Guethlen and John
Butler were absent.
Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
FORM A — RALPH LIPPSETT, PICKMAN ROAD
This Form A involves the re—subdivision of two lots on Pickman Road to
allow the conveyance of parcel 1—A from Lot 1 to Lot 2. A Special
Permit for the re—subdivision (both lots are non—conforming as to
frontage, lot area, and side—line setbacks) was granted by the Board of
Appeal on February 19, 1986, to allow this re—subdivision.
Upon the motion of Donald Hunt and second of Normand Houle, the Form A
was endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required.
It was so voted.
PUBLIC HEARING — FORM C — BARNES CIRCLE
• Walter Power read the notice of the public hearing.
This public hearing involves the proposed development of one lot on
Barnes Circle for which a roadway must be constructed to provide
frontage. The Cleveland Group, developers for the parcel, propose to
extend Barnes Avenue to Barnes Circle and construct a 90=degree
turnaround onto Barnes Circle as required by the Fire Department and the
Engineering Department. Utilities will also be constructed according to
Engineering Department specifications.
The developer proposes to construct a 26—foot wide roadway, which
conforms to the existing road layout. The following waivers are
requested: road width, sidewalk, curbing, planting strips, cul—de—sac,
Environmental Impact Statement, sign advertising public hearing, design
scales for drainage, water, and sewer, statement of conformance with
Master Plan.
Mr. William Heaphy of the Cleveland Group noted that a building permit
has already been obtained.
Walter Power read the comments that were submitted by the following
departments:
The Fire Department and Conservation Commission concur with the plan.
• The Engineering Department concurs with the plan and offered the
following comments:
Page 2 —
•
1. A "drop inlet" must be provided at the proposed manhole;
2. A 3—ft. minimum cover should be provided for the building sewer
service.
The Board of Health concurs with the plan and added these comments:
1. The design proposal concurs with the City Engineering
Department and City Plumbing Inspector for utility tie—ins for
drinking water, sanitary waste, (sewage) , gas lines, and/or any
other utility service.
2. Prior to water service, (drinking water) , being put into
service it be tested for pressure and bacteria by a certified
labortory and the results submitted to the Planning and Health
departments in writing.
3. Employ an acceptable method for removal of all construction
debris and vegetation waste from site during construction.
4. Employ an acceptable method for dust and street cleaning
control during site construction.
5. Prior to site start—up and during site construction, employ a
licensed pest control firm for site evaluation and service with
.a copy of the service program sent to the Planning and Health
Departments.
6. The final surface be graded so as to prevent any blockage or
stagnant matter, water, or organic growth which could create
offensive conditions and/or odors.
Mr. Candido Milani of 19 Barnes Circle, an abutter, expressed concern
regarding the view from his house being blocked with the construction of
the proposed home. He also discussed the problem of motorcycles and
trailbikes in the area. It was noted by the developer that a road was
being constructed at their expense to serve Mr. Milani' s lot as well as
their own. Further, more presence in the area will defer trailbike
activity.
Following some discussion, the public hearing was declared closed. The
proposal will now be referred to the Planning Department for their
review, comments and recommendations.
FORM C — PARLEE STREET
Attorney Jack Keilty was present representing Richard Malone for this
proposal which involves the extension of Parlee Street through the
construction of a cul—de—sac to allow the subdivision of the parcel into
four single—family house lots. A public hearing was held on the
proposal in August, and the Board heard an update from the applicant on
March 20. At that time, it was agreed that a site visit would be
necessary prior to action on the plan. The Board inspected the site this
past Saturday.
•
Page 3 —
•
The Applicant has presented a revised plan which shows sidewalks on both
sides, sloped granite curbing, and proposed building locations. A
delineation of the wetland areas has also been added to the plan, as
requested by the Board.
The petitioner has met all of the requirements of the Planning Board,
Planning Department, and Engineering Department.
Mr. Keilty stated the filing of a Notice of Intent with the Conservation
Commission would be required due to the existence of a small pond on the
site. He also noted that all roadway construction will be in compliance
with the rules and regulations of the Planning Department. Sloped
granite curbing is proposed throughout the subdivision.
Walter Power expressed concern regarding road drainage from the proposed
cul—de—sac and Mr. Keilty staed that a stilling basin may have to be
installed to collect sedimentation and slow down the drainage velocity.
Mr. Power asked if all utilities would be underground and Mr. Keilty
replied' in the affirmative.
Upon the motion of Ken May and second of Donald Hunt, the requested
waivers were granted, with the exception of "Layout, design, and
calculations of storm drain". It was so voted.
• Following some discussion, a motion was made by Ken May and seconded by
Normand Houle to endorse the Form C, subject to the following
conditions. It was so voted.
1 . All Board of Health requirements set forth in a letter dated July
29,. 1985 shall be met.
2. A Certified Statement of encumbrances existing on the land shall be
submitted to the Board prior to endorsement of the plan.
3. A performance guarantee shall be filed with the Planning Board prior
to endorsement of the plan to ensure completion of the improvements
required under the City of Salem Subdivision Regulations.
4. All electrical cable shall be encased in conduit unless otherwise
specified by the City Electrician.
5. All requirements of the Engineering Department with regard to
utility installation shall be met.
6. The name "Parlee Street Extension" shall be subject to the approval
of the Fire Department.
7. All construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
• p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No work shall
be conducted on Sundays. Inside work of a quiet nature will be
permitted at other times.
— Page 4 —
8. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday — Friday between
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. There shall be no drilling or blasting on
Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
9. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Planning Board. A Clerk of the Works may be
required for utility inspection by the City at the expense of the
developer as is deemed necessary by the Director of Public Services and
the City Planner.
10. Proposed building locations shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department.
11. Sloped granite curbing shall be installed from the end of the
existing pavement at Applicant' s propert6y line on both sides of Parlee
Street (roughly opposite Station 1+00 on above—referenced plan) to
properly delineate roadway.
12. The terminus of existing Parlee Street layout shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department.
13. Adequacy of drainage shall be reviewed by the Engineering
Department.
14. As—built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer,
shall be submitted to the Engineering Department.
96 HIGHLAND AVENUE — DISCUSSION
Mr. Bob Connor of Charterhouse Development and Mr. Bruce Stamsky of
Stamsky and McNary Engineering presented to the Board with this proposal
which involves the construction of a 9,996 square foot building which is
proposed to be used as a medical office building on the site of the
former Sunoco Station on Highland Avenue.
The proposal is to be heard before the Board of Appeal on April 30, 1986
and the developer, Charterhouse Development, has requested to appear
before the Planning Board to provide an overview of the plan, despite
the fact that it does not require approval under the Site Plan Review
requirements because the building is less than 10,000 square feet.
The plan has been reviewed by the Conservation Commission and a
determination has been made that there is no wetland significance on the
site. There is a drainage swale on the southerly border of the site
which will be culverted and connect to an existing culvert which runs
under Highland Avenue.
Mr. Connor stated that 57 parking spaces will be provided and that 8-10
• physicians are expected to occupy the building.
Page 5-
Linda Vaughan suggested designating Colby St. as a one-way to ease
traffic flow and help avoid vehicular congestion. According to a recent
traffic study, it was determined that peak hours of traffic flow will be
from 3-5 p.m. They are amenable to considering this suggestion,
however.
Regarding landscaping, Mr. Connor noted that screening, including
arborvitae and Norway Maples, will be provided along the property line.
Staff Advisor Dale Yale qeustioned the exterior of the building and Bob
Connor stated that it would be stained cedar clapboard and would be
compatible with surrounding buildings.
Linda Vaughan asked if the proposed lot would be leveled to the existing
one and Mr. Stamsky replied that they would essentially be the same
grade. He noted that one existing curb cut will be eliminated.
Mr. Connor will be returning to the Board for a Wetlands /Flood Hazard
Special Permit on June 5.
FAFARD - WHALERS LANE
Mr. Ron Killian and Attorney John Serafini were present for this
• continuation of a discussion regarding the development of 520
residential units to be located on a 69 acre parcel of land off of
Highland Ave. and Swampscott Road.
At our last meeting, several of the outstanding issues relating to the
remainder of Phase I of the Fafard development were resolved. In
particular, the developer presented a landscaping plan which satisfied
the criteria developed by the Planning Board and Planning Department.
Mr. Killian noted that Phase I will have approximately 31,000 s.f. of
open space. There will also be 77,000 s.f. of dry open area added per
the site visits held by the Board recently, and the open area around the
"tree house" has been increased to approximately 46,000 sq. ft. The
distance in between buildings averages 85 ft. Also, a life course for
jogging will be provided throughout the entire development.
Walter Power asked if any drainage existed in the 77,000 sq. ft. area
and Mr. Killian stated that there were some compensatory wetlands in
that area, but it was a walkable area.
Regarding windows, City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh expressed concern with
regard to the degree, amount and width of the trim and also felt that
the scale of the windows was not appropriate. He further discussed the
issue of siding and whether pine or cedar clapboard would be most
appropriate. These issues are still under discussion with the Planning
• Department.
— Page 6 —
•
Regarding mailbox enclosures, Mr. Killian noted that a subdued style,
and one in keeping with the design of the surrounding buildings is
desired. Gerard Kavanaugh asked what material would be underneath the
surface of the mailboxes and Mr. Killian stated brick and stone are
being considered but occasionally tend to break or crack. As a result,
this issue will need to be addressed further. Walter Power suggested
that granite paving blocks may be a suitable alternative.
Ron Killian noted that he will discuss the issue of street names further
with Abby Burns.
Upon the motion of Normand Houle and second of Linda Vaughan, the
balance of Phase I (Sub—phase I—B) was approved, subject to the
following conditions: It was so voted.
Visual Impacts/Site Design
1. Landscaping shall be in accordance with plan entitled, "Site Plan,
Ledgemere Country II , Planned Unit Development in Salem, MA. ,
Landscaping, Lighting, and Snow Storage," dated January 16, 1986,
revised April 3, 1986.
a. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility
• of 'the developer, his successors, or assigns.
2. Building colors and mix of colors along driveways shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy for the phase.
3. Locations, design, and construction specifications of mail
collection areas shall be approved by the Planning Board.
4. A site plan of proposed open space area, including landscaping,
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
5. Sloped granite curbing shall be installed along access roadways, as
shown on Sheets 1 and 2, plan entitled, "Ledgemere Country II, Phase I,"
dated January 16, 1986, revised March 19, 1986.
6. All exterior lighting shall be in accordance with plan entitled,
"Site Plan, Ledgemere Country II, Planned Unit Development in Salem,
MA. , Landscaping, Lighting, and Snow Storage", dated January 16, 1986,
revised April 3, 1986. Exterior lighting shall be installed such that
the degree of lighting during night—time hours shall be controlled
photoelectrically.
7. A comprehensive plan for open space and trail system for the whole
development shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board prior
• to ---.
- Page 7 -
•
Ememgency Access
1. Final approval of street names, informational signage plans, and
unit numbering shall be. made. by the Fire Department and Planning Board
prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
Health
1 . All Board of Health Requirements as prescribed in letters dated
February 28, 1986, March 6, 1986, and March 13, 1986 shall be strictly
adhered to.
General
1. Refuse removal, road and ground maintenance, and snow removal shall
be the exclusive responsibility of the developer, his successors, or
assigns.
2. Exterior building designs shall be in accordance with plans entitled
---, dated ---.
3. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the
following conditions:
. a. No work shall commence before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00
a.m. on Saturdays. No work shall continue beyond 5:00 p.m. No work
shall be conducted on Sundays. Inside work of a quiet nature shall be
permitted at other times.
b. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday only
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. There shall be no drilling
or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
c. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board. A Clerk of the Works shall
be provided at the expense of the developer to make certain all such
Rules and Regulations are strictly adhered to.
d. The services of additional inspectors may be required at the
expense of the developer, as is deemed necessary by the Building
Inspector and/or the City Planner.
4. The requirement for phases of no more than 130 dwelling units per
phase as set forth in Section II, B, 3 of the Planned Unit Development
Special Permit dated February 7, 1986, is hereby waived for Phase I
only.
5. All applicable conditions set forth in the "overall" Planned Unit
• Development Special Permit dated February 7, 1986, shall be strictly
adhered to.
—. Page 8 —
•
6. Violation of any conditions shall result in the revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon the motion of Linda Vaughan and second of Donald Hunt, the minutes
of the March 20 meeting were approved. It was so voted.
Action on the minutes of April 3 were deferred to our next meeting.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. Having
passed unanimously, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Syatt
ON CITit of !$a em flassar uoiefts
S q ,
• 9 a` �IFIITI[i2t� �IItTr�t
One "ittlem (Orem.
MINUTES OF MEETING '
May 1, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room on Thursday, May 1 , 1986 at 7 :30 p.m. Present were Chairman Walter
Power, Kenneth May, Donald Hunt, N6rmand Houle, Linda Vaughan, and Bob
Guethlen. Also present was City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh and Staff
Advisor Dale Yale. Edward Stevenson, John Butler and Abby Burns were
absent.
Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order. at 7:40 p.m.
BARNES AVENUE - FORM C
At our last meeting, the Board held a public hearing on a proposal to
extend Barnes Avenue in order to provide frontage for a single-family
house lot and the installation of the necessary utilities to serve the
lot. There is no division of land, only the need to provide access,
frontage, and utilities.
The Planning Board reviewed the waivers requested by the developer:
1 . . Sidewalks, curbing, grass strips (None requested, 5' sidewalk, 5'
grass strips, granite curbing required)
2. Cul-de-sac (T- turnaround requested, 116' diameter cul-de-sac
required)
3.; Road width (40' layout, 26' pavement requested; 57 layout, 36'
pavement required)
4. Lay—out, design., calculations of storm drain
5. Statement of conformance with Master Plan
6. Sign advertising public hearing
7. EIS
8. . Underground utilities (Propose above—ground)
Regarding the waiver from underground utilities, following some
discussion it was agreed that the Board would require that utility wires
be run down the pole and into the house underground.
. Upon the motion of Kenneth May and second of Donald' Hunt, a Certificate
of Action will be issued with the waivers requested excepting that
underground utilities will be required, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Board of Health conditions set forth in a letter dated April 16,
1986, shall be strictly adhered.
2—
• 2. Requirements of the Engineering Department set forth in a letter
dated April 17, 1986, shall be strictly adhered to.
3 . A certified statement of any encumbrances existing on. the land shall
be submitted to the Planning Department prior to endorsement- of the
plan. _
4. A performance guarantee shall be filed with the Planning Board prior
to endorsement of the plan to ensure-completion of the improvements
required under the City of Salem Subdivision Regulations.
5. All construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
p1m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No work shall
be conducted on Sundays.' Inside work of a quiet nature will be
permitted' at other times.
6. Drilling' and blasting shall be limited to Monday — Friday between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. There shall be no drilling or blasting on
Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
7. As—built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall
be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to Certificates of
Occupancy.
It was so voted.
• PUBLIC HEARING — SITE PLAN REVIEW SPECIAL PERMIT — ALLIED LUMBER
Walter Power read the notice of the public hearing.
This plan involves a proposal by Allied, Lumber Co. to construct a retail
building and a storage building totalling 36,500 square feet on 80,000
sq, ft . of property at 400 Bridge Street. This new construction is
necessitated by the proposed construction of the Salem By—Pass Project,
which will include the taking of a portion of the present Allied
property and the necessary demolition of the existing building.
A Site Plan Review Special Permit is required because the total square
footage of new construction is over 10,000 square feet.
Attorney Charles DiMento and Architects -Charles DeMarco and Dan Nelson
were present to give the Board an overview of the proposal . 'Mr. DeMarco
showed a plan of the proposed re—location of the buildings with an
overlay which showed the buildings in their present location.
They propose to construct two buildings in place of the three presently
existing--one storage building which will be 60' x 500'and the second
building will serve as a retail, "home" center. The square footage of
building area will essentially be the same as existing, but the
• new layout will be more efficient with the reduction in the number of
buildings. The proposal meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
-3—
and a planting strip with mature trees planted 40' on center will be
installed along the Bridge Street side of the parcel. The plan proposed
is the "worst case" based. upon current working drawings being prepared
by the State. If adjustments are made to the plan, the green area of
the proposal will be increased.
The plan proposes a 35 — 40' entranceway, concrete block buildings 35,
in height. The canal will be the same width as previously. The
lighting will be soffit mounted to avoid glard to abutting areas. The
lighting will be low sodium lights and can be directed in different
directions. The state will provide cyclone fencing on the Rte. 107 side
and on the other side, nearer the railroad tracks, the building serve's
as its own boundary. This allows the lot to be secured easily.
The larger building has some architectural detail for aesthetics. There
will be no "shed" effect or flat roof. The building will have some form
of residential scale. The retail building will be two—story and natural
light and ventilation windows will provide aesthetically pleasing detail
as well'as function.
Mr. DeMarco noted the signage for the site will be one sign which
includes the Allied logo. They will go through the proper review
procedures for any signage.
Normand Houle asked if the depth of the canal will .be lowered with the
relocation and Mr. DeMarco replied the existing grades will be the same.
Mr. Houle asked if the buildings will be sprinklered and Mr. DeMarco
replied in the affirmative.
Bob Guethlen asked if the concrete block walls would be scored or split
ribbed for a pleasing design detail and Mr. DeMarco replied that they
propose blasted face block which was scored to resemble tile. They also
propose metal panels that are fluted at the top of the building to
resemble clapboard. The ends will be gabled.
Walter Power questioned how the walls of the canal will be treated and
Mr. DeMarco noted that the State has not completed their designs as yet.
Mr. Power noted there was not much distance from the level of the
proposed parking lot to the top of the retaining wall and Mr. DeMarco
stated it would be a minimum of 6", but could be as much as 1211.
Donald Hunt questioned the time frame and Mr. DeMarco stated the taking
process had begun. They wish to proceed so they will be ready when the
state is ready to proceed.
Walter Power asked what the height of the existing building is and Mr.
DeMarco stated it was 201 . The new proposed building is 351 . Mr. Power
expressed some concern of the visual impact on the abutting residential
neighborhood. Mr. Power asked if any landscaping was planned for the
• Oak Street side and Mr. De Marco replied there is an existing
right—of—way to Philson on that side. They, however, will look into the
possibility of adding some landscaping on that side.
i
—4—
Mr. David Naden of Philson Realty expressed some concern over the fact
that nothing has been resolved regarding the right—of—way. Mr. Fiore of
Allied stated he will meet. with Philson to resolve any concerns.
The Building Inspector. concurs with the plan; the Board of Health has
requested the developer to meet with them on May 12; the Conservation
Commission will be holding a public hearing on the application on May 8.
The Engineering Department has requested finish grade elevations and 1
finished floor elevations, storm drain si'zes, a revision to the length
of the storm drain, sizes of sewer pipes, connections into existing
sewer, and a shut—off valve near the ptoperty line be shown on the site
plan.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was declared
closed.
PUBLIC HEARING — WETLANDS/FLOOD HAZARD SPECIAL PERMIT — ALLIED LUMBER
Walter Power read the notice of the public hearing.
A Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit is required because of the
proposal ' s proximity to the North River canal.
M"r. D'eMarco stated the habitable floor elevation is 15.25, the 100—year
flood elevation is 14. 7 and mean high water is 8.6.
• Walter Power asked if utilities will be underground and Mr. DeMarco
replied they havt not as yet decided. A new transformer may be
necessary on site which will be mounted to protect against flooding. It
was generally agreed by the Board that a pad on the property would be
preferable.
... .It was noted by the Board that in general the Board is supportive of the
proposal., but would like the following concerns to be addressed: the
barrier height between the parking lot and the canal; the elevation of
the storage shed relative to the residential neighborhood; the minimal
landscaping on the railroad side of the parcel; the preference for an
on—site pad transformer, and the Philson right—of `way.
PUBLIC HEARING — FORM C/WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD SPECIAL PERMITS —
GREENWAY ROAD/EMMERTON AVE.
Walter Power read the notices of the public hearings. It was agreed by
the Board and the applicants that these hearings could be held
concurrently.
Attorney David Goodof and Mr. Erland Townsend of T & M Engineering were
present to discuss this proposal for the subdivision of a parcel of land
at the end of Greenway Road into eight single—family house lots, seven
of which would be built upon. Mr. Goodof stated that each lot is over
.i 20,000 square feet and the lot- at the highest point on the property
would be dedicated to the City for open space. Mr. Goodof stated that
the proposed homes will all be built within a designated building
-5—
restriction line to minimize visual impacts of the project on abutting
areas. They will agree to a site plan review process by the Planning
Board for each lot within the subdivision.
Mr. Goodof noted the waivers the developer was requesting:
1. Sign advertising public hearing
2. Fire Alarm box and Police signal box
3. Length of dead—end street
4. Diameter of turnaround
5. Centerline radius
6. Roadway width
7. Pavement width
8. Vertical curbing
9. Sidewalks
10. Shade trees
Mr. Goodof also stated they propose to channel run—off via catch basins
and new drainage system to a wetland area across Willson Road. He noted
that there have been run—off problems in the area in the past, some •of
which were alleviated by the Salem High School drainage system. They
expect their new system will further alleviate problems by channelling
run—off directly into the wetland.
Donald Hunt asked if the City Engineer had reviewed the proposed
_ drainage system and Mr. Goodof replied that he agrees this system will
alleviate drainage problems somewhat and will not exacerbate any
problems further. Because of the large amount of ledge on the site,
there is no percolation presently.
Mr. Townsend outlined the proposed drainage system in detail. A series
of catch basins will be installed at the present end of Greenway Road
and water will be channelled through new pipes along the rear of Lot One
via easement to catch basins at the new cul—de—sac. He noted the pipe "
would be placed along the rear of Lot One to avoid blasting into deep
ledge. The run-off will then be channelled down to Willson .Road and
across the street into the wetland. Mr. Townsend noted that they had
proposed corrugated metal pipe, but the Engineering Department wishes
concrete or PVC pipe.
Mr. Townsend also stated that they have located the fire hydrant
according to Fire Department requirements..
Kenneth May asked if much blasting would be necessary and Mr. Townsend
replied it would not be excessive.
Walter Power asked how much run—off would be channelled to the new
drainage system and Mr. Townsend replied that 60% to 70%. Mr. Power
asked if the propose to fill and re—grade to direct flows and Mr.
Townsend replied in the affirmative.
Walter Power read the comments from the various Departments;
-6—
The Fire Department requests the name Emmerton Avenue be changed because
the City already has an Emmerton Street; the Building Inspector concurs
with the plan; the Board concurs with standard conditions; the Police
Department concurs; the City Engineering Department concurs,• with the
suggestion that one sidewalk be required and some construction details
to the proposed drain be addressed; the School Department concurs; the
Conservation .Commission will issue an Order of Conditions following
receipt of some additional calculations.
Mr. Crean of 26 Greenway Road stated there are severe drainage problems
in the neighborhood now. He is concerned this development will
exacerbate these problems. Mr. Roger Petit of Emerald Avenue asked what
recourse the neighbors would have if water problems were worsened.by
this development. Mr. Smales has concerns regarding the egress from the
project. Mr. Stanley Poirier of the Greenway Road Neighborhood
, Association,' $ Cottage Street, stated emphatically they were opposed to
the granting of any waivers for the project. He expressed concern over
run—off problems and is opposed to the proposal. Mr. Philip Brown added
his concern and opposition to the project. He feels sidewalks should be
constructed on both sides of the street and vertical curbing should be
required.
Mr. William Mahoney of Cottage Street also expressed his concerns--in
particular he noted the severe flooding that takes place every year. He
yard has severe water. problems, as well as Mr. Crean' s. Often Willson
• Road is impassible and the blasting coulc affect the natural course of
the water.
Mr. Robert Theriault of 41 Greenway Road stated the Master Plan
recommends preservation of vistas. He feels strongly this area should
be preserved. The area should be left as natural open space for the
benefit of the neighborhood and the City.
Mr. Robert Vaughan of 38 Greenway Road is disturbed over the requested
waivers. If development takes place, it should be done according to the
regulations or not done at all.
Marlene Lunt of 6 Greenway Road expressed concern over the covered drain
adjacent to her property. It was noted the State is addressing this
problem.
Mr. George Baliotis of 8 Greenway asked that the Board please consider
the severe water problems in the area. Roger Petit suggested a
performance bond be required in order to correct any drainage problems
this project may cause.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was declared
closed.
• 7_
PEABODY MUSEUM
On February 20, 1986, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the
proposal of the Peabody Museum to construct a 27,000 square foot
addition to the existing museum building.
Since that hearing, the proposal has undergone extensive review by the
Salem Redevelopment Authority and Design Review Board. Further, the
architects have satisfied the concerns raised by the various City
departments who comment to the Board.
Mr.. Fiske Crowell, architect for the project, was present representing
the museum.
Walter Power asked if any changes were made to the loading dock area and
Mr. Crowell replied that some additional landscaping will take place,
but no changes will be made to the actual canopy.
Mr. Power sated he had some concern for' the rear facade of thebuilding.
Mr. Crowell stated. they had some limitations on design due to the
necessity of no light affecting the exhibit area. They propose ivy do
the facade facing Charter Street.
• The general consensus of the Board was the architects did not address
the concerns the Planning Board has raised. . However, upon the motion of
Kenneth May and second of Normand Houie, the Special Permit was granted
subject to the following conditions:
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Peabody Museum of Salem -
Asian Export Art Wing" , dated January 16, 1986.
2. All construction shall be conducted in accordance with the following .
conditions:
a. No work shall commence before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00
a.m. on Saturdays. No work shall continue beyond 5:00 p.m. No
work shall be conducted on Sundays.
b. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned in order that they
not leave dirt and/or debris on the roads as they leave the
site.
3 . Landscaping of the site, particularly the garden area facing Charter
Street, shall be reviewed and approved by the Salem Redevelopment
Authority.
. It was so voted, with one. member opposed.
• _8—
DIBIASE — DISCUSSION
The Board held a' public hearing late last year regarding the proposed
re—subdivision of Phases II & III. of' Pickman Park in order to allow the
exclusive construction of four—unit buildings rather than a mixture of
two and four unit buildings. At that time, the developer also agreed to
undergo a complete Site P1an. Review .process so that the Board would have
new input on issues of site design, landscaping, infrastructure, '
grading, blasting, and other site planning concerns.
Following several meetings with the Planning Department and site visits
with the Board and neighbors, Mr. DiBiase has prepared comprehensive
site plans for: these two phases which attempt to minimize the 'visual
impact' of the development on the surrounding neighborhood, minimize
drilling and blasting, minimize the amount of paved area, provide
enhanced landscaping and more aesthetic site designs.
Mr. Paul DiBiase, Mr. Charles Faia, engineer for the project, Mr. John
Wagner, a landscape architect for the project, and Mr. John Emerson,
architect were present to discuss this plan. Mr. DiBiase noted that
following the meeting with neighbors, the majority seemed to be
satisfied with the proposed changes.
Mr. Faia presented the new plan with an overlay which 'showed the
previous approved plan. He noted that this plan pulled the proposed new
buildings away from the existing neighbors a minimum of 150' . One
roadway has been eliminated entirely and the remaining roadways have
been shortened, thus minimizing the adverse effects of blasting and
reducing the amount of asphalt .
Mr. Wagner described the landscaping plan in detail. He also noted this
plan.minimizes blasting, retains existing vegetation better, and
conforms, to the existing contours much better. It is environmentally a
better plan. Mr. Wagner noted in preparing. the landscaping plan he
concentrated screening views between buildings and screening buildings
from abutting residences. The area will be densely landscaped and any
place there is a change in grade, there will be hedgerows and trees to
screen. Mr. Wagner described the treatment of the end of Moffatt where
he proposes screening with shrubbery and vines.
Walter Power expressed some concern for the landscaping in Phase I and
Mr. Wagner noted they plan to enhance this landscaping as .well. He
added that they will add additional shrubbery to all phases of the
project where they, see fit in the field as well.
Councillor John Nutting asked if there was any connection between phases
and Mr. DiBiase replied in the negative. There will be a fire road
which will connect the phases which will have barriers through which
fire vehicles can pass, but passenger cars cannot.
_9_
• Mr. Peter DeGrandpre stated he wished no buildings were constructed on
ridges. He further stated he felt the quadriplexes were not
aesthetically pleasing and expressed his frustration at .trying to accept
the proposal at .all.
