2009-PLANNING BOARD n �s
CITY OF SALEM
vet PLANNING BOARD
H 29 A It: 33
FILE rx
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLE_''i i. 6 .1 EP?, h. =S.
You are hereby not furl that the Salem Planning Board twill hdd iu 7Wdxly sAr&"nwang on Thursday,
January 7, 2010 at 7:00 pm at CityHall Amex,Room313, 120 Washington Stmt
omies M. PUL-c�Ian L
Cl zirnun
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 12/17/09 Planning Board meeting
2. Continuation of Public Hearing:Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE
PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan,to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE,
Salem,MA(Assessors Map 41,Lots 235,236,243,244,246, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots,
the construction of fifteen(15) single-family homes,and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
3. Old/New Business
• 4. Adjournment
a k yCA1x
P Pklt-
n
n • 43�
It
.
A" qt �._w1 , SI. ....;
x'44
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
DIRECTOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: December 30, 2009
RE: Agenda—January 7, 2010
Please find the following your packet:
acket:
• ➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Minutes from 12/17/09
➢ Agenda
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE
PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a
Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between
SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 41, Lots 235, 236,243,
244,246, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots, the construction of fifteen (15)
single-family homes, and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
Dave Knowlton, the City Engineer, is expecting another submission from Jim McDowell, the
project's engineer, and the two will be meeting again before our meeting on January 7. I don't yet
have an updated submittal from the applicant, so there are no new materials on this project in your
packets.
I am hoping that the Board of Health can discuss this project at its January 12 meeting, but the
agenda for this meeting has not yet been posted and the health agent is out of the office this week,
so I can't be sure. I will have an update on this at our meeting.
• Because of holiday and vacation schedules, I also have not been able to discuss the water metering
issue that came up at the last meeting. I will have an update on this on the 7" also.
I
a \ CITY OF SALEM
' ► � r f1' PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby nm*that rhe SalemPlanrriygBozrd udl hold its regularly sdxa4d&r"on Thursday,
December 17, 2009 at 7.00 pm at C4Ha11Arrr0x,Room313, 120 )d zhirgtonSm-rt
Charla M. Puleg
Chzirmm
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 11/5/09 and 12/3/09 Planning Board meetings.
2. Public Hearing:Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility(WCF)
Special Permit for the property locate at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15,Lot 308). The proposed project includes
the installation of three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units,four(4) backhaul antennas,two (2)
equipment cabinets mounted to a rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on the roof of the Salem Heights
Apartments.
3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to allow
• the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74,75,and 76) into
eleven (11) new single-family house lots,the construction of a new street off Highland Avenue, and the
construction of eleven (11) single-family homes.
4. Continuation of Public Hearing:Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE
PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan,to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE,
Salem,MA(Assessors Map 41,Lots 235,236,243,244,246,and 274) into fifteen(15) single-family house lots,
the construction of fifteen(15) single-family homes,and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
5. Old/New Business
-< o
6. Adjournment a
^ - o
2z 9P
,<,.A' 'url" .,
5 ::r, SAJY-M. u ,l.Inst)191f) Pilom 9iS,61956s5 FAx91R;4{).040. W� 'V�� s ...:��t.1:
vim"@-C�o *r��lp�c
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
DIRECTOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
• DATE: December 10, 2009
RE: Agenda—December F2009
Please find the following in your packet:
Planner's Memo
➢ Minutes from 11/5/09 and 12/3/09
➢ Agenda
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications
Facility (WCF) Special Permit for the property locate at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15, Lot
308). The proposed project includes the installation of three (3) panel antennas and
associated BTS units, four(4) backhaul antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets mounted to a
rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on the roof of the Salem Heights Apartments.
The application was routed to Fire Prevention, Engineering,Building, Conservation and Health.
The Health Department responded that no Board of Health review is necessary at this time, and the
Conservation Agent responded that the work is outside the Commission's jurisdiction. The City
Engineer responded that the City of Salem Water Department reserves the right to install radio
equipment for the water billing system at no cost to the City. Did not provide comments. The
deadline for department comments was December 7. (other ride)
1
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive •
Subdivision Plan to allow the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem,MA
(Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and 76) into eleven (11) new single-family house lots, the
construction of a new street off Highland Avenue, and the construction of eleven (11) single-
family homes.
New England Civil Engineering is conducting the peer review. I have not received any updated
information from the applicant.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE
PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a
Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between
SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 41, Lots 235,236,243,
244, 246, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots, the construction of fifteen (15)
single-family homes, and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
The City Engineer,Dave Knowlton, has reviewed the plans and met with Jim McDowell, the
project's engineer. I do not yet have written comments from Dave,but I will be able to discuss his
comments at the next meeting. If I receive his comments prior to the meeting, I will send them to
g P S
you.
The question was asked at the last meeting whether the plans submitted to the Planning Board are
the same ones approved by the Board of Appeals. I compared the two plans, and the lot lines have
changed slightly,meaning some lots are larger, and some are smaller. (The number of homes
remains the same.) I discussed this with the City Solicitor and the Building Inspector, and the •
applicant will need to come back to the ZBA to approve the modification in the plans.
I understood from the applicant that the Board of Health was planning to hear this project at its
December 8 meeting;however, Dave Greenbaum in the Health Department let me know that this
did not happen because that meeting was dominated by another project. The Conservation
Commission will be opening its hearing on this project on December 10.
I've also enclosed next year's meeting schedule in your packet.
2
• City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board �IU n✓�, /fir � ov r�
Date 12 / ( IL / (J
Name Mailing Address Phone # 1-- Email
122r YI l� �c
L W Ca �.
Page_ of
C
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
r
I ,
NOTICE OF SITE VISIT
SALEM PLANNING BOARD
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2009
9:30 A.M.
SHALLOP LANDING
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION BETWEEN SZETELA LANE AND FORT AVENUE
SITE VISIT TO BEGIN AT PARKING LOT ON THE SITE OFF OF SZETELA LANE
• -P�e.Y
December 7, 2009 Charles M. Puleo
Chair
120 WASHINGTON STREET, .SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
• December 17,2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine
Sullivan,Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of November 5`h were reviewed. Chuck Puleo offered the following corrections: On page 3
top paragraph, revise to indicate that the applicant "would reference grading on the approved plan".
On page 5, he said there should be clarification of the "pre-clad walls" as stated by Jim McDowell.
Danielle McKnight will add page numbers to the minutes as well.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the minutes with
changes, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0.
The minutes of December 3rd were reviewed. Danielle McKnight read the updated version of section
"Request of Paul DiBiase for a partial release of escrow funds after completion of roadway work on the
Osborne Hills (Strongwater) subdivision" , which will take place of that section in the minutes. On page
5, second paragraph, when Jim McDowell explained the dimensions of the roadway, Danielle will make
• sure the dimensions are correct. On Page 5, in the description of chemicals, change "arson"to "arsenic."
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to approve the minutes with
changes, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0.
Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF)
Special Permit for the property located at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15, Lot 308). The proposed project
includes the installation of three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units, four (4) backhaul
antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets mounted to a rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on
the roof of the Salem Heights Apartments.
Heather Carlisle, representing Goodman Networks, said that there is some equipment already at this
facility and that they want to install three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units, four(4) backhaul
antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets and one (1) GPS antenna. She said they will make sure that they
paint them to match the building, so that they are less noticeable from the street. Presently, she says
there are antennas on the building that are reddish in color. Elevation of the antennas is shown on the
drawings that were distributed to the Board. Danielle McKnight said as part of the project review, the
only comment from city departments was from Dave Knowlton, City Engineer,that he'd like a condition
on Wireless Communication Facility decisions that states "the City shall reserve the right to install radio
antennas for water billing on the equipment owned by cell phone companies". However, Danielle
explained that in this case, she spoke with Ms. Carlisle about the possible condition, and she explained
that Clearwire doesn't own the area the antennas are mounted on, they rent it, so she doesn't think the
• condition can apply here. However, Danielle suggested the Board keep this condition in mind for the
future similar projects. Chuck Puleo said they approved a similar project recently on Highland Ave, and
would that condition have applied here? Heather Carlisle wasn't sure if they own that tower, most likely
1
not. Danielle will watch for this in future applications. Helen Sides commented on the pictures
presented for the project and also commented on Heather's statement that they will paint the antennas
to match the building. Helen said usually a red color doesn't work well for antennas and her suggested •
color would be maybe a dark slate grey, not a shiny black and not reflective, that would be less visible
than red. Christine Sullivan asked why the new photos show the equipment extending above the roof
line, while the older ones showed the equipment below the roof line. She noted that the photos
submitted with the application don't reflect how the antennas will look, which is not acceptable.
Heather Carlisle said that they changed the design after the photos were done. Helen Sides asked why
the new design necessitated placement of the antennas above the roofline rather than below; Ms.
Carlisle responded that she could go back to her design team to see if they could place the antennas
below the roofline.
Board members discussed whether they would prefer to have Ms. Carlisle come back with revised
photos or whether the Planning Department should do this review; in the end it was decided that she
should come back, particularly if the design could be changed so that the antennas were all below the
roof line.
Issue Opened up for Public Comment
No comments were made by the public.
There being no comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to continue the Public Hearing to
January 21'2010, seconded by Tim Ready and approved 7-0.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to •
allow the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and
76) into eleven (11) new single-family house lots, the construction of a new street off Highland
Avenue,and the construction of eleven (11)single-family homes.
Danielle McKnight received a letter from Attorney Atkins which stated that since the City's peer
reviewer hadn't yet provided the applicant with any feedback, they did not have any updates at this
time, and so they are requesting to continue the petition to January 21, 2010.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing on
January 21s`seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP for a
Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the
subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA
(Assessors Map 41, Lots 235,236, 243, 244, 246,and 274)into fifteen (15)single-family house lots,the
construction of fifteen (15)single-family homes,and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
Attorney John Keilty, Lowell Street, Peabody, representing Shallop Landing, said that since they last met,
two things have occurred: a site visit by the Planning Board, and a meeting between the applicant and
City Engineer David Knowlton. Attorney Keilty said he had several documents for Board members. The
first document is a letter to address the neighbors' concerns about what would happen with respect to
the H&H Propeller parking lot. He reviewed a portion of the agreement that says that they, Shallop •
Landing at Collins Cove Partnership, have with H&H Propeller, which says that they the buyer, Shallop
Landing, shall convey to or grant an easement over a certain area of land shown as parcel B — or the
parking lot — shown on the submitted plans. Attorney Keilty went on to say that the choice was H&H
2
Propeller's. He said that because of the hazmat issues on the property, they may well take an exclusive
easement, rather than a deed. He says the agreement goes on to say that the area shall be paved in
accordance with the construction detail attached to the P&S, and it shall be fenced. The agreement
further states that the property shall be restricted to parking for employees of H&H Propeller, and will
include vans up to 9,000 lbs gross weight, boats,trailers or products of the seller. Lobster traps or trucks
shall be prohibited. Chuck Puleo asked if they choose not to own this parcel and just have an easement
over it, then who would continue to own it after development of the property and sale of the homes?
Attorney Keilty said they could assign the interest to the Homeowners Association. Chuck Puleo asked
what would happen if H&H Propeller sold the property, couldn't the Homeowner's Association decide
not to extend the easement to the new owner? Attorney Keilty said there would be a 99 year lease
agreement on the property. Chuck Puleo asked if the new owner would then pick up the lease;Attorney
Keilty confirmed that they would. He went on to add that some of the use issues could be addressed by
the Zoning Enforcement Officer, since some of the undesirable uses were occurring in a residential zone.
Chuck Puleo asked if H&H Propellor is used for something else in the future, then how would the change
impact the use of that lot? Attorney Keilty confirmed that the uses outlined in the agreement would still
be available.