Some discussion took place regarding the Conservation Area parking lot
proposed for Pickman Road. The neighbors are -in general agreement that
this lot could cause more problems that benefits. The possibility of
eliminating this requirement will be considered.
Councillor Nutting also requested that drilling and blasting be
controlled so that the neighbors will have minimal disturbance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the minutes will be deferred to the next meeting'.
There being no further busines, a motion was made to adjourn. Having
passed unanimously, the meeting was declared adjourned at 11 : 15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
_.� Dale E. Yale
•
MINUTES OF MEETING
May 15, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room on Thursday, May 15, 1986. Present were Kenneth May, Donald Hunt,
Edward Stevenson, Linda Vaughan, Robert Guethlen, and Abby Burns. Also
present were City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh and Staff Advisor Dale Yale.
Walter Power, John Butler, and Normand Houle were absent.
Vice—Chairman Kenneth May called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p.m.
FORM A--FAFARD, PHASE I, WHALERS LANE
This involves the subdivision of Phase I of the recently—approved PUD
off Whalers Lane for purposes of financing..
Upon the motion of Donald Hunt and second of Edward Stevenson, the Form
A was endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required.
It was so voted.
FORM A--JOSEPH MIRAGLIA, BARNES CIRCLE
Attorney David Goodof was present to discuss this Form A which divides a '
_ single lot on Barnes Circle into three single—family lots pursuant to a
Board of Appeal decision of March, 1986. The lot was originally divided
into four lots under a 'single owner and subsequently the lot was
considered as one lot.
Upon the motion of Edward Stevenson and second of Bob Guethlen, the Form
A was endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required.
It was so voted.
DIBIASE=—RE—SUBDIVISION OF PICKMAN PARK
ThisYis a continuation of discussions regarding the proposed
re—subdivision of Pickman Park. What is proposed is the construction of
quadriplex units in lieu of some duplexes and the re—alignment of the
roadways serving the units to minimize blasting and better visually
screen units from the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Paul DiBlase, Attorney Peter Beatrice, architect John Emerson, and
landscape architect John Wagner were present to discuss this proposal.
Mr. Wagner gave the Board an overview of the landscaping plan,
particularly in the areas where• screening is important. He proposes a
dense screen at the end of Moffatt Road and Junipers and Crabapple trees
to screen the Surrey Road neighborhood from the new project. Mr. Wagner
stated that all existing vegetation in the buffer area will remain and •
they plan to supplement this vegetation with additional plantings.
u
-2-
Councillor John Nutting asked if the existing rip rap would be
landscaped and Mr. Wagner replied they propose to install pockets in the
rip—rap and plant vines which will eventually cover the stone quite
well.
Councillor Nutting asked if Mr. Cormier, the closest resident to the
project was satisfied with the screening plans and Paul DiBiase replied
in the affirmative. He was happy with the fence they had constructed
and they now propose to screen the fence as well and clean up the end of
Moffatt Road.
. . Councillor Nutting questioned the visual impact of the proposed project
on residents of Auburn Road and Mr. Wagner showed photographs of the
area depicting views from the proposed corners of buildings. and it
appeared the area would be well-screened. .
Peter DeGranpre of 'Auburn Road asked the Board to consider that the
photos were taken at ground level and the buildings proposed would be up
two and one-half stories. He added the majority of the vegetation
existing is thorny vines that do not afford adequate screening. He felt
the quadriplex units were not in keeping with the existing neighborhood
and duplexes were more compatible.
Mr. Wagner noted the elevation change between Mr. DeGranpre and the
proposed buildings is considerable. The crest of the hill will serve to
•. screen the buildings from Auburn Road quite well.
Marie Whitmore of Auburn Road requested copies of the original
architect' s renderings of the proposal. She felt there have been
significant changes from those plans. She also stated her strong
objection to the proposed change noting the quadriplex units were not
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
There fgllowed several minutes of discussion as to the adequacy of
landscaping` and 'the calipers of trees required to 'provide the screening
desired by the Board. It was agreed that a condition of any approval
would address the adequacy of landscaping and the ability of the
Planning Board to define the adequacy and ensure the landscape screening
is installed to the City' s satisfaction. It was further agreed that the
species proposed shall be reviewed by the City prior to installation.
City Planner Gerard .Kavanaugh gave the Board an overview of the
differences between this plan and the one that was proposed previously:
1. In the first plan, the City had no control over the landscaping.
2. This plan reduces the amount of blasting by 35%. Roadways have been
reduced and the buildings will fit into the existing contours.
3. The re-design of the plan reduces significantly the amount of
asphalt--roadway lengths are decreased by one-half.
4. More open space is maintained--the 75' buffer zones between the
proposel project and the existing neighborhoods has been increased from
75' to a minimum of 150' .
-3-
5. Parking spaces have been increased to 2� spaces per unit.
Mr. Kavanaugh stated he believed this plan was far superior to the
original plan.
Upon the motion of Bob Guethlen and second of Linda Vaughan, the
proposed re-subdivision will be endorsed subject to the following'
conditions:
1. Work shall conform to plans entitled, "Revised Subdivision Plan for
Rickman Park" dated December 27 , 1985, prepared by Parsons and Faia,
Inc.
2. Refuse removal, road and ground maintenance, and snow removal shall
be the responsibility of .the developer, his successors or assigns. A
copy of proposed rubbish removal plan shall be submitted to the Board of
Health for approval.
3. ' Salt as a de-icing .agent shall be prohibited.
4. All construction shall be conducted in accordance with the following
conditions:
a. No work shall commence before 7 :00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m., on
Saturdays. Work shall cease at 5:00 p.m. No work shall be conducted on
Sundays or holidays. Inside work of a quiet nature shall be permitted
• at other times. Blasting 'shall be limited to Monday-Friday from 8:00
a.m.. to 4:30 p.m. There shall be no blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or
holidays.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative
effects of construction on abutters such as noise, dust, fumes. Advance
notice shall be provided to all 'abutters in writing at least 72 hours
prior to commencement of construction for each phase.
c. • At construction vehicles shall be cleaned in order that they not
leave dirt and/or debris on the road as they leave the site.
d. All construction debris shall be removed from the site or properly
stored at the end of each working day.
e. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Planning Board. A Clerk of the Works shall be.
provided by the City at the expense of the developer. Additional
inspectors may be required at the expense of the developer as is deemed
necessary by the Planning Department.
5. Landscaping of the the site shall be according to the plan entitled,
"Proposed Landscaping Concept , Pickman Park" prepared by Johannes
Wagner, dated April 7, 1986, or as approved by the Planning Department
• on an on-going basis as the development proceeds.
74—
a. Mature trees shall be a minimum caliper of 3V. Shrub diameters
• shall be a minimum of 24".
b. Th'e 'Planning Board shall review and approve the final planting list
and plan for the development prior to planting.
C. Maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the
developer, his successors or assigns.
d. Unless landscaping and screening -between buildings and undisturbed
areas is completed, a bond is posted for 'such completion, or the
Planning Board specifically'waives landscaping requirements, no .
Certificates of Occupancy will be issued for any buildings in Phase II
or Phase III.
d. A landscape plan for the area abutting properties on Surrey and
Auburn Roads shall be separately reviewed. and approved by the. Planning
Department. ' In particular, such review shall address adequacy of
screening and mit,igation of visual impacts from Surrey and Auburn Road.
e. The landscape treatment at the end of Moffatt Road shall be
separately reviewed and approved by the Planning Department.
f. Additional landscaping shall be implemented in Phase I , subject to
the approval of the Planning Department.
5, All exterior lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
•. Department. Exterior lighting shall be installed such that the degree
of lighting during night—time hours shall be controlled
photoelectrically. Exterior lighting shall be installed in such a
manner so as to not adversely affect abutting residential neighborhoods.
6. All Fire Department requirements set forth in letter dated December
4, 1985, shall be adhered to.
7. .All. requirements- of the Engineering Department set forth in letter
dated May t, 1986 shall be adhered to.
8. Rodent control measures shall be undertaken as required by the City
Planner. Specifically, an exterminator shall be available to provide
on—going pest control during construction. Copies of pest control
procedures shall be forwarded to the Board of Health and the Planning
Department.
9. Building colors and mix of colors along roadways shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy.
10 Exterior building designs shall be in accordance with plans
entitled, "Pickman Park," Type One and Type Two, prepared by Emerson
Minton Associates.
. i
• 5-
11. Any construction which takes place within 100' of any wetland area
shall be reviewed and approved by the Conservation .Commission.
12. Loca[ions, .design, and construction specifications of mail
collection areas shall be approved by the Planning Board.
13. Maintenance of fire roads within the development shall be the
responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns.
14. The design and location of vehicle barriers to beconstructed on
fire roads shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to
construction.
15.. The parking lot proposed for Pickman Road shall be eliminated.
16. Except as modified by. this decision, this proposal shall conform to
Cluster Residential Development Special Permit, dated December 23 , 1977
and subsequently extended.
It was so voted with Donald Hunt being recorded as opposed.
FORM C--ZIEFF, VILLAGE AT VINNIN SQUARE
This proposal involves the subdivision of the remaining portion of Mr.
— . . Zieff ' s land off Loring Avenue in Vinnin. Square. I't was noted that .this
issue was discussed at .a public hearing in January and action was
deferred on the proposal until some determination of a possible access
road from Swampscott Road to Loring Avenue could be made. .
City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh noted he had studied several potential
layouts, including a proposed layout submitted by the developer. He
noted the City has just entered into an agreement with Fay, Spofford,
and Thorndyke to do a comprehensive traffic study of the entire City. »:
This area has been earmarked as a place to concentrate some serious
study. If the traffic study confirms the Board' s feeling that a roadway
should be considered for this area, the land will be set aside for this
purpose as part of any future approvals for the development.
Mr. Zieff expressed his strong objection to any roadway layout which
would bisect his property. A major roadway would have a major impact on
the marketing of his"development.
Attorney Timothy O'Keefe requested the minutes reflect the developer' s
objection to any contingency in an approval which would require the. .
building of a roadway through his property.
City Planner Kavanaugh noted that a comprehensive traffic study and
updated Environmental Impact Report would also be required for any
• future approvals on the site.
Upon the motion of Abby Burns and second of Bob Guethlen, the Form C was
approved subject to the following conditions:
-6-
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled "Subdivision Plan, The Village
at Vinnin Square, Carol Way", dated November 8, 1985.
2. Following the comprehensive City—wide traffic study and its findings
and recommendations, an easement for the future road access between
Swampscott Road and Loring Avenue shall be provided by the developer in
a form acceptable to the City Solicitor if such access road is deemed
necessary by the Planning Board and Planning Department. The location
of such easement -shall be determined by the City Planner and Planning
Board.
3 . Any building construction on the site shall be subject .to the Site
Plan Review procedures set forth in Section VII—F of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
4. , Proposed layouts and calculations for storm drainage, water, and
sewer services shall be submitted to the Department of Public Services
for review and approval.
5. Wetland boundaries shall be indicated on the plan prior to
endorsement.
6. A Notice of Intent must be filed with the Conservation Commission
prior to 'any construction including roadways or driveways within 100' of
• the wetlands located on the site.
7. A. sewer extension permit shala be required through the City to the
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.
8. All applicable Board of Health requirements shall be satisfied.
9. A performance guarantee shall be filed with the Planning Board prior
to the endorsement of' the plan to ensure completion of improvements
required under the City of Salem Subdivision Regulations.
10. All telephone, electrical, Cable TV, and other service utilities
shall be placed underground. Electrical cable shall be encased in rigid
conduit unless otherwise specified by the City Electrician.
11 . All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Planning Board. A Clerk of the Wotks shall be
provided by the City at the expense of the developer as is deemed
necessary by the Director of Public Services and the City Planner.
•
• -7-
12. No construction shall commence before 7:00 a.m.- on weekdays and 8:00
a.m. on Saturdays. Work shall cease at 5:00 p.n. No work shall be
conducted on Sundays or holidays.
a. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays. or
holidays.
b. Drilling or blasting shall take place between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. only.
13. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or
Land Surveyor shall be submitted to the Department of Public Services.
It was so voted.
GR$ENWAY ROAD
Attorney David Goodof was present to give the Board a brief review of
their proposal to subdivide a parcel of land in to eight single family
house lots, seven of which will be built upon. He asked for any further
input the Board may have on this proposal.
Mr. Goodof further outlined a proposed alternative plan which would
somewhat modify the cul-de-sac at the end of the existing Greenway Road
in order to leave some land available to satisfy a possible adverse
- • possession suit.
It was agreed by the Board that this proposed change should be reviewed
by. the Fire and Police Departments prior to any approvals..
Mr. Stan Poirier of the Greenway Road Association again expressed the
neighbors concerns regarding the proposal and asked that they be
notified of any future discussions on the plan. This was agreed to by
the Board.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. The
motion passed unanimously and the meeting was declared adjourned at
10:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
L
Dale E. Yale
. MINUTES OF MEETING
June 5, 1986
The Salem Plannng' Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room on Thursday, June 5, 1986 at 7 :30 p.m. Present were Acting
Chairman Edward Stevenson, John Butler, Linda Vaughan, Donald 'Hunt, Abby
Burns, Staff ADvisor Dale Yale and City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh.
Chairman Walter Power, Ken May, Robert Guethlen and Normand Houle were
absent.
Acting Chairman Edward Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7 :40
p.m.
Public Hearing — Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit — 94-100 Highland
Avenue
Edward Stevenson read the notice of the public hearing.
Attorney Richard Stafford was present representing five doctors who have
assumed title to this project . Mr. Stafford gave the Board a brief
desccription of this proposal which involves the construction of a 9,996
square foot medical office building, housing eight to nine offices, on a
32,000 square foot parcel of land presently occupied by a Sunoco Service
Station.. The Board reviewed this .plan informally last month.
The plan falls under the jurisdiction of the Wetlands/Flood Hazard
Special. Permit because there is an area on the western boundary of the
property which is designated as a wetland on the City's wetlands maps.
That area has been filled extensively since the mapping was done and a
swale which remains runs along the western boundary of the site. This
,plan proposes to culvert that swale and connect to an existing culvert
that runs beneath Highland Avenue.
The Conservation Commission and Engineering Department have reviewed
these plans and are satisfied that this proposal will not create new
drainage problems downstream. Further, the Conservation Commission has
° determined that the proposal will not be environmentally damaging to the
area.
The plan does not require a Site Plan Review process because the
building is less than 10,000 sq. ft. , but the developers would like the
Planning Board' s input and suggestions regarding the site plan.
Mr. Stafford stated that there will be two points of access (on Highland
Avenue and Colby St. ) and parking for 57 spaces will be provided. Mr.
Stafford referred to a letter from Stamsky Engineering which stated that
run—off throughout the site will not be obstructed and that the project
• is expected to improve drainage. . The elevation for a 100 year storm
event is 70 feet and first floor elevation is 75.5 feet. Utilities will
be placed underground or at 5'k feet above the 100 year storm elevation.
• -2-
Abby Burns raised the issue of landscaping and Mr. Stafford stated that
a 6-10' wide strip of evergreens .around the building is proposed.
Linda Vaughan expressed concern with regard to the proposed two-way
access to the building as opposed to the plan that was presented to the
Board at the last meeting indicating one-way access ( in on Colby, out on
Highland) . Ms. Vaughan felt that two-way access would be the cause for
increased vehicular congestion in the area.
Edward Stevenson read comments submitted by various departments
regarding this proposal:
The Board of Health concurs with the proposal with comments; the
Conservation Commission has determined the proposal is not subject to
the requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act; the Building Inspector
concurs with, the plan based upon the decision of the Board of Appeal;
the Engineering Department has requested some additional information
regarding possible retention of drainage.
Ward IV City Councillor Leonard O'Leary was present to speak in favor of
the project emphasizing that this plan is preferable to the gas station
which now exists, will improve the area and will generate less traffic.
Following some discussion, the public hearing was declared closed.
Public Hearing - Form C - Harry Hewitt - Calumet Street
Edward Stevenson read the notice of the public hearing.
This plan involves the extension of the existing Calumet Street and the
subdivision of 3.80 acres of land into five single-family house lots.
This. plan was heard before the Planning Board under the Form B process
late last year.
The developer proposes to extend Calumet Street approximately 270 feet
terminating in a cul-de-sac which conforms to subdivision standards.
Each lot within the proposed subdivision will have in excess of 15,000'
square feet, which is the minimum lot area for an R-1 zoning district.
The developer is requesting the following waivers:
a) Sign advertising public hearing;
b) Fire alarm box, police signal box;
C) Width of roadway dedication (40' requested, 57' required) ;
d) Width of pavement area (26' requested, 36' required) ;
e) Vertical curbing - (sloped granite curbing requested) ;
f) Width of sidewalks (4' requested, 5' required)
g) Width of planting strips (4' requested, 5' required)
h) Street trees will not be planted
-3—
For the Board' s information, the requested roadway width of 40' layout
and 26 ' of pavement is consistent with the existing Calumet Street
layout. The area streets also have bituminous berm curb and occasional
sidewalks.
Attorney Jack Keilty and Mr. Erland Townsend of T & M Engineering were
present to discuss the plan.
Mr. Keilty noted that the roadway will be 270' long on a 40' layout.
Water services will be connected with Dundee St. and the sewer, through
Rockdale Ave. Surface water drainage will be directed to the westerly
portion of the site into a wetland area, and a stone swale will act as
an energy dissipator. Mr. Keilty stated taht he will be filing with the
Conservation Commission to address these issues.
Regarding traffic, 70 vehicular trips per day are expected to be
generated in the peak a.m. hours.
Edward Stevenson read comments submitted by various departments
regarding this proposal.
The City Engineer has requested ductile iron pipe in lieu of PVC for
water services, a detail of the drain outlet indicating the invert
elevation and a clarification of the invert of a proposed sewer
connection; the Board of Health concurs with the proposal with comments;
• the School Department concurs with the proposal; the Building Inspector .
concurs; the Conservation Commission concurs; the Pclice Department has
suggested a Stop sign be placed at the west end of Dundee Street before
entering Marlborough Road; the City Electrician is opposed to a waiver
for the requirements of a fire alarm system.
Mr. Ron Savage, 38 Calumet St. , Ms. Roberta Hull, 8 Dundee St. , Mr. Ray
Gallagher, 42 Bellevue Ave, all abutters, were present to speak in
opposition to the plan, with major concern focusing on increased
drainage, lighting, traffic, and possible problems as a result of
blasting.
eAbby Burns suggested a site visit by the Board to further address
concerns of the Board and neighbors.
Following some discussion, the public hearing was declared closed.
Public Hearing — Form C — 'Carlton Lutts, Orne St. Extension
Edward Stevenson read the notice of the public hearing.
This proposal involves the subdivision of a parcel of land at the Cabot
Farm for the construction of a single—family house, by a member of the
Lutts family, at the corner of the Farm. The lot proposed is 26,601 sq.
• ft.
• -4-
Some Board members may recall that Mr. Lutts appeared before the .
Planning Board in the past for a Form A approval of a lot to construct a
single-family dwelling using Orne St. Extension, a way in existence
prior to the Subdivision Control Law, as frontage. At that time, it was
informally agreed by all parties that the creation of any additional
lots would require the upgrading of services and possible widening of
the roadway. It was also generally .agreed at that time that Cabot Farm
was a unique area which should be preserved and maintained in its
current form to the extent possible.
What is now proposed is the subdivision of the land for an additional
single-family lot, again using the existing Orne St. Ext . , as frontage.
Utilities are proposed to be upgraded as recommended by the Fire and
Engineering Departments, but the existing roadway to gain vehicular
access to the lot is proposed to remain as it presently exists.
The following waivers are requested:
1) Road width - existing 30' requested, 57 ' required;
2) Roadway surface - existing 12' oil & gravel surface requested,
bituminous required;
3) Sidewalks - none requested, two 5' sidewalks required;
4) Curbing, grass strips - none requested, vertical curbing, 5'
grass strips required;
5) Design scales for storm drainage, water, sewer;
6) Environmental Impact Statement;
7) Sign advertising public hearing;
8) Performance guarantee;
9) Underground utilities
Attorney William Donaldson was present representing Carlton and Nancy
Lutts and gave the Board a brief overview of the proposal.
Edward Stevenson read the comments submitted by various departments on
this proposal:
The Engineering Department has suggested the applicants consider
overlaying the present roadway with a new coat of bituminous. The Fire
Department has determined the hydrant located on Orne Street Extension
is sufficient to serve the proposed home; however, any future
development will require upgrading of the water system. The Board of
Health concurs with the proposal with comments. The Building Inspector
concurs and the Conservation Commission concurs with the proposal.
The Board expressed concern regarding the present condition of the road
and suggested a site visit to address this matter.
• Following some discussion, the public hearing was declared closed.
-5-
Public Hearing - Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit - Site Plan Review
Special Permit - Sunburst Fruit Juice - 220 Highland Avenue
Edward Stevenson read the notice of the public hearing.
This proposal involves the construction of a 21,000 square foot
addition and additional parking facility on the Sunburst Fruit Juices
property at 220 Highland Avenue.
The plan proposes to construct a 1 : 1 rip rap wall adjacent to wetlands
on the property and fill to accomodate the new parking facility.
Attorney John Serafini and Mr. Charles Weir of Carter and Towers were
present to discuss the plan.
Mr. Weir stated that 21 ,000 s. f. of office space is proposed. The
existing gravel lot will be paved and used for parking. There will be
no additional personnel, just a reconfiguration of their facility so it
will be more efficiently run. Some blasting will be required. No work
will be done in the wetland area. There will be no increase in water
usage. No additional run-off is expected. The high water mark is at
approximately elevation 104-106 with a building elevation of 123 ' .
Mr. Weir noted that the existing septic system is not operating properly
-.. and that the Board of Health suggests tying into the municipal system.
Edward Stevenson read comments submitted by various departments
regarding this proposal.
The Conservation Commission will be holding a public hearing on this
proposal at their next meeting; the Building Inspector concurs with the
plan based upon a decision by the Board of Appeal ; the Board of Health
concurs with comments; the Engineering Department has requested a sewer
profile and a surge control mechanism to control hammering within the
City' s water pipes during the company' s processing.
John Butler expressed concern regarding the appearance of the building,
• access to the parking area and the amount of available room for trailer
trucks. Attorney Serafini noted this issue would be alleviated with the
new proposed construction.
Donald Hunt asked how long constructed is expected to last and Mr.
Robert Hopgood of Design Build Systems stated approximately 6 months.
Following some discussion, the public hearing was declared closed.
Public Hearing - Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit - Site Plan Review
Special Permit - Maine Post and Beam - Tedesco Pond, Vinnin Square
• Edward Stevenson read the notices of the public hearings.
The Board has been involved with the proposal for many years. This
proposed development involves the construction of fourteen (14) dwelling
units in five (5) buildings to be located around Tedesco Pond in Vinnin
Square. Following meetings with the neighbors and the Planning
Department, this plan was submitted to the Board of Appeal for the
variance necessary for the construction of attached buildings in an R-1
zone, and received approval on April 30.
The plan must now be reviewed under the Site Plan Review and
Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit processes.
Mr. Carl Gardner of Maine Post and Beam and Attorney John Serafini were
present to discuss the plan and Mr. Gardner gave the Board an update on
the proposal. They plan to construct dwelling units containing three
bedrooms each and three parking spaces per unit. Some units will have
garages. There will be a single entrance off Tedesco Street in
Marblehead and a locked gate emergency access at the end of Maple
Avenue. Lighting is proposed to provide proper security to the
residents without appearing overly urban. Lights will be properly
directed so as not to cause glare on abutting residences. The
developers propose a comprehensive landscape plan which has received the
endorsement of the abutters. Plantings will consist of several species
including white pines, arborvitae, austrian pines, etc.
• The proposal will tie into an existing 6" water main on Elm Avenue and
will be looped. Sewer stubs will be provided to the abutting residents
who presently do not have municipal sewer facilities and the units
themselves will be tie into the municipal City sewer at Elm Avenue and
an ejector pump station will be constructed to pump sewage from the
proposed units up to the existing sewer.
Drainage will be directed to catch basins with sumps and leaching pits.
They include an overflow mechanism which would allow overflow to go
directly into the pond in the event of an unusual storm event.
Maintenance of the sumps and catch basins will be the responsibility of
the Homeowners Association.
A jogging pat is planned surrounding the pond and a bridge on the
westerly side of the pond which accomodates the path will also include a
siltation barrier and submerged baffle system to contain sediments and
nutrients which could harm the pond. This system will also be
maintained by the Homeowners Association. The only pond improvement
eliminated with this plan which was previously included is the addition
of a nesting island in the middle of the pond. The expense and
environmental considerations of placing this much fill in the pond to
form the island preclude its being cost effective.
•
I •
rl Limited public access will be provided to abutting residential
y� neighborhoods for fishing, hiking, jogging and skating. This agreement
has been formalized with the neighbors and was made a part of the Board
of Appeal decision on this proposal.
Carl Gardner presented architectural elevations to the Board and noted
the units will have a single-family residential flavor. Donald Hunt
asked if skylights would be included in the designs and Mr. Gardner
replied in the affirmative.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the minutes will be deferred to our next meeting.
There being no further business, .a motion was made to adjourn. Having
passed unanimously, the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dale E. Yale
• MINUTES OF MEETING
June 25, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room, on Wednesday, June 25, 1986. Present were Walter Power, Donald
Hunt, John Butler, Kenneth May, Linda Vaughan, Abby Burns, Edward
Stevenson, and Robert Guethlen. Also present was City Planner Gerard
Kavanaugh.
Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
TEDESCO POND
This proposal involves the construction of fourteen residential dwelling
units in five buildings to be constructed around Tedesco Pond.
Improvements to the pond are included as part of the proposal.
City Planner Kavanaugh discussed the proposed conditions drafted by the
Planning Department with the Board.
Kenneth May asked what the terms of the variance granted by the Board of
Appeal were and Carl Gardner of Maine Post and Beam replied that the
Board of Appeal granted variances necessary to construct attached
buildings in an R-1 zone and allow more than one principal building on
the lot.
Kenneth May asked if all improvements to the pond and roadways will be '
completed prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. Mr. Gardner
replied that the majority of these improvements will be constructed
except for final course of pavement on streets and sidewalks to avoid
damage by vehicles involved in building construction.
Kenneth May suggested that the languague in the draft conditions
addressing the Clerk of the Works be changed from "may be required" to
"will be required." Further, language addressing a performance
guarantee will be added.
There followed several minutes of discussion regarding the location of
sloped granite curbing and sidewalks. It was agreed that sloped granite
curbing shall be installed along the roadway portion of the project.
Locations of curbing on driveways shall be determined by the City
Planner and Cape Cod berms would be allowe where sloped granite curbing
is not deemed to be necessary.
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and second of Abby Burns, this language
was adopted. It was so voted, with one member opposed.
Upon the motion of Donald Hunt and second of Edward Stevenson, the Site
Plan Review Special Permit was approved subject to the following
conditions:
-2-
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled "Site Plan, Tedesco Pond Place,
• sheets 1-5" dated April 29, 1986, and supporting data entitled,
"Drainage Computations", dated March, 1984, and "Sewage Pump Station
Flow Computations", dated September, 1984, all prepared by Hancock
Survey.
2. All requirements of the Engineering Department set forth in a letter
dated June 5, 1986, to the Salem Planning Board, shal.l. be adhered
to, including the installation of a five—foot sidewalk along the
westerly side of the roadway. Specific locations of such sidewalks
shall be defined on a plan to be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Board.
3. All Board of Health requirements set forth in a letter dated June
12, 1986, shall be adhered to.
4. All conditions set forth in Board of Appeal decision dated May 14,
1986, including "Agreement with Abutters" and "Covenant Granting
Limited Access Privilege" shall be strictly adhered to.
5. Landscaping of the site, including screening of proposed pump
station and any trash receptacles, shall be in conformance with plan
entitled "Tedesco Pond Place, Planting Plan", prepared by Frank Todd
& Associates, dated February, 1986 and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy.
a. Maintenance of vegetation in a healthy and thriving condition
shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or
assigns.
6. Sloped granite curbing shall be installed along the entire roadway.
a. Specific locations of sloped granite curbing on driveways and
parking areas shall be defined on a plan to be submitted and
approved by the City Planner.
b. Cape Cod berms shall be allowed where sloped granite curbing is
not deemed to be necessary.
7. Exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained in such a manner
so as to not reflect or cause glare on abutting or facing
residential premises. If the City determines that such is not the
case, it will be altered forthwith at the developer' s 'expense.
a. All exterior lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department prior to issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
8. Exterior designs shall conform in height and architectural style to
plan entitled "Tedesco Pond Place", dated February 27, 1986, revised
June 1, 1986, prepared by Tracy Moore and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of Building
• Permits.
9. Location, design, and construction specifications of mail collection
areas and entrance areas into the project shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department.
10. Proposed improvements to the open space areas shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy.
11. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules '
and Regulations of the Planning Board.
a. A Clerk of the Works will be required at the expense of the
developer as is deemed necessary by the City Planner and/or the
Director of Public Services.
b. As—built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or
Land Surveyor shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior
to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
c. Roadway, sidewalk, and utility construction shall be completed
prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
d. A performance guarantee , in a form satisfactory to the Planning
Department and Engineering Department shall be submitted prior to
• issuance of building permits.
12. Any violation of these conditions shall result in the revocation of
this permit by the Planning Board.
It was so voted, with John Butler opposed.
Upon the motion of Abby Burns and second of Kenneth May, the Wetlands
and Flood Hazard Special Permit was approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Maintenance of catch basins, protective grates in outflow pipe, and
siltation control barrier shall be the responsibility of the
developer, his successors or assigns.
2. An Order of Conditions (DEQE #64-133) issued by the Salem
Conservation Commission on June 12, 1986, shall be strictly adhered
to.
It was so voted.
• -4 _
FORM A--ROBERT DOWNING, CEDARVIEW STREET
This Form A involves the combination of two lots which have been held in
common ownership for several years. The City, for assessing purposes,
has considered this parcel as one lot, but the petitioner wishes to
formalize the "combining" of the lots in order to satisfy financing
requirements.
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and second of Donald Hunt, the Form A was
endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required. It
was so voted.
SUNBURST
This proposal involves the construction of a 21,000 square foot addition
to the existing Sunburst Fruit Juice building and an additional parking
facility adjacent to the new building.
Draft conditions, prepared by the Planning Department, were described by
City Planner Kavanaugh.
John 'Butler expressed some concern over the present condition of the
building. He questioned what the trash removal plan would be upon
construction of the new building. Mr. Fred Wakelin of Sunburst stated
they plan to install a trash compactor in the new addition which will
preclude the necessity for a dumpster on the property.
Mr. Butler expressed some concerns regarding the current practice of
parking trucks on Highland Avenue alongside the existing building. Mr.
Kavanaugh noted that a condition of ,the approval prohibited this
practice in the future.
Attorney John Serafini, representing Sunburst, noted that the tie-in to
the municipal sewer by Sunburst will be environmentally beneficial to
the City.
Mr. Michael Visconti presented the Board with photographs showing
typical. exterior building designs constructed by his company. He stated
that the exterior of the new Sunburst building will be similar to these.
Upon the motion of Abby Burns and second of Robert Guethlen, the Site
Plan Review Special Permit was approved subject 'to the following
conditions:
1. Work shall conform to plan entitled, Site Plan of Land, Salem, MA. ,
prepared for Sunburst Fruit Juices", by Carter and Towers Engineering
Corp. , dated April 11, 1986.
• 2. Sewer sizing calculations, including peak flows, shall be submitted
to the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
-5—
• 3. A sewer profile indicating invert, rim, and grade elevations shall
be submitted to the' Engineering Department prior to issuance of a
building permit.
4. Surge control, subject to approval of the City Engineering
Department, for process water must be provided to avoid water hammer
problems in the City system.
5. Board of Health requirements set forth in a letter dated June 12,
1986, shall be. adhered to.
6. A landscape plan for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
a. Maintenance' of vegetation in a healthy and thriving condition
shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.
7 . All truck traffic shall be diverted to the loading area at the
easterly side of the building to avoid obstruction of traffic on
Highland Avenue. There shall be no truck parking along Highland Avenue.
8. Signage for the building shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
. 9. Exterior design plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
10. All construction shall be in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Planning Board.
11 . The proposed structure shall be equipped with a trash compactor.
There shall be no dumpster stored on the site.
12. Any violation of these conditions will result . in revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
It was so voted, with John Butler opposed.
Upon the motion of Donald Hunt and second of Abby Burns, the
Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit for this project was approved with
the stipulation that the Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation
Commission be strictly adhered to. It was so voted.
GREENWAY ROAD
This proposal involves the subdivision of approximately six acres of
land into eight lots, seven of which are to be built upon, at the end of
Greenway Road. The eighth lot, consisting of approximately 40,000 square
feet, is to be deeded to the City and preserved as open space.
•
• -g
It was noted that Mr. Stanley Poirier, President of the Greenway
Homeowners Association, had written a letter to each Board member
describing the neighb"ors concerns. A response to that letter written by
the City Planner (attached hereto) was read for the record.
Walter Power directed the Board' s attention to the list of requested
waivers which City Planner Kavanaugh discussed. Several minutes of
discussion took place regarding these waiver requests and conditions
drafted by the Planning Department.
. City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh read a letter from the Engineering
Department (attached hereto) expressing general consent to the plan. It
was noted that the Engineering Department and the Conservation
Commission had carefully reviewed the drainage calculations submitted
with the proposal and were satisfied that there would be no exacerbation
of drainage problems associated with this development.
John Butler felt the waiver from the requirement for shade trees should
not be allowed. It was generally agreed by the Board shade trees would
be required.
Walter Power suggested a condition be included in the approvals which
would address the open space. Access to the open space and possible
fencing of the cul-de-sac if deemed necessary should be addressed. It
was agreed by the Board that this was a good suggestion. Mr. Power
further suggested that the attual deeding over of the property should be
done within a specified period of time.
Screening of abutting properties is also a concern, in particular with
regard to the cul-de-sac at the end of the proposed subdivision. It is
approximately ten feet from the back property line of and abutter. It
was agreed a condition of any approval will address this point. It was
suggested some plantings on top of an earth berm would be appropriate.
Some replacement plantings for the area disturbed during the
installation of the sewer.
Some discussion took place regarding the liability of the City for
injuries incurred on the proposed open space and the actual mechanism
for acquiring this open space. This will be researched further.
Councillor Vincent Furfaro, Ward Three councillor, spoke at the request
of the Greenway Homeowners Association. His concerns centered on the
following areas:
1. The requirement for a fire alarm signal box;
2. The need for sidewalks and vertical curbing in the new subdivision;
3. The requirement that no further subdivision of the land should take
place;
4. The extension of the pre-blast survey area to include the whole
neighborhood;
• 7-
Linda Vaughan stated she is opposed to the granting of the waiver from
sidewalks on both sides. She felt the sidewalks and curbing should be
consistent with the existing neighborhood.
Donald Hunt felt the sidewalk should not be constructed around the
cul-de-sac at-the end of the roadway because it would infringe upon the
back property line of the abutters even more.
Mr. Stanley Poirier of the Greenway Homeowners Association reiterated
the neighbors concerns regarding fire alarm boxes, blasting effects, and
the need for sidewalks and vertical curbing.
Following several minutes of discussion, it was agreed to require
sidewalks for a majority of the subdivision, with vertical curbing and
planting strips, excluding the cul-de-sac area.
The Board then proceeded to vote on the waiver requests:
Regarding the waiver from the requirement of a subdivision sign,' it was
agreed to allow this request.
A motion was made by John Butler and seconded by Donald Hunt to deny the
waiver from the requirement for the installation of a fire alarm signal
box. The motion was denied, 3-4 with John Butler, Linda Vaughan, and
• Donald Hunt in favor of the motion.
Regarding the waiver from the requirement for the installation of a
police signal box, it was agreed to allow this waiver.
The proposed length of the roadway (5401 ) , the diameter of the
turnaround (100' ) , and the centerline radius of the roadway (1261 ) will
be allowed if the actual subdivision is granted.
Regarding roadway width and width of pavement, the actual width of
pavement whall be 26' ; the right-of-way width will be 47' where
sidewalks are constructed on both sides. Two sidewalks, vertical
granite curbing and planting strips will be required on both sides
except around the cul-de-sac at the terminus of the subdivision.
The waiver from the installation of shade trees was denied upon the
motion of Donald Hunt and second of Bob Guethlen. It was so voted.
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and second of Bob Guethlen, a Certificate
of Action will be forwarded to the City Clerk approving the proposed
plan with the following conditions:
1 . Work shall conform to plans entitled, "Subdivision Plan--Salem, MA. ,
Emmerton Avenue" dated March 5, 1986. Prior to endorsement of the plan,
the plan shall be amended to provide:
•
• -8-
a. Vertical granite curbing throughout
b. Sidewalks to front sidewalk on Lots 1 and 2
C. A road width of 47 feet up to end of sidewalks and 37 feet
thereafter
d. Changes required by letter of City ,Engineer dated April 24, 1986
e. A notation that plan is subject to conditions set forth in approval
of the Planning Board dated June 25, 1986
f. Revision of lot lines set forth in sketch plan submitted to Board on
June 25, 1986
2. No further subdivision of any lot shall take place within the
subdivision.
3. Each lot within the subdivision shall be subject to requirements set
forth in Section VII-R, Site Plan Review, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
In particular, adequacy of landscaping and screening to mitigate vissual
impacts of the proposed construction from the existing neighborhood
shall be addressed.
4. Placement of fire hydrants and proposed street names shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department.
5. The developer shall work cooperatively with the .Planning Department
• and Engineering Department to address the drainage problems existing
behind 26 Greenway Road.
6. All construction shall be conducted in accordance with the
following:
a. No work shall commence before 7:00 a.m. on wekdays and 8:00 a.m. on
Saturdays. Work shall cease at 5:00 p.m. No work shall be conducted on
Sundays or holidays.
b. Drilling or blasting shall take place between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. Monday--Friday only. There shall be no drilling or blasting on
Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
c. Advance notice shall be sent to abutters 72 hours prior to initial
commencement of construction of the project.
7. Board of Health requirements set forth in a letter dated April 9,_
1986, shall be strictly adhered to.
8. A performance guarantee shall be filed with the Planning Board prior
to endorsement of the plan to ensure completion of improvements required
under the ,City of Salem Subdivision Regulations.
-9-
9. A plan showing the proposed public access to land to be deeded to
the City as open space shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval. Such plan shall include a pathway with steps and
any fencing which may be necessary for public safety. This plan shall
be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit for any
structure within the the subdivision.
10. A plan showing proposed landscaping for the buffer area between the
subdivision and the existing neighborhood and proposed vegetation for
the sewer easement shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review
and approval prior to endorsement of the plan. In particular, the
screening of the further cul-de-sac from the property of Petit shall be
addressed in the preparation of such landscaping plan.
• 11. The developer shall convey the parcel of land to be preserved as
open space to the City or as the City designates, at such time as
directed by the Planning Board. If such direction has not taken place
within six months or prior to the sale of the last lot in the
subdivision, whichever comes first, an open space restriction shall be
placed upon the parcel by the developer.
12. A pre-blast survey shall be required for all homes within the
following area: the- south side of Cottage Street, Castle Road, Emerald
Avenue, and from 5 Greenway Road to the terminus of .the existing
roadway.
13. Utility installation shall be in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Planning Board and accepted City practices.
14. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Planning Board. A Clerk of the Works shall be
provided at the expense of the developer as is deemed necessary by the
Director of Public Services and the City Planner.
15. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or
Land Surveyor, shall be submitted to the Planning Deparetment and
Engineering Department prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
16. Any violation'of these conditions will result in revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
It was so voted, with Linda Vaughan abstaining.
ALLIED LUMBER--WETLANDS/FLOOD HAZARD, SITE PLAN REVIEW SPECIAL PERMITS
Architect Charles DeMarco was present to discuss this plan which
involves the reconstruction of buildings on the Allied Lumber site,
totalling 36,500 square feet, to accomodate the relocation of the North
River canal in order to widen Bridge Street as part of the Salem-Beverly
• by-pass project.
City Planner Kavanaugh reviewed conditions drafted by the Planning
Department for approval of the proposed project.
• -to-
Chairman Walter Power expressed some concern over the rear access to an
abutting property via an easement. Mr. DeMarco stated that the owners
had met with the owners of Philson, the abutting property, and have
reached an agreement as to the location of the easement. It may
necessitate the reconfiguration of the larger lumber storage building.
It was the consensus of the Board that no action could be taken on the
plan until the easement location could be finalized. If there was to be
a reconfiguration of the building, the Planning Board would need to see
the final plan.
Action on this plan will be deferred to our next meeting.
94-100 HIGHLAND AVENUE--WETLANDS/FLOOD HAZARD SPECIAL PERMIT
This project proposes the construction of 'a 9,996 square foot medical.
office building which will house eight or nine medical offices on a
32,000 square foot parcel presently occupied by a Sunoco gasoline
station.
Attorney Richard Stafford gave the Board a brief review of the project
and City Planner Kavanaugh discussed the conditions drafted by the
Planning Department.
' Upon the motion of Donald Hunt and second of Kenneth May, the Wetlands
Special Permit will be granted subject to the following conditions:
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Site Plan - Highland Avenue
Salem, Mass." dated January 22, 1986, revised March 28, 1986.
2. Underground storage tanks, of the prior use, a gasoline station,
shall be emptied and removed under the direction of the Fire Department.
3 . Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Department.
4. All Board of Health requirements set forth in a letter dated May 15,
1986, shall be strictly adhered to.
5. Landscaping of the site shall be in conformance with plan entitled,
"General Planting Plan, 94-100 Highland Avenue," dated April 8, 1.986. .
a. Tree calipers shall be a minimum of 3�"; shrub diameters shall
be a minimum of 24' .
b. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility
of the Applicant, his successors or assigns.
6. All exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained in such a
. manner so as to not reflect or cause glare on abutting or facing
residential premises or on-coming traffic.
• -11-
7 . The proposed access to the parking lot shall be one-way -- ingress
shall be from Colby Street and egress shall be to Highland Avenue.
8. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules
and Regulations of the Planning Board.
9. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or
Land Surveyor shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
10. Any violation of these conditions shall result in revocation of
this permit by the Planning Board.
It was so voted.
MINUTES
The minutes of April 3, 17; May 1, 15; and June 5 were approved as
corrected.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
It was agreed that the meeting schedule for July will be as follows:
July 10 and July 24.
• A site visit to Cabot Farm and Calumet Street will be held on Wednesday
July 2.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. Having
passed unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :42 p.m. .
Respectfu ly submitted',
Dale E. Yale
MINUTES OF MEETING
• July 17, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room, on Thursday, July 17, 1986. Present were Walter Power, John
Butler, Kenneth May, Edward Stevenson, and Linda Vaughan. Also present
was City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh. Normand Houle, Donald Hunt, Abby
Burns, and Robert Guethlen were absent.
Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
FORM A--ALMEDA STREET
This proposal involves the subdivision of a parcel of land into two lots
with adequate lot area for an R-1 zoning district. In order to avoid a
large amount of filling of an adjacent pond to provide paved frontage
for the lot, the petitioners requested, and were granted a variance from
frontage requirements by the Board of Appeal on June 18, 1986.
Kenneth May noted that state statute requires that a minimum of 20' of
frontage be provided for a lot. This plan does not show that minimum
frontage.
Attorney McMahon, representing the petitioners, stated they would have
no objection to extending the roadway to provide the necessary frontage.
Attorney McMahon requested to withdraw this plan and, upon the motion of
Kenneth May and second of Edward Stevenson, this was so voted.
The petitioner will return at our next meeting with an amended plan
which will be heard under the Form C process.
FORM A--BELLEVIEW AVENUE
This proposal involves the subdivision of a parcel of land on Belleview
Avenue pursuant to a Board of Appeal decision dated June 18, 1986. The
lot was originally 16,000 square feet and the Board of Appeal decision
allows the parcel to be divided into two lots of approximately 8,000
square feet each. Attorney John Serafini, representing the petitioner,
noted this lot size is similar to others in the neighborhood.
Following some discussion regarding the adequacy of the pavement for the
newly—created lot, Attorney Serafini requested an extension of the
statuatory time for action on the plan pending a site visit by the
Board. Upon the motion of Kenneth May and second of Edward Stevenson,
the extension was granted. It was so voted.
-2—
PUBLIC HEARING--SITE PLAN REVIEW, CHINA. SQUARE, WASHINGTON STREET
Chairman Walter Power read the notice of the public hearing.
This proposal involves the rehabilitation or reconstruction of the
Peabody Block and four other buildings on Washington Street, Essex
Street,: and Barton Square. The developer is- proposing seventy—five (75)
residential condominium units and 12,000 square feet of office space.
Attorney John Serafini, Mr. Michael Padnos, the developer, and Mr.
Robert Miklos, the architect, were present to discuss this proposal.
Attorney: Serafini briefly described the developer' s goals in
rehabilitating the site and noted especially their proposal to construct
ninety underground parking spaces in lieu of depending on the City' s
public parking facilities.
Mr. Miklos presented the plans, elevations and a model of the proposal
to the Board. . He noted they are excited about the project and feel the
location is prominent. They propose to retain the open space on the
corner of Washington and Essex Streets and provide public access to the
parcel. They also propose to create a series of garden spaces between
the buildings to provide an urban amenity. "China Terrace" which is
proposed to be located between the rehabilited Peabody Block building
and a proposed new structure abutting the rear of the Merchants Bank
will be similar .in scale to Derby Square and will serve as additional
open space for the condominium residents.
Mr. Miklos then discussed the underground parking which will extend
below grade for one level and at grade for a second level. Therefore,
the actual habitable living space will begin at the second floor level
of the building. Two accesses will be provided to the garage, both of
which will be located off Barton Street to avoid congestion on
Washington and Essex Streets.
They propose to physically connect the Peabody Block building and the
former Post Office building to unify the structure. This connecting
area will serve to accomodate the elevator and a new fire stair to
conform to building codes. They propose to add one story to the Peabody
Block and will maintain the original cornice line and architectural
detail. The present Post Office building is one story lower than the
Peabody Block, so they propose- to add two stories to that structure to
match the height of the Peabody Block. All architectural details will
.be preserved and maintained in the rehabilitation.
The front elevations..of the buildings on Washington Street will be
restored to their original detail. The bricks used will match as
closely as possible the existing brick$. Commercial space will be
constructed on the second level of the new building.
-3—
Kenneth May asked if the City owned a portion of the green space on the
• corner of Essex and Washington Streets and City Planner Kavanaugh stated
the City had recently applied for State funding to acquire that
property. The parcel is actually two lots, one of which is owned by the
City, the second privately owned. Once the funding is established, the
City will acquire the privately owned portion of the parcel. If this .
funding is not granted, other means will be found to acquire the parcel
and the developer will be responsible for restoring and maintaining the
space as public open space.
Walter Power asked if any thought was given to rental of parking spaces
to persons desiring parking other than tenants and Mr. Padnos noted they
felt they could use all 90 spaces proposed, as not all tenants could be
accomodated and some would have to use City lots. Mr. Power asked if
they could extend the garage any further and Mr. Padnos replied it would
be prohibitively expensive to do so.
Edward Stevenson asked what kind of commercial use was proposed and Mr.
Padnos replied that they propose office condominium uses for lawyers,
accountants, etc.
Walter Power stated he felt it was important that all facade materials
used in the restoration process were compatible with the existing. Mr.
Padnos agreed this was also his plan. Mr. Miklos added they will
attempt to match the color and texture of the existing brick as much as
possible.
Walter Power asked what building material and color the top story of the
• proposed buildings would be and Mr. Miklos replied they propose a wooden
siding which will be painted a grey stone color for interest in the
Greek Revival type of mode.
Walter Power asked how the facade facing Barton Street would be treated
and Mr. Miklos noted they will open up the bricked up windows and
restore the architectural detail. Mr. Power felt strongly that this
facade should be as attractive as the front of the building, as this
could be seen from SW direction. Mr. Padnos agreed, adding that they
have added round windows on the Essex Street side for interest such as
Mr. Power describes. '
Mr. Power spoke enthusiastically about the enhancement of the open
space. He asked if additional landscaping will be installed and Mr.
Padnos noted that their budget for this area is quite generous, so
lavish landscaping, lights and possibly a fountain will be added to this
area. Edward Stevenson suggested walking paths be added as well.
The City Engineer concurs with the proposal with the following comments:
1. Sanitary sewers shall not be connected into storm drains.
2. Pipe sizes, materials and elevations must be indicated for all new
piping to indicate depths of piping and provide adequate slope.
3. Site Plan should differentiate between existing and proposed
•
-4-
4. Changes in direction of storm drain piping beneath streets shall be
made using manholes or catch basins.
The Board of Health concurs with the following comments:
1. The design proposal shall concur with the City Engineering
Department and Plumbing Inspector for utility tie—ins for drinking
water, sanitary waste, gas lines, and other utility service.
2. Prior to water service being put into service it shall be tested for
pressure and-bacteria by a.certified laboratory and the results
submitted to the Planning and Health Departments in writing.
3. Employ an acceptable method for removal of all construction debris
and vegetation waste from site during construction and demolition.
4. Employ an acceptable method for dust and street cleaning control
during site demolition and construction and submit copy of method
-utilized to the Health and Planning Departments in writing.
5. Employ an acceptable method for cleaning and maintaining the catch
basins.
6. Prior to. site start—up and demolition and during site construction
employ a licensed pest control firm for site evaluation and service with
• a copy of the service program sent to the Planning and Health
Departments.
7. The final surface shall be graded so as to prevent any blockage of
stagnant matter, water, or organic growth which could create offensive
conditions and/or odors.
8.. All backfilling be done in accordance with good engineering
practices to prevent future damage to all underground utilities.
9. Employ an acceptable method or means for the holding and disposal of
trash (rubbish) after site development with a copy of this method 'sent
to the Health and Planning Departments..in .writing.-
10. Employ an acceptable method for the provision of adequate
ventilation to the underground parking garage for the elimination of
engine emissions and/or any other odors and submit this in writing to
the Building Inspector and Health Department.
11. Employ an acceptable. method for the control of flooding and leaking
(due to water table) in the underground parking garage.
The Conservation Commission concurs; the Building Inspector concurs; and
the Board of Appeal has issued variances from applicable density and
parking requirements.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was closed.
-5-
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was closed.
• ALLIED LUMBER--SITE PLAN REVIEW/WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD SPECIAL
PERMITS
This proposal involves the reconstruction of the buildings located on
the Allied Lumber property to accomodate the relocation of the North
River canal in anticipation of the construction of the Salem by-pass
road.
Mr. Charles DeMarco, architect for the project, and Attorney DiMento
were present to discuss this plan. The remaining issue to be resolved
is the location of an easement along the rear property line which would
have an effect on the footprint of the proposed building. In addition,
the Board had expressed some concern for the visual impact of the shed
storage building on the abutting residential neighborhood.
Mr. DeMarco presented the revised plan which showed a stepping in of the
rear of the building to accomodate the easement to the rear of Philson
Co. on Grove Street. It was noted that this access is used solely for
trash removal so it will not be for more than one-way traffic. There is
a front access to this building off of Grove Street.
Walter Power questioned if there was any way to landscape the rear of
the building and Mr. DeMarco stated there was no room, due to the
easement which is required and the railroad right-of-way which must be
maintained.
There being no further discussion, upon the motion of Kenneth May and
second of John Butler, the Site Plan Review Special Permit was approved
with the following conditions:
1. Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Site Plan, Allied Lumber"
prepared by DeMarco/Jarek Partnership, dated April 15, 1986, revised
June 13, 1986, July 10, 1986.
2. Signage for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. The barrier height between the proposed parking lot and the canal
wall shall be a minimum of 12".
4. Proposed tree plantings along the canal shall be a minimum caliper
of 4' ", planted 30' on center. Shrub diameters shall be a minimum of
24". Final landscaping shall be approved by the City Planner.
a. Maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the
owners.
5. An on-site pad transformer shall be installed in lieu of any
overhead utility connections.
• -6-
6. All exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained in such a
manner so as to not reflect or cause glare on abutting or facing'
residential premises or on-coming traffic. If the City determines that
such is the case, it shall be altered forthwith at the owner' s expense.
7. Board of Health requirements set forth in a letter dated May 15,
1986, shall be adhered to.
8. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Planning Board.
9. Any violation of these conditions will result in revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
It was. so voted'.
GREENWAY ROAD--WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD SPECIAL PERMIT
This proposal involves the installation of a new drainage system to
serve the Greenway Road subdivision which was recently approved by the
Planning Board. The Engineering Department and Conservation Commission
have reviewed the proposal in detail and are satisfied that the proposed
_., development, with this system in place, will not impact the surrounding
neighborhoods and may, in fact improve the drainage slightly.
Walter Power stated he was comfortable with these findings based upon
his experience with the construction of the new high school.
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and second of Edward Stevenson, the
Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit was approved subject to the
following.conditions:
1. An Order of Conditions (DEQE #64-130) issued by the Salem
Conservation Commission on June 26, 1986, shall be strictly adhered to.
2. All utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Department.
3. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer shall
be submitted prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
It was so voted, Walter Power, Kenneth May, and Edward Stevenson in
favor, John Butler opposed, and Linda Vaughan abstaining.
MINUTES
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and 'second of Edward Stevenson, the
minutes of June 25 were approved as corrected. It was so voted.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Walter Power reported to the Board on the site visit to Cabot Farm
held recently. It was suggested at that time that, rather than using
Orne Street Extension for frontage for the proposed dwelling, the
applicants will construct a cul—de—sac of a diameter acceptable to the
Fire Department at the end of Rand Road. This would allow the house to
be built as proposed, the potential for two extra lots to be subdivided
in the future, and will provide..a cul—de—sac at the end of a dead—end
street. The Lutts' have agreed to this suggestion-pending approval of
the idea by the Planning Board.
Following some discussion, the consensus of the Board was this was an
acceptable alternative. The Lutts will return with a new plan in the
early Fall.
NEW BUSINESS . r
1. The Planning Board dinner will be held on Friday, September 26,
1986, at the House of Seven Gables.
2. The next meeting of the Planning Board will be on August 14, 1986,
to avoid such a long span between meetings.
• 3. City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh stated that the Mayor had requested
that the Planning Board discuss and consider making a recommendation to
the Board of Appeal regarding the Stasinos issue.
Mr. Kavanaugh gave the Board a brief history of the project which
involves 26 acres of land on Highland Avenue. The Planning Board had
attempted to re—zone the property to a Bus.iness Park Development use in
1984, but the zoning was overturned by the courts due to a technicality
in the posting of the public hearing in the City Clerk' s office. Mr.
Stas'inos was further able to "freeze" the existing zoning by filing a
subdivision of the property which follows the zoning lines prior to the
re—zoning taking place through a second public hearing process.
Several plans have been submitted to the Planning Board and the Board of
Appeal which have met with little success and as recently as this month,
the Board of Appeal rejected a proposal for 163 condominium units on the
site. The alternative would be a large commercial development on the
site which would generate a great deal of traffic on Highland Avenue.
A second proposal by the developer for the site for 144 units was not
heard by the Board of Appeal until the Planning Board could make a
determination of a substantial change.
B
The overriding concern from the -City' s point of a view is a development
on the parcel which would have the least impact on Highland Avenue and
the abutting residential neighborhoods. Of prime concern .throughout the
Board of Appeal' s review process is the input and review process of any
proposal by the Planning Board. Therefore, the Mayor and Planning
Department have requested the Board consider writing a letter to the
Board of Appeal supporting a residential use for the site with specific
conditions which would allow the Planning Board to undertake a thorough
review process.
The Planning Board discussed this' issue for several minutes and
generally agreed that a residential use on the site was preferable to a
high—density and large traffic generating commercial use. Some
questions were raised by John Butler as to the necessity of the Board
becoming involved at this point. He felt there were other avenues that
could be employed to encourage the developer not to develop the site
commercially.
City Councillor Leonard O'Leary was present to state his opposition to
any support from the Planning Board which would be beneficial to the
developer. It was stressed by Chairman Walter Power that the best way
to handle this issue was to push for a process which would allow review
by the Planning Board.
Kenneth May concurred that a letter to the Board of Appeal .was in order,
• but expressed concern that the developer could end up being able to do
both a residential and commercial development. It was agreed that any
letter would be worded very carefully and the City Planner would work
with the various City Boards and agencies involved in this process to
make sure the outcome is in the City' s best interests.