The second document Attorney Keilty presented was the representation of the structures they will
build. He says that some will be one story,while those on Fort Ave will probably be two stories. He says
this will not be an age restricted community; however,this is the market segment they are targeting.
The third document Atty Keilty presented was a packet including an illustration of the vinyl fencing that
they will install per the neighbors' request. The representation showed what vinyl fence will look like as
well as the chain link fence on the other side. Also contained in the packet was a representation of the
wall and what it would look like,what it would be constructed of, how it will operate, how the fence will
• fit on the top of the wall, how high it will be off neighboring property and how.the soil will be next to it.
With this representation,they tried to address several concerns that the neighbors had about the wall.
Danielle McKnight said she had received a memo from Jim McDowell summarizing his meeting with the
City Engineer, and another one from the City Engineer in response to Jim's memo. She said that for
simplicity, she had condensed all of the issues identified by both memos into one document; she handed
out both the condensed document and the two original memos to the Board members. Jim McDowell
also received a copy of the condensed list of issues.
Attorney Keilty then presented a landscape plan which showed a representation of the street trees. He
asked if the Board would like to take some time to discuss this, or if they would prefer to ask Mr.
Geisser, the project's LSP, questions about the contamination, or to discuss the engineering feedback
from Dave Knowlton. Chuck Puleo said he would like to start with the site contamination, and that he
had some questions for Mr. Geisser from the site visit. He said he'd learned at the visit that the material
on the site could be taken and used to regrade the site; he asked if Michael Geisser could tell the Board
more about this. Specifically, he asked if the whole site had contamination on it, or just certain areas.
He also asked for an explanation of how the material would be pulled back to the sidewalk level to bring
it down by three feet and regrade for the capping. Michael Geisser, Alliance Environmental Group,
responded that the contamination on the site is erratically placed in no particular pattern. In regards to
regrading, he said it's permissible to regrade a contaminated site under the Mass Contingency site plan
if it's done under a health and safety plan under an LSP. He said decontamination of any equipment that
is on the site needs to be done. Chuck Puleo commented that once they redistribute the soil they won't
know how it will get mixed together; is this why the site gets capped? Will the underground utilities be
• in place before the cap is put in, or would the site be disturbed again? Michael Geisser explained the
sequence of construction doesn't matter under the Mass Contingency Plan, as long as protocols are
followed. He said the equipment being used for moving, digging, replacing and the like must be
decontaminated, as long'as it's done under a health and safety plan. He said they will also put dust
3
monitors and establish limits to the work if there is any dust generated. Chuck Puleo asked about the
structural stability of the site, saying that it's relatively uneven,what's to prevent any settling once slabs
and homes are in place? Michael Geisser said they never found any debris on the site that would impact •
the structure of the site. He said they did some geotechnical studies when the senior center was
proposed on the Collins Cove side of the property, the part with the most fill on it, and found most the
soil to be compacted and any work to be done to increase the grade, or to excavate and replace soil,will
have to be recompacted to engineering standards.
Nadine Hanscom asked Michael Geisser if he knew of any other sites that have this much contamination
that they have put houses on. Michael Geisser said many existed in the state, but he could not name any
offhand, but that he knew of one site that had a playground, which he said was a more sensitive use. It
had the exact same cap as the one proposed for this site and described its configuration. He also said
the playground at Witchcraft Heights Elementary School had contaminated soil that was capped; and
the Carlton school had contaminated soil which was capped as well. Michael Geisser said scientific
studies show that the cap they will use is a suitable cap because the risks only come into play if a person
were to eat 100 grams of contaminated material a day for several years. He said the risk was almost
negligible. He also said at the last Planning Board meeting someone asked about the longevity of the
cap with salt and water. He said it is made of polyethylene, a non-corrosive material that can withstand
moisture and other biological activities and corrosion. He said there would be 2 feet of fill over the
snow fence barrier. Chuck Puleo asked about the cap itself, Michael Geisser explained that the snow
fence is the cap; that it sits over the contaminated soil, and the fill goes on top of it, but there is no
additional capping. John Moustakis asked if this cap is the same one used in Beverly that Mr. Geisser
has talked about previously, and asked if he had any history on this type of cap,such as how long it lasts.
Michael Geisser said it won't be exposed to ultraviolet rays because it will be buried, and so its life is
indefinite under the proposed conditions.
Helen Sides asked if this site is different because it would be developed over time, unlike a park or •
ballfield, which is built all at once. Michael Geisser clarified that all the development that disturbed the
earth would occur at once; this is why they are placing the slabs in for the homes. All the grading,
capping and fill would be done at once. Helen Sides asked if the prospective buyers of the house lots
would need to follow the proper protocols for building on the contaminated site, but Phil Singleton said
the lots were not for sale until the site was developed — otherwise they would lose control over the
process.
Christine Sullivan asked the neighbors that were present if they have dealt with a Licensed Site
Professional before, and asked for Mr. Geisser to explain what one is.
Michael Geisser explained that the licensing professional program was implemented in 1993 by Mass
DEP. He said it privatized compliance with Mass contingency plans, which is a set of regulations that
involve assessment, containment and remediation of oil and hazardous waste. He explained the
education and testing involved with becoming a Licensed Site Professional, or LSP. He explained that an
LSP must follow DEP's guidelines for contaminated sites. In this situation, he said the DEP guidelines call
for a cap. He said again that as far as the contamination, the only threat to human health is direct
contact. He explained limitations on the types of vegetation that should be grown on the site. John
Moustakis mentioned that the examples given earlier of redeveloped contaminated sites didn't have
living quarters and Mr. Geisser said there are many sites in the state with houses on them. Nadine
Hanscom commented that she thought the whole area would be underneath something, something
harder to get through than the snow fence. She asked what happens if someone wants to plant
vegetables in the future, who would monitor that. Michael Geisser said the homeowner's association •
would be monitoring those situations.
Issue Opened up for Public Comment
4
At-large Councilor Steven Pinto asked what the procedure for developing contaminated sites was prior
to 1993, and whether the material to be used for capping was the same material used during that time.
Councillor Pinto was.also concerned that over time, such as 20-30 years, the capping material may not
be as effective. Michael Geisser explained the history of the Massachusetts contingency plan, which
was established in 1989, and the LSP program that put out guidelines for these types of cleanups. He
said what they used to use in the early 90's were some of same materials used for landfills, such as
geotextiles. He said they started to use polyethylene at the turn of the century because of its color (it
easily alerts anyone who tries to dig beneath it) and it's very inexpensive. Councillor Steve Pinto said
there has been data on houses located on contaminated soil. He's heard of buildings where people
have been taken out because they're sick, that's what he is concerned about, the fear of the unknown
and the liability down the road.
Councillor Robert McCarthy thanked everyone for going to the site visit and Attorney Keilty for
addressing the issues that had come up. He asked how many test wells are on the site and when the
last time was they were monitored. Michael Geisser didn't remember how many wells there were.
Councillor McCarthyaid that this site is 5 parcels and wondered if the contamination is on articular
Y P P
parcels. Michael Geisser said the contamination is not in a particular pattern, it was spread out; there is
some near the public housing, some where the senior center was going to be. Councillor McCarthy went
over the RFP and asked about the cost of cleanup. He said that Michael Geisser said it would be cost
prohibitive; however they're going to move it all around, cover it, cap it, etc. Councillor McCarthy is not
against this project but he wants it to be done right. He referred to a document with Michael Geisser's
signature that says "pursuant to Mass DEP the objective is to excavate all contaminated soil and
temporarily store it on another site". He read another document that said if the senior center were on
that site;the heavy contaminants would be removed. Michael Geisser said that has been done, all heavy
• contaminants have been removed and what they are dealing with now is the more minor contamination
that remains.
Councillor McCarthy said he still hasn't had his questions answered about what will happen with the
SESD easement across the property - will they move forward or wait until SESD resolves the easement
issue? Michael Geisser said it's known that the easement and pipe are not used. Attorney Keilty said he
issue is going to be presented to the City and he thinks the City may be asked for the release of the
easement. Chuck Puleo asked if Mr. Geisser thought the City will require them to fill in the pipe and
Michael Geisser said yes. Attorney Keilty said the easement issue is one that needs to be resolved
before the city turns over ownership of the property to the applicant. John Moustakis asked if it
wouldn't make sense to resolve this before moving forward, but Attorney Keilty said that they're being
asked to move forward by the City, so they are trying to do that and get this approval, and he thinks the
easement issue can be resolved.
At-large Councillor Joan Lovely asked about Dave Knowlton's responsibility as peer reviewer, and wasn't
it the more usual course for the Planning Board to use an outside firm for peer review? She also asked if
the city was taking on any additional liability by doing this. John Moustakis was also curious about the
city's liability with respect to the site's contamination. Attorney Keilty said in the years he has been.
doing this, the City Engineer has always reviewed the projects. He sais there are burdens on City
departments because of rapid development, and then peer reviews are necessary by outside firms, but
they cost money. He says there are no ethical issues since the City Engineer is working for the city. As
far as liability, he said the first party that has responsibility is the owner and then the generator of the
problem. The city didn't generate this; this property was taken by prior ownership. He said peer
• reviewing doesn't give any liability to the city.
Danielle McKnight said the only reason the Planning Board hires an outside peer reviewer is for capacity
issues— David Knowlton reviews the projects he has time for, but since he has no assistant, he can't do
5
them all. For the larger projects, the Planning Board asks the developer to pay for a peer reviewer. Dave
Knowlton is reviewing the work of the project engineer as a second party. Christine Sullivan asked if
he's considered a peer reviewer or is he doing this as part of his job. Danielle McKnight said this kind of •
review is definitely part of his job.
Tim Ready said he would like to briefly go over the various levels of review this project will undergo with
regard to environmental and health issues: the City's health department, the developer's survey, Mass
DEP, the city engineer, and the Conservation Commission. Michael Geisser confirms this is true and
reviews the various city and state departments they must notify. Jack Keilty also,explains that the LSP
program has created accountability in the cleanup of contaminated sites and puts site remediation in
the hands of professionals who are trained to understand the issues. He also further explained how
liability could be assigned for contaminated sites and how it is the generator of the pollution who is
responsible.
Phil Singleton requests that the Board act as soon as possible because his financial commitments are
time sensitive.
Chuck Puleo refers to the information from Dave Knowlton and the project's engineer, Jim McDowell,
asking if Mr. McDowell could explain it to the Board, and also whether the Board would be able to see
the proposed changes on the plans. Mr. McDowell briefly summarizes his meeting'with Dave Knowlton.
He explains there will be revisions to the placement of the rip rap below the outfall, and also says the
stormceptor would be moved from the public way on Szetela Lane to within the development. Chuck
Puleo asks if there was any advantage of putting it further down; Jim McDowell says the stormceptor
would have picked up a little more material from Szetela Lane. He explains that many municipalities and
the state are unwilling to have these facilities placed in public areas because of maintenance issues. Mr.
McDowell confirms that the homeowner's association will be responsible for cleaning and pumping out .
the stormceptor. He goes on to explain the grading plans with respect to the retaining walls, and shows
how water will not drain onto neighbors' property. He explains the drainage along the back side of the
fence. Chuck Puleo asked if there would be space under the fence when installed; he was concerned
about grass growing underneath and whether it would be maintained. Jim McDowell said there would
not be grass underneath, but crushed rock. He also explained the function of the tide gate,which would
prevent water from Collins Cove from washing back into the system.
Jim McDowell explained also that they planned to have only one water meter for the entire
development; Planning Board members said they would much prefer to see separate meters,
particularly since these are single-family homes. Nadine Hanscom asked whose decision this was.