A poll of the Planning Board members present indicated that Walter
Power; Kenneth May, Linda Vaughan, and Edward Stevenson were in favor of
sending a letter supporting a "compromise" residential development and
John Butler was opposed.
There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. The
Motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was declared adjourned at
10: 15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dale E. Yale
MINUTES OF MEETING
August 14, 1986
• The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem.Green, second floor conference
room, on Thursday, August 14, 1986. Present were Walter Power, Kenneth
May, 'Edward Stevenson, Linda Vaughan, Abby Burns, Robert Guethlen,
Donald Hunt, John Butler and Normand Houle. Also present was City
Planner Gerard Kavanaugh.
FORM A--ALMEDA STREET
This proposal involves the subdivision of a parcel of land into two lots
with adequate lot area for an R-1 zoningdistrict. This proposal had
come before the Board at the July 17, 1986 meeting and was withdrawn
because it was noted that the minimum requirement of 20' of frontage had .
not been provided for the second lot. Attorney McMahon, representing
the petitioner, had stated that they would extend the roadway to provide
adequate frontage and return with an amended plan.
Attorney McMahon informed the Board that the petitioners have discovered
that it would be too costly to amend the plan to extend Almeda Street
and that the Conservation Commission might not approve of the extension
because it would come within 100' of an existing pond.
Chairman Walter Power suggested that a cul-de-sac 'might solve the
problem of adequate fronatge, and turn around, and would also be within
an adequate distance from the pond. He also added that, the Fire
Department would have to make the final decision on the dimensions of
the cul-de-sac, but that it could be approximately 90' .
Mr. Kavanaugh added that the Board could work with the Conservation
Commission to require a cul-de-sac and a Form C.
Chairman Power stated that he hoped a cul-de-sac would be acceptable to
the Conservation Commission and would ask that the Commission provide an
Order of Conditions. He also stated that the Board would waive the
subdivision regulations to comply with the Fire Department ' s
recommendation on the diameter of the cul.-de-sac.
After some discussion, Attorney McMahon requested that the Form A be
withdrawn so that lie may submit a Form C along with revised plans which
will include a cul-de-sac.
Attorney McMahon submitted a written request to withdraw the Form A, and
upon the motion of Ken May and the second of Donald Hunt, the request to
withdraw the Form A was approved. It was so voted. .
FORM A-- BELLEVIEW AVENUE AND CARROLTON' STREET
This Form A was before the Board at the July 17, 1986 meeting, and
involved the subdivision of one parcel into two lots. It was not acted
upon at that time because it was believed that the lot did not have an
improved roadway as frontage. Since that time, City Planner Gerard
Kavanaugh has visited the site and determined that the lot has adequate
pavement.
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and the second of Abby Burns, the
application for a Form A was endorsed, approval under the Subdivision
Control Law not required. It was so voted.
a
2 _
• FORM A--FOREST AVENUE
This Form A involves the subdivision of an existing lot into 5 parcels
located between Forest Avenue and Hersey Street.
Attorney John Serafini, representing the petitioner Margaret
DeFrancesco, presented the Board with the proposed plans. Mr. Serafini
pointed out that each lot will meet the zoning requirements of 60' of
frontage, and at the present time, no intended use was indicated.
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and the second of Abby Bruns, the Form A
was endorsed, approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required.
It was so voted.'
FORM A--CANAL STREET
This Form A involves the subdivision of a 183,994 square foot parcel of
land at the intersection of Canal Street, Jefferson Avenue, and Loring
Avenue, into two (2) lots, one with 40,031 square feet , upon which is
located a commercial building, and a 143 ,963 square foot vacant parcel.
The first parcel, upon which the building is located, meets all of the
requirements of the B-2 zone within which it is located. The latter
.parcel has adequate lot area and frontage for the B-2 district within
which most of the ).or is located. (The rear portion is located in an
R-1 zone) .
It was determined that both lots would have adequate frontage and upon
the motion of Kenneth May and the second of Abby Burns, the subdivision
of the parcel at 330 Canal Street into two parcels was endorsed.
FORM B--CHAMPLAIN ROAD
This proposal invloves the subdivision of a 35,250 square foot parcel of
land on Champlain Road into two (2) parcels of land. ' The first parcel
would be 10,250 square feet, and the existing home on the land would be
located on this parcel . The second parcel to be created would be 25,000
square feet , and a new, single family home is proposed for construction.
The zoning is R-1 at the front of each parcel, and R-C in the rear.
Variances from the Board of Appeal must be sought for both parcels. The
roadway and utilities mus also be extended to provide necessary services
and frontage to the newly created parcels.
Following the Board' s recommendations on this preliminary plan, the
necessary variances will be requested and a definitive subdivision plan
(Form C) will be filed.
Attorney Ledoux, representing John Buonfiglio, informed the Board that
• the petitioner proposes to extend the road to create a 24' turn around.
Falter Power asked how the petitioner came up with a 24' turn around,
and Mr. Ledoux responded that he believed it would meet all the Fire
Department ' s requirements.
- 3 -
• Several alternative solutions to the proposed tun around were suggested
including a cul-de-sac with a radius of 45' and a hammerhead turn
around.
Mr. Ledoux informed that Board that a cul-de-sac would encroach on the
existing wetland, but if required to do so, the petitioner would revise
the plan to include a hammerhead turn around.
There being no further discussion, the Board agreed that final approval
would be subject the Fire Department' s final determination on an
appropriate turn around.
FORM B--FREDERICK STREET
This preliminary proposal involves the subdivision of a 34,515 square'
foot parcel of land off Fredericks Street into three single-family house
lots, each of which will be' served by a roadway which extends the
existing Frederick Street into a cul-de-sac which will conform with
subdivision regulations.
The developers have met with the surrounding neighbors and have
attempted to resolve their concerns regarding the installation of
electrical lines and other concerns, and are now requesting the Board' s
suggestions prior to proceeding with a definative subdivision plan.
...
Mr. Miles presented the proposed plans and asked the Board' s concensus
on widening the street, installing a sidewalk on one side of the street
since there is an existing wall on the opposite side, and the removal of
several trees presently in the right of way.
Before making any recommendations, Board members agreed to make a site
visit and then report their findings to the City Planner. Mr. Kavanaugh
will then inform Mr. Miles of the Board' s recommendations.
SITE PLAN REVIEW SPECIAL PERMIT--CHINA SQUARE
At the last Planning Board meeting, the Board held a public hearing on
this project which involves the proposed. rehabilitation or
reconstruction of the Peabody Block and four other buildings on
Washington Street, Essex Street , and Barton Square. The developer,
Michael Padnos, is proposing to construct seventy-five (75) residential
condominium units and 12,000 square feet of office space. Included in
his proposal is an underground parking garage for ninety (90) cars and
preservation of the open space on the corner of Washington and Essex
Streets.
The proposal will still go through a lengthy review process with the
Design Review Board on August 20th and the Salem Redevelopment Authority
• on August 25th, but in general has been well received by the various
City Boards and Departments.
A major concern of the Board at the public hearing was the need to
require that the Barton Square elevation of the building be tastefully
designed. _ As a result , a condition of approval requires further review
and approval of that design.
4 —
• Gerard Kavanaugh presented the Board with a list of conditions drafted
by the Planning Department for the Board' s review.
Kenneth May asked Gerard Kavanaugh about the status of the state grant
to purchase the green space on the corner of Essex and Washington
Streets.
Mr. Kavanaugh informed the Board that if a state grant is used to
purchase the parcel, the City will be responsible for maintaining the
land, but if. a city appropriation is used to purchase the parcel, the
lot can be sold to the developer and he or his assign would be
responsible for its maintenance.
Kenneth May questioned whether or not a condition could be put on this
parcel requiring that it be preserved as open space in the event that
the City is able to sell it to the developer.
Attorney Serafini stated that the Board could require acquisition of the
parcel and its preservation as open space as a condition of approval ,
but he felt that the City of Salem would acquire the parcel and that the
Council would require that it be open space. Mr. Serafini added that
the City has ordered Mr. Kavanaugh to get the appraised value of the
parcel ($78,000) in the event that a state grant is not received.
_ . Mr. Stevenson added that if the plan is approved and the acquisition of
the parcel falls through, the developer will have to come before the
Board again. Therefore, there would be no need to make approval
conditional on the corner parcel.
Kenneth May asked what the proposed timetable would be, and Mr.
Kavanaugh responded that a starting date was set for September following
the site plan approval by the Design Review Board and the Salem
Reoevelopment Authority scheduled for the end of August .
Mr. Kavanaugh questioned whether or not a condition which states that
when the deliberations and final decisions have been made by the boards,'
the parcel should be brought before the Board for approval.
Kenneth May stated that it may be difficult for the developer to get
financing based on such a condition and such a condition would be
difficult to enforce if the parcel is sold.
Walter Power stated that the plan could be accepted on faith even
without the corner lot since the development of that lot would be
dependent on several boards.
Upon the motion of Kenneth May and the second of Abby Burns, the
Planning Board approved a site plan review special permit with the
following conditions:
• 1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, "China Square, Salem, MA",
-.prepared by Schwartz Silver Architects, dated June 1 , 1986.
5 —
2. Ali conditions of the Engineering Department set forth in a letter
dated July 17, 1986, shall be adhered to prior to issuance of a building
• permit.
3 . All conditions of the Board of Health set forth in a letter dated
July 9, 1986, shall be strictly adhered to:
4. A site plan for all open space shall be-:submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
5. Exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained in such a manner
so as to not reflect or cause glare on abutting or facing residential
premises not to cause glare which adversely affects safe vision of
operators of vehicles moving on nearby streets.
6. Landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
a. Mature trees shall. be a minimum caliper of 3' ". Shrub
diameters shall be a minimum of 24".
b. Maintenance of landscape vegetation in a healthy and thriving
condition shall be the responsibLity of the developer, his successor or
assign.
7 . All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the rules
and regulations of the Planning Board. A Clerk of the Works shall be
provided by the City at the expense of the developer as is deemed
necessary by the City Planner and/or the Director of Public Services.
8. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Friday between the hours
of 7 :00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Work on Saturdays shall be limited to 8:00
a.m. — 5:00 p.m. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays.
9. All facade materials shall be compatible in color and texture with
existing material .
10. An elevation of the easterly facade of the building, facing Barton
Square shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval .
11 . Any violation of. these conditions will result in revocation of this
permit by the Plannin Board.
It was so voted.
PUBLIC HEARING--WETLANDS/FLOOD HAZARD SPECIAL PERMIT, SALEM SUEDE
Walter Power read the notice of the public hearing.
This proposal involves the installation of a sulfide oxidation and
sludge tank (60' x 22 ' wide, 12" thick, and 816" above grade) , and the
construction of a 22 ' x 15' pump building on Salem Suede' s property at
72 Flint Street. The construction is part of a mandated pre—treatment
process imposed on all tanneries in the area by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. A Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special permit is
necessary because the proposed construction will take place with a flood
"' hazard area.
b
Some excavation will be necessary for the installation of the tank
• involved, but the pump building will be constructed at grade with no
excavation necessary. Safeguards have been incorporated into the design
to avoid any pollution of the North River in the event of an overflow of
the tanks. The. Conservation Commission has reviewed the plan and has
issued an Order of Conditions for the project.
Mr. William Yakus of SP Engineering presented the proposed plans to the
Board and explained how the desludging and ventilization would take
place. He added that SP Engineering had been working closely with the
EPA on the new design of the tank which is scheduled to be built this
fall.
Walter Power asked about the type of material to' be used, and Mr. Yakus
responded that the tank would be constructed of concrete with a plywood
and plastic top (for ease of operation) .
Walter Power questioned the chance of flooding, and Mr. Yakus responded
that the top of the tank would be relative to the means and 4' higher
than required.
Walter Power read the Conservation Commission and Board of Health's
conditions which the petitioner must striclty adhere to.
Walter Power asked if the tank .would be visible from Bridge Street, and
Mr. Yakus said that it would be visible and agreed to use screening or
landscaping to mask it.
• y Walter Power requested that a review of the landscaping be a condition
of approval and asked what condition was now in effect to control the
odor.
Mr. Yakus explained that a cover to retain the odor is now in place and
the gases are being vented through tar paper. The desludging is now
being accommodated by pertable desludgers.
Mr. Kavanaugh stated that the City has been satisfied with this short
term solution to the problem.
Walter Power opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jean Pitman of 82 Flint Street informed the Board that the
neighborhood is still experiencing strong odors generated from the plant
which she has' been informally told result from a manufacturing process.
Walter Power requested that Mr. Kavanaugh contact the Board of Health to
discover if the odor is from the desludging tank or a manufacturing
process.
Mr. Stevenson questioned the use of a plywood cover, and Mr. Yakus
• responded that it was used for its ease of removal for emptying and
cleansing.
Mr. Pitman of 82 Flint Street questioned whether or not the existing
tank would be removed, and Mr. Yakus assured him that it would.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was closed.
a
-7-
Wal-ter Power asked Cerard Kavanaugh to consult the Board of Health when
making recommendations.
• FORM C--CLARK STREET
'Walter Power read the notice of a. public hearing- *
This proposal involves the subdivision of a 43,447 square foot parcel of
land into two parcels, one having 22,894 square feet, the other having
20,553 square feet, each with 75 feet of frontage, for which variances
were granted by the Board of Appeal.
The petitioner, Ralph Salvo, plans to extend the existing roadway in a
manner consistent with its existing layout.
John Serafini, represeting the petitioner, presented the proposed plans
which would extend the existing street with the same width to allow
access to two proposed lots. .
Walter Power and Linda Vaughan stated that the road should be upgraded
to include a sidewalk and suggested that a cul-de-sac be built by the
last developed lot owner or that each new lot owner post a bond to take
a share in the building of a cul-de-sac when the road is completed.
Kenneth May added that this type of action would require Council
approval.
Walter Power suggested that the following conditions be in place: any
lot developed on Clark Street would require widening the road 6 ' to
• accommodate a sidewalk, the creation of a hammerhead turn around subject
to the Fire Department ' s requirements, the extension of the sewer lines,
and a temporary easement until the road is completely developed. Mr.
Power also requested that the City Engineer view the site and determine
the need for drainage on all lots undeveloped.
Since there was no further discussion, the public hearing was closed.
FORM C--ORNE STREET EXTENSION
On ,June 5, 1986, a public hearing was. held by the Planning Board to hear
a proposal by the Lutts family for the subdivision of a 26,601 square
foot parcel for the construction of a single family home. The original
proposal had frontage and access to the proposed lot on Orne Street
Extension. In June, the Planning Board approved the creation of a lot
on this roadway, but only with the understanding that future
subdivisions would nottake place, or would take place in cooperation
with major roadway improvements. As an alternative to road
improvements, the feasibility of utilizing the termination of Rand Road
for access and frontage .had been studied. As a result, a new plan
calling for a cul-de-sac at the end of Rand Road, which has been
approved by the fire Department, is being proposed to provide access and
frontage for the newly created lot .
- 8 -
• The waivers from the subdivision regulations that are being requested
are as follows:
a. design scales for storm drainage', water and sewer;
b. environmental impact statement;
C. sign advertising public hearing;
d. .performance. guarantee; and
e. underground utitlities.
Attorney Donaldson, representing the petitioners, presented the
proposed plans pointing out that the 90' cul-de-sac would result in 105'
of frontage for the lot.
Kenneth May asked whether or not Rand Road had underground
utitlities, and it was determined that the utilities were above ground,
therefore, a waiver of. underground utilities would be acceptable.
Linda Vaughan and Donald Hunt questioned whether or not the City
Engineer had approved the plan, and Mr. Powewr suggested that approval
could be conditiional of the City Engineer' s approval.
Walter Power asked how the drainage would be handled at the
cul-de-sac, and Mr. Lutts responded that the cul-de-sac would be pitched
and the water would be drained into a field.
Walter Power suggested that approval could be conditional on the
City Engineer' s approval and that a Certificate of Occupancy would not
• be issued until the construction of a cul-de-sac was complete.
Upon the motion of Edward Stevenson and the second of Abby Burns
the waiver of the subdivision regulations and the plan were approved
conditional on the City Engineer' s approval of the plan and the
construction of a cul-de-sac. A vote was taken with all. in favor
exccept for Linda Vaughan who was opposed.
SHED ORDINANCE
On July 17 , 1986, the City Council and the Planning Board held a joint
public hearing to consider an amendment to Sectii.on VII-H of the Zoning
Ordinance, "Accessory Buildings and Structures", such that the rear yard
requirements of. accessory buildings and sheds be reduced from 20 feet to
5 feet, and such that no such accessory structures (exclusive of
garages) be composed of greater than 1% of the area of the lot upon
which the structure is located.
The Board reviewed the proposed amendments and concerns expressed at the
public hearing, and endorsed the proposed amendments with the following
revisions:
1 . That accessory structures not be greater than 1% of the lot
area, or 12C square feet, whichever is greater. (This
additional provision would allow the owner of a small lot to
construct an adequate accessory building, but not an
excessively large one. ) F
2. That the side yeard .requirements be reduced from 10 to 5 feet.
9 _
• 3 . Than no accessory building be located nearer that 10 feet to
any other existing building on that lot or any abutting lots.
REZONING
On August 7 , 1986, the Board met in two separate working sessions to`
discuss proposed zoning changes and the possible approval of a new
zoning ordinance and map for the City. From these meetings, suggestions
were generated which have been incorporated into the originally proposed
zoning amendments.
Mr. Kavanaugh reviewed the proposed changes which had been previously
discussed, and of special concern was the rezoning' of White Street to
accommodate a commercial fishing area and/or a recreational marina.
Several options were discussed, including the allowability of boat
repair facilities and slips for recreational use.
Donald Hunt questioned the number of moorings to be available, and Mr.
Kavanaugh agreed ,to check on the exact number.
Mr. Stevenson voiced his concern over inadequate boat repair facilities
. located near slips for recreational use.
Walter Power added that an area should be set aside for commercial
lobster fishing as well as other marina businesses rather than just
residential development.
• Since there was no further discussion on the issue and it was still
unresolved, Mr. kavanaugh agreed to .research the issue and inform the
Board about his findings.
Mr. Guethlen suggested that the Derby Street area be rezoned P.2 because
he felt that business development in that neighborhood detered from the
historic character of the area.
Walter Power informed the Board that in order to control growth, a
minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet had been ordered by the Council.
•At this time, the Council is looking for the Board's recommendation on
reducing the minimum lot area requirements.
After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the
minimum lot area should remain as is in order to preserve open space.
It was agreed that the Boar members would meet on August 28th in two
sessions to review the proposed zoning changes.
New Business
Linda Vaughan informed the Board that the DiBiase condominiums did not
have adequate landscaping, and questioned whether that was a condition
of approval before the developer could move onto the next phase of
development. Mr. Kavanaugh agreed to look into the conditions of
approval.
10
• Upon the motion of Kenneth May and the second of Linda Vauaghan the
meeting adjourned at 11 :30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Newton
.. d7
1
.. 1
MINUTES OF MEETING
September 4, 1986
The Salem Planning .Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room on Thursday, August 9, 1986. Present were Walter Power, John
Butler, Ed Stevenson, Linda Vaughan, Ken May and Richard Williams. Also
present were City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh and Staff Advisor, Dale Yale.
Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and
welcomed'. new'member' Richard Williams to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING -- ALMEDA STREET
Chairman Walter Power read the notice of the Public Hearing.
This proposal involves the subdividing of a parcel of land into two
single-family house lots. Previously the proposal had been in front of
the Board under the Form A procedure. It was not approved because of
Lack of frontage. At its last meeting the Planning Board suggested that
the applicant build a cut-de-sac with a radius of 451 , thus creating 20'
of frontage. This new plan must be submitted to the Conservation
Commission because it brings the cut-de-sac within 30' of a pond
adjacent to the site. The applicant has also asked to have some
conditions waived. The requested waivers include:
I . No Environmental Impact Statement for the project. It was
explained that since the project has to go before the Conservation
Commission this review would be suitable substitution.
2 . Performance Guarantees. Since the project is being built. by the
owners themselves for their personal use. Mr. May suggested that
the applicant may be wi.11ing .to use the covenant option instead of
posting a bond.
3. Street Requirements, including granite curbing, trees, grass
strips, sidewalks, and road width.
4, .Storm drains
5. Fire, police boxes
0. Underground utilities
The Board examined the waiver requests in the order presented. Mr.
Stevenson questioned the possibility of future development beyond the
proposed project . ' It was responded that a large amount of ledge and a
pond exist beyond this point, then there is another section of Almeda
St . Mr. Butler thought that future development connecting the two roads
is a strong possibility. The Conservation Commission has indicated that
further development. would have severe environmental impact. The current
road lay out goes directly through a pond, thus the eventual building of
a road as currently laid out is unlikely; however not impossible.
. _ -2-
Mr.
Mr. Williams questioned about the extension -of water and sewer service
to the lots. .' Mr. Williams asked if the Planning Board has a program for
the extension of water and sewage facilities. In the future monies from
property owners to help finance the casts of the upgrading and
extensions. 'The equity of the situation being that when the City
installed service 'mains, residents received them for no extra charges,
but now each person who wants an extension must pay for it him/herself.
To date, the water and sewage lines end at the beginning of the first
proposed lot. It was suggested that the applicant get the opinion of..
the City Engineer as to the adequacy of the water and sewer for the .
proposed lots.
To date the input from other City departments has been as follows: the
City Engineer would like more information including the maximum distance
between the water and sewage, - preferably at 10' intervals, the Fire
Department concurs with the plan, the Conservation Commission is
reviewing project at its Sept. 11 , 1986 meeting, the Board of Health
needs more information and will discuss the proposal at their Sept.' 9,
1986, meeting and the Building Inspector concurs with the project, the
frontage on the proposed plan is acceptable.
Mr. Williams asked about the topography of the area. Mr. McMahon
replied there is some ledge on the second lot and minimal blasting will
be required for the placement of utilities.
Mr. Power asked if there are- any comments or questions from the public.
�) and since there are none, the Public Hearing was declared closed. The
Planning Department is to review the plan and make recommendations at
the next meeting. Mr. May suggested that the Planning Board come up
with a resolution at its next meeting due to the nature of the project.
FORM C - RALPH SALVO, CLARK AVE
Mr. Kavanaugh was asked to clarify some of the issues regarding this
proposal. Mr. Kavanaugh told the Board that the Proponents Engineer was
not able to attend the meeting. In the memo sent to Board members four
issues were in need of clarification. They are as follows:
1. The width of the road.
2. The turnaround.
3. On-Site drainage.
4. Sidewalk.
In the future it appears, according to the map used, that there is the
possibility for seven (7) new lot development. After that the land is
turned into industrial usage, with the Fafard Industrial Complex being
located there. The zone boundary is currently the usage boundary.
•
-3-
Discussion from the Board members centered around these issues, starting
• with the width of the road. The proposal currently calls for a road
width of 201 , the Planning Board is suggesting that be widened to 261 ,
with the roadway blending in a northerly direction. The Planning Board
was given the wrong information about the right of way connected with
the property at its last meeting. The correct width of the right of way
is 40' 1 not 30' as previously stated. It is now reasonable to have a
26' roadway with 7' allowance for sidewalks on each side. It is because
of potential future development beyond the applicants property that this
is being considered.
The turnaround is not needed as far as the Fire Department concerned.
Mr. May puts forward the idea of having a temporary T or hammerhead for
a turnaround. Mr. Kavanaugh suggested that this T or hammerhead be
located on the petitioners property. Mr. Power raised the idea of
having an easement for a temporary turnaround. The question arose as to
whether the turnaround should be used as a driveway. The consensus was
that the turnaround should not be used as a driveway, but that it will
be hard to enforce this type of condition.
Mr. Williams asked whether there is a way to extract money from the
petitioner now in order to save it for future road development when the
potentially buildable lots become actualized projects. It was suggested
that this set-aside money for future infrastructure improvements could
also be a way in which to handle the sidewalk dilemma. . The legality of
this procedure was questioned and it was thought that this idea could be
looked at as a betterment assessment and that this is within the City' s
power to levy. The Planning Department will research this issue
further.
On-site drainage is being looked at by the City Engineer. Mr. Power
suggested that the engineer look at the drainage from a perspective of
the whole road and also take future development into consideration. The
topography of the area is that it slopes up, with the lot being of solid
ledge that pitches back into a wetland. It was mentioned that a
neighbor has dry wells in his driveway. Mr. Power questioned how to
handle the proponents project run-off and drainage without adversely
affecting the neighbor' s dry wells. Mr. Williams questioned the sewer
and water lines and where they now end. It was explained that the lines
now end at the lot line. It was mentioned by John Butler that the
petitioner may be able to run a pipe into the wetland to provide for
storm drainage. Mr. May suggested that an easement could be used in
order to handle future drainage problems. An opinion from the City
Engineer will be solicited.
4_
• The discussion as to the waiving the Subdivision' s sidewalk requirements
ensued, with Ms. Vaughan strongly in favor of. setting a precedent
requiring sidewalks. Right of way is now 40' which is ample for a 26'
roadway and 7' on each side of the road for a sidewalk. Mr. May stated : r
that the lower part of Clark Avenue has no sidewalks. Mr. Butler
reminded the Board that it was not requiring a sidewalk for the Almeda
Street project. Mr. Power also said that the Board has not required
sidewalks, as a rule, in one or two lot subdivisions. Mr. May would
like an estimate of sidewalk construction cost so that the Board could
make informed decisions .based on costs. In light of future development
along Clark Ave. , Ms. Vaughan believes the Board should require
sidewalks now or they will never be actualized. Mr. Power suggested that
the Board should seek information from the City Engineer concerning the
building of sidewalks in this proposal.Mr. Butler questioned whether
Clark Ave. is an accepted Street or not. It was thought that it is
accepted, but it will be checked for the next meeting. Mr Power then
suggested that the Board take action on the proposed plan at its next
meeting, making sure that the opinions of the engineer take the whole
street into consideration.
Mr. Williams asked who has the right to grant waiver requests. It was
responded to by saying that the Planning Board has the authorization to
grant waiver requests. Bonding or covenant coverage of a project was
then discussed, both of which are not resinded until the project is
satisfactorily completed. Underground utility construction was then
discussed. The Board has routinely waived requirements for underground
utilities where utility poles presently exist. It was noted that, on
ocassion, it was required that the utility wires can be run down the
pole and then underground.
The Board then reviewed the minutes from July 17 and August 14, 1986.
The minutes were amended and Mr. May made a motion to accept the minutes
as amended. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously
in favor.
OLD BUSINESS
The matter of the Planning Board dinner was raised. Mr. Stevenson said
that he would be away either September 26th or October 3rd and would get
back to the Board at the next meeting in order to finalize plans at the
next meeting. Mr. Power will not be in attendance at the September 18th
meeting and asked Mr. May if he will chair the meeting.
•
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Power addressed the issues brought up in.a letter sent to Board "
members and the City Planner. First was the issue of changing the .
agenda at the last minute. Mr. Power explained .that this must occur
from time to time because of the 14 day time limit the Board has to
respond to Form A applications. The Board,,.historically, has tried to
be expedient in dealing with requests. . Mr. May suggested that the Board
may have to.increase its number of meetings if they cannot handle all
the requests in two nights. a .month. At that point it was stated that .
the busy time of the year is. over and a decision for an increased number
of meetings could be postponed. If the agendas looks lengthy, the Board
will have to cut the extraneous matters and be business like in order.. to
facilitate getting out .at reasonable time. Another matter discussed in
Ms. Vaughan' s letter was the signing of plans outside of the Board
meetings. It was decided that this was not a good practice and should
not be done in the future.
Mr. Stevenson made a motion to. adjourn which was seconded by Ms. Vaughan
and the motion was unanimously passed. The meeting ended at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Carr
Clerk of Commission
t •
MINUTES OF MEETING
September 18, 1986
• The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room on Thursday, September 18, 1986. Present were Kenneth May, ?Acting
Chairman, John Butler, Linda Vaughan, Richard Williams, Abby Burns, and
Bob Guethlen. Also present were City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh, and
Staff Advisor, Dale' Yale. Walter Power, Normand Houle and Edward
Stevenson were absent.
Acting Chairman, Kenneth May called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING -- SITE PLAN REVIEW, 94-100 HIGHLAND AVENUE
Acting Chairman Kenneth May read the notice of the public hearing.
This proposal involves an enlarging and redesign of a proposal brought
before the Board in April of 1986. Dale Freelove of Statler Gilfillen
Architectural Services was present representing the applicants. Mr.
Freelove presented the previous plan to .he Board as follows. The
previous proposal-"involved a building just under 10,000 sq. ft. in a
configuration such that the main entrance was on Highland Avenue. This _
proposal did not suit the doctor's needs, thus has been redesigned.
The new proposal is for a medical building to be erected which is
approximately 11 ,400 sq. ft. and has the main entrance off of the Colby
Street side of the building. The redesign has taken away two parking
spaces, but there are still 13 extra spaces as determined by the use of
_ the building, for a total of 55 spaces. The new proposal, it is hoped,
will more adequately facilitate pedestrian traffic from the parking lot
than the previous plan. The new plan is one which will better suit the
doctor's needs.
Mr. Williams asked how the proposed storm drainage will affect the
wetlands bordering the rear of the project. It was responded that a
civil engineer is working on the drainage system.
Ms. Vaughan asked Mr. Freelove what the Highland Avenue facade would
look like. Mr. Freelove responded that the plan was in the preliminary
stages and exact materials were not known yet, but that Highland Avenue
will have a two story elevation.
Mr. . Williams mentioned that the main entrance of a building usually
denotes it 's street address and pondered if the revised proposal will
effect the project's street address, and thus affects zoning
requirements.
Mr. May suggested that the applicant check the zoning requirements for
frontage with the revised proposal.
• 1
_2—
Mr. May then read the other City Departments comments on the revised
proposal. The Health Department concured with the proposal providing:
• 1 . the design is approved by the Engineering Department,
2. the project passes a water test before use of the building
begins,
3. the applicant employs street cleaning methods during
construction,
4. water is tested for pressure and bacteria
5. any backfill is done employing good engineering practices,
6. the applicants use proper trash disposal methods.
The Department of Public Works commented that the building will need a
sprinkler system and a 8" water main. The Engineering Assistant stated
that the revised plan did not designate utility installation plans. The
Building Inspector concured with the revised plan as did the.
Conservation Commission.
Mr. May questioned the Board members if there were any further questions
and since there were not he opened the meeting to questions from the
_public;.
Attorney McMahon asked to address the Board and brought up the issue of
the 8" water main connection. Attorney McMahon represents two
individuals wishing to construct on Almeda Street, an abutting street ,
and raised the issue of the suggestion that his client and the medical
building share the cost of an 8" line. The nature of the Engineer' s
-letter-: to the Board concerning the medical building assumed that the
Almeda Street applicants were required to install an 8" water main. Mr.
McMahon stated that this decision had not been made as yet.
'Mr. May suggested that Attorney McMahon bring up the issue when the
Almeda Street issue is being discussed.
A'Ctorney Merry, representing the Medical Building applicants, responded
that he believed the Medical- Building was going to tap into the water
supply directly from Highland Avenue and that the existing water mains
on Highland Avenue were sufficient .to handle the revised plan.
Mr. May closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued among Board
members.
Mr'. Williams raised the issue of determining whether or not the existing
water mains are privately owned or City owned. . If the mains are
privately owned it may prove difficult for the applicants to tap into
them.
-3-
Mr. May suggested that the medical building proposal , as presented, is
lacking detail in many aspects and recommended that the Planning staff
take a closer look at the revised plans and ramifications it implies for
i • the surrounding area. A staff report and recomendations will be
presented in the near future.
S
ALMEDA STREET—DAVID TREMBLAY, THOMAS MARIBITO
This proposed subdivision has been discussed at several of the past
meetings. On September 4, 1986, the Board deemed in fairness to the
applicant to take action on the application at this meeting.
iAs Attorney McMahon alluded to during the public hearing on 94-100
! Highland Avenue a previously unforseen issue of requiring an 8" water
II main for the subdivision by the City Engineer was now addressed by the
Board.
.�
It was reported to the Board that the Engineer based his recommendation
3 on the. fact that future development on Almeda Street is highly probable.
Also, an 8" water line is the standard requirement for a subdivision.
Mr. May questioned the financial burden of a two unit subdivision being
made to install an 8" water line for a cosiderable distance. It was
responded that the Engineer suggested the two developments share the
i burden of. instal ling the 8" water main.
i Mr. May requested that exact measurements of the distance from Highland
Avenue connector pipe to the proposed subdivision lots be provided. .It
} was estimated to be 2541 . Mr. May responded that he felt this distance
-was. excessive for a two-lot subdivision.
Mr. Tremblay, the applicant, reported to the Board, in response to Mr.
Williams' question, that a 2" pipe now exists up the street and that
there is no perceived water pressure problem.
:j Attorney McMahon as pointed out that it has been the general consensus
' of, various City agencies that future development past his client's
property would be very difficult. He suggested that only two
possiblities will allow future development to occur. The first is an
eminent domain taking of a piece of his client's property for road
construction, the second is the infringement on the pond.
Mr. Butler replied that the pond has had some infill occur in the past.
Mr. Tremblay responded that the infill occured on the other side of the
pond.
i
-4—
Mr. Tremblay told the Board he is more than receptive to the requirement
of extending the existing 2" water line to his property. Mr. Tremblay
pointed out that he was well within the 500' fire hydrant limit set by
the Fire Department.
• Ms. Vaughan requested to have the reasons why the engineer felt it was
important to install an 8" main explained to her. Mr. May responded
that the reasons for the proposed requirement were based on the facts
that there is 40' of public way between the right of way and the wetland
and the chance of future development seemed probable.
Mr. Butler asked if the applicants could run an 8" pipe from a 2"
connection. It was .responded that this was not good engineering
practice.
Ms. Burns questioned as to whether requiring the applicants to install
an 8" water line might enhance the probability .of future development.
An 8" water line requirement at this date could reduce the costs of
. future development.
Mr. May responded that any further development would also incur costs.
Mr.- .May put forward the idea of a betterment clause for the future
-installation of an 8:' pipe. The idea of having the City do the work and
assess cost to individuals was discussed as was the idea of creating
.private restrictions which in effect will be a lien and thus affect the
mortgage of the property.
.Tbe :'i.dea was then put. forward by Mr. May to have the applicants -
construct
pplicants 'construct a trench in which an 8" line could fit, but only lay a 2"
line. -
Mr.: Ma.y questioned the. accuracy of the water and sewer designations as
provided on the plans presented to the Board. He also questioned where
the water pipe now ends.
Attorney McMahon interjected even if 10 other single family house lots
could. be built, would nota 2" .water line be able to serve them?
It was responded that the servicing of additional units from a 2" water
line would depend on the topography.
Thomas Maribito, one of• the- applicants, as well as a developer, told the
Board that he has constructed 11 units in Lynn and the requirement was
for a 1' 11 water line to be used.
Mr. May questioned the depth of the trench if the Board requires an 8"
{>.ipe.
-5—
Mr. Butler responded that 4' is the minimum for laying water pipe.
• Mr.. Kavanaugh made the recommendation that since the Engineer has to
sign off on the building permit it may expedite the process if the Board
grant approval subject to the water line issue which can be discussed by
himself, Mr. Niman, the City Engineer, and the applicant at a future
date.
Mr. May responded that he thought the- Board should resolve the issue
tonight since the applicant has accommodated the Board to date.Mr. May
also suggested if future development occurs then the Board should
require the additional pipe width to be installed.
Mr. Butler concured with Mr. May's suggestion.
-Mr.- May put forth the following conditions for the Almeda Street 10
subdivision: ,
e
l .. Work shall conform to a plan. entitled "Plan of Land — Almeda Street,
Salem:,. MA", dated February 20, 1986, revised plan prepared by Otte
Dwyer; Saugus.
2. All Board of Health requirements set forth in a letter dated
September. 12, .1986, shall be strictly adhered to.
3.: All road and utility installation shall be reviewed' and approved by
the- City EnginAer. Such improvements shall be completed to the
• satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building
permits for proposed dwellings. A covenant stating such in a form
satisfactory to the Planning Board, running with the land, shall be
filed-.with the Planning Board prior to endorsement of the plan.
4.- All construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. -weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. There shall be
no work conducted on Sundays or holidays. Drilling and blasting shall
• be" limited to Monday through Friday between. the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m.
. 5. A water trench of sufficient size to accommodate future installation
of. an eight inch water line if required by the City Engineer shall be
installed.
6. Prior to endorsement, a note shall be made denoting that the proposed
cul—de—sac shall be constructed according to the same specifications as
the roadway.
7. As—built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land
Surveyor, shall be submitted prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
•
-6—
The waivers requested by the applicants were then discussed by the
• Board. The requested waivers were as follows:
1 . Performance Guarantee
2. Sidewalks, Planting Strips and Curbing
3. .Road width
4. Storm drains
5. Underground Utilities
Mr. May explained to the applicants that they have the right to choose
the type of performance guarantee they wish to enter into with the City
and that posting a bond is not the only way in which to fufill this
requirement, thus he would be opposed to waiving this requirement.
Ms. Burns asked the applicant if there was any curbing on the street.
Mr, Tremblay responded that no curbs exist.
The pitch of run—off was discussed by the Board members: The
Conservation Commission has required the run off to be directed away
from-the pond and towards Highland Avenue.
The road width was requested to be waived to conform to the existing.
There is presently a 40' roadway layout.
Mi.. .May recommended that the plan be revised to show construction and
excavation of a trench to accomodate an 8" water pipe.
• Mr,. *Butler made a motion to accept waivers as submitted by the
applicant, excluding the. performance guarantee waiver, which will be
enforced.
Ms,. Burns seconded the motion and the motion was unanimously approved.
Ms. . Burns made a motion to accept the conditions as proposed above with
the .addition of noting on the plan that the cul—de—sac be constructed
according to the same specifications as the road. The motion was
seconded by Richard Williams and the motion carried.
CLARK STREET — RALPH SALVO — Form C
Mr. Kavanaugh reintroduced the Board to this proposal and explained that
it had been before of the Board several times in the past with a public
hearing being held on August 14, 1986. At the last meeting, September
4, 1986, the Board members determined that three issues still needed to
be discussed. They were:
1 . the turnaround/ cul—de—sac issue,
2. the drainage issue,
3. the sidewalk issue.
_7_
The Board had a$ked the Planning Staff to get a cost estimate on
sidewalk construction. The City Planner reported that the estimated
cost for a 5' concrete sidewalk, curbing and grass strips was $2,343.00.
• Mr. May requested that the Board take the issues into consideration in
the order they were presented in the memo.
The temporary turnaround was suggested to be long and wide enough for
the largest fire truck used by the City. This would require a demension
of 20' in width and 35' in length. The Fire Department has approved
these dimensions.
Drainage of Clark Street was the next issue discussed. After examining
the topography plans of the land it was determined that the drainage was
presently directed towards Mr. Salvo's property. The concern of the
Board was to avoid creation .of drainage problems to neighboring
properties as a result of this development. 10
Mr. May made the suggestion that a drainage easement of approximately
10' running down the applicant' s lot line to divert the run off to the
lower portion of the applicant's property, where natural drainage occurs
be required.
The sidewalk issue was prefaced by the statement that no sidewalks
currently exist on Clark Street.
Ms. Vaughan and Ms. Burns felt strongly that sidewalks should be
yeRuired.
Mr. May stated he could agree with enforcing the sidewalk requirement in
light of future development taking place fairly easily on the remainder
of the street.
Discussion ensued about the positive and negative aspects of sidewalk
.requirements.
Mr.Butler responded that he could not endorse the enforcement of the
sidewalk requirement because there are no existing sidewalks and also
because the Board just waived the sidewalk requirement on Almeda Street,
which is a subdivision with many paralells to the on now under
consideration.
Mr. Guethlen stated that for the desired aesthetic quality all lots
should have sidewalks and that two lots with them will look strange, but
in light of the probable future development of adjoining lots, this
subdivision is a proper time to enforce the sidewalk requirement.
Mr. Butler again raised the issue as to Board consistency when dealing
with enforcing subdivision requirements.
-8-
Ms. Vaughan responded that the substantial difference between the Almeda
• Street proposal and the Clark Street proposal was the Board' s perception
of the rate of future development for both of the proposals, with the
Board generally agreeing that Clark Street holds more favorable
conditions for future development.
Ms. Vaughan questioned the Board about the remainder of the requested
sidewalk waiver which included grass strips and curbing.
Mr. May suggested the Board clarify it ' s opinion on the sidewalk
requirement by voting the issue.
Mr. Butler made a motion to waive the sidewalk requirement. No second
was offered. . Therefore the motion failed.
Ms. Vaughan made a motion to require a sidewalk in front of each house.
-Ms: -Burns seconded the motion. The vote was Ms. Vaughan, Ms. Burns and
Mr: Guethlen in favor, Mr. Butler opposed and Mr. Williams and Mr. May
;absta:ining.
-Curbing was discussed with various opinions being voiced about sloped
:curbing. Mr. Williams was of the opinion that sloped granite curbing,
as. .done on Rockdale Street, is dangerous.
•Mr..lGuethlen responded that .it is the prevelant curbing construction
pradtice.
Mr. Guethlen opened the discussion about Board policy of requiring
'curbing, and planting strips in future subdivisions. Mr. Kavanaugh
added-that planting strips. are amenities which are not expensive to
include.
Ar.-Williams suggested that if the Board allow sloped curbing the
required slope be steeper than that on Rockdale Street
C204
•
-9—
Mr. May suggested the Board continue with the requested waivers.
• The applicant requested a waiver from securing a bond for his plan. Mr.
May interjected that the performance guarantee is important and that
since the applicant has a choice on how to fufill this requirement,
either by posting a bond or attaching a covenant to his deed, it ought
-not be waived. The covenant option shall be required.
The underground utility waiver was discussed by Board members. Ms.
Burns asked if existing above ground utilities can be run- down the pole
to be placed underground. Mr. Williams responded that they could.
'Mr. May suggested that the Board deny 'the waiver request.
Mr. Williams responded that to require underground utilities, keeping
the topography of the area in mind, would be extremely expensive.
Mr. Butler requested'that the Board examine its waivers of Almeda Street
and"shdw' some consistency from one subdivision to the next.
Mr. May suggested that the Board vote on the underground utility waiver.
Mr. Butler made a motion to waive the underground utility. requirement
and'was seconded, by Mr. Williams.
The vote was Mr. Butler and Mr. Williams in favor and Ms. Vaughan, Ms.
Burns and Mr. Guethlen opposed. Mr. May abstained. The motion fails.
iThe :turnaround waiver was introduced by Mr. May stating that since the '
'Board anticipates fairly rapid future development; a permanant
cul—de—sac was not necessary, but that a temporary .T or hammerhead would
serve this subdivision'.
Mr:. .May suggested that as the Almeda Street applicant was required to
build a cul—de—sac to City specifications, and this is applicant is not
there is justification in requiring the sidewalks and underground
utilities on ClarkStreet.
Ms. Burns made a motion to waive the cul—de—sac requirement. Mr.
Guethlen seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
The conditions of the Board were discussed and were proposed as follows:
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, " Plan and Land in Salem, MA —
Lot 162 shown on Land Court 7159, dated, August 12, 1986, revised,
August 29, 1986"..
2. All conditions set forth in a letter dated August 14, 1986, from the
Engineering Department shall be strictly adhered to.
•
_10-
3. All road and utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by
.the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be completed to the
• satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building
permits for proposed dwellings. A covenant, running with the land,
stating such in a form satisfactory to the Planning Board shall be filed
with the Planning Board prior to endorsement of the plan.
4. 'All construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. through
5:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No
work shall be conducted on Sundays or holidays. Drilling and blasting
shall be limited to Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m.
5. The plan shall be revised to provide for the construction of a five
foot (51 ) sidewalk, three foot (31 ) planting strip and sloped granite
curbing along the frontage of his lots.
6;.--The-plan shall be amended to show a temporary turnaround twenty (20)
feet in width and thirty=five (35) feet in length which shall be paved
according to City specifications.
7. The plan shall be revised to provide for adequate drainage of the
site. Such revision shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
8': A11 'tel"ephone,' electrical, "cable television and other utilities shall
be placed underground. Electrical cable shall be encased in rigid
conduit unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
. 9.' "As=15uilt plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall
be'.*submitted prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Ms. 'B'urns made a motion that the Board accept proposed conditions and
waiver requests as voted upon. Mr. Guethlen seconded the motion. The
vote was Mr. Guethlen and Williams, Ms. Burns and Vaughan in favor, Mr.
Butler opposed.
. SALEM SUEDE
Mr. Bruce Poole of SP Engineering was present to representing Salem
Suede. An application was "submitted for a Special Wetlands Permit in
order for Salem Suede to construct an additional flood storage tank and
sulfide oxidation system, and the public hearing was held on August 14,
1986. Since that time, .the surrounding neighborhood has experienced
severe odor problems on two occasions necessitating Board of Health and
DEQE intervention. Mr. Poole gave the Board an update on Salem Suede' s
efforts to resolve these problems.
-11-
Mr. Poole. explained to the Board members why Salem Suede ran into the
odor problems last summer and the steps Salem Suede has taken to ensure
that this does not happen again. The problem arose when Salem Suede
• installed the first phase of a pre-treatment system as required by
SESD. A malfunction of the system occured, thereby necessitating the
retention of a large amount of sludge for a long period of time. When
the pressing process was re-started, the sludge was in a decayed state
which, combined with humid weather conditions, caused the odor problem.
Salem Suede has since installed a dewatering system and has adhered to
all DEQE and Board of Health requirements. Salem Suede presented its
application to the Board in order to complete its upgrading of the
pre-treatment plant.
Mr. Poole gave a detailed report as to the on premise treatment system
that Salem Suede will be using. An odor scrubber in the stack will be
included in the continuing upgrading of Salem Suede' s pre-treatment
process.
10
After the presentation the Board questioned Mr. Poole with Ms. Vaughan
asking Mr. Poole about the surge chamber and settling tank and whether
or not they are covered. Mr. Poole responded that they are not covered:
Mr. Butler asked if the whole complex could not be enclosed and then
vented. Mr. Poole responded that this would be costly and that his
client has already spent $350,000.00 on installing a pre-treatment
system which complies to regulations and satisfies DEQE and the Board of
Health.
Ms. Vaughan questioned Mr. Poole about the possibility of overflow due
to ice and snow conditions. Mr. Poole replied that the operation is in
complete compliance with all regulations and that overflow from flooding
is virtually impossible because of the depth of the tank and clearance
which is maintained in the tank.
Mr. Williams asked about the proposed scrubber efficiency and Mr. Poole
replied that the scrubber efficiency will be between 98-99% for hydrogen
sulfide.
Ms. Burns questioned the visibility of the tanks from Bridge Street and
the possibility of screening the tanks for aesthetic purposes. The
consensus was that this was a good idea, and Mr. Poole raised no
objections. Mr. Williams suggested that screening would also help to
reduce the solar heating of the tanks.
Mr. May asked Mr. Kavanaugh where the Board should go from this point,
since all Board questions have been answered satisfactory.
Mr. Kavanaugh replied that the Board should vote on acceptance of the
Wetlands Special Permit.
Mr. Guethlen made a motion to approve the Wetlands Special Permit with
the following conditions. Ms. Burns seconded the motion and the vote
was unanimously in favor.
` —12-
1 . Work shall conform to plans entitled, "Salem Suede Inc. , Site Plan",
• dated, April 25, 1986, revised, May 27, 1986, prepared by SP
Engineering, Inc."
2. On—site monitoring for odors shall be performed in accordance with
Board of Health requirements. In the event of odor detection, all
operations shall be discontinued until the Board of Health deems
conditions are again favorable for operation.
3. Existing and proposed sludge storage tanks shall be screened with
landscape vegetation, a fence, or a combination of both to provide shade
to the tanks and an aesthetically pleasing amenity to the site. Such
landscaping or fencing shall be approved by the City Planner prior to
issuance of a building permit.
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Guethlen asked about the procedure for the Zoning Ordinance when it
goes to the City Council and the role the Planning Board will play.
Ms. Yale responded that the City Council and the Planning Board will
hold a joint public hearing on Tuesday, October 28, 1986.
Mr. May suggested the Board defer approval of minutes until the next
meeting when Mr. Power will be in attendence.
Ms. Yale told the Board that the Planning Board dinner will be on
September 26, 1986 at 54 Turner St. and that Mr. Stevenson will supply
the grill and each person supplies their own main course as well as
either a desert or a salad, which will be designated in a memo sent to
Board members during the next week.
Mr. Williams told the Board that he will not be present for the October
aj 1986 meeting.
MP. Butler made a motion to adjourn and Psis. Burns seconded the motion.
The'vote was unanimously in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia r
Clerk
C213
MINUTES OF iccTING
z October 16, 1986
rVe
alem ?tanning Board met. at One Salem Green, second floor conference
rom on Thursday, October 16, 1986. Present were Vial ter Power,
Chairman, John Butler, Kenneth May, Normand Houle, Richard Williams and
Abby Bums. Also present were City Planner, Gerard Xavanaugh and Staff
Advisor,"Dale Yale. Edward Stevenson, Bob Guethlen and Linda Vaughan
were absent .
l:glter ?ower , Chaiman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Form A - Catherine Lynch - Ord Street
This Form A involves a conveyance of a strip of land frcm one lot to an
abutting lot . Changing of these lot lines will enlarge the abutting lot
which will allow the lot to be in greater conformity with existing
zoning requirements.
"'Ir. Houle asked Psis. Yale if the applicant had given an explaination-,for
the request to change the lot lines. his. Yale responded that no reason
had been given.
Nir. May asked if the lots would have the required street frontage. P's.
Yale responded that these lots were in existence prior to present zoning
requirements.
Par. Power asked if the lots each had a dwelling unit . his. Yale
responded in the affirmitive.
ir. Nlay made a motion to endorse the Form A as submitted, approval under
the Subdivision Control Law was not required. NI.r. Houle seconded the
motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Form A - Crosby 's Market - Canal Street
Mr. Power asked Ms. Yale to explain to the Board what the applicant is
planning to do which requires a Form A approval . Ms. Yale responded
that the applicants are not changing anything, they asked to have the
lot lines clarified for recording purposes.
Mr. May stated that a Form A endorsement is not necessary, but since the
applicants asked for an endorsement the Board should respond favorably .
s. Bums made a motion to endorse the Form A as submitted, approval
under the Subdivision Control Law not required. ;Mr. t:by seconded the
motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Form A - '. ichael Stasinos - Highland Avenue
illr. Power asked Mr. Kavanaugh to explain to the Board what .1r. Stasinos
is doing and what approvals are necessary .
. ;Mr. Kavanaugh explained that .;:r. Stasinos is dividing the parcel into
Page 2
three (3) lots. One lot will have 3.95 acres, one with 21 .5 acres and
• one with .56 acres. The lot with 3.95 acres will have two soccer fields
built to city specifications.and then will be deeded to the City of
Salem. The lot with 21 .5 acres will have 140 condominium units
constructed on it , and the lot with .56 acres will have a 3000 square
foot office building constructed on it along with parking spaces for
both the office building and the soccer fields.
Mr. May asked to have the frontage of the lots clarified for him. Mr.
Kavanaugh said that all three lots had in excess of 100' of frontage.
Mr. Kavanaugh also explained that a two story 1500 square foot building
is currently under construction on the .56 Ac lot .
Mr. Power asked if there is an acess road to service the property. h1r.
Kavanaugh stated that the acess road is under construction.
Mr. Power asked if a site layout had been developed as yet . M.r.
Kavanaugh explained that Mr. Stasinos will construct a 200' buffer zone
between Highland Avenue and the development . Mr. Power then asked Mr.
Kavanaugh if there is still going to be a road which will continue to
the rear of the property turning left for future access to adjacent
property. Mr. Kavanaugh told the Board that the road is still planned
that way and that the condominium units will be built on both sides of
that road.
?.Ir. Power asked if there are plans in the future which would include a
road widening which could then encroach on the soccer fields. Mr.
Kavanaugh said that nothing of this nature was planned to the best of
his knowledge.
Mr. Power asked if this plan will have to be reviewed by Site Plan
Review. Mr. Kavanaugh stated that since the Stasinos project is a
Consent Judgement it is not required to undergo Site Plan Review.
Mr. May suggested that Mr. Stasinos amend the plan so that the frontage
for each lot is depicted more clearly on the plan.
Nir. May made a motion to endorse the plan as amended, approval under the
Subdivision Control Law not required. Ms. Bums seconded the motion and
the vote was unanimously in favor.
Public Hearing - Site Plan Review Special Permit - 95-101 Congress St .
Mr. Power read the notice'-of the public hearing.
Attorney Serafini was present representing the applicant and explained
the proposal as being one of proposed construction of 10 condominium
units over the existing Colonial Md r-ket on Congress Street . Attorney
Serafini explained that the proposed development is to occur in a
densely populated residential area of the City, a part of the City which
. was occupied by and constructed for mill workers years ago. �'ost of the
I
Page 3
existing residential units in the neighborhood are multi -family units.
• Attorney Serafini then told the Board that this condominium development
is unique .in the City in that the developer is working with the Salem
Harbor Community Development Corporation (SHCDC) in order to construct
low and moderate income units which will be sold at affordable prices.
This factor will allow 10 families to become homeowners who may not
otherwise be able to afford the purchase price of a home.
The Board of Appeals has granted all necessary variances for the
project . The developer ha3 27 parking spaces, 9 of which are to be used
for Colonial Market .
John Hixson, the Executive Director of SHCDC, presented a petition to
the Board .from the abutters stating they were in favor of the
development . A letter from Councillor Nbirtineau was also submitted
stating that he was in favor of the project . Councillor Nowak submitted
a letter of support for the project to the Board of Appeals and
Councillor-at-Large Robert Gauthier voiced his concurrance with the plan
earlier at the Board meeting.
Mr. Hixson stated that the area is heavily used now and he sees nothing
that will prevent the absorption of these units into the area.
Comments from various City Departments were then read to the Board. The
Board of Health concurs with the following conditions:
1 . developer submit to plumbing inspector all sanitary and utility plans
2. construction debres is removed from site
3. street cleaning methods are employed during construction
4. a private facility for trash is installed
5. pest control invoice is submitted to the Board oh Health
The Building Inspector concurs with the plan as does the Board of
Appeals. The Conservation Cormission concurs with the plan as does the
City Engineer.
Pair. May questioned the applicant if there were going to be a recapture
clause or limited equity clauses included in the deed of these units.
Mr. Hixson stated that there will be limited equity clauses included in
the sale of these units.
Mr.. Houle asked Mr. Hixson if these units were to be owner occupied or
if some were to be rental units. tor. Hixson stated that all the units
are to be exclusively owner occupied. Mr. Houle then stated that he
felt owner occupied units and a personal financial . investment is what
that neighborhood needs.
Mr. Williams asked if the units were to be sold exclusively to Salem
residents. Because of fair housing legislation i`.^r. Hixson was not sure
if all the units could be exclusively for Salem but that 8 will be set
aside exclusively for Salem residents. iJ!r. Houle then asked if they
would be available for neighborhood residents and it vas answered in the
affirmative.
• Mr. Houle asked about the maintenance plan for the condominiums. Pilr.
Page 4
Hixson stated that a Condominium association will be formed, and that
they will be in charge of maintenance.
• Mr. Williams raised the issue' of a future use for the bottom level ,
which is now a supermarket , and asked what types of provisions will be
made in order to insure that only safe retail practices occur in the
bottom level . It was responded that strict provisions will be written
into the deed so that no future usage will be more intense than what is
currently existing.
Nis. Burns questioned the applicant as to what the facade will look like.
The architect for the applicant said that the facade will be wood
clapboard and that the building will be a wood frame structure.
Mr. Power asked what type of roof the structure will have. j'Ar. Rurrph,
the applicant 's architect , stated that the roof will be flat . i.tr.
Hacker stated that the front of the store will be redone and the brick
sandblasted.
PJIr. Hacker then told the Board that he anticipates owning the business
for quite a while and that he wants to insure that the construction of
the units is of high quality and that the development will not adversly
effect the neighborhood or' the business. Mr. Hacker continued that most
of his business is by foot and that the 9 spaces allotted for store use
can adequately serve the store's vehicular business.
Mr. Hacker then requested that the Board of Health's requirement for a
private trash removal system not be enforced since this requirement is
an expense for the condominium owner and it does not make sense to force
• . high maintenance costs on low-moderate income condominium units
especially when all the other rrulti -family units in the neighborhood use
public trash disposal .