Danielle McKnight said she didn't know and would have to find out. Chuck Puleo said he knows of other
condo complexes that have had a problem in the past getting separate meters. Christine Sullivan
thought separate meters were better for single-family homes.
Chuck Puleo also noted that he wanted the Board to have the time to read the City Engineer's
comments before finishing the discussion about engineering.
Jim McDowell also said they will be crushing the pipe and filling in the area, and more detail about this
would be provided.
Helen Sides asked about the wall and the height of the fence that was proposed. She thought a 6 foot
fence on top of a 3 foot wall might be unappealing to abutters. Chris Mello of Eastern Land Survey
responded that this could be discussed further with the neighbors and adjusted if necessary, but that his •
understanding had been that they had wanted a high fence.
6
Chuck Puleo said, in review, that Eastern Land Survey would be updating their plans in response to the
City Engineer's concerns, and that the Planning Board also still did not have comments from the Board
• of Health. Attorney Keilty said they had not been placed on the agenda for the last Board of Health
meeting, though they thought they would be. Danielle McKnight pointed out that the Planning Board
had to give the Board of Health had 45 days to comment on the application, but the time had already
passed. Board members said that they preferred to have comments from the Board of Health to be
incorporated into the decision.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready to continue the public hearing to
the January 7, 2010 meeting, seconded by John Moustakis and approved 7-0.
Old/New Business
Adjournment
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Helen Sides and approved
7-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 2/4/10
•
•
7
'ALEM
OF '
ti
Ty 1�
PLANNING BOARD
Y
AMENDED NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem P1a=rgBca7d`cull hddits regularly schab"n"W Tburs day,
December 3, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City Hall A wKx,Room313, 120 WasbiVci�Stnrt L-
Gaarla M.'Pifleo, F.5
cixi 1-.,,
AMENDED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes '9
11/5/09 and 11/19/09 Planning Board meetings.
2. Old/New Business
➢ Request of Paul DiBiase for a partial release of escrow funds after completion of roadway work on the
Osborne Hills (Strongwater) subdivision.
3. Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility(WCF)
Special Permit for the property locate at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15,Lot 308). The proposed project includes
the installation of three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units,four(4) backhaul antennas,two(2)
equipment cabinets mounted to a rooftop penthouse,and one (1) GPS antenna on the roof of the Salem Heights
Apartments. Applicant has requested to continue to December 17,2009.
4. Public Hearing: Request of ANGELO MEIMETEAS for an amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan at
the end of CLOVERDALE AVENUE (Map 8,Lots 269,and 280, and Map 9,Lot 122) in order to eliminate
sidewalks approved in the original plan.
5. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY to amend
the previously granted Planned Unit Development and Weiland and Floodplain Hazard Special Permits for the
property located at the comer of Howley Street,Peabody,and Boston Street,Salem(164 REAR BOSTON
STREET,Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374, AKA 9 REAR HOWLEY STREET,Peabody Assessors Map 86
Lot 130X�.The proposed project involves the addition of a new four-pump fueling facility,the addition of raised
islands for traffic flow, and the elimination of 52 parking spaces (leaving 307 spaces).
6. Continuation of Public Hearing:Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to allow
the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem,MA (Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and 76) into
eleven (11) new single-family house lots,the construction of a new street off Highland Avenue, and the
construction of eleven(11) single-family homes.
7. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE
PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit,and for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan,to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE,
Salem,MA(Assessors Map 41,Lots 235,236,243, 244,246, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots,
the construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes,and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
"nAF;f",5�3
8. Adjournmentnonr"rrd nn 6in Boam
C?
W�
":S"fl
acaardaunw anap. $a cc
"AA
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby not#idthat the Salem Plamurg Board will bold its ngularlysd dale l amng on Thursday,
December 3, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City HaL1Awec,Room313, 120 WashirgonSmet
Goaria M. Pd
CJ,xurnim
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 11/5/09 and 11/19/09 Planning Board meetings.
2. Public Hearing:Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility(WCF)
Special Permit for the property locate at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15,Lot 308). The proposed project includes
the installation of three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units,four(4) backhaul antennas, two (2)
equipment cabinets mounted to a rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on the roof of the Salem Heights
Apartments.
3. Public Hearing:Request of ANGELO MEIMETEAS for an amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan at
• the end of CLOVERDALE STREET (Map 8,Lots 269,and 280, and Map 9,Lot 122) in order to eliminate
sidewalks approved in the original plan.
4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY to amend
the previously granted Planned Unit Development and Weiland and Floodplain Hazard Special Permits for the
property located at the comer of Howley Street,Peabody,and Boston Street,Salem(164 REAR BOSTON
STREET,Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374,AKA 9 REAR HOWLEY STREET,Peabody Assessors Map 86
Lot 130X).The proposed project involves the addition of a new four-pump fueling facility,the addition of raised
islands for traffic flow,and the elimination of 52 parking spaces (leaving 307 spaces).
5. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to allow
the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74, 75, and 76) into
eleven (11) new single-family house lots,the construction of a new street off Highland Avenue,and the
construction of eleven(11) single-family homes.
6. Continuation of Public Heating: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE
PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan,to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE,
Salem,MA(Assessors Map 41,Lots 235, 236,243,244,246,and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots,
the construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes,and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
7. Old/NewBusiness
q ll rim
8. Adjournment TWO
20 S,11%,[-I SALEY. -:IMSA( '11-SLIi"IS 01970 PW976.i
1
J
• rQy��`CO���'�fc,
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
n�
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
DIRECTOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
• FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: November 24, 2009
RE: Agenda—December 3, 2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Minutes from 11/5/09
➢ Agenda
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
Old/New Business: Request of Paul DiBiase for a partial release of escrow funds after completion
of roadway work on the Osborne Hills (Strongwater) subdivision.
Paul DiBiase has been working on installing 1200 linear feet of curbing in the Osborne Hills
subdivision, and is requesting a partial release of the funds being held in a tri-party agreement
proportional to the work completed. A clerk of the works from Fay, Spofford &Thomdike is on
site as the work is being done. I expect a letter from Mr. DiBiase shortly with the exact amount he
is requesting to be released. He also plans to install the street trees required,but he will wait until
the spring to do this work.
• Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications
Facility (WCF) Special Permit for the property locate at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15,Lot
308). The proposed project includes the installation of three (3) panel antennas and
1
i
• associated BTS units, four (4) backhaul antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets mounted to a
rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on the roof of the Salem Heights Apartments.
The applicant has again requested to continue (to 12/17/09) because of a scheduling conflict.
Public Hearing: Request of ANGELO MEIMETEAS for an amendment to a Definitive
Subdivision Plan at the end of CLOVERDALE AVENUE (Map 8,Lots 269, and 280, and
Map 9,Lot 122) in order to eliminate sidewalks approved in the original plan.
On 11/5/09, the Board discussed the request Mr. Meimeteas made to consider the elimination of
sidewalks from his subdivision at the end of Cloverdale Avenue an insignificant change. The Board
voted to deny this request and to have Mr. Meimeteas come before the Board for a public hearing.
The item has been advertised as a public hearing. Mr. Meimeteas has submitted plans showing the
elimination of the sidewalks, along with a request to amend the approved Form C application,which
are included in your packets. Chuck had noticed the absence of a guardrail around part of the cul-
de-sac,which had also been part of the plan. This change was not included in the original request to
amend the plans —only the elimination of the sidewalks. The City Engineer and I examined the
property—according to Dave,because the land has been filled sufficiently, he does not think the
guardrails are necessary. I've included a copy of his feedback in the packets.
Public Hearing: Request of STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY to amend
the previously granted Planned Unit Development and Wetland and Floodplain Hazard
Special Permits for the property located at the corner of Howley Street, Peabody, and
Boston Street, Salem (164 REAR BOSTON STREET, Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374,
AKA 9 REAR HOWLEY STREET, Peabody Assessors Map 86 Lot 130X).
• Atty Correnti has given me copies of the approvals obtained from Peabody City Council and their
Planning Board for this project—I'm including these in your packets.
The deadline for department comments is December 7, but I am hoping to obtain comments from
anyone who has concerns before the December 3 meeting so that the Board can vote if they are
ready.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive
Subdivision Plan to allow the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA
(Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and 76) into eleven (11) new single-family house lots, the
construction of a new street off Highland Avenue, and the construction of eleven (11) single-
family homes.
The engineering peer review will be done by Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering. Costs
were estimated at$3000 by the peer reviewer, and the applicant has provided payment. Scott
Patrowicz and Attorney Atkins intend to give the Board a brief update at the December 3 meeting,
but we don't expect the peer review to be complete by then.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE
PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a
Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between
SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 41,Lots 235,236, 243,
244, 246, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots, the construction of fifteen (15)
single-family homes, and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
• Attorney Kielty has let me know that he will be submitting revised plans showing wider roadways.
Rather than distributing revised plans to the Board members right away, he will be allowing time for
the civil engineering review and will then submit sets of plans in response to any changes. The City
2
• Engineer is reviewing the civil engineering, rather than the work being sent out to an outside firm.
With the holiday, there will probably not be enough time for Dave to complete his review by the
December 3 meeting. However, the applicant will be coming in on December 3 with their LSP,
Michael Geisser, to discuss the contamination issues. The project is also on the December 8 Board
of Health agenda.
•
3
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
• December 3,2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine
Sullivan, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Danielle
McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. Absent: Gene Collins
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of November 5`h will be reviewed at the next meeting.
The minutes of November 19`h were reviewed.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the minutes of
November 19th, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine
Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF)
Special Permit for the property locate at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15, Lot 308). The proposed project
• includes the installation of three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units, four (4) backhaul
antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets mounted to a rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on
the roof of the Salem Heights Apartments. Applicant has requested to continue to 12/3/09. Applicant
has requested to continue to December 17, 2009.
Public Hearing: Request of ANGELO MEIMETEAS for an amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan at
the end of CLOVERDALE AVENUE (Map 8, Lots 269, and 280, and Map 9, Lot 122) in order to eliminate
sidewalks approved in the original plan.
Angelo Meimeteas presented his request to not put sidewalks in which were approved in the original
plan. Chuck Puleo mentioned that he and other members visited the site and clarified that the area at
which the sidewalk was to be originally put in is from Glen Ave, on the left side, up to parcel 3 (Mr.
Meimeteas' house). He also mentioned that there is an issue of street trees that haven't been planted
yet. Angelo Meimeteas said that street trees would be planted. He also explained that his house was
originally going to have a driveway on the left side, which required a guard rail for safety; it then
changed to the right side, so he feels the guard rail will no longer be necessary. When asked what
changed his mind about putting a sidewalk up he said the neighbors did, they preferred not to have a
sidewalk because they have little frontage.
Issue Opened up for Public Comment'
Kim Driscoll, 16 Glen Avenue, said she will be happy if a sidewalk isn't put in. She said most neighbors
Sdon't want a sidewalk as they feel there is no need for one. She said there is already a buffer between
the homes; people most likely won't use the sidewalk because they cut through yards; and a sidewalk
would take up a lot of frontage in front of the homes. She mentioned that there are no other sidewalks
1
on the street, and they may look out of place. She says the neighbors are anxious to have the work
complete including the final coat of pavement. As far as the guardrail, she feels it would be an eyesore
• and it wouldn't make sense to have one.
Angelo Meimeteas said that a fence will be installed at the back of the property for safety.
Michelle Ambler, 25 Cloverdale Ave., said that kids go through her yard to go to other houses, they don't
need a sidewalk.