Mr. ?ower questioned the applicant about energy efficient construction
methods to be employed during the construction phase of the units so
that energy savings may be realized to the owners. Mr. Hader said that
the building will be built to City specifications and to date no extra
energy saving techniques have been included in the construction plans.
Mr. Butler questioned Mr. Had<er as to the type of heating system which
will be installed. i`ilr. hacker responded that the heating system will be
gas.
j:lr. Houle suggested that a stain be used on the exterior siding rather
than paint , so that long term rraintenance costs may be lower to the
owners.
for. Power asked the audience if there were any other comments either for
or against the proposal . Since there were no further comments, R1r.
Power closed the public hearing.
Rand Road - Timothy Lutts - Endorsement of Plan
•
Page 5
Mr. May asked Ms. Yale if the suggested changes to the plan had taken
place. P.'s. Yale answered that they had and that the plan conforms to
the specifications of all concerned City Departments.
ids. Bums made a motion to endorse the plan as submitted. Mr. tby
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Form A - Lorraine Gandala - 15-15'-, River Street
Attorney John Vallis was present to represent h9s. Gandala. The issue
before the Board is the conveyance of approximately 9' from one lot to
an adjoining rear lotto provide access to the rear lot . The applicants
have received a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals which allows
the extension of a non-conformity use when this property is
re-subdivided.
Attorney Vallis told the.Board that a right-of-way has existed over this
S' piece of property, but it has caused problems in the past so the two
property owners have been able to negotiate the sale of this piece of
land so that access is guaranteed.
P:1r. Nay stated that this conveyence will make a previously existing,
non-conforming use even more non-conforming, but if the Board of Appeal
has granted a Special Permit then this fact is not of major concern to
the Board at this point .
A•ir. Play made a motion to endorse the plan, approval under the
Subdivision Control Law not required. N'Ir. Houle seconded the motion and
it was voted unanimously in favor.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. :;i I I iams made a motion to approve the minutes from Septerrber 4, 1986
and Seaterrber 18, 1986 as amended. P.'s. Bums seconded the motion and
the vote was unanimously in favor.
'Other Business
The Board members discussed their Alerrda Street and Clark Street
decisions and conditions. It was decided that a review of Clark Street
would be in order and perhaps alterations could be considered. '
Mr. May said that alterations to the conditions could be made which
would reduce the restrictions but not tighten thein.
Mir. Power thought it would be a good idea to invite the petitioner of
Clar;< Street to the meeting.
Mr. Power raised the issue of Board consistency in requirements of
subdivisions. He as.<ed for suggestions on how to make the Board' s
decisions more consistent . Taking a vote on requirements would be one
way in which the Board could be assured of making consistent decisions.
•
Page 6
It was decided that some type of criteria will have to be used for
requirement enforcement or the use of waivers. Mr. Butler suggested
• that one of these criteria could be the size of the development as well
as the financial investment of a developer.
Mr. Power asked Ms. Yale when the title to Greenway Road open space
property is going to be conveyed to the City. t,ls. Yale responded that a
deed is forthcoming. The idea of including the property in the t:laster
Trail System was then discussed.
Mr. Butler asked if there is a Trail System currently in existence. tAs.
Yale responded that there is not . Mr. Power sited the Master Plan of
Salm as suggesting that the vistas of Salem be set aside for the public
to use. Mr. Power stated that these vistas could be linked through a
walking trail .
Mr. Butler asker+ abut the 'on:ng Clrdinance and ; f it is possible to
have restrictions on the parking of trucks in a residential area. Mr.
May responded that that issue would be handled by an Ordinance, not the
Zoning Ordinance. A parking ordinance would have to be sent to the City
Council .
New Business
Salem State College dormitory construction was the next issue discussed
by the Board. Mr. Power suggested that any influence which can be
wielded should be used to prevent the College from constructing another
donmotory directly on a street . An on carrpus South Carrpus solution to
the new dormitory construction would be in the City's best interest as
far as Mr. Power 'is concerned.
Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Kavanaugh about the City's jurisdiction over
new dormitory construction. Mr. Kavanaugh responded that the City has
jurisdiction over density, parking, height , mass, and other dimensional
requirements for dormitory construction. The College Zone in the
proposed Zoning Ordinance will help to alleviate adverse effects of
dormitory construction in the City.
Mr. Kavanaugh stated that on-going discussions have been taking place
between the college and the City. The next meeting on the subject is
October 17, 1986. No site selection has taken place yet .
Mr. Power stated that the burden of Salem's streets should be a factor
in site selection.
Mr. Kavanaugh suggested that after the October 17, 1986 meeting the
Planning Department and the Planning Board ought to outline concerns
about dormitory construction so that issues can be discussed with Salem
State College officials.
•
Page 7
Mr. May made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Houle seconded the
motion and it eras voted unanimously in favor. The meeting adjourned at
9:20 p.m.
•
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Carr
Clerk
C505
MINUTES OF MEETING
November 6, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
• room on Thursday, November 6, 1986. Present were Walter Power,
Chairman, Abby Burns, Richard Williams, Normand Houle, Kenneth May, John
Butler, and Linda Vaughan. Also present were City Planner, Gerard
Kavanaugh and Staff Advisor, Dale Yale. Edward Stevenson and Bob
Guethlen were absent .
Walter Power, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Form A -*8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, Franklin Street
This Form A involved the clarification of lot lines for six parcels on
Franklin Street for recordation purposes. The parcels are located in
the B-5 zone and conform to lot area and frontage requirements for the
district. No change in the configuration of the lots was proposed.
Attorney John Murphy of Murphy, Ryan, and O'Keefe presented the Form A
application to the Board and explained tha:_ the clarification of the lot
lines is being requested in 'order to define the parame.-ers of the
existing lots since they have a potential for future development .
Mr. Power asked if the playground was going to be affected. Mr. Murphy
responded that it was not to be affected.
Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Murphy as to the purpose for the
clarification of lot lines. Mr. Murphy responded that some of the lots
have existing plans on file and the owners would prefer that a legal
description be entered into the record at this time. Mr. Williams asked
if the lots would be represented as one lot: Mr. Murphy responded that
they will be represented individually, not as one lot. Mr. Williams
then questioned Mr. Murphy as to the sale of these properties and if it
will occur as one parcel. Mr. Murphy responded that at this time the
lots will remain unchanged.
Mr. Kavanaugh explained that each lot indiviadually meets the
requirements for the B-5 district. The frontage requirement in this
district is 30' and each lot has that amount of frontage.
Mr. May made a motion to endorse the Form A, approval under the
Subdivision Control Law not required. Ms. Burns seconded the motion and
the Vote was unanimously in favor.
Form A - 72 North Street
Attorney John Murphy also represented the owners of this property and
explained that it is the HMA auto care lot. No changes in the parcel
are proposed with this plan. The property abuts the previously
presented Form A and this parcel could be included in any development
project which may be proposed for this area.
Mr. Power asked if the lot would be joined to the other lots by this
plan. Attorney Murphy responded in the negative. Mr. Murphy specified
that this lot also meets all the requirements of the B-5 district for
a Page 2
lot area and frontage.
• Mr. May made a motion to endorse the Form A as submitted, approval under
the Subdivision Control Law not required. Mr. Houle seconded the motion
and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Moose Lodge - Extension of Special Permit
In October, 1983, the Conservation Commission issued an Order of
Conditions, and in November, 1983, the Planning Board approved a Wetland
Special Permit, to the Moose Lodge at 319 Highland Avenue to construct
an extension to an existing culvert under Highland Avenue. This
extension, on Moose property, would then be filled so that buildable
land would be created.
Commencement of work on this project was contingent upon the cleaning of
the culvert under Highland Avenue by the State DPW. This cleaning has
not taken place yet, so the Moose Lodge has asked for an extension of
its permit until November, 1987.
The Conservation Commission, which also issued a permit in October,
1983 , had recently extended its Order of Condition until October, 1987,
to facilitate the eventual completion of the proposed project by the
Moose Lodge.
Mr. Butler asked if the culvert is clogged or collapsed. Ms. Burns
asked if the pipe could be roto tilled or cleaned out in a manner
similar to this. The Board questioned as to why the culvert has not
been cleaned out yet. The question had been asked before and the Board
will have to wait until it is on the State DPW work list.
Mr. Williams asked if the Moose Lodge had an access road through the
incinerator plant. It was responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Burns made a motion to extend the permit to October, 1987. Mr.
Butler seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Public Hearing - Sunburst Fruit Juices - Site Plan Review and
Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit
Mr. Power read the public hearing announcement from the Salem Evening
News and reminded the Board that they had approved a plan for this
project, which involves the construction of a 21 ,000 square foot
addition to the existing Sunburst Fruit Juice building and the addition
of a parking facility on June 25, 1986.
Attorney John Serafini, Jr., the applicant's representative, presented
the modified plan to the Board. Mr. Serafini, Jr. told the Board that
the only difference between the two plans is that the modified plan has
an increased parking facility and two additional loading bays. The plan
was discussed with the Board and Mr. Serafini, Jr. told the Board
members that the Conservation Commission has issued a modified Order of
Conditions for the plan.
Page 3
Ms . Burns requested the trees which are to be planted larger than the
ones shown on the plan. . Mr. Serafini felt this was reasonable and
stated there will be several varieties of shurbs planted and that even
• though there is limited amount of green space in the parking area, the
vegetation will be installed in an aesthetically pleasing fashion.
Ms. Burns noted that landscape screening used makes a big difference in
the apperance of the building.
Mr. Butler questioned the applicant as to the proposed drainage system.
Mr. Serafini, Jr. explained that the drainage system is comprised of a
series of catch basins, equipped with gas and oil traps, ,discharging
into the wetland. Mr. Butler then asked how much paved area is going to
be included in the modified plan. Mr. Serafini, Jr. responded that
there will be approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of paved area in the new
parking facility.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Serafini if this plan would alleviate the truck
parking problem on Highland Avenue. Mr. Serafini responded in the
affirmative.
Mr. Power asked Mr. Serafini, Jr. as to the number of curb cuts onto
Highland Avenue. Mr. Serafini stated that one curb cut to the storage
silo will be kept on Highland Avenue and he further stated that trucks
use this curb cut approximately once a week. Mr. Butler asked if the
trucks had to back onto Highland Avenue when using this driveway, thus
blocking two lanes of traffic. Mr. Serafini responded in the
affirmative. Mr. Power requested the abandoned curb cut be repaired
appropriately to conform to existing granite curbing.
• Mr. Williams questioned as to the type of riprap used on the slope
behind the parking area. Ms. Yale responded that the Conservation
Commission has required a riprap detail be submitted before final
approval is given to the modified plan.
Mr. Power then read other departments ' comments on the modified plan.
The Conservation Commission has dictated special conditions upon
approving the plan. The Health Department concurs with the modified
plan, the Building Inspector had no objections to the modified plan, the
Engineering Department stipulated two conditions to the modified plan.
Those of building a berm around the parking facility to confine the
run-off and to tie into the State DPW drainage system on Highland
Avenue.
Mr. Butler stated his understanding of the drainage system was that it
consisted of a series of catch basins equipped with filters which would
then release the run-off into the wetland. Mr. Serafini stated that
since October 1, 1986 a berm has added which encompasses the parking
area. He explained that it is not possible for Sunburst to tie into the
state system because the state pipe cannot accomodate the run-off. Mr.
Serafini further explained that the Conservation Commission and
Engineering Department has approved the modified plan to allow for
filtered run-off to drain into the wetland and that the sewer tie-in
Page 4
will be into the state DPW system. Mr. Williams asked what type of
sewage system is currently used. Mr. Serafini. Jr. responded that
• Sunburst currently uses a septic system, but that plans are made to
abandon the septic system and tie into the state system.
Mr. Power questioned Mr. Kavanaugh as to whether the Planning Department
has reviewed the landscaping plan yet. Mr. Kavanaugh responded in the
negative. Mr. Power then suggested that larger vegetation along
Highland Avenue be used as well as showing a demarcation line between
Highland Avenue and the applicants' property.
It 'was the consensus of the Board that a new decision should be written
which should include; a landscaping plan reviewed by the Planning
Department, and the provision that no truck parking be allowed on Rte
107.
Mr. Butler asked the applicant what was housed in the silo and if it
could be incorporated into the modified plan so as to be relocated, thus
preventing the truck traffic problems on Highland Avenue. The applicant
responded that the air handling system was housed in the silo and it
would logistically be impossible to move it at this point in time. Mr.
Power suggested that in the future, Sunburst consider a relocation of
this structure.
Mr. Power opened the hearing to the audience. Upon hearing no
responses, either in opposition to or in favor of, the modified plan, he
closed the public hearing.
• Mr. Power once again stated that the Board will review Planning
Department input about the landscaping plan before writing its decision.
Public Hearing — Site Plan Review — Fafard — Whalers Lane
Mr. Serafini, representing the Fafard Companies, gave an overall review
of Phase II of the development project which will consist of 128 units.
He said that Phase I is near completion and that the public response has
been gratifing. The Fafard Companies are moving along with Phase II and
are trying to incorporate as much as possible from reviews from the
Planning Department. Suggestions about signage, traffic and lighting
have been incorporated into Phase II. Phase II maximizes green open
space, incorporates some one bedroom units and has a new building design
which adds to the green open space available in the project. Mr.
Serafini added that design standards have been adhered to and that, at
the request of the Planning Board, the Fafard Companies will be using
cedar shingles in Phase II as well as wooden framed windows.
Mr. Ron Killian of the Fafard Companies explained, in some detail , what
Phase II will be comprised of. Phase II is contained in a 14 acre
parcel of land and will house 128 units. Open space is a key to Phase
II and there will be a 2 acre center parcel of green open space, with
two other smaller open space parcels in the Phase II development, for a
•
Page 5
total of 3k acres of open space. The Phase II development will be
broken into neighborhood like developments which consist of a mixture of
• four-plex styles and 3 eight—plex structures. There will be a trail
system through the open space, which will incorporate a part of the
Ancient Way, and will connect to Phase III. Access points will be at
Highland Park and are minimized to protect the park, but allow for
public access. There will be the same process of trash removal as in
Phase I and no wetlands will be disturbed.
Ms. Lesley Dale, the Fafard Companies landscape architect, presented
detail plans of the open space plans, the building placement, and the
landscaping plans for the units. Ms. Dale stated that the topography
and vegetation in Phase II is varied and that the buildings have been
situated on the grade whenever possible. The buildings are never placed
closer than 41 ' of one another and the Fafard Companies have used a
variety of building structures throughout the development so as to avoid
a monotonous appearance. The natural vegetation has been maintained
wherever possible so there is less of a need to "create" a landscape.
The average cost /unit of landscaping in Phase II is approximately
$3,000.00, which Ms. Dale assured the Board is higher than other
developers spend on a /unit basis.
Mr. Bob Barton of the Fafard Companies then gave a detailed presentation
concerning the structural practices used by the Fafard Companies
regarding the "Econdo" construction technique which involves the
construction of the superstructure of each building using concrete. Mr.
Williams questioned -Mr. Barton as to who tested the PSI of the concrete.
Mr. Barton responded that a Fafard lab technician gives a daily analysis
of the concrete. Mr. Williams questioned as to the control the City has
over the construction techniques. . Mr. Halley, an assistant to the
Building Inspector, and Jonathan Moore, a Clerk of the Works, are two
employees of the City who oversee the construction practices used by
Fafard.
Mr. Butler then asked Mr. Barton as to the method of applying exterior
wood to the concrete structures and the period of drying time which
elapses between pouring the concrete and applying the exterior wood.
Mr. Barton responded that approximately one week elapses between the two
processes and that they use 41X8' plywood sheets and shoot the nails
into the concrete, then apply the cedar shingles.
Insulation is applied between the concrete and the plywood and meets all
building codes. Ms. Burns asked if the units had air conditioning. Mr.
Barton responded in the affirmitive.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Power if there was any input from the fire
department concerning this phase of the development. Mr. Power
responded that there was no negative input from the Fire Department.
Mr. Power raised the issue of the chimney construction along Whalers
Lane. It was, and still is, a concern of the Board about the
construction materials used for the chimneys and the final appearance of
the chimneys. Mr. Serafini interjected that all state Building Codes
•
Page' 6
h
ave been followed in the construction of the chimneys, but that
• aesthetics are a legitamate concern of the Planning Board. Mr. Barton
asked the Board if the Fafard Companies could propose a chimney design
of more aesthetically pleasing design before the Board established
criteria for the Fafard Companies to follow. Mr. ,Barton explained that
they would like to use the same form in another brick pattern.
Mr. Butler suggested that a site visit be planned. The site visit was
arranged for November 15, 1986 at 8:30 a.m.
Mr. Kavanaugh stated that the Planning Department must do an evaluation
as to where the buildings can be seen from a public way and that chimney
construction materials will be suggested for these buildings which would
be a positive characteristic to the buildings and to the public who can
view these structures.
Mr. Power asked if the trail system was to be internal to the road
system. It was responded that the trail system was external to the road
system as much as possible.
Mr. Power asked for input from the public, upon hearing none, he closed
the public hearing.
The Planning Department was to address some issues and supply the
Planning Board with input concerning Phase II development prior to
endorsement by the Planning Board.
Clark Street
• Mr. Kavanaugh brought the Board up to date with the Clark Street
application. At the September 18, 1986 meeting the Board issued a
Decision with attached Conditions. Mr. Ralph Salvo had prepared a
letter to submit to Board members which stated a hardship for some -of
the conditions applied to his subdivision. Mr. Salvo stated that the
sidewalk, planting strip, underground utilities, paved turnaround, and
sewer extension are the conditions which imply a financial hardship for
himself and his family. He stated that no sidewalks exist on the street
and that all utilities are above the ground, thus his subdivision would
be inconsistent with the neighborhood as well as being a financial
hardship on him.
Mr. Power suggested that the Board review its conditions and perhaps
some changes could be made which would enable Mr. Salvo to implement the
proposed subdivision as well as to implement consistent policy.
Mr. .Kavanaugh suggested that the sewer issue is not one that the
Planning Board has jurisdiction over, but that the City Engineer has to
make the decision concerning this condition.
The sidewalk and underground utilities were then discussed as items
which could undergo a change in requirements. Mr. Butler stated that
these issues had been waived in similar subdivisions and thus it was
inconsistent for the Board to require them on Clark Street. Ms. Vaughan
Page 7
stated that she felt sidewalks in Salem was a goal of the Planning
Board.
Mr. May stated that the differences of subdivisions throughout the City
provide the Board with varied circumstances with .which to make decisions
and that seeming inconsistencies may be explicable in the context of the
various subdivisions.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Power if the Fire Department had any comments on
the requested waiver from constructing a paved turnaround. Mr. Power
responded that the Fire Department had earlier stated that they felt no
turnaround was necessary.
Ms. Burns asked if the turnaround had to be paved. Mr. Power responded
that it was not necessary to be paved, but an adequate foundation should
be used to ensure that a fire truck could use the turnaround throughout
the seasons. Gravel would be adequate for this purpose.
Sidewalks and underground utilites were then discussed by the Board.
Mr. Power mentioned that to require an individual subdivision to build
siewalks and place utilities underground is a large expense. He
continued that usually large developers are required. to install
sidewalks, but in individual subdivisions the Board required that land
be set aside for the future development of sidewalks.
Ms. Burns stated that she could not imagine a sidewalk will ever be
built in this location if it is not done now.
Under current zoning requirements there are five additional house lots
• on the rest of the road. Ms. Burns questioned as to when underground
utlities will be required.
Mr. Power suggested that when a pole would have to be added, that may be
the time to require underground utilities. Mr. Power continued by
stating that underground utilities are approximately ten times as
expensive to install as above ground.
•
Page 8
Mr. Power also stated that the power company will not install
underground utilities so the cost is expected to be assumed by the
• developer. The cost of underground utilities can be absorbed by most of
the larger developers, but it could constitute a hardship for an
individual building a small subdivision, defined as one or two lots.
Ms. Vaughan and Ms. Burns raised the issue of setting precedents and
felt that the Board should enforce the regulations they feel to be
important for the future of the City. They stated that there will
always be a reason for not enforcing the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Butler raised the issue of Board consistency when enforcing the
Subdivision Regulations and felt that in light of other recent Board
decisions the underground utilities and sidewalk requirements should be
waived for the Clark Street applicant.
Mr. Kavanaugh reminded the Board that land has been required to be set
aside, by way of a covenant, for future sidewalk installation, if
further development takes place in its past decisions.
Discussion ensued as to the eventual method of installing sidewalks on
land reserved by a covenant and who' s responsibility it will be to
install the sidewalks.
Ms. Vaughan made a motion to waive the underground utility requirement
on the Clark Street application. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and the
vote was unanimously in favor.
• Mr. Butler made a motion to waive the sidewalk requirement for Clark
Street. Mr. Williams seconded the motion and the vote was Messrs.
Power, May, Butler and Williams in favor, Ms. Vaughan and Ms. Burns in
opposition, thus the motion carried.
Ms. -Vaughan made a motion to use crushed stone on the turnaround, which
shall be built to City specifications. Ms. Burns seconded the motion
and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Almeda Street
The plan as submitted illustrates an easement which would fufill the
Board's sidewalk easement requirement and 'the grant of easement for the
property was deemed adequate. Concern was expressed, however, over the
adequacy of the covenant submitted. Mr. May suggested that the plan not
be released until a proper covenant is signed and submitted to the
Board. It is the consensus of the Board that release of the plan be
contingent upon the filing of this covenant.
Street Names — Highland Acres
Mr. Michael Stasinos submitted the following street names for his
Highland Acres project:
Page 9
Spring Pond Road (main entrance)
Indian Hill Lane
Overlook Lane
• Woodland Lane
Hillview Lane
Lions Lane
Carriage Hill Lane
The Fire Department and Assessor' s office have approved these street
names and now the Planning Board must make the formal submittal of
street names to the City Council .
Ms. Burns made a motion to accept the street names as submitted and
submit a formal approval request to the City Council. Ms. Vaughan
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
New Business
Mr. Power asked Board members to think about subdivision regulations and
the policies which the Board would like to enforce in the City for
discussion at the next Board meeting on November 18, 1986.
Ms. Vaughan then asked about the future of the open space on Greenway
Road if the development is sold. Ms. Yale responded that the conditions
of the approval of the development run with the land.
Mr. Williams raised .the issue of Board decisions being consistent with
other department's decisions throughout the City. He felt that it would
be of value to arrange a meeting with the Fire Department to talk about
requirements which would be mutually beneficial to the Fire Department
and the Board and to ask for consistency when enforcing these
requirements.
Gerard Kavanaugh stated he will set up such a meeting.
Minutes
Ms. Burns made a motion to accept the minutes for the October 16, 1986
meeting as amended. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and the vote was
unanimously in favor.
Mr. Butler made a motion to adjourn at 11 : 15 p.m. Ms. Vaughan seconded
the motion and the vote was unamimously in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia -Carr
Clerk
C744
t
MINUTES OF METTING
November 20, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
• room on Thursday, November 20, 1986 . Present were Chairman Walter
,,,_,Power, John Butler, Linda Vaughan, Richard Williams, Kenneth May, and
Robdrt LeDoux. Also present were City Planner, Gerard Kavanaugh and
Staff Advisor, Dale Yale. Bob Guethlan, Normand Houle , and Abby Burns
were absent .
Walter Power called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m. and welcomed Mr.
LeDoux to the Board.
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Vaughan made a motion to accept the minutes from the November 6,
1986 meeting as amended. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and the vote
was unanimously in favor.
Public Hearing - Nichols Hanson Street - Site Plan Review
Mr. Power read the notice of the public hearing from the Salem Evening
News and asked the Hanson Realty Trust representative, Attorney John
Serafini , to explain the proposed development to the Board members.
Mr. Serafini stated that the property is currently owned by Koko Machine
Company and is occupied by Koko Machine and a leather company. Mr.
Milo, of Hanson Realty Trust , has purchased both pieces of property and
proposes to remove the existing leather building and build 22 units of
housing within the existing Koko Machine Company location. Mr. Serafini
further stated that Hanson 'Realty Trust has received all the necessary
variances to proceed with this project. At the Board of Appeals
meeting, every neighbor who spoke at the public hearing, spoke in favor
of the project. Mr. Serafini stated that the development will take
place one block in from Boston Street , near the elderly housing
development , and will have a self contained 33 space parking facility at
the site.
Mr. Power read the project review letters from other departments. The
Conservation Commission concurs with the plan, the Fire Department
concurs wth the plan, the Board of Health stipulated ten conditions for
the development, most of which .have been met , and the Building Inspector
• stated he needed more information concerning stall depth which Ms. Yale
interjected had already been submitted by the applicant. The City
Engineer stated he needed more information concerning the existing and
proposed water and waste water tie-ins .
Mr. Serafini stated that the applicant proposes to tie into the existing
sewer system, which is a 12" line. Mr. Milo stated that the Engineering
Department has no information about the existing infrastructure.
Mr. Butler stated that the storm drain on Nichols Street is tied into
the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Power suggested that the applicant ask
the City Engineer to determine the existing conditions of sewer lines
and storm drain lines .
Page 2
Mr. Williams questioned the applicant as to the site preparation and
whether it has been determined if there is any hazardous waste to be
removed from the site. Mr. Serafini responded that it has been
• „ documented as. a clean site during the 21-E process. Copies of these-
findings will be provided to the Board.
Mr. Williams asked if the trash disposal system was located on the plan.
Mr. Serafini responded in the affirmative.
Mr. May asked the applicant about the unit size. Mr. Milo responded
that there will be 2- studio units, 6-2 bedroom units and 14-1 bedroom
units , all of which will range from 600 sq. ft. to 1100 sq. ft. Mr.
Milo further explained that the internal construction of the building is
that of steel framing with wood and cement block exterior. The ceiling
height is now 10' and will be lowered to 8' . ' The building will also
have a sprinkler system throughout.
Mr. Power asked Mr. Kavanaugh to have the Building Inspector check into
the loading of the-structure.- Mr. Butler stated that the structure was
originally one made of wood and that cracks are showing on the exterior
of the building. Mr. Butler questioned the safety of this building for
reuse purposes.
Mr. Butler then questioned the applicant as to the exterior material
proposed for this building. Mr. Milo stated that a California stucco is
proposed for ;the exterior finish.
Mr. Power asked about the final destination of the units and whether
they will be condominiums or rental. He also asked about the insulation
proposed to be used for energy efficiency. Mr. Serafini stated that the
units will be sold as condominiums and that the State rehabilitation
code for insulation will be used.
Mr. Williams asked about a snow storage area. Mr. Milo responded that
if there was a serious snowfall, the snow would have to be removed by
truck. Mr. Power stated that it is important that landscaping not be
inpacted by snow removal.
Mr. Butler asked if the City Engineer has surveyed the property because
it is his understanding that the existing building encroaches upon City
property. Mr. Serafini stated that the applicant will submit a response
to this concern to the Board.
Mr. Power asked about the utlity connections for the property and asked
. if the electrical requirements of a housing development would be less
than those of a machine shop. Mr. Milo responded that the requirements
of housing units are less than those of a machine shop and that the
proposal is to have the power connection cleaned up and put underground
as a secondary unit, rather than the 3 phase service currently used ,at
the site.
Mr. Butler stated that the existing building has a gutter system wh=ch
drains onto the sidewalk. Mr:` Milo stated that the proposed development
Page 3
will have a new roof installed with the drainage system tied into the
City' s st6rm drain system.
Mr. Power asked about the heating system and Mr. Milo responded that
there will be heat pumps installed for every unit. Mr. Milo also
explained that the units will be serviced by an elevator and that there
will be a natural atrium in the center of the development to allow for
natural light to filter to the first floor.
Mr. Power opened the public hearing to the audience. Mr. Donald Hunt,
an abutter, spoke in favor of the development. Mr. Hunt also stated
that everyone he has spoken to about the proposed development is in
favor of the development. Mr. Power closed the public hearing and
referred the proposed plan to the Planning Department for input.
Sunburst - Site Plan Review - Wetland & Flood Hazarard Special Permit -
Conditions
Mr. Kavanaugh brought the Board up to date with the proposal by stating
that on June 25, 1986 the Board reviewed and approved a one-story 21 ,000
sq.ft . building, after a public hearing. Since that time, Sunburst has
modified its plan to increase the loading area, which is approximately
double the size of the original plan and addresses some of the concerns
raised by the Board about truck parking on Highland Avenue. At the last
meeting, the4Board asked for increased landscaping for the modified
parking facility and Sunburst has obliged with a revised landscaping
plan.
• Mr. Power asked what has been added since the last meeting. Mr.
Kavanaugh responded that larger trees have been proposed to be planted
in front of the building which will screen the building and begin an
effort to make an improvement to Highland Avenue's aesthetics. .
Mr. Power asked about curbing along the old curb cut. Mr. Kavanaugh
responded that curbing should be installed along the entire length,
except where access is necessary and that the curbing should be granite.
Mr. Williams raised concern over the integrity of the drainage system
and suggested that the trench sites be tested for compaction prior to
installation of drainage pipes.
Mr. Power asked if the parking area will be pitched toward the catch
basins since the plan does not indicate berms so that the parking area
does not drain into the wetlands. Mr. Butler asked if the pupose of a
berm would be to prevent run-off into the wetland, and if so a berm
should be required.
Mr. Power raised the issue of lighting and stated that it should not be
a problem since there are no residential buildings in close proximity to
the development , but glare should' be kept to a minimum.
Mr. Power then asked if there was any hazardous waste storage on site.
. Mr. Serafini , Sunburst ' s representative responded in the negative.
Page 4
Mr. Butler raised .the ,issue of moving the silo to prevent trucks from
backing onto two lanes of Highland Avenue, but this would be
• prohibit ivey.expensive at this point in time for Sunburst.
Mr. Williams made a motion to approve the conditions for a Site Plan
Review Special Permit as follows:
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Site Plan of Land, Salem, MA,
prepared for Sunburst Fruit Juices", by Carter and Towers
Engineering Corp. , dated April 11 , 1986, revised October 30, 1986.
2 . All utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Department.
a. A compaction test, subject to review and approval of the
Engineering Department, shall be performed prior to
installation of proposed drainage system to ensure proper
bedding of drainage pipes.
3. Board of Health requirements set forth in a letter dated June 12,
1986, shall be adhered to.
4. Landscaping shall conform to plan entitled, "Planting Plan for
Sunburst Fruit Juices, Inc.", dated November 4, 1986, revised
November 17 , 1986.
a. Maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the
developer.
b. Proposed berm on perimeter of parking lot to direct drainage
flows shall be constructed of a material approved by the City
Planner.
c. Vertical granite curbing shall be installed along
Highland Avenue the length of the property line with the
exceptions of proposed curb cuts.
5. All truck traffic shall be diverted to the loading area at the
easterly side of the building to avoid obstruction of traffic on
Highland Avenue. There shall be no truck parking along Highland
Avenue.
6. All construction shall be conducted in accordance with the following
conditions:
a. No work shall commence before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00
a.m. on Saturdays. No work shall continue beyond 5:00 p.m.
There shall be no work on Sundays or holidays.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative
. effects of construction on abutters.
i '
Page 5
• c. ' Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday — Friday
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
7. Board of Appeal decision dated May 28, 1986 shall be strictly
adhered to.
8. Signage for the building shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
9. Exterior design plans shall. be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to issuance of a Building Permit .
10. A lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner
prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
11 . All construction shall be in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Planning Board.
12. The proposed structure shall be equipped with a trash compactor.
There shall be no dumpster stored on the site.
13. Any violation of these conditions will result in revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
Ms. Vaughan seconded the motion and the vote was. unanimously in favor.
• Mr. May made a motion to approve the Wetlands & Flood Hazard Special
Permit with the following conditions:
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Site Plan, Sunburst Fruit
Juices", dated April 11 , 1986, revised October 30, 1986, prepared by
Carter and Towers Engineering.
2. An Order of Conditions (DEQE 64-132) issued by the Salem
Conservation Commission on June 12, 1986, modified October 23, 1986,
shall be strictly adhered to.
Ms. Vaughan seconded the motion and .the vote was unanimously in favor.
94-100 Congress Street — Site Plan Review
The Board reviewed this proposal at the October 16, 1986 meeting when a
public hearing was held. The proposed 10 condominium units would be
built on top of the existing Colonial Market with Palmer Street side lot
being used for condominium parking and the Congress Street side lot used
for business parking. It was the consensus of the Board that the
landscaping plan submitted was inadequate.
Mr. May suggested the Board have an adequate landscaping plan in ,front
. of them before approval of the proposed plan is given.
Page 6
Mr. Williams asked how trash disposal should be handled. Mr. Kavanaugh
stated that a private trash removal system be required.
• Mr". May made a motion to defer action on the plan until a landscaping
plan can be submitted and approved by the Board. It was the consensus
of the Board that action be deferred.
100 Highland Avenue, Medical Building, - Site Plan Review Special Permit
On September 18, 1986 the Board held a public hearing on a 12,000 sq.
ft. medical building and reviewed the plans with suggested modifications
to be made. The doctors have made some changes, the major one is the
level of landscaping to be included in the proposed development .
'The Planning Board had suggested the utility tie-in be from Almeda
Street , but the City Engineer would prefer .a tie-in from Highland Avenue
in light of the_drainage _system of the parking lot . The modified site
plan submitted on November 20, 1986 reflects a utlity tie-in from
Highland Avenue. Mr. Tony Lally, the engineer for 'the project , then.
explained the proposed drainage system 'to the Board. Mr. Lally stated
that two 48" pipes will be installed and deadended to provide. for water
storage." The pipes will be throttled and regulate the flow from the
storage pipes to the drainage pipes. These dead ended pipes will have
the capacity to store water for a ten year storm level and will minimize
flooding in the parking area .
Mr. Power asked about the influx of sand into the storage system. Mr.
• Lally responded that the water will be filtered through the catch basin
system and will be more or less free from any material which will settle
and effect the quantity of storage provided by the pipes. Mr. Lally
added that the catch basins will have to be cleaned periodically to
provide maximum filtration. Mr. Lally also explained that the pipes
• will have manhole access, so they can be manually cleaned. Mr. Power
asked if the control pipe will also be accessable from a manhole. Mr.
Lally responded in the affirmative. Mr. May asked if the proposed
system will eliminate parking lot flooding. Mr. Lally responded that a
great. part of the parking lot flooding will be eliminated by this plan,
but that during a 100 year storm level there will be some flooding, but
acess to the building is above the flood level elevation.
Mr. Power asked how long the water will be retained in the parking lot.
Mr. Lally responded that the water should not remain in the parking lot
much longer than one hour after the precipitation stops.
Mr. Williams asked if the 24" pipes, which end at the swamp will have
grates installed on them to prevent unauthorized access into the pipes.
Mr. Lally responded that the installation of grates could be arranged.
Mr. Williams then questioned the velocity of run-off across Highland
Avenue, which Mr. Lally stated would be comparable to what currently
exists during a storm and then Mr. Williams asked about the water mains
• and how many are proposed to be used. Mr. Lally responded that they
Page 7
• propose to. use a fire connection to the building and then separate the
system into a fire system and a service system when the connection
reaches the building.
Mr. Williams questioned sir. Lally as to the sewer connection. The
proposal is to use a Y connection, but the City Engineer would prefer a
manhole connection.
Mr. Power asked if there were to be any hazardous materials used or
stored in the building. The applicants responded that there will be
oxygen and nitrate storage in the building and that these will be stored
according to state codes.
is
Mr. Williams asked if the proposed development has the required set
back. Mr. Quinn of Tinti, Quinn and Savoy, representatives of the
applicants, responded that the set back requirement has been met .
Mr. Power asked if the traffic through the parking lot will have a
one—way flow pattern. It was responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Kavanaugh noted that the applicants have provided shields on the
lights so there will be no glare from the lights onto Highland.Avenue.
Mr. Butler questioned about snow storage. Mr. Lally responded that
there_ are 13 extra parking spaces and that these should provide adequate'
snow storage. Mr. Power noted that no snow storage should take place on
• landscaped areas so vegetation will not be damaged.
Mr. Williams asked about the quality of pipe to be used and Mr. Lally
responded that class 4 pipe is proposed to be used. Ms. Vaughan then
asked about Landscape maintenaince and Mr. Quinn responded that
landscape maintenance will be the responsibility of the applicants.
Mr. Power questioned as to the demarcation proposed between the parking
lot and the landscape areas. Mr. Lally explained that berms are
proposed to be used and that granite curbing will be used at the
entrance. . It was the consensus of the Board that additional granite
curbing be installed rather than asphalt berm which deteriorates
quickly. The applicants were amendable to this recommendation.
Mr-Butler made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review Special Permit
with the following conditions:
1'. Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Site Utility and Grading Plan,
100 Highland Avenue Realty Trust", prepared by M.A. Lally Associates,
North Andover, :L4.
2 . Utility -installation shall be approved by the Engineering Department .
a . A safety grate shall Se installed on 24" culvert at the headwall
• located on the northwesterly side of the site.
Page 8
3. Board of Health requirements set forth in a letter dated September
17 , `1.986, shall be strictly adhered to.
• 4. Landscaping of the site shall conform to plan entitled, "Landscaping
Site Plan for 100 Highland Avenue Realty Trust", prepared by Barlow
Cillfiilen Architects, dated November 7, 1986, revised November 18,
1986.
a. Maintenance of landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition
shall be the responsibility of the applicants, their successors or
assigns .
b. There shall be no storage of snow on landscaped areas of the site.
c. Location of granite curbing shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. Board of Appeal decision dated May 28, 1986 shall be adhered to.
6. All construction shall be conducted in accordance with the following
conditions:
a. No work shall commence before 7 :00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m.
on Saturdays. No work shall continue beyond 5:00 p.m. No work
shall be conducted on Sundays or holidays.
4
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative
effects of construction on abutters.
• 7. Signage for the building shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
8. Any violation of these conditions will result in revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
Mr . Williams seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor
with Mr. LeDoux abstaining.
Fafard Discussion
At our last meeting, a public hearing was held on Fafard' s Phase II
proposal for 128 units on fourteen (14) acres of land. A site visit was
held on Saturday, November 15, 1986 and several issues were raised by
Board members which include chimney construction, ledge screening,
insulation installation and pipe location in common trenches.
Mr. Kavanaugh started the discussion by stating that Fafard is now using
all cedar siding, as specified by the Board, and also understands that
the concrete chimneys will not be installed where visible from a public
way.
Mr. Williams raised the issue of stabilizing the slope in the backyards
•
Page 9
where"a i : l slope is in existence. Mr. Williams also mentioned the
affect weather will have on the ledge screening as it currently exists .
'JrPower stared that stabilizing rods could be used to reduce negative
• impact of the weather, but the natural effect of the landscaping will be
lost .
Mr. Power opened the discussion about the chimneys by stating that the
finshed quality of the precast concrete chimney is not of high quality.
Mr. Power reiterated :chat Mr. Kavanaugh had previously stated concerning
Fafard's understanding of using cedar siding for the rest of the
development as well as installing brick chimneys along the public ways.
Mr. May stated that brick chimneys and cedar siding were conditions for
Phase I. deveiopment and since Fafard has chosen not to follow the
Board's conditions, the Board has recourse Co revoke his permits. Mr.
Butler stated that all the chimneys should be made of brick.
Mr. Williams expressed concern over the general poor quality of
construction and questioned if utility pipes could be installed in a
common trench. '
Mr. Williams asked what type of on—site control and checks the City has
available to it. Mr. Kavanaugh stated that a Clerk of the Works is
hired by the Planning Department to oversee site preparation. The
assistant Building Inspector has responsibility over actual unit
construction'.
The discussion then focused on the chimney construction technique to be
used in the future and what corrective measures Fafard should take to
rectify his construction in Phase I and the conditions layed out by the
Board. At one point the Board felt that removal of all chimneys built
violating the conditions of Phase I should be removed, but this
requirement was pointed out to be extremely expensive.
Mr. May made a motion to enforce the original conditions issued to
Fafard in regards to Phase I development for the rest of the
construction in Phase I. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and the vote
was unanimously in favor.
Mr. May made. a motion to notify the developer that he is in violation of
conditions issued by the Board and the .Board would like some information
as to how the developer proposes to bring the .construction into
conformance. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and the vote was
unanimously in favor.
Mr. Butler asked when the proposed upgrading off of Swampscott Road was
to 'take place by Fafard. Mr. Kavanaugh responded that this improvement
was slated to occur during Phase III & IV development.
Old/New Business
Ms . Vaughan asked about the status of a proposed roadway through Mr:
Zieff' s property. Mr. Kavana'u`gh stated that the traffic study pointed
Page 10
to a route rear Loring Towers property to be the best connecting
roadway-, .not directly through the Zieff property. Mr. Power stated that
it was still important for the City to keep Mr. Zieff ' s right of way
• open.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Butler seconded
the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Carr
Clerk
C811
t '
i
t
MINUTES OF MEETING
• December 4, 1986
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room on Thursday, December 4, 1986. Present were Abby Burns, Richard
Williams, Normand Houle, Bob LeDoux, John Butler and Kenneth May. Also
present was. Staff Advisor, Dale Yale. Linda Vaughan, Walter Power, and
Bob Guethlen were absent.
Acting Chairperson Abby Burns called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Public Hearing - 188 Essex Street - Site Plan Review
Ms. Burns read the notice of the public hearing from the Salem Evening
News.
Attorney John Serafini, representing the applicants, presented the
proposed plan to the Board. He explained that the plan has received a
favorable decision from the Board of Appeals and the applicants are now
seeking approval under the Site Plan Review Special Permit process. Mr.
Serafini told Board members that Mr. David Zussman, the owner of
Pickering Wharf, is the owner of the Almy's building and that he is the
designated developer for the South River area of Salem as well as
showing an interest in the East India Mall. Mr. Serafini stated that
the developer' s committment to Salem is strong and he is dedicated to
the success of Salem' s downtown.
• Mr. Serafini then introduced Mr. Victor Vitols, the applicant ' s
architect, who presented a scale model of the project to the Board. Mr.
Vitols stated that the building will be non-obtrusive and that the
existing architectural style of downtown Salem will be replicated in the
proposed plan. Mr. Vitols told Board members that the height of the
buildings and their impact on the rest of the downtown was kept in mind
when developing the plan as well as the use of alleys and open spaces as
currently exist throughout the City. The plan includes public
pedestrian access from Church Street to the Essex Street Mall via a 12 '
wide walkway, with 6 single-family condominiums entering onto the walk.
A sunken garden will be created in the middle of the development,
accessible to condominium owners. The Essex Street Mall side of the
proposed development will contain approximately 4,200 sq. ft. of retail.
space. The Church Street side of the development will contain a limited
amount of office space, primarily for uses internal to the condominium
development.
Mr. Vitols then addressed the issue of parking for the proposed
development. He stated that on-site underground parking was considered,
but because of the space requirements for underground parking and space
limitations of the development, on-site parking was not considered to be
feasible in a development plan. Mr. Vitols stated that the Board of
Appeals decision concerning the development is contingent upon the
condominium developer renting 107 parking spaces on the fourth floor of
the East India Mall parking garage. Mr. Vitols told Board members that
this arrangement was in the process of being worked out.
J
Page 2
Mr. Vitols stated that the building materials will be brick veneer on
• the top stories and limestone or granite facade on the Essex Street Mall
ground level. All materials used will blend into the existing downtown
character. The lighting fixtures which the developer proposed to use
were then presented. The utilities will be tied in from the street.
There will be an internal trash compacting area.
Ms. Burns then turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman Kenneth May.
Mr. May then read the responses of various City departments to the
proposed developments. The Engineering Department needed a more
detailed utility plan and was also concerned about the parking on Church
Street and the proposed method of snow removal. The Board of Health has
placed the proposal on their next agenda, the Conservation Commission
has no comments on the proposal, and the Building Inspector has
requested more information.
Mr. .May opened the public hearing to the audience but there was no one
present to speak in favor of or opposed to the proposal.
Ms. Burns questioned the applicant whether the whole top floor of the
parking garage was proposed to be rented for condominium usage. Mr.
Serafini responded that the Board of Appeals decision requires the
rental of 107 spaces out of 250 total spaces available on the top floor.
Mr. Serafini further stated that the developer is trying to work out an
arrangement with the Parking Commission to devise a card system for the
residents using these 107 spaces. Statistics compliled by The Planning
• Department indicate that the first floor of the garage is used to
capacity, the second floor is at 75% capacity, the third floor is
underutilized at all times and the fourth floor is always empty. Mr.
Serafini further stated that the increased revenue from renting these
spaces to the condominiums will help to decrease the bonded indebtedness
of the parking garage.
Mr. LeDoux pointed to the fact that the plan illustrates the development
will use 6 spaces in the SRA parking lot. Mr. Serafini told Board
members that this usage was also being worked on with City officials.
Ms. Burns asked what the overall height of the buildings is going to be.
Ms. Garcia, Mr. Vitols assistant, responded that the Church Street side
was 78' from sidewalk to rooftop and the Essex Street Mall side was 69'
from sidewalk to rooftop.
Mr. Butler asked what the ground floor material was proposed to be. Mr.
Vitols explained that the ground floor will be granite or limestone and
will be light in color to correspond to existing storefronts on the
mall . There will also be large panes of glass which will help to
minimize grafitti.
Mr. Houle asked how much retail space will be included in the Essex
Street Mall area. Mr. Serafini responded that there will be
approximately 4,200 sq. ft. available for retail in the development and
Page 3
that deliveries to these stores will take place in a manner similar to
the existing delivery arrangements for downtown businesses, during
• specified hours of the day.
Mr. Williams asked how the building will be constructed under the brick
veneer. Mr. Vitols responded that the construction technique will be to
build a metal structure with sheetrock and insulation. The entire
building will be serviced by a sprinkler system.
Ms. Burns asked how many elevators were proposed to be installed. Mr.
Vitols responded that two elevators will be installed and that the units
will be accessable to handicapped persons. He added that storage bins
will be included for each unit in the basement. Each unit will have a
washer and dryer and there will be a pool installed for condominium
residents to use. The pool will be an inside, heated pool which enters
onto the garden area.
Ms. Burns then questioned Mr. Vitols as to the size of the units. He
responded that the 1 bedroom units will be between 600-700 sq. ft. and
the 2 bedroom units will be approximately 1500 sq. ft.
Mr. LeDoux stated that he felt the increased usage of the area along
Church Street will be a great help in alleviating the vandalism and
crime problems existing in this area.
Ms. Burns asked what the price of these units will be. Mr. Zussman
responded that the one bedroom units will cost in the upper $90,000.00
range and the two bedroom units will cost in the upper $140,000.00
range.
Mr. Power had requested that the Board ask the applicant the reason why
the entrance to the mall was not going to be maintained to connect the
existing commercialspace with the proposed commercial space. Mr.
Vitols stated that it was not economically feasible for the proposed
plan to contain more retail space then currently proposed and that since
the mall entrance is at the midpoint of the bottom floor, either more
commercial space would have to be created to be a connector, or retail
space would have to be realigned which would leave some of the Essex
Street Mall side available for housing, so the developer chose the
option which would maintain a retail climate on the Mall.
Mr. May closed the public hearing. The Board referred the plan to the
Planning Department for further input.
Site Plan Review Special Permit - Nichols & Hanson Streets
Ms. Yale told the Board that there had been one change in the proposed
conditions since Tuesday which had to do with exterior building
materials.
Mr. May stated that the applicants would appreciate favorable action
taken by .the Board tonight in order for them to secure their financining
• by the end of the year.
J
Page 4
Mr. LeDoux asked if the applicants had submitted soil samples from the
• 21-E process and, if so, what the results are of the samples. Mr.
Serafini, the applicant's attorney, stated that the 21-E process has
taken place and the results show that the site is a clean site.
Mr. Butler raised the issue of the drainage connections to be made by
the development and the issue of the building being partially located on
City property. A letter of concurence from the City Engineer
sufficiently states that the drainage and sewer connections proposed are
satisfactory and the City Engineer also stated that survey results
submitted show that the building is not located on City property.
Mr. Williams asked what the applicants wanted from the Board at this
meetong and Mr. May explained that they wanted the Board to approve the
Site Plan with attending conditions.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion to grant a Site Plan Review Special Permit with
the following conditions:
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Site Plan, 6 Nichols Street",
dated September 18, 1986, revised November 14, 1986.
2. Utility installation, including location of catch basins, shall be
approved by the Engineering Department.
a. A detail of proposed electrical connection, including the
electrical transformer, shall be submitted for review and .
approval. by the Planning Department.
3. Snow storage areas shall be designated on the Site Plan and reviewed
and approved by the Planning Department.
4. Landscaping of the site shall conform to plan entitled, "Landscape
Site Plan, 6 Nichols Street, dated November 19, 1986".
a. Maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the
developer, his successors or assigns.
b. There shall be no storage of snow on landscaped areas.
5. Signage for the building shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
6. Exterior building material shall be cement stucco over wire mesh.
7. Lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
8. All construction shall be conducted in accordance with the following
conditions:
• a. No work shall commence before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m.
on Saturdays. No work shall continue beyond 5:00 p.m. No work
Page 5
• shall be conducted on Sundays or holidays.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative
effects of construction on abutters. Advance written notice shall
be given to all. abutters 72 hours prior to commencement of
;construction.
c. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided, at the expense of the
developer, if deemed necessary by the City Planner or the Director
of Public Services.
9. Copies of soil. sampling tests taken during the 21-E process, and
analysis of such process by appropriate agencies, shall be forwarded
to the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits.
10. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer shall
be submitted prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
11 . Any violation of these conditions will result in the revocation of
permits.
Ms. Burns seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Site Plan Review Special Permit - 95-100 Congress Street
Ms. Yale told the Board members that Mr. Hacker, the developer, has
• agreed to add four 3 .5-4" caliper trees and shrubbary along Palmer
Street to soften the expanse of bituminous on the site.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review Special Permit
with the following conditions:
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, "Site Plan - Addition to
Colonial Market, 95-101 Congress Street" dated August 20, 1986.
2. All construction shall be conducted in accordance with the following
conditions:
a. No work shall commence before 7 :00 a. m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.
m. on Saturdays. No work shall. continue beyond 5:00 p. m. There
shall be no work conducted on Sundays or holidays. Inside work of
a quiet nature may be permitted at other times.
b. All reasonable action shall. be taken to minimize the negative
effects of construction on abutters. Advance notice shall be
provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to
commencement of construction.
3. Landscaping of the site shall conform to plan entitled, "Landscape
Plan, 95-101 Congress Street", dated November 13 , 1986, revised December
1 , 1986:
a. Maintenance of the landscape vegetation in a healthy and thriving
�s
Page 6
• condition shall be the responsibility' of the developer, his
successors or assigns.
4. Lighting of the site shall be approved .by the City Planner prior to
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
5. Any violation of these conditions shall result in revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
Mr. Houle seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
It was the consensus of the Board to defer approval of the minutes of
the November 20, 1986 meeting until the next meeting.
Old/New Business
Ms. Yale reminded the Board members that they are invited to the Board
of Appeal. Christmas Party on December 12, 1986 and that if they are
going, they must R.S.V.P. by December 5 at 4:00 p.m.
Mr. LeDoux made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Houle seconded the
motion and the vote was 'unanimously in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Carr
Clerk
C834
i
4
MINUTES OF MEETING
December 18, 1986
•
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room on Thursday, December 18, 1986. Present were Chairman Walter
Power, Abby Burns, Richard Williams, John Butler, and Kenneth May. Also
present were .Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner and Dale Yale, Staff
Advisor. Absent were Linda Vaughan, Normand Houle, and Robert LeDoux.
Chairman Wal.ter Power called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.
Greenway Road — endorsement of plan
The developer's attorney, David Goodof, requested of the Board an
endorsement of a plan which had been approved by the Board last June and
filed at the City Clerk' s Office on July 22, 1986. The plans appendix
includes a covenant which states that no building on individual. lots
wil.l. occur until utilities are installed and a deed for open space which
will be conveyed to the City. Mr. Goodof stated that since the
conditions of the Board have been met, it would be appropriate, at this
time, for the Board to endorse this plan.
Mr. Goodof explained that the process has been a long one to this point
for his client, Mr. Romano, and during the process several plans had
been presented. One of the plans included the deeding of an 8 ' strip of
Land to Linda and Robert Vaughan at the westerly side of their property.
Mr. Robert A. Theriault , also an abutter to the development , entered an
adverse possession lawsuit for land abutting his property. The
developer has since agreed to deed a section of land to Mr. Theriault,
which will be deeded to him through the Form A process, next on the
agenda, has been approved by the Board. Mr. Goodof noted that the plan
approved by the Board made no mention of deeding an 8' strip to Linda
Vaughan and also stated that the original 8' parcel which Mr. Romano was
thinking about deeding to the Vaughans has now been absorbed by the
Planning Board' s sidewalk and planting strip requirement.
Mr. Power asked if it was appropriate for the Board to endorse a plan if
only one parcel. of two with deed requests had been resolved. Mr. May
stated that al.l. the Board' s conditions have been met, thus endorsement
of the plan would be appropriate. Mr. Power stated that the developer
had made verbal. commitments which have not been met . Mr. May stated
that the sidewalks and planting strips have effectively used up the 8'
strip which was to be deeded to Ms. Vaughan. Mr. Goodof interjected
that whatever is Left of the strip could be deeded to Ms. Vaughan and
that his client is willing to talk to Ms. Vaughan about a conveyance of
some of the rear abutting property which is restricted from development
by a utility easement .
Mr. Kavanaugh then explained Ms. Vaughan' s sentiments since she spoke
with him on December 17, 1986 and was unable to attend the meeting. Ms.
Vaughan feels as though the road should be relocated in a southernl.y
direction and that an 8 ' strip should still be deeded to her even though
the area in question will be developed as a sidewalk and planting strip.
Mr. Poirier, president of the neighborhood association, was then
• -z-
recognized by the Chair and stated that he felt the neighborhood
association should have been notified before Mr. Romano brought the plan
• to the Planning Board for endorsement. Mr. Goodof interjected that he
did not feel any of the issues mentioned had bearing on the plan he has
submitted for endorsement.
Mr. Power asked if the plan submitted was the plan the Board approved.
Mr. Kavanaugh responded that the submitted plan is a result of the
developer abiding to the Board's conditions. He further stated that
himself, the 'o veiepe and Ms. Vaughan sat down with the developer's
engineer and reviewed the plan and none of them noticed that the strip
abutting Ms. Vaughan' s lot would be used for a sidewalk and planting
strip, rather than being available as undeveloped area to be deeded to
her. Mr. Power asked if the sidewalk and planting strip to be built
abutting Ms. Vaughan's property would connect with an existing sidewalk
and planting strip. Mr. Kavanaugh responded in the affirmitive.
Mr. Williams questioned the developer about moving the road 8' in a
southerly direction. Mr. Goodof stated that this would incur a
financial hardship for Mr. Romano since extensive blasting would have to
take place.
Mr. Butler asked if the lot for open space was deeded to the City yet.
Mr. Kavanaugh stated that a deed is prepared for the parcel to be
conveyed to the City and that a Form A will not be necessary since it
will be a conveyance.
Mr. Williams asked if the District Attorney was contacted by the
• neighborhood association in Ms. Vaughan' s behalf, as was alluded to by
Mr. Poirier earlier, would the Board' s endorsement of the plan bring the
Board into the suit. Mr. May stated that it was his opinion that future
action by the District Attorney should not impede any action taken by
the Board this evening, if the Board feels all their conditions have
been met and endorsement of the plan is appropriate. Mr. Power asked if
the moving of the roadway can be a remedy to the adverse situation which
currently exists. Mr. May stated that the Board can revoke approval if
the property is not yet mortgaged or conveyed.
Concerns were expressed about the short notice time the neighborhood
association had to react to the developers request to have the plan
endorsed. Discussion ensued as to whether every requested endorsement
had to be posted on the tentative agenda 48 hours in advance to the
meeting time. It was concluded that endorsment of previously approved
plans was not subject to the 48 hour posting requirement. Mr. Power
asked if Ms. Vaughan was given notice of the meeting. Mr. Goodof
responded in the affirmitive.
Mr. May asked Mr. Goodof what conditions necessitated the endorsement
this evening. Mr. Goodof responded that the plan, as submitted, defines
the parcel which is to be deeded to Mr. Theriault and that this deed of
transferral to Mr. Theriaul.t must take place before the financing can be
in place for a closing the developer has for December 19, 1986.