Richard Swiniuch, trustee of Pheasant Hill Realty, 14 Glen Ave., said he's been anxious for 9 years
waiting for this project to be finished. He thinks the sidewalks should be put in, as it was in the original
plan. He feels the road is dangerous because near his driveway, where the hill goes up, there is a
visibility problem because of the way the street is crested. He says when you come up the hill, you can't
see the other side. He said many kids play there and could get hit if they're trying to cross without a
sidewalk.
Tim Ready asked Mr. Swiniuch if his main concern is safety and Mr. Swiniuch said that it is. Tim Ready
asked if there have been any incidents or accidents in the past 7 years, Mr. Swiniuch and the other
neighbors said there haven't been. Nadine Hanscom asked if there is a sidewalk in front of Mr.
Swiniuch's house, there is not. She remarked that now that the homes had been built, it seemed the
neighbors living in them realized the sidewalks were not necessary, as they had perhaps seemed before
the homes were built; she asked Michelle Ambler if that was the case. Ms.Ambler said that was true.
John Moustakis said he was on the Planning Board at the time of the original approval and remembers
that the Planning Board did not ask for a sidewalk because there was no need for one. Chuck Puleo
• noticed on the plans that on the inside curbing, there is no fill, feels it is a hazard. Mr. Meimeteas said it
will be filled with loam and finished. Regarding the trees to be planted, Lynn Duncan said the city will
work with them for the number and placement of trees.
Michael Panneton, 19 Greenlawn Avenue, said he wants to see all the work done as planned. He has
been waiting for 8 years for the paving to be finished. It has a binding coating on it. He says his road was
trenched but it hasn't been finished, and he has had two vehicles with problems due to this. He agrees
that the road is very steep and dangerous. Angelo Meimeteas added that Greenlawn Ave. would be
finished.
Christine Sullivan thinks it's terrible that the finished coating hasn't been done in 8 years and feels that a
date should be placed in the agreement. Lynn Duncan said that the roadway hasn't been done since
2001 because the houses were incomplete, explaining that houses need to be built before completing
the roadway and there was a delay on the houses. Lynn added that if this issue gets approved tonight,
how quickly the road can be paved will depend on the weather. Nadine Hanscom said she would like
some type of assurance that it would get done immediately. Angelo Meimeteas said possibly next week
and added that he feels that any change he has made to the street has improved driving conditions.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready to close the public hearing,
seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen
Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Chuck Puleo asked if will there be enough money left for Mr. Meimeteas to repair Greenlawn Ave and
• plant trees as well. Lynn Duncan said they will continue to hold the surety bond that was posted for the
project until the work was finished. She said the city would hold the funds so that the remaining work
2
can be done which includes all the streets, the trees, loaming and seeding and any other work that was
part of the plan.
• Helen Sides said she was at the site and noticed that there are no sidewalks at all on that street, and she
feels it would look a bit out of place to put a strip of sidewalk in, even though aesthetically a street looks
nicer with sidewalks. She said going forward, sidewalks should be a priority on all city streets, but that
they simply didn't make sense with this project.
Danielle McKnight read the conditions which included street trees to be installed and paving to be
complete including Greenlawn Ave. She said the Conservation requested that surety not be released
until the work is done, and the Board of Health requested a condition saying that all its conditions would
be adhered to if the applicant was brought before them in the future.
John Moustakis asked how much prep work needs to be done to complete the road and Mr. Meimeteas
said it would take about a half day's work.
A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the amendment to waive the sidewalk as well as
approve the elimination of the guard rail which is an insignificant change, seconded by Christine Sullivan
and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim
Ready and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Old/New Business
Request of Paul DiBiase for a partial release of escrow funds after completion of roadway work on the
• Osborne Hills (Strongwater) subdivision.
Paul DiBiase said they have recently completed a portion of the Phase I roadwork which includes the
granite curbing, the sidewalks and the concrete sidewalks at the entrance way that the Planning Board
requested. Lynn Duncan said the Planning Department is recommending this release of funds. However,
she said that the Clerk of the Works had identified one issue at the eleventh hour- that the curb reveal
is a little too high in certain areas, so more asphalt will needed. She said they are recommending, based
on the City Engineer and Fay Spofford & Thorndike's review, the release of the funds as requested, but
at the next stage, they'd be looking to hold back an additional $15,000 to make sure the city had
sufficient funds to cover the thicker course. She said there are still significant funds left in the tri-party
agreement — more than $200,000 — and this request for release is $107,000. To provide some
background, she explained that a tri-party agreement is an agreement between the developer, city and
lender and the lender guarantees that the money will be available to the city to complete the work
should the developer walk away from the project. She emphasized that the city still had $100,000
remaining, plus they always hold back 10%of the total amount of the surety as a contingency.
Chuck Puleo asked if Mr. DiBiase was aware of where these areas of high curb reveal were located;
Danielle McKnight said they had just received the reports, and that she would send them to Mr.
DiBiase. Paul DiBiase responded that he would like to respectfully request to discuss this further with
Lynn and the Planning Department before committing to having $15,000.00 withheld when additional
funds were requested for new work. Lynn Duncan responded that nothing would be done tonight
relative to the $15,000, she simply wanted to red flag it for the next request for release of funds.
• Chuck Puleo asked if, for the next phase of the project, a new tri-party agreement would be done; Paul
DiBiase confirmed this would be the case.
3
Paul DiBiase explained how the leveling mistake may have come to pass and said it would be an easy fix.
He said he needed to survey the situation more, but the Board had his commitment that he would do
• the job properly.
Christine Sullivan asked about the timing of the project—could construction last 10, 20, 30 years? Lynn
Duncan said this was an interesting question — it would seem we wouldn't want to hold up the
completion of the Phase I roadway for the completion of Phase V. Paul DiBiase said this was a 10 phase
project with 131 homes, and when the Board approved it, they allowed 7 years to complete the
development. He says the progress has all depended on the market—he wishes he could be in Phase III
by now, but it's been very difficult to determine when the project would be finished.
Chuck Puleo said he thought Mr. DiBiase was committed to finishing each phase completely before
moving on; Mr. DiBiase said there is always some overlap between the phases. Christine Sullivan said if
he had 10 phases, and the first phase has taken 3 years, then if she extrapolates, it could take 30 years—
could it take 30 years to finish paving the roadway? Mr. DiBiase said the final course of the roadway
would be completed as part of Phase I — it wouldn't wait for the other phases. Lynn Duncan said she
was glad to have that clarified.
Chuck Puleo asked when the traffic light would be installed — had they agreed on installation after the
first phase? Mr. DiBiase said he thought it was to be installed after 20 homes were built; there are 19 in
the first phase. Lynn Duncan said the building permit for the 20" home, then, would depend on the
installation. Chuck Puleo noted that driving by, he doesn't see much traffic coming in and out.
Danielle McKnight read the breakdown of funds requested for release: $60,480 for completion of 72%
of vertical granite curbing, $32,400 for 72% of 8" structural material and 2" asphalt sidewalk; and
• $15,000 for 100% completion of concrete sidewalks on both sides of the entrance for a distance of 200
feet. The total amount requested for release is $107,880. She said the curb reveal issue still remains to
be fixed and the city engineer estimates it will cost an additional $15,000, which the Board could hold if
it chooses.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to release the requested
$107,880, seconded by John Moustakis and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine
Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY to amend the
previously granted Planned Unit Development and Wetland and Floodplain Hazard Special Permits for
the property located at the corner of Howley Street, Peabody, and Boston Street, Salem (164 REAR
BOSTON STREET, Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374, AKA 9 REAR HOWLEY STREET, Peabody Assessors
Map 86 Lot 130X). The proposed project involves the addition of a new four-pump fueling facility,the
addition of raised islands for traffic flow, and the elimination of 52 parking spaces (leaving 307
spaces).
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing Stop & Shop, recapped information about the
project. He said they are proposing a new gas facility at this site, and they have been to the city of
Peabody (where all the work will take place) for the past 6 months where they received unanimous
approval. This included a meeting with the Historical Commission, to ensure that work wouldn't impact
the cemetery; the Planning Board and City Council. Attorney Correnti presented some photos that were
. requested. Attorney Correnti said that Peabody has been undergoing traffic studies on Howley Street,
Main Street and Boston Street and that this project has been signed off on by the police. He says there
will be no new curb cuts, and the purpose is to promote the underperforming Stop & Shop store. There
4
are no other gas stations in downtown Peabody. Christine Sullivan asked if any other Salem
departments had comments. Danielle McKnight said that the Board of Health does plan on having the
• applicant attend a BOH meeting, but all other departments were satisfied.
Conor Nagle of VHB showed on the plan where the fuel facility will be. Photo simulations were provided
for the peaked roof on the kiosk which showed the roof shingles that matched those on the current Stop
& Shop building. Chuck Puleo wanted to confirm that the controlling of the hours of operation is under
Peabody's jurisdiction. Attorney Correnti said that the fuel facility will be opened at the same time as
the store.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Richard Vardalahas, 9 Fort Avenue, asked if this would be a self service station and when it would be
finished. Attorney Correnti said it will be self service with an attendant and they hope to construct it in
the Spring.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to close the public hearing,
seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 7-0. In favor, Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine
Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve amendment to the
previously granted Planned Unit Development and Wetland and Floodplain Hazard Special Permit,
seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen
Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
•
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to
allow the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and
76) into eleven (11) new single-family house lots, the construction of a new street off Highland
Avenue, and the construction of eleven (11)single-family homes.
Applicant has asked in writing to continue at the December 17`h meeting. There being no comments, a
motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing on December 17`h, seconded by
John Moustakis and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides,
Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Nadine Hanscom left the meeting at 8:30.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP for a
Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the
subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA
(Assessors Map 41, Lots 235, 236, 243, 244, 246, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots,the
construction of fifteen (15)single-family homes,and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
Attorney John Keilty, representing Shallop Landing, said that since the last meeting, they took the
concerns of the Planning Board and public and made some changes, including widening the roadway to
• meet city standards and proposing an association for the homeowners which will be responsible for
snow removal.
5
Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey further explained the changes that were made. First, he says they
widened the proposed layout of Shallop Lane from 30 to 32 ft; this would therefore accommodate a 24-
foot paving , which the Planning Board was concerned about at the last meeting. Second, they now
• show a 4 ft high vinyl coated fence along the perimeter; and a 6 ft high stockade fence around H&H
Propeller. There will still be the proposed retaining walls on the northeast side and on southwest side
with an average of 2 %2 - 3 ft, highest of 4 ft. They have forwarded a set of plans to David Knowlton, City
Engineer. Chuck Puleo asked about the drainage system, what its storage capacity is and what would
happen during high tide. Jim McDowell explained that there will be a tide gate which would prevent
ocean water from coming back in through the system. The runoff from roofs will be the majority of
runoff in that area and a small amount of lawn area will have runoff which will be connected to a closed
pipe system.John Moustakis suggested a site visit.
Michael Geiser, Alliance Environmental Group, is the project's Licensed Site Professional. He said this
site historically was mostly fill. He said there were industrial operations on this site that used, residual
chemicals, metals, arsenic, lead, chromium and volatile organic compounds including tar and products
of combustion. He says they did a study for a 3 %2 year period on this site and concluded that the
groundwater was not impacted — it was not in violation of any relevant DEP standards. However, he
said the soil analysis showed some toxins of concern, and some of the soil had been removed. Of the
remaining soil, he said there are still areas on the site contaminated with metals, ash, slag and other
products of combustion that are recognized by the DEP as a problem if they come in direct contact with
humans for a long period of time. He said if a person ate a spoonful of the soil every day for 70 years,
they would have a one in 100,000 additional chance of that person getting cancer — called an excess
lifetime cancer risk. He said that none of those threats exist. However, he also said that because of this
finding, they put an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on the property, and the temporary remedy was to
put a fence around the property with a lock, and no one but authorized people can enter. He says the
• proposal is to take the AUL off the property and put a new one on which would reference a barrier to
direct contact. He explains that an AUL is a legal document whose format is designed by DEP, and it is
notarized and completed by the property owner or responsible parties, someone who has a legal
obligation to clean up the property, and it is recorded at the registry and references the deeds of the
owner and any of the tenants on the property. He says in this case, it will reference the homeowner's
association as a legal entity which is required to maintain the remedy spelled out in the AUL. In this
case, he says the remedy is a remedy against direct contact. He says the only threat of the remaining
contaminants on this site would be from contact on a continuing basis for a long time. He says the
remedy for preventing direct contact on this site would be covering the soil, layering it with asphalt or
concrete, a building slab, landscaping that consists of an indicator barrier, a minimum of 2 ft of clean soil
and then landscaping vegetation and grass. He says the combination of all of this is a suitable barrier for
the remaining soil.
John Moustakis wondered how many years the barrier will last. Michael Geiser didn't know the number
of years, but he did know that ultraviolet light ruins plastics, which is what the barrier is made of.
However, this barrier will be buried. He also said that this cap is nonimpervious. He said they are going
to remove most of the water from the site into the drainage system, so the only water getting absorbed
into the ground would be water absorbed into the lawns. John Moustakis asked if he would bring the
Board additional information on the barrier, and he agreed to.
Chuck Puleo asked about the quality of the groundwater if the site was contaminated; Mr. Geiser said
the levels of contamination are very low. He also said it was preferable in this situation to have the
groundwater infiltrate slowly into the ground rather than use catch basins or other facilities that would
cause point-source discharge into Collins Cove. Chuck Puleo asked Mr. Geiser to confirm their intention
that runoff from the impervious surfaces on the site would mostly be directed into the street catch basin
system; he said it would be.
6
Christine Sullivan asked for clarification of the homeowner's association. Attorney Keilty said the
• association will be comprised of the individual single-family homes in Shallops Lane. The road will be a
city road but the association will have to take care of snow removal as well as the wall that will be put
in. Helen Sides asked about the process of the project and uniformity of the houses. Philip Livingston,
Shallop Landing owner, said they will build about 6 houses at a time, with some 2-story homes on Fort
Ave, and 1-story on the other street. He said construction could take five years, and the schedule would
be somewhat market-driven. The houses will be about 1400/1500 sq ft. each, with a 2 car garage.
Issue Opened up for Public Comment
Richard Vardalahas, 9 Fort Ave, said the zoning board approved variances, but now the plans have
changed. To him, this seems like there are too many homes in a small area. Chuck Puleo said it's the
same number of units and same lot sizes that were initially approved by ZBA.
Phil Bussome, 11 Fort Ave, feels that the water may be more of a problem if they build a wall on the
property. He asked if the City Engineers reviewed the plans and the wall. Danielle McKnight says the
City Engineer is currently reviewing the plans.
Nancy Riley, 24 Webb Street (abutter) said as for the wall going across the back of their property, they
disagree to having holes in it. They are also against a stockade fence; they would like a white lattice
fence instead. She presented a brochure to the Board with photos of the fencing they would like to see
installed. She also said that at a previous meeting, they were told the wall would be about 5 ft. from
their property, no less than that. She wanted to know about trash pickup as well. Attorney Keilty said
that trash would be municipal pickup.
• Francis Page, 28 Webb St., asked about the lot with the lobster traps, boats, etc. Attorney Keilty said the
H&H Propeller has an agreement that it is only supposed to have parking on that property. Chuck Puleo
asked if all these concerns by the neighbors were brought up at the ZBA meeting. Francis Page said he is
concerned about water building up at the wall. Jim McDowell said that the wall will be about 2 %: feet
high, made of concrete blocks that are fairly attractive, they have a nice split face to them. He said they
are not concerned with water pressure building up because the wall is not very high — in this case they
would put an impervious barrier behind the wall to prevent the movement of water. For draining, they
are grading the area so that water will be directed towards Shallop Lane.
Nancy Riley, 24 Webb Street asked that whatever they put down for caps, will it withstand the
saltwater. Michael Geiser believes it can withstand the salt water and said he would get the Board more
information.
Francis Page had concerns with the water draining towards the senior housing and said that during a full
moon, the water comes up from the sewer. Jim McDowell said it will not drain that way and re-
explained the drainage system and showed on the plan how the water will drain. He also said the
existing storm drain doesn't have a tide gate. Tim Ready said the City Engineer will take the tidal
conditions into consideration in his evaluation.
Danielle McKnight said that at next meeting the Board should have comments from the City Engineer.
Helen Sides asked which boards the applicants had been to, and in what order. Attorney Keilty said they
have already been to the ZBA fora series of dimensional variances, and also have a notice of intent
• pending with the Conservation Commission.
7
John Moustakis said to the public, in response to comments that these plans were not the same as those
discussed at neighborhood meetings years ago, that all the Planning Board members can evaluate is
what is presented to them at the hearing, and they have no knowledge of what the neighborhood has
discussed in the past.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready to continue to the public hearing at
the December 17`" meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved 6-0. In favor, Chuck Puleo, John
Moustakis, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh.
Danielle will email optional dates for a site visit to Board members.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen and approved 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 12/17/09
8
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board AA ,� �� f �
Date 12.
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email f
j2-i'-e- 97k-7��'3Y' ���Sw,h��eY (56
S 2C� C�Ove��aL� � V0 T2_ 0
1'y1t� OCv Ci tiler 2S C�uy2rr�c��e� Gam$ a�9-��18
r V Gr 7-p :7s�¢-1753 ,
�! 0�7911E �Z#
�50-s o� 13 19RIVES c ' _2 F=7 yr- VSA
e-jjp Qu 47 Y- 7 1�0 -/d71
S L 7.0 � 5 �lf� L W1 b� 8
mA n NAOL/ 3 G/, 97c� 341
Pae of
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
*�yF41meooPP f, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON S'rRLE'P ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSGCPS 01970
TELE: 978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECrOR
December 4, 2009
Mr. Paul DiBiase < o
Osbome Hills,RealtyTrust
P.O. Box 780
Lynnfield,MA 01940
RE: Osborne Hills Tri-Party Agreement,Partial Release of Funds - w
{� N
r
Dear Mr. DiBiase:
The Salem Planning Board met on December 3, 2009 to discuss your request for the partial release of Tri-Parry
reement funds for Phase I of the Osborne Hills Subdivision. You have requested the release of the following:
■ $60,480.00 for completion of 72% of vertical granite curbing
■ $32,400 for completion of 72% 8" structural material and 2" asphalt sidewalk
■ $15,000 for completion of 100% of concrete sidewalks on both sides of the entrance for a distance of 200 feet
The total amount requested for release is $107,880.00.
The Planning Board voted seven (7) in favor (Puleo, Ready, Hanscom, Kavanaugh,Moustakis, Sullivan, Sides) and
none (0) opposed to release $107,880.00 to you for completion of the above described work.
Please note that construction reports from this project's Clerk of the Works, Fay, Spofford &Thomdike, as well as
analysis of the City Engineer,indicate that leveling still remains to be done when the final asphalt course is laid in order
to ensure that the curbing is not too high in certain areas. The City Engineer estimates that this leveling will cost an
additional $15,000 beyond what was originally estimated for the final asphalt layer. Accordingly, the Planning Board
may choose to withhold $15,000 of the funds in the Tri-Pavy Agreement when funds are requested for the next
portion of work. These funds may be held until such time as the leveling is completed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Puleo
fair
CC: David Knowlton, City Engineer
Kerin Green, TD Bank
O R
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1l)09 .EC -I o
CIfYfL:a`.
Planned Unit Development Special Permit and
Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit
Amended Decision
December 7, 2009
Stop and Shop Supermarket Company
C/o Attomey Joseph Correnti
Serafini, Serafini, Darling&Correnti, LLP
63 Federal Street
Salem,MA 01970
Re: Amendment to Stop & Shop Planned Unit Development and Wetlands and
Flood Hazard District Special Permits
• On November 19, 2009,the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a public hearing to
discuss the request of Stop &Shop Supermarket Company to amend a previously granted
Planned Unit Development Special Permit and a previously granted Wetlands and Flood
Hazard District Special Permit. The hearing was continued to December 3, 2009 and was
closed on that date with the following Board members in attendance: Chuck Puleo,John
Moustakis,Tim Kavanaugh,Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Helen
Sides. The Board voted six (6) in favor (Puleo, Kavanaugh, Hanscom, Sullivan, Ready and
Sides), and none (0) opposed, to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permits for the property located at 164 Boston
Street (Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374), AKA 9 Rear Howley Street, Peabody Assessors
Map 86 Lot 130X (John Moustakis was not at the November 19, 2009 meeting and was not
eligible to vote).
The site contains a Stop &Shop,two residential structures and a commercial building. The
amendment involves the addition of a new four-pump fueling facility, that includes the
addition of raised islands for traffic flow, a new kiosk and canopy and the elimination of 52
parking spaces (leaving 307 spaces), all as shown on plans titled, "Prupuscd Fucl i'acdll), I)
Howley Street, Peabody/Salem,Massachusetts," prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.,
dated October 23, 2009. ("Amended Plan.")
All other conditions of the previous decision, issued by the Planning Board On Januan 5,
1995 and amended on September 20, 2001, shall remain in full effect. All %wrh �h.Ill
• conform to previously submitted plans, except where superseded by the Amended Plan. .All
future conditions imposed by the Board of Health as a result of the changes LO the Plans
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM
shall be strictly adhered to. The Planning Board encourages the applicant to take all proper
• precautions in installing the gas tanks in order to protect the North River.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision has been filed with the City Clerk and Planning
Board. This Amended Decision shall be recorded by the applicant at the Esser South
Registry of Deeds with such fees for recording to be paid by the owner or applicant, its
successors or assigns.
Charles M. Puleo
Chair
Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
r
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
CITY CLF,'tii,
Form C- Definitive Subdivision
Amended Decision
December 7, 2009
Amy Newton Meinneteas
123 'h Boston Street
Salem,MA 01970
RE: Amended Decision on the Cloverdale Avenue Subdivision Form C
On December 3, 2009,the Planning Board held a Public Hearing to discuss the applicant's proposal t(
eliminate the sidewalks that were shown on the originally approvedlans. The Following members were in
P g
attendance: Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready,Christine Sullivan,Helen Sides,John Moustakis, and
Nadine Hanscom The Board voted seven(7) in favor(Puleo,Kavanguh,Ready, Sullivan, Sides,Moustakis
and Hanscom) and none (0) opposed to amend the plans to eliminate the proposed sidewalks.
In addition,the Planning Board decided by vote of seven (7) in favor(Puled, Kavanaugh, Ready, Sullis.tn.
• Sides,Nloustakis and Hanscom) and tone (0) opposed LO approve as all tltstglttltcaut dtange the clutuu. 1u11
of a guard rail around a portion of the cul-de-sac,which was also shown to the originally approved plans.
All other conditions of the original decision shall remain in full effect. Any future conditions imposed bt the
Board of Health as a result of the change in plans shall be strictly adhered to. The surety bond shall not be
released until such time as all work is completed, including the installation of trees as itndieated on the pl.uts,
backfilling and loaming/seeding behind all curbing,and repaving of the roadways affected by trenching and
other construction,including Greenlawn Avenue. The work should be completed as soon as possible. If
paving and planting cannot be done this winter due to weather conditions, they are to be done as soon as
possible in the Spring and no later than June 1,2010. If all roadwork cannot be completed immediately, the
fiat priority should be the Greenlawn Avenue repairs.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision has been filed with the City Clerk and the Planning Board. This
Amended Decision shall be recorded by the applicant at the Essex South Registry of Deeds with such fee, I r
recording to be paid bythe owner or applicant,its successors or assigns.
Sincerely,
Charles M.Puleo
Chair
CO Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk
120 WASHINGTON .STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI,EM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decisions
At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,
November 19, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington
Street, Salem Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted upon the following items:
Applicant: DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Location: 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, Salem,MA,Assessors Map 9, Lot 0255
Description: Definitive Subdivision Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special
Permit,to create three (3) new single-family house lots and to allow the
extension of Circle Hill Road to serve the new lots.
Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk December 1,2009
P
Applicant: SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC
Location: 142 Canal Street (Assessors Map 33, Lot 006) Salem,MA 01970
Description: Site Plan Review Special Permit and Drive-Through Facilities (Fast Food)
Special Permit for a fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a
previously approved bank with a drive-through.
Decision: Approved-Filed with the City Clerk December 1, 2009
This noux is Ding sea in mmpliarx with the Massa&usetts Gereral L aw, Chapter 40A,
Sa=m 9 and does not ngta r actiarz by the razpwm Apparls, if an.} shall be nu&p asuaa to
Chapter 40A, Smion 17, and shall le filed within 20&t)s frpm the date 4bcb the decision zeas
fikd with the City Clerk.
I�
CITY OF SALEM
\ g1r PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decisions
At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,
December 3, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington
Street, Salem Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted upon the following items:
Applicant: ANGELOMEIMETEAS/AMY NEWTONMEIMETEAS
Location: End of Cloverdale Avenue, Salem,MA,Assessors Map 8,Lots 269
and 280, and Map 9, Lot 122
Description: Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan to eliminate the originally
proposed sidewalks on Cloverdale Ave.
Decision: Approved- Filed with the City Clerk December 7, 2009
Applicant: STOP &SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY
Location: Comer of Howley Street,Peabody, and Boston Street, Salem(164 Rear
Boston Street,Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374, AKA 9 Rear Howley Street,
Peabody Assessors Map 86 Lot 130X).
Description: Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands
and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit to add a new four-pump
fueling facility and raised islands to the existing Stop &Shop site, and to
eliminate 52 parking spaces (leaving 307 spaces).
Decision: Approved - Filed with the City Clerk December 7, 2009
This native is lTingsor in mrrpliaw with theMassadnusetts Gemral Laws, Chapter 40A,
Section 9 and dog not m7tare action by the raipiem Appeals, if an.S shall be nude pursuant to
Chapter 40A, Salim 17, and shall b`filed witbin 20 6ka from the date whio�the ck-i5im was
filed with the City CLA.
CITY OF SALEM
�l9, Br % :PLANNING BOARD
200q NOV 12 P b: 39
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY
You are hereby rzoti*that the Salem plamarg Board-will bald its rWdady sloe: d&nn?ting on
Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Armee, Room313, 120 Wasbz��' �,^o��n��Street
om
C7xzimun
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 11/5/09 Planning Board meeting.
2. Old/New Business
➢ Request of NORTH RIVER CANAL LLC to extend the Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review,
and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit granted for the property at 28 GOODHUE
STREET for an additional six (6) months,through June 30, 2010.
➢ Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for insignificant change to the Wireless Communication
• Facility Special Permit for the properly located at 488 REAR HIGHLAND AVENUE (AKA 0
Cain Rd.) (Assessor's Map 3, Lot 139) in order to install one (1) additional backhaul antenna to the
previously approved facility.
3. Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility
(WCF) Special Permit for the property locate at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15, Lot 308). The proposed
project includes the installation of three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units, four(4) backhaul
antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets mounted to a rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on the
roof of the Salem Heights Apartments. Applicant has requested to continue to 12/3/09.
4. Public Hearing: Request of STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY to amend the
previously granted Planned Unit Development and Wetland and Floodplain Hazard Special Permits for
the property located at the corner of Howley Street,Peabody, and Boston Street,Salem(164 REAR
BOSTON STREET, Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374,AKA 9 REAR HOWLEY STREET,
Peabody Assessors Map 86 Lot 130 . The proposed project involves the addition of a new four-pump
fueling facility, the addition of raised islands for traffic flow, and the elimination of 52 parking spaces
(leaving 307 spaces). CM. �, 4 _5e c. 3
5. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC for Site Plan Review and
Drive-Through Facility Special Permit- Fast Food. The proposed project is a fast food facility with a
drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through on the property located at
142 CANAL STREET (Assessors Map 33, Lot 006).
Mn a0el"K"
NOV 12 .2099.
�20 6N?VIII t,'I'il,y SI! U ;', S.dJf v hT_jSL,C'di � I;i LpJ97Ua Fl-':i l.e I0U1N ' � .A;F1),%u-V !
r
I
6. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC., for a Definitive Subdivision Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,to allow the
extension of Circle Hill Road to serve three (3) new single-family house lots on the property located at
40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 9, Lot 0255).
7. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan to allow the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem MA(Assessors Map 3, Lots
74, 75, and 76) into eleven (11) new single-family house lots,the construction of a new street off
Highland Avenue, and the construction of eleven (11) single-family homes. The applicant has
requested to continue to 12/3/09.
& Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE
PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a Definitive
Subdivision Plan,to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE
and FORT AVENUE,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 41, Lots 235, 236, 243, 244, 246, and 274) into
fifteen (15) single-family house lots,the construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes, and the
construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
9. Adjournment
•
•
AAi1-0A S i �I,I'I'; S: f1i, IvIFS���� I Si. Cf.S 11�CJ]I'1 pll! A:: ')7 .6'9-$ 5
' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMEERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
DIRECTOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
• FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: November 12, 2009
RE: Agenda—November 19,2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Minutes
➢ Agenda
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
Old/New Business
➢ Request of NORTH RIVER CANAL LLC to extend the Special Use Permit, Site
Plan Review, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit granted for the
property at 28 GOODHUE STREET for an additional six (6) months, through June
30,2010.
Attorney Correnti submitted a letter with his request stating that the developer needs
additional time to secure funding to begin construction, but they do intend to go on with the
project.
➢ Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for insignificant change to the Wireless
• Communication Facility Special Permit for the property located at 488 REAR
HIGHLAND AVENUE (AKA 0 Cain Rd.) (Assessor's Map 3,Lot 139) in order to
install one (1) additional backhaul antenna to the previously approved facility.
1
The request involves adding another circular backhaul antenna to a structure that contains .
several already.
Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications
Facility (WCF) Special Permit for the property locate at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15, Lot
308). The proposed project includes the installation of three (3) panel antennas and
associated BTS units, four(4) backhaul antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets mounted to a
rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on the roof of the Salem Heights Apartments.
The applicant has requested to continue to 12/3/09 because of a scheduling conflict.
Public Hearing: Request of STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY to amend
the previously granted Planned Unit Development and Wetland and Floodplain Hazard
Special Permits for the property located at the corner of Howley Street, Peabody, and
Boston Street, Salem (164 REAR BOSTON STREET, Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374,
AKA 9 REAR HOWLEY STREET, Peabody Assessors Map 86 Lot 130X).
The proposed project involves the addition of a new four-pump gas fueling facility, the addition of
raised islands for traffic flow, and the elimination of 52 parking spaces (leaving 307 spaces).
Health; Conservation Building, Engineering The application has been routed to e g, En gin g and Fire
Prevention. Conservation has responded that the work is outside the jurisdiction of the Salem
Conservation Commission;however, they will file with the Peabody Con Com. No other
department has commented.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC for Site Plan •
Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit—Fast Food. The proposed project is a
fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-
through on the property located at 142 CANAL STREET (Assessors Map 33,Lot 006).
While we did not do a formal traffic peer review,Dave Knowlton, the City Engineer, asked AECom
to informally review the project's traffic study, since they are already doing a traffic study for the rest
of Canal St. I have included copies of the review in your packets and passed along the comments to
Dan Dilullo and Rob Woodland. Dave felt the following recommendations should be considered:
a) The removal of the gate between the project site and the property to the south should be
considered to reduce additional vehicle trips on Canal Street; and
b) Vehicle queuing analysis should be provided for the drive-thru operation to ensure that
queuing does not impact on-side parking and Canal Street opetations.
The Board would probably not be inclined to take the first recommendation involving the gate,
since that gate was a condition of the original site plan review. The point about the queuing not
being explained in the narrative of the traffic study is well taken,but the queuing is addressed
adequately in the submitted plan.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
CO., INC., for a Definitive Subdivision Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special
Permit, to allow the extension of Circle Hill Road to serve three (3) new single-family
house lots on the property located at 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, Salem,MA(Assessors •
Map 9, Lot 0255).
2
• I have received feedback about the location of the new fire hydrant,which came up at the last
meeting, from Dave Knowlton and Lt. Griffin. Both agree that the proposed location is fine.
Lt. Griffin wanted to be sure that whatever fence or guard rad was constructed would not be
between the street and the hydrant and that access from the street would be ensured; Scott
Patrowicz has assured me this is the case. I have also asked Scott to revise the plans to clearly
show where the proposed sidewalk begins and ends around the cul-de-sac.
Patrick DeIulis told me he did speak to the neighbors about the fence or guardrail around the
park, and while the first suggestion from neighbors was to put up a guardrail,Patrick pointed
out that this would not prevent a child from crawling under it and out to the street. He felt a
fence would be more effective, and he tells me the neighbors agreed. He did not receive
feedback about the type of fence they preferred—he is suggesting a vinyl coated chain link
fence.
One aspect of the application that has not been discussed yet is the Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Special Permit application,which was required because one of the proposed houses (lot 3) is
within the 100-foot buffer zone of a wetland. These are the requirements for issuing the Special
Permit that apply to this construction:
a) Proposed use must comply with underlying zoning [it does].
b) There must be adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement on the
site and in relation to streets and property in the event of flooding/high runoff.
c) Utilities (including gas, electric, fuel,water, sewage disposal) must be located and constructed
• to protect against breaking,leaking, short-circuiting, grounding or igniting or any other damage
due to flooding.
d) The development cannot obstruct/divert flood flow, substantially reduce floodwater storage
capacity in the local drainage area, destroy valuable wildlife habitat, adversely affect groundwater
resources or increase stormwater runoff velocity so that water levels on other land are raised or
flooding danger increased [much of the purpose of the low-impact development techniques and
the drainage plans done by Scott was to address this].
e) No storage of harmful chemicals, petroleum, and other contaminants [would not be an issue
in construction of single-family houses].
0 Occupied floor areas must be four feet or more above the seasonal high water table [I spoke
to Scott,who told me the season high water table is 115, and the elevation of the house on lot 3
would be 122).
g) If the basement floor level is below the seasonal high water table and human occupancy is a
possibility, even if not originally intended, adequate perimeter drainage and foundation shall be
installed to withstand the effect of pressure and seepage. Furnace and utilities are to be
protected from the effects of leaching.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive
Subdivision Plan to allow the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem,
MA (Assessors Map 3,Lots 74,75, and 76) into eleven (11) new single-family house lots,
the construction of a new street off Highland Avenue, and the construction of eleven (11)
single-family homes.
Attorney Atkins has requested to continue this to December 3, in order to give the peer reviewer
• time to make comments.
3
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS •
COVE PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and
for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land
between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 41,Lots
235,236,243, 244, 246, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots, the
construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes, and the construction a new street off of
Szetela Lane.
I wanted to address a few comments made at the last meeting about what is involved in the
Planning Board's review of this project. Review of a definitive subdivision plan is different from
site plan review. It is governed by the Subdivision Control Act and the Planning Board
Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Board will not be receiving, for example, a
landscaping plan, or renderings of the proposed houses. The role of the Board is to evaluate
the proposed roadway and make sure that all requirements are met with regard to utilities,
drainage, easements, and the other requirements in the subdivision regulations. I will include the
subdivision requirements checklist in your packets for your review.
This project requires not only approval under subdivision control, but a Wetlands and Flood
Hazard Special Permit as well. The subdivision itself is not in a wetland or a buffer zone or the
100-year flood plain,which are the triggers for this permit,but it will have a drainage system that
connects to an outfall that drains into Collins Cove. This outfall is the piece of construction that
triggers the permit, not the roadway or the houses.
4
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
November 19,2009
• A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins (arrived 7:30), Christine Sullivan,
Tim Kavanaugh (arrived 7:20), Tim Ready and Helen Sides. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff
Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis
Chuck introduced new Planning Board member Helen Sides.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of November 5th meeting were unavailable and will be reviewed at the next Planning Board
meeting.
Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF)
Special Permit for the property locate at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15, Lot 308). The proposed project
includes the installation of three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units, four (4) backhaul
antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets mounted to a rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on
the roof of the Salem Heights Apartments. Applicant has requested to continue to 12/3/09.
• A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the public hearing to December 3rd, seconded by
Nadine Hanscom and approved unanimously.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to
allow the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and
76) into eleven (11) new single-family house lots, the construction of a new street off Highland
Avenue, and the construction of eleven (11) single-family homes. The applicant has requested to
continue to 12/3/09.
A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the public hearing to December 3`d, seconded by
Christine Sullivan and approved unanimously.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP for a
Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the
subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA
(Assessors Map 41, Lots 235, 236, 243, 244,246, and 274)into fifteen (15)single-family house lots,the
construction of fifteen (15)single-family homes,and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
Chuck Puleo informed the Board members that the applicant requested to continue the public hearing
to 12/3/09.
• A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the public hearing to December 3`d, seconded by
Nadine Hanscom and approved unanimously.
1
Old/New Business
Request of NORTH RIVER CANAL LLC to extend the Special Use Permit,Site Plan Review, and Wetlands •
and Flood Hazard District Special Permit granted for the property at 28 GOODHUE STREET for an
additional six(6)months,through June 30,2010.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing North River Canal LLC, explained that this
proposed 44 condo project with commercial space was approved, and the permits have been extended
previously. He says a lot of time and effort has gone into this project for permitting and includes a river
walk along the canal, an easement given by the city, and money being donated by the developer to do a
study. He says on Wednesday evening, the ZBA granted a 6 month extension of the Variances for the
project, until June 30`h, 2010, and tonight they are asking for same six-month extension of the permits
issued by the Planning Board. He added that the owner is being conscientious about maintaining the
empty lot right now.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to extend the Special Use
Permit for 6 months, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved unanimously.
Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for insignificant change to the Wireless Communication Facility
Special Permit for the property located at 488 REAR HIGHLAND AVENUE (AKA 0 Cain Rd.) (Assessor's
Map 3, Lot 139) in order to install one (1) additional backhaul antenna to the previously approved
facility.
Jennifer Murga, of Goodman Networks, explained that this is an existing wireless communication facility
that was originally approved for 5 backhaul antennas, and they want to add one more. •
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the insignificant change to the Special Permit,
seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved unanimously.
Tim Kavanaugh arrives.
Public Hearing: Request of STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY to amend the previously
granted Planned Unit Development and Wetland and Floodplain Hazard Special Permits for the
property located at the corner of Howley Street, Peabody, and Boston Street, Salem (164 REAR
BOSTON STREET, Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374, AKA 9 REAR HOWLEY STREET, Peabody Assessors
Map 86 Lot 130X).The proposed project involves the addition of a new four-pump fueling facility,the
addition of raised islands for traffic flow, and the elimination of 52 parking spaces (leaving 307
spaces).
Since only six Board members were present, Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing Stop and Shop,
requested to present at the next Planning Board meeting on December 3rd
A motion was made by Tim Ready to continue the public hearing to December 3rd, seconded by Tim
Kavanaugh and approved unanimously.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., for a
Definitive Subdivision Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,to allow the extension of •
Circle Hill Road to serve three (3) new single-family house lots on the property located at 40 CIRCLE
HILL ROAD,Salem, MA(Assessors Map 9, Lot 0255).
2
Patrick Delulis explained the corrections to the plans that were made as suggested by other City
• Departments. The Fire Department requested an opening at the guard rail where the fire hydrant is;
neighbors prefer a black iron fence when it comes time to put it up, they will coordinate with the park
department as to how far back it will go. Chuck Puleo began reviewing the draft decision. Patrick
Delulis reviewed the plan further- they haven't altered any drainage; on the property side of Circle Hill
Road, the plan now shows curbing. The guard rail installation will be according to Mass Highway
standards. Danielle McKnight mentioned that Doug Bollen got back to her regarding the material for the
fence, for that site he has a slight preference for a vinyl coated fence rather than a guardrail, but he
prefers to go with what the neighborhood wants.
Issue opened up for public comment.
Richard Sakowich, 36 Circle Hill Road, he has seen the plans and feels they have done a good job
working with the neighbors. He wanted to know if they would gate the end of roadway when they're
done with construction. Patrick Delulis said that when they begin construction,they will gate the end of
the roadway, they will put construction fencing along the park side to stop people from entering the
site. Once the roadway is complete,the fence will come down so people can see the lots.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to close the public hearing,
seconded by Tim Ready and approved unanimously.
Tim Ready commended this project for the efforts with the community. Danielle McKnight continued
reviewing the draft decision. The following changes/explanations were discussed: Under section #2,
Chuck Puleo wants to make sure the grading refers to grading on the lots. Section C, timeframe, means
• if they don't act on this within 2 years, they would have to come back before the Board. Under section
#15, add "at least 72 hours prior to blasting". In Section #17 "shall" will be changed to "may". Tim
Kavanaugh suggested that in Section 14 to add "applicant shall install temporary gate along the park
side to keep people out until construction is completed/approved."
Patrick Delulis asked if they will need to post bond prior to commencing work. Tim Kavanaugh said that
they should file a covenant with the plans, so it can be recorded with the plans and that would be
sufficient. The Planning Board would then release it. Tim Kavanaugh added if the work isn't completed,
the Planning Board could deny the request. Danielle McKnight will add at end of Section B "the owner
shall file...... Instead of"the owner may file".
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the Definitive
Subdivision Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and
approved 5-0 (Puleo, Sullivan, Kavanaugh, Ready and Hanscom in favor, none opposed).
Gene Collins arrives.
Public Hearing: Request of STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY to amend the previously
granted Planned Unit Development and Wetland and Floodplain Hazard Special Permits for the
property located at the corner of Howley Street, Peabody, and Boston Street, Salem (164 REAR
BOSTON STREET, Salem Assessors Map 16 Lot 374, AKA 9 REAR HOWLEY STREET, Peabody Assessors
Map 86 Lot 130X).The proposed project involves the addition of a new four-pump fueling facility,the
addition of raised islands for traffic flow, and the elimination of 52 parking spaces (leaving 307
• spaces).
3
Earlier in the meeting, since all Board members weren't present, Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing
Stop and Shop, asked for a continuance and present at the next Planning Board meeting on December
3`'. Since board member Gene Collins arrived, Tim Kavanaugh moved to rescind their vote to continue •
this at the next meeting and re-open it on the agenda tonight, and noted that no one has left the room,
except for the applicant from Goodman networks, whom Attorney Correnti asked if she was interested
in the matter, and she said no. The motion is seconded by Christine Sullivan, and approved
unanimously.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing Stop & Shop explained that they would like to
modify the original Planned Unit Development Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special
Permit to include the use of a fueling facility. Conor Nagle of VHB, the company that originally did the
site layout, is also present. Atty Correntisays at this Salem/Peabody site, the parking lot and front
doors/vestibule are located in Peabody while most of the store and behind that are in Salem. He says
they had a public hearing with the Peabody City Council at which these amendments were approved.
Atty Correnti also said they met with the Peabody Planning Board who granted a site plan review. He
said all of the gas pumps would be in Peabody. He notes that downtown Peabody has issues with water,
but the Peabody Conservation Commission retains jurisdiction with this site and they granted an order
of conditions Wednesday night,which includes the distance required to stay away from the North River.
They also went to the Historical Commission because they wanted to be sure that any work done won't
affect the nearby cemetery.
Lisa Davis, Stop & Shop consultant, gave a brief overview of the objective of this project. She explains
that since the Peabody Stop& Shop store is not one of the strongest, Stop & Shop had reviewed what
they could provide their customers for one-stop shopping in order to encourage more shopping and
more spending. Stop &Shop engaged in the gasoline business many years ago and were very successful
as it created a bump up in sales. She says they operate about 55 fueling facilities in the state. At this •
site, there would be 4 self-service pumps on each side (8 altogether) and a small kiosk with someone
there at all times when it's open. Employees at the pump station would be Stop&Shop employees who
would be trained. This particular location will have a peaked roof canopy, for aesthetics. She says the
North Reading site has been there since about early 2000 and the Medford site is just a little newer. The
gas pumps at those sites did help those Stop &Shop stores.
Conor Nagle,VHB, explained that the proposed gas station will be located in the southwest corner, in an
underutilized part of the parking lot, and the store will lose about 52 parking spaces. He says it's in the
buffer zone, not in the flood plain and it is an already paved parking area. They are proposing 4 pumps;
two sided with underground storage tanks, a kiosk and a canopy with lighting. They will use existing curb
cuts, the interior ones will not be modified.They are maintaining the pedestrian access. They have met
with the traffic safety officer regarding signage. For the entryway, they propose one entrance with the
exit on the other side. He says there will be drainage treatment that meets all storm water codes. He
says they are improving the landscaping which will make it a less impervious area. They will increase
plantings along Howley Street and retain the existing trees/landscaping. Nadine Hanscom wondered
what would happen if this project does not increase sales and the store closed, what would happen to
the site and the pumps? Attorney Correnti said that Stop & Shop owns all the land and that the
operating hours of the pumps will be in conjunction with the store. He said the City of Peabody had
similar questions and also questioned whether it would be independent of the store. He said in
Peabody,the bigger fear was that,without this project,the store might close.
Helen Sides asked if all the exterior materials would be consistent with the current store materials.
Conor Nagle explained that the roof and clapboards would match and the graphics would match the •
store graphics. They will supply photos of the store, etc. as well as some of the other facilities at the next
meeting. Gene Collins is concerned about the pedestrian walkway being maintained (the grading) as
4
well as keeping the integrity of the cemetery. Conor said that all grading will meet requirements and
that they will move just a part of the pedestrian walkway down and will be maintained. Attorney Joseph
Correnti added this was a big concern of the Peabody Planning Dept. because they want to maintain the
pedestrian flow. Sidewalk maintenance is one of the conditions in Peabody.
Issue opened up for public comment.
Bob Bonifen, owns property on Beaver St. and Silver St., and is against this project. He's concerned
about the gas tanks and traffic. Conor Nagle explained that there will be 2 tanks underground, 30,000
gallons of regular fuel and 10,000 of premium fuel. He added that they did a traffic study that they
presented to Peabody who had no issues. Typically he says there is an insignificant increase to traffic in
an area because of this type of project, because most people who get gas do so out of convenience
rather than going out of their way to a particular station. Attorney Correnti added that the neighboring
Holy Ghost Society was present at the Peabody meetings in support of this project as was the new CVS
that is being built on the opposite corner.
Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, said that this past spring he was in Stoneham and noticed a Stop
& Shop with gas pumps at its location that was barely noticeable, almost camouflaged. He feels mostly
Stop&Shop customers will be using the gas pumps. He has no objections to this project.
Patricia Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, is concerned where the street goes from 2 lanes to one lane. She doesn't
think many people will be shopping for gas at the location.
A motion was made by Gene Collins to close the public hearing. Danielle McKnight said there are still
comments coming in from other City Departments and they should wait for these comments. Motion to
• close the public hearing was withdrawn.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the public
hearing to December 3rd, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC for Site Plan Review and Drive-
Through Facility Special Permit— Fast Food. The proposed project is a fast food facility with a drive-
through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through on the property located at 142
CANAL STREET(Assessors Map 33,Lot 006).
Dan DiLullo, DiLullo&Associates, recapped that they have built a now existing family dollar store,with a
section containing an attached drive through originally intended for use as a bank. They have come
back to revise that section to a fast food drive through. Using the existing drive through, he says they
have room for a more than sufficient car queue and have done traffic studies for that area. He
mentioned that abutters were concerned about parking on Canal Street; Danielle McKnight found out
that there will not be parking on that side of Canal Street once the reconstruction plans for Canal St. are
complete.
Rob Woodland, Woodland Design Group,the traffic engineer, said that Jeff Maxtutis of AE Comm,which
the city had do an informal peer review, has looked at the plans and was satisfied with the queuing. He
mentioned that AE Comm suggested opening the gates between the two parcels; Mr. Woodland
suggested that until the parcel next door is redeveloped and they know who the users are, to leave the
• gate closed. At some point in the future, he says it may make sense to open the gate depending on who
is occupying the parcel next door. Another concern was the amount of parking spaces needed with the
change of use. Danielle McKnight said that the number of employees and seats would dictate the
5
number of spaces required by zoning. Dan DiLullo went over the layout which shows the requirements-
1 space for each 4 seats and 1 space for each 2 employees; for this project, 12 spaces will be required.
Danielle McKnight says the bank space also required 12 spaces, so no change is needed.
Nadine Hanscom said she is on Canal Street at least 6 times a day and there is always a traffic jam. She
says tractor trailers pull out and block the entire road and other sites on that road cause problems with
people trying to pull out onto the street. She feels that people exiting out of this site trying to take a left
will cause another jam. She pointed out that the dollar store truck pulls out and blocks out the entire
road. Rob Woodland said the idea for a coffee shop/drive through is that it should be used out of
convenience. They're hoping that people will go right in, right out on both sides of the street, which
would help both the north and southbound sides of Canal Street. Rob Woodland added that when the
coffee shop is busy in the morning, the dollar store won't be open yet. Rob feels that they have
minimized the impacts for this stretch of road. Chuck Puleo agreed that there are problems with
deliveries and trucks block traffic flow, he wondered if there is a way of putting something in the lot so
they pull in properly. Gene Collins feels that there is a lot of room on this site for delivery trucks.
Issue opened up for public comment.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Gene Collins to close the public hearing,
seconded by Tim Ready and approved unanimously.
Danielle McKnight reviewed a draft decision based on the original decision with modifications. Danielle
reviewed the draft decision. Section 11C—Gene Collins thought it was right turn only coming out of the
lot onto Canal St. Rob Woodland suggested not putting that restriction there because some people may
want to go left to head towards to the lot to exit left. Nadine Hanscom added that some people may
want to get coffee and then go into the store, so they would have to go left to park. Christine Sullivan •
added that the City Planner could look at this situation afterwards. Chuck Puleo suggested adding a
provision for onsite traffic flow. Will add "If traffic flow is found to be problematic, the applicant should
install signage as per the city planner in consultation with the city traffic engineer". Section 16-
regarding the need to.record sheet 4 of the original plans at the Registry of Deeds, Dan Dilullo said it
was recorded in and he'll get proof to Danielle. Section 18C- Danielle said she did specify the number of
tables and spaces.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the Site Plan
Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit — Fast Food, seconded by Christine Sullivan and
approved 6-0 (Kavanaugh, Ready, Hanscom,Sullivan, Puleo and Collins in favor, none opposed).
Adjournment
A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Gene Collins and
approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:50
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 12/3/09
is
6
9 A
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
7009 ME - I P I: 03
Site Plan Review&
Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit
Decision
December 1, 2009
142 Canal Street Nominee Trust
5 Cranberry Lane
Lynnfield,Massachusetts 01940
RE: 142 Canal Street— Site Plan Review& Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit
On Thursday,July 16, 2009, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing under
Sections 9.5 and 6.7 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review and Drive-Through
Facilities,at the request of Snakebite Realty,LLC, for the property located at 142 Canal Street. Previously,
the Planning Board had granted a Site Plan Review Special Permit and a Drive-Though Facility Special
Permit for anew Family Dollar store and drive-through bank space. These permits were granted in a
• decision date-stamped October 20, 2008. The amended plans show a drive-through for a fast food use
previously permitted as the drive-through bank. The former bank building, an 1800 square food space,
will be converted into a fast food restaurant with maximum of 40 seats and 4 employees.
The Public Hearing was continued to September 17, 2009, October 15, 2009, and November 5, 2009. The
public hearing was closed on November 5, 2009. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board
held on November 19, 2009,the Planning Board voted by a vote of six (6) in favor (Ready, Kavanaugh,
Collins,Puleo,Hanscom and Sullivan) and none (0) opposed to approve the Site Plan Review and Drive-
Through Facility- Fast Food Special Permits, subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the plans titled, "Proposed Drive-Thru,142 Canal Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970" Sheet PR.1,prepared by DiLullo Associates, Inc., 16 Crystal St.,Melrose, MA 02176, dated
July 29, 2009. The plans titled, Site Plan for Proposed Retail at 142 Cana] Street, Salem,Mass 01970"
Sheets 1 - 7, prepared byMarchionda &Associates, 62 Montvale Ave, Suite 1, Stoneham, Mass 02180,
dated October 1, 2008, and the elevation plans, landscaping plans, and lighting plans tided "Proposed
Floor Plan/Proposed Elevations", "Landscaping/Planting Plans", and "Lighting Plans for Proposed
Retail at 142 Canals Street, Salem,Mass 01970" sheet A.1, sheet LS.1, and sheet A.I prepared by
DiLullo Associates, Inc., 16 Crystal Street, Melrose,Mass 02176, dated June 23, 2008, October 3, 2008,
and October 9, 2008 respectively, still remain in effect, except where superseded by the new plans
(dated July 29, 2009).
2. Transfer of Ownership
• Within five (5) days of transfer of ownership of the site, the Owner shall notify the Board in
writing of the new owner's name and address. The terms,conditions, restrictions and/or
requirements of this decision shall be binding on the Owner and its successors and/or assigns.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM
• 3. Amendments
Any amendments to the approved site plan, elevation plan, and landscape plan shall be brought to the
Planning Board for review and approval. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the
approval of the Planning Board.
4. Construction Practices
All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions:
a. The operation of tools or equipment used in construction or demolition work shall occur in
accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting and between the
hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work shall take place on Sundays
or holidays. The Planning Board will agree to changes in the starting time, at the request of the
applicant and if approved by a formal vote of the City Council, as per the ordinance.
b. Any blasting, rock crushing,jack hammering,hydraulic blasting, or pile driving shall occur in
accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting and be limited to
Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. There shall be no blasting, rock
crushing,jack hammering, hydraulic blasting,or pile driving on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
c. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations.
d. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters.
Advance notice shall be provided by the applicant to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to
• commencement of construction of the project.
e. All construction vehicles and equipment shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not
leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they exit the site.
f. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Planning
Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Salem.
g. All construction vehicles and equipment left overnight at the site must be located completely on the
site.
h. All staging of materials and equipment shall be on-site.
i. No Street shall be closed without prior approval of the Department of Planning and Community
Development,unless deemed an emergency by the Salem Police Department.
j. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the Applicant
prior to the issuance of a building permit. Included in this plan, but not limited to, shall be
information regarding how the construction equipment will be stored, a description of the
construction staging area and its location in relation to the site, and where the construction
employees will park their vehicles. The plan and schedule shall be submitted and approved by the
City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All storage of materials and equipment will
be on site.
• k. All sidewalks, roadways, utilities, landscaping, etc. damaged during construction shall be replaced or
repaired to their pre-construction condition,or better.
-2-
• 5. Clerk of the Works
A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City,at the expense of the Applicant, its successors or
assigns,as is deemed necessary by the City Planner.
6. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
7. Building Inspector
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector.
8. Board of Health
The applicant shall comply with all rules and regulations of the Board of Health and shall comply with
all conditions of the Board of Health decision.
9. Utilities
a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit. All on site electrical utilities shall be located underground.
b. Applicant shall confirm with the City Engineer that there are existing isolation valves on the Canal
Street water main on either side of their proposed fire service connection,which are operational and
in close enough proximity to allow isolation of Canal Street. Written confirmation from the City
• Engineer must be received by the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to
the issuance of a Building Permit.
10. Department of Public Services
Thelicant shall com 1 with all requirements of the Department of Public Services
APP P Y q P
11. Signage
a. Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner.
b. Parking signs shall be installed in front of each of the parking spaces located behind the proposed
fast food restaurant which are blocked in by the drive-through queue stating that the parking spaces
are only for employees,prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the fast-food restaurant.
c. If traffic flow is found to be problematic, the applicant shallinstall signage as per the CityPlanner,
in consultation with the applicant's traffic engineer.
12. Lighting
a.No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way.
b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a Building Perrnit.
c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the
• issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
13. HVAC
-3-
• If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for
review and approval prior to installation.
14. Landscaping
a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans.
b. Trees shall be a minimum diameter of 3 1/z" dbh (diameter breast height).
c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns.
d. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of any
replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting.
e. Final completed landscaping, done in accordance with the approved set of plans,shall be subject to
approval by the City Planner prior,for consistency with such plans, to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
f. As early in the Spring of 2010 as conditions permit,applicant is to replace any vegetation from the
original site plan that has not survived.
15. Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the
Applicant,his successors or assigns.
b. Winter snow in excess of pennitted snow storage areas on site shall be removed off site.
c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant, his
successors or assigns,shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two (2) year period, from issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy and completion of planting.
d. Maintenance of all stormwater structures and bioretention areas shall be the responsibility of the
Applicant, his successors or assigns.
e. The applicant,his successors or assigns, agrees to perpetually remove the snow on the sidewalks
along their portion of frontage on Canal Street
f. At no time may snow block the by-pass lane around the rear of the building.
16. As-Built Plans
As-built Plans,stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer,shall be submitted to the Department
of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy for the fast food restaurant.
The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the
City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
A completed tie cans, a blank copy(available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed
and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance
-4-
• with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy, as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer.
17. Violations
Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning
Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by majority vote of the Planning Board.
18. Special Conditions
a. The fence located behind the proposed building dumpster area shall tie directly into the northwest
comer of the existing building and tie directly into the southeastern comer of the former California
Olive Oil building at 134 Canal Street, as noted and shown on sheet 4/7 of the Approved Site
Plans. The applicant is permitted to install an access gate as part of the fence.
b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed fast-food restaurant, the Applicant
shall record at the Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds at least sheet 4 of 7 titled "Site
Layout Plan" from the plans previously submitted for the Family Dollar development and titled,
"Site Plan for Proposed Retail at 142 Canal Street, Salem,Mass 01970;" prepared by Marchionda &
Associates, 62 Montvale Ave,Suite 1,Stoneham,Mass 02180, dated October 1, 2008.
c. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building on the property located at 134 Canal
Street,the parking area in the rear of that building must be resurfaced/paved, and the applicant, his
successors or assigns is required to stripe the eighty(80) required parking spaces, as shown on
sheet 4/7 of the site plans previously approved