7
-3-
Mr. Power stated that he thought in fairness to Ms. Vaughan action
• should be delayed until Ms. Vaughan and the developer have a chance to
talk. Mr. Goodof responded that the developer has complied with all of
the Planning Board' s conditions and, as such, felt that he is entited to
an endorsement so that financing can be secured for the closing on the
19th. Anything besides an endorsement would not allow for financing to
occur. Mr. Power stated that the Board does not like to be in the
middle of this situation, but it appears as though the sidewalk and
planting strip requirement has complicated the situation. Mr. May
stated that the Board has the right to revoke the approval. they granted
in June, 1986, and that he feels the Board should make an effort to
resolve the issues rather than, act in a hasty fashion. Mr. May suggested
that the Board focus on how to accomplish Mr. Romano's immediate needs
and then work on the other issues involved in this subdivision.
Mr. Romano again stated that he has complied with the Board' s conditions
and that there was no indication of the deeding of an 8' strip to Ms.
Vaughan on the approved plan, so he does not understand what the problem
is this evening since no commitment was ever made to Ms. Vaughan in
writing. Mr. Goodof reminded the Board that a verbal commitment is not
enforcable in a court of law and thus Ms. Vaughan does not have a case.
Mr. Power responded that he felt the developer may have been more
amicable toward Ms. Vaughan' s requested for the 8' strip had she entered
into an adverse possession suit such as Mr. Theriault ' s. 1
Mr. Power state( that t Board had n oblig tion to resolve this issue d f
(Lcrrt.r\ �x IN `�C�C� �C-5 C 6%15_t Kier
Mr. Goodof stated that his client will. undergo severe financial hardship
• if the financing does not go through tomorrow (December 19th) . Mn
n possible a
Mr. Butler made a motion to defer action on the plan. Mr. Williams
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Form A - Greenway Road
Mr. May stated that the Board can endorse this plan with a few
modifications if they feel comfortable. Mr. May explained that a dotted
line separating the Theriault property and area to be deeded to him from
the proposed road continuation and subdivision stating "proposed
subdivision" on the modified plan would suffice the developers immediate
needs and not lock the Planning Board into the plan as submitted. Mr.
May stated that this procedure is slightly irregular, but would be
acceptable given the circumstances of the application.
Mr. Power stated that this arrangement would be made in the spirit of
trying to help both sides.
Mr. Mahoney of the neighborhood association stated that he would
formally object to this Form A endorsement if it shows the continuation
df Greenway Road past its existing confines and that the plan would be
in violation of MGL 183 5A if it depicted other lots not yet legally
-4-
subdivided.
• Mr. May responded that the dotted line separating the road extension as
well as the proposed subdivisions will enable the Board to endorse the
Form A so that the deed conveying land to Mr. Theriault will correspond
to the lot plan recorded at the Registry of Deeds. After this
explanation and examination of the modifications Mr. Mahoney withdrew
his formal objection.
Mr. May made a motion to endorse the plan as modified as not needing
Planning Board approval with the requirement that a modified plan be
submitted to the Planning Board and the neighborhood association. Ms.
Burns seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Form A - 329-331 Highland Avenue
Mr. Norris from Tinti, Quinn and Savoy represented the applicant,
McAuliffe Realty Trust. Mr. Norris stated that this Form A involves the
conveyance of a parcel of land from Mr. Nonos Lagonakis to McAuliffe
Realty Trust which would give all. lots involved the proper amount of
frontage for a Business Park Development zone, which is 1501 .
Mr. May made a motion to endorse the Form A approved under the
Subdivision Control Law not required. Ms. Burns seconded the motion and
the vote was unanimously in favor.
Village at Vinnin Square - Phase III - discussion
• At this time the developer, Mr. James Zieff, is proceeding with design
plans for Phase III, which involves the construction of 212 units on 18
AC of land. A Site Plan Review process was initiated at this meeting as
agreed to by Mr. Zieff as part of his last subdivision conditions.
The architect for the project, Mr.Douglas Herring, presented the plans
for Phase III of the development which will include 212 units, 40-1
bedroom, and 172-2 bedroom units. There will be 507 parking spaces in
the development, 245 garaged and 262 open units. This is a 2 .4 space
per unit allotment. The rendered elevation dipicted a typical 4 story
building with the parking in the basement level of the larger units made
of steel. frame and brick facade (2B construction techniques will be
used) . The garages will be attached structures for the smaller wood
frame units. Phase III will have the same density and characteristic of
Phases I and II, with positive market results being adapted to the
development.
Discussion ensued concerning the need to lay out a new connector road
between Loring Avenue and Swampscott Road. Land has been reserved for
this purpose utilizing par[ of Loring Towers prope r, part of Mr.
ZieffIs pro erty and so Cit nd. The developQ( twill. have a new
road��i�(��to attain a ces Go4t�ee *units which will have a width of 28'
with parking along one side. Mr. May expressed' concern over the
proposed long narrow road and suggested that the Fire Department ' s
•_ response to the plan be examined.
-5-
Mr. Power asked about the roof lines of the proposed buildings and what
aesthetic impact the development will have on the other phases of the
• development as well as on itself. Mr. Zieff responded that the
elevation variations of the development allow a view of rooflines which
are at different elevations and one never sees a continuous unbroken
line of roofs. Mr. Zieff also stated that the area was very heavily
wooded and the rock outcroppings would provide aesthetically pleasing
landscaping throughout Phase III.
Mr. Williams asked about the utiLity easements and Mr. Zieff responded
that the easements come off of Loring Avenue. Discussion ensued as to
the sewage disposal. method. Mr. Zieff responded that the entire
development to date has a gravity flow system and that he expects most
of Phase II wil.l. be gravity flow, but a pump station may be necessary at
the Club House.
Mr. Power questioned Mr. Zieff regarding the possibility of creating a
pondage area for runoff. Mr. Zieff responded that the idea of a pondage
area was under consideration and he would look favorably onto the
inclusion of a pond especially since the pond would add to the sale
value of the units near the pond.
Site Plan Review Special Permit - 188 Essex Street
Mr. John Serafini, representing the Pickering Development Group, stated
that the proposed development for 188 Essex Street received approval
from the Board of Health on Tuesday, December 16, 1986 and the City
Engineer is satisfied except for requesting a copy of the details of the
. utility connections. Mr. Serafini added that his client would
appreciate action on the proposed development since timing is essential
for the project. Mr. Serafini further stated that the site is crucial.
to the downtown and his clients have shown a good faith effort in the
revitalization of downtown Salem by their ownership of Pickering wharf
and recent involvement with East India Mall and the South River area in
Salem. Mr. Serafini added that the development of these projects by a
committed developer should help to increase retail business in Salem as
well as to improve the climate of the downtown area.
Mr. Williams raised the issue of parking and stated that he was
concerned with the impact that 107 new units would have on downtown
parking and traffic congestion. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Serafini what
response the Parking Commission has had to the developers request to
rent 107 parking spaces on the top floor of the East India Parking
Garage. Mr. Serafini stated that the Parking Commission has the ability
to enter into a long term lease arrangement with the developers. The
arrangement wilt be beneficial to all parties involved, since the added
rental income will. help to underwrite the garage expenses as well as
creating a safer atmosphere by increasing use and pedestrian traffic in
the garage.
The future development of the Armory for various uses was discussed with
emphasis on the increased demand for parking in the downtown area ( ie.
the garage) . Mr. Kavanaugh stated that even with the complete
fi
1
-6-
renovation of the Armory for any use the garage will have ample parking
spaces with approximately 960 spaces being available on nights and
weekends and only 460 cars parked in the 1026 spaces at any given time.
He also stated that the City is working toward creating a second tier of
parking on the site of the Church Street parking tot, which would
increase the number of parking spaces in the downtown by approximately
225. Mr. May asked if the parking lot on Charter Street was owned and
operated by the City. Mr. Kavanaugh responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Butler asked what the response has been from the Parking Commission.
Mr. Serafini stated that legally the Commission has to lease the spaces,
such as they would to any individual . In response to the question of
the benefits derived by the City from the parking space leasing, Mr.
Serafini replied that the rental of the spaces to the developer will
help to lessen the $45,000.00 year expenses accrued by the garage as
well. as creating $300,000.00 in taxes. Perhaps even more importantly,
Mr. Serafini stated that the development will revitalize a "dead" area
of the City.
Mr. Butler stated that he felt the design details are missing from the
plan. Mr. Serafini responded that the Salem Redevelopment Authority' s
Design Review Board must approve the plan before construction can start
and that they go into detail with construction materials and design
applications of the buildings.
Ms. Burns stated that the Design Review Board is comprised of architects
and other experts in the design field who are suitable to make decisions
• about and requests from the developer on design issues. She feels
confident about approving the Site Plan Review Special Permit with the
design details being left for the Design Review Board to approve.
Mr. Power interjected that this plan will change the downtown for the
forseeable future. He stated that the design concept when the Mall was
constructed was to have a viable retail store entering the northernl.y
side of the Mall. with access to the Essex Street Mall. The proposed
plan disrupts this design plan and opts to create retail. only on the
street sides of the developement with no connector to the Mall . Mr.
Power would prefer to see a plan in which future retail expansion on the
ground floor was included. Mr. Ness responded that the developer
carefully chose the retail location in this development and feels that
to maintain a viable retail climate around the Essex Street Mall area
was very important to Salem and that at this point retail space is not
enough in demand to propose retail space for a connector into the Mall
area.
Discussion ensued as to the design construction materials to be used.
Mr. May made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review Special Permit
subject to the following conditions:
1 -7-
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, " Essex Condominiums", dated,
September 24, 1986, revised Novemeber 15, 1986.
2. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Department:
a. A detail of electrical connection shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Department.
3. Rubbish removal. shall be the responsibility of the developer, his
successors or assigns.
4. Landscaping of the site shall. conform to plan entitled "Schematic
Site Plan at Entry Level", prepared by Philip Bryer, Landscape
Architect.
a. Maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility of the
developer, his successors or assigns.
b. There sha11 be no storage of snow on landscaped areas.
c. Snow removal, including the public walkway on the westerly side of
the building, shall be the responsibility of the developer, his
successor or assigns.
5. Design of proposed walkway to be constructed between Essex and Church
Streets including, but not limited to, dimensions, landscaping, and
• lighting shall. be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.
6. All. construction shall be conducted in accordance with the following
conditions:
a. No work shall commence before 7 :00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m.
on Saturdays. No work shall. continue beyond 5:00 p.m. No work
shall. be conducted on Sundays or holidays.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative
effects of construction on abutters.
c. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided, at the expense of the
developer, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner or Director
of Public Services.
7. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land
Surveyor, shall. be submitted prior to issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
8. Any violation of these conditions will result in revocation of this
permit.
-8-
Ms. Burns seconded the motion. The vote was Messrs. May, Williams,
Butler and Ms. Burns in favor, Mr. Power opposed.
• Zoning Discussion
" Mr. Kavanaugh brought the Planning Board up to date on the process of
the proposed Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Planning Board can
send the revised draft back to the City Council on January 8, 1987 and
then the Council can set a date for a joint public hearing. Mr.
Kavanaugh then outlined some of the most recent changes to the proposed
Ordinance.
Mr. May made a motion to resubmit the Zoning Ordinance to the City
Council in order to hold a joint public hearing. Ms. Burns seconded the
motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Ms. Burns made a motion to adjourn at 11 :00 p.m. Mr. Wil.l.iams seconded
the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Respectfully submitted.
0
Cynthia Carr /
l
MINUTES OF MEETING
December 18 . 1986
•A
The Salem Planning Board met at One Salem Green, second floor conference
room on Thursday, December 18, 1986. Present were Chairman Walter
Power, Abby Burns, Richard Williams, John Butler, and Kenneth May. Also
present were Gerard Kavanaugh, City Planner and Dale Yale, Staff
Advisor. Absent were Linda Vaughan, Normand Houle, and Robert LeDoux-
Chairman Walter Power called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.
Greenwav Road , endorsement of plan
The developer's attorney, David Goodof, requested of the Board an
endorsement of a plan which had been approved by the Board last June and
filed at the City Clerk' s Office on July 22, 1986 . The plans appendix
includes a covenant which states that no building on individuaLlots
will occur until utilities are installed and a deed for open space which
will be conveyed to the City. Mr. Goodof stated that since the
conditions of the Board have been met, it would be appropriate, at this
time, for the Board to endorse this plan.
Mr. Goodof explained that the process has been a long one to this point
for his client, Mr. Romano, and during the process several plans had
been presented. One of the plans included the deeding of an 8' strip of
land to Linda and Robert Vaughan at the westerly side of their property.
Mr. Robert A. Theriault, also an abutter to the development, entered an
adverse possession lawsuit for land abutting his property. The
developer has since agreed to deed a section of land to Mr. Theriault,
which will be deeded to him through the Form A process, next on the
agenda, has been approved by the Board. Mr. Goodof noted that the plan
approved by the Board made no mention of deeding an 8' strip to Linda
Vaughan and also stated that the original 8' parcel which Mr. Romano was
thinking about deeding to the Vaughans has now been absorbed by the
Planning Board' s sidewalk and planting strip requirement .
Mr. Power asked if it was appropriate for the Board to endorse a plan if
only one parcel. of two with deed requests had been resolved. Mr. May
stated that all the 3oard' s conditions have been met , thus endorsement
of the plan would be appropriate. Mr. Power stated that the developer
had made verbal cor.r:.'_tments which have not been met . Mr. May stated
that the sidewalks and planting strips have effectively used up the 8'
strip which was to be deeded to Ms. Vaughan. Mr. Goodof interjected
that whatever is left of the strip could be deeded to Ms . Vaughan and
that his client is willing to talk to Ms. Vaughan about a conveyance of
some of the rear abutting property which is restricted from development
by a utility easement .
Mr. Kavanaugh then explained Ms. Vaughan' s sentiments since she spoke
with hin, on December 17, 1986 and was unable, to attend the meeting. Ms.
Vaughan feels as though the load should be relocated in a southernly
direction and that an 8 ' strip should still be deeded to her even though
the area ,in question will be developed as a sidewalk and planting strip.
Mr. Poirier, president of the neighborhood association, was then
I
-2- i
recognised by the Chair and stated that he felt the neighborhood
association should have been notified before Mr. Romano brought the plan.
• to the Planning Board for endorsement . Mr. Goodof interjected that he j
did not feel any of the issues mentioned had bearing on the plan he has I
submitted for endorsement.
Mr. Power asked if the plan submitted was the plan the Board approved. .
Mr. Kavanaugh responded that the submitted plan is a result of the
developer abiding to the Board' s conditions. He further stated that
himself, tk &JVIIopkb and Ms. Vaughan sat down with the developer' s
engineer and reviewed the plan and none of them noticed that the strip
abutting Ms . Vaughan' s lot would be used for a sidewalk and planting
strip, rather than being available as undeveloped area to be deeded to f
her. Mr . Power asked if the sidewalk and planting strip to be built
abutting Ms. Vaughan' s property would connect with an existing sidewalk
and planting 'strip. Mr. Kavanaugh responded in the affirmitive.
Mr. Williams questioned the developer about moving the road 8 ' in a
southerly direction. Mr. Goodof stated that this would incur a
financial hardship for Mr. Romano since extensive blasting would have to
take place.
Mr. Butler asked if the lot for open space was deeded to the City yet .
Mr. Kavanaugh stated that a deed is prepared for the parcel to be
conveyed to the City and that a Form A will not be necessary since it i
will be a conveyance.
Mr. Williams asked if the District Attorney was contacted by the
• neighborhood association in Ms. Vaughan' s behalf, as was alluded to by
Mr. Poirier earlier, would the Board' s endorsement of the plan bring the
Board into the suit . Mr. May stated that it was his opinion that future
action by the District Attorney should not impede any action taken by
the Board this evening, if the Board feels all their conditions have
been met and endorsement of the plan is appropriate . Mr. Power asked if
the moving of the roadway can be a remedy to the adverse situation which j
currently exists. Mr. May stated that the Board can revoke approval if f
the property is not yet mortgaged or conveyed.
Concerns were expressed about the short notice time the neighborhood
association had to react to the developers request to have the plan
endorsed . Discussion ensued as to whether every requested endorsement
had to be posted on the tentative agenda 48 hours in advance to the
meeting time . It was concluded that endorsment of previously approved
plans was not subject to the 48 hour posting requirement. Mr. Power
asked if Ms. Vaughan was given notice of the meeting. Mr. Goodof
responded in the affirmitive.
Mr. May asked Mr. Goodof what conditions necessitated the endorsement j
this evening. Mr. Goodof responded that the plan, as submitted, defines
I
the parcel which is to be deeded to Mr. Theriault and that this deed of
transferral to Mr. Theriault must take place before the financing can be
in place for a closing the developer has for December 19, 1986.
-3-
Mr. Power stated that he thought in fairness to Ms.. Vaughan action
• should be delayed until Pis . Vaughan and the developer have a chance to
talk. Mr. Goodof responded that the developer has complied with all of
the Planning Board' s conditions and, as such, felt that he is entited to
an endorsement so that financing can be secured for the closing on the
19th. Anything besides an endorsement would not allow for financing to
occur. Mr. Power stated that the Board does not like to be in the
middle of this situation, but it appears as though the sidewalk and
planting strip requirement has complicated the situation. Mr. May
stated that the Board has the right to revoke the approval they granted
in June , 1986, and that he feels the Board should make an effort to
resolve the issues rather than act in a hasty fashion. Mr. May suggested
that the Board focus on how to accomplish Mr. Romano' s immediate needs
and then work on the other issues involved in this subdivision.
Mr. Romano again stated that he has complied with the Board' s conditions
and that there was no. indication of the deeding of an 8' strip to Ms.
Vaughan on the approved p'.an, so he does not understand what C4—;L5�roblem
is this evening since no commitment was ever made to Ms. Vaughan in
writing. Mr. Goodof reminded the Board that a verbal commitment is not
enforcable in a court of law and thus Ms. Vaughan does not have a case. .
Mr. Power responded that he felt the developer may have been more
amicable towardMs . Vaughan' s requested for the 8 ' strip had she entered
into an adverse possession suit such as Mr. Theriault' s. ,,
,L1^S
Mr. Power Leat th Board had an obligation resolve this issue. ` J&
CLC
cm
Mr. Goodof stated that his client will undergo severe financial hardship
if the financing does not go through tomorrow (December 19th) . Mt.
o _
Mr. Butler made a motion to defer action on the plan. Mr. Villiams
seconded the motion and the voce was unanimously in favor.
Form A - Greenwav Road
Mr. May stated that the Board can endorse this plan with a few
modifications if they feel comfortable. Mr. May explained that a dotted
line separating the Theriault property and area to be deeded to him from
the proposed road continuation and subdivision stating "proposed
subdivision" on the :modified plan would suffice the developers immediate
needs and not Lock the Planning Board into the plan as submitted. Mr.
May stated that this procedure is slightly irregular, but would be
acceptable given the circumstances of the application.
Mr. Power stated chat this arrangement would be made in the spirit of
trying to help both sides.
Mr. Mahoney of the neighborhood association stated that he would
formally object to this Form A endorsement if it shows the continuation
Of Greenway Road past its existing confines and that the plan would be
• in violation of MGL 183 5A if it depicted other lots not yet Legally
-4-
subdivided.
i
f
• Mr. May responded that the dotted line separating the road extension as f
well as the proposed. subdivisions will enable the Board to endorse the
Form A so that the deed conveying land to Mr. Theriault will correspond
to the lot plan recorded at the Registry of Deeds. After this
explanation and examination of the modifications Mr. Mahoney withdrew
his formal objection.
Mr. May made a motion to endorse the plan as modified as not needing
Planning Board approval with the requirement that a modified plan be
submitted to the Planning Board and the neighborhood association. Ms.
Burns seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Form A - 329-331 Highland Avenue
Mr. Norris from Tinti-, Quinn and Savoy represented the applicant,
McAuliffe Realty Trust . Mr. Norris stated Upt�ha�n this Form A involves the i
conveyance of a parcel of,'land from Mr. NN$^8� Lagonakis to McAuliffe
Realty Trust which would give all lots involved the proper amount of
frontage for a Business Park Development zone, which is 150' .
Mr. May made a motion to endorse the Form A approved under the
Subdivision Control Law not required. Ms. Burns seconded the motion and
the vote was unanimously in favor.
Village at Vinnin Square - Phase III - discussion
At this time the developer, Mr. James Zieff, is proceeding with design
plans for Phase III , which involves the construction of 212 units on 18 j
AC of land. A Site Plan Review process was initiated at this meeting as
agreed to by Mr. Zieff as part of his last subdivision conditions.
The architect for the project, Mr.Douglas Herring, presented the plans
for Phase III of the development which will include 212 units, 40-1
bedroom, and 172-2 bedroom units. There will be 507 parking spaces in
the development , 245 garaged and 262 open units. This is a 2.4 space
per unit allotment . The rendered elevation dipicted a typical 4 story
building with the parking in the basement level of the larger units made
of steel frame and brick facade (2B construction techniques will be
used) . The garages will be attached structures for the smaller wood
frame units. Phase III will have the same density and characteristic of
Phases I and II , with positive market results being adapted to the i
development .
Discussion ensued concerning the need to lay out a new connector road
between Loring Avenue and Swampscott Road. Land has been reserved for
this purpose utilizing part of Loring Towers propeivy, part of Mr. I
Zieff ' s property, and some City land. The developmenE will have a new
road builtLo attain access to the units which will have a width of 28 '
with parking along on—a S1zle Mr. May expressed concern over the
proposed long narrow road and ugges[ed that the Fire Department ' s
response to the plan be examine p4Lr25lW U0f
I
-5-
Mr. Power asked about the roof lines of the proposed buildings and what
aesthetic impact the development will have on the other phases of •the
• development as well as on itself. Mr. Zieff responded that the
elevation variations of the development allow a view of rooflines which
are at different elevations and one never sees a continuous unbroken
line of roofs. Mr. Zieff also stated that the area was very heavily
wooded and the rock outcroppings would provide aesthetically pleasing
landscaping throughout Phase III .
Mr. Williams asked about the utility easements and Mr. Zieff responded
that the easements come off of Loring Avenue. Discussion ensued as to
the .sewage disposal method. Mr. Zieff responded that the entire
development to date has a gravity flow system and that he expects mo=_t
of Phase II will be gravity flow, but a.pump station may be necessary at
the Club House.
Mr. Power questioned Mr. Zieff regarding the possibility of creating a
pondage area for runoff . , Mr. Zieff responded that the idea of fondage
area was under consideration and he would look favorably onto the
inclusion of a pond especially since the pond would add to the sale
value of the units near the pond.
Site Plan Review Special Permit - 188 Essex Street
Mr. John Serafini , representing the Pickering Development Group, stated
chat the proposed development for 188 Essex Street received approval
from the Board of Health on Tuesday, December 16, 1986 and the City
Engineer is satisfied except for requesting a copy of the details of the
utility connections . Mr. Serafini added that his client would
appreciate action on the proposed development since timing is essential
for the project . Mr. Serafini further stated that the site is crucial
to the downtown and his clients have shown a good faith effort in the
revitalization of downtown Salem by their ownership of Pickering Wharf
and recent involvement with East India :•tall and the South River area in
Salem. Mr. Serafini added that the development of these projects by a
committed developer should help to increase retail business in Salem as
well as to. improve the climate of the downtown area.
Mr. Williams raised the issue of parking and stated that he was
concerned with the impact chat 107 new units would have on downtown
parking and traffic congestion. Mr. Wiiliams asked Mr. Serafini what
response the Parking Commission has had to the developers request to
rent 107 parking spaces on the top floor of the East India Parking
Garage. Mr. Serafini stated that the Parking Commission has the ability
to enter into a long term lease arrangement with the developers. The
arrangement will be beneficial to all parties involved, since the added
rental income will help to underwrite tie garage expenses as well as
creating a safer atmosphere by increasing use and pedestrian traffic in
the garage.
The future development of the Armory for various uses was discussed with
emphasis on the increased demand for parking in the downtown area ( ie.
' the garage) . Mr. Kavanaugh stated that even with the complete
i
—6—
renovation
6 renovation of the Armory for any use the garage will have ample parking
• spaces with approximately 960 spaces being available on nights and
weekends and only 460 cars parked in the 1026 spaces at any given time.
He also stated that the City is working toward creating a second tier of
parking on the site of the Church Street parking lot , which would
increase the number of parking spaces in the downtown by approximately
225. Mr. May asked if the parking lot on Charter Street was owned and
I
operated by the City. Mr. Kavanaugh responded in the affirmative. �
I
Mr. Butler asked what the response has been from the Parking Commission.
i
Mr. Serafini stated that legally the Commission has to lease the spaces ,
such as they would to any individual . In response to the question of
the benefits derived by the City from the parking space leasing, Mr. I
Serafini replied that the rental of the spaces to the developer will i
help to lessen the $45 ,000.00 year expenses accrued by the garage as
well as creating $300,000.00 in taxes. Perhaps even more importantly,
Mr. Serafini stated that the development wi11 revitalize a "dead" area
of the City. I
Mr. Butler stated that he felt the design details are missing from the
ponded that the Salem Redevelopment Authority' s
plan. Mr. Serafini res !
Design Review Board must approve the plan before construction can start
and that they go into detail with construction materials and design
applications of the buildings.
Ms. Burns stated that the Design Review Board is comprised of architects
,• and other experts in the design field who are suitable to make decisions
about and requests from the developer on design issues. She feels
confident about approving the Site Plan Review Special Permit with the
design details being left for the Design Review Board to approve.
Mr. Power interjected that this plan will change the downtown for the
forseeable future. He stated that the design concept when the Mall was
constructed was to have a viable retail store entering the northernly
side of the Mall with access to the Essex Street Mail . The proposed
plan disrupts this design plan and opts to create retail only on the
street sides of the developement with no connector to the Mall . Mr.
Power would prefer to see a plan in which future retail expansion on the
ground floor was included. Mr. Ness responded that the developer
carefully chose the retail location in this development and feels that
to maintain a viable retail climate around the Essex Street Mall area
was very important to Salem and that at this point retail space is not
enough in demand to propose retail space for a connector into the Mall
area .
Discussion ensued as to the design construction materials to be used.
Mr. May 'made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review Special Permit
subject to the following conditions:
i
I
i
i
-7-
1 . Work shall conform to plan entitled, Essex Condominiums" , dated,
•} September 24, 1986, revised Novemeber 15, 1986 .
2 . Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Department :
a. A detail of electrical connection shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Department.
3 . Rubbish removal shall be the responsibility of the developer, his
successors or assigns.
4. Landscaping of the site shall conform• to plan entitled "Schematic
Site Plan at Entry Level", prepared by Philip Bryer, Landscape
Architect .
a. Maintenance of landscaping shall be the responsibility o
developer, his successors or assigns.
b. There shall be no storage of snow on landscaped areas.
c. Snow removal , including the public walkway on the westerly side of
the building, shall be t-he responsibility of the developer, his
successor or assigns.
5 . Design of proposed walkway to be constructed between Essex and Church
Streets including, but not limited to, dimensions, landscaping, and
i— . lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.
6. All construction shall be conducted in accordance with the Following
conditions: '
a. No work shall commence before 7 :00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a .m.
on Saturdays. No work shall continue beyond 5:00 p.m. No work
shall be conducted on Sundays or holidays.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative
effects of construction on abutters.
c. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided, at the expense of the
developer, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner or Director
of Public Services.
7 . As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land
Surveyor, shall. be submitted prior to issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
8. Any violation of these conditions will result in revocation of this
permit .
i
-B-
Ms. Burns seconded the motion. The vote was Messrs. May, Williams,
Butler and Ms. Burns in favor, Mr. Power opposed. I
Zoning Discussion,
Mr . Kavanaugh brought the Planning Board up to date on the process of
the proposed Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Planning Board can
send the revised draft back to the City Council on January 8, 1987 and
then the Council can set a date for a joint public hearing. Mr.
Kavanaugh then outlined some of the most recent changes to the proposed
Ordinance.
Mr. May made a motion to resubmit the Zoning Ordinance to the City i
Council in order to hold a joint public hearing. Ms . Burns seconded the
motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Ms. Burns made a motion to adjourn at 11 :00 p.m. Mr. Williams seconded
the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor.
i
Respectfully submitted.
I
I
Cynthia Carr
i
I
t
I
x
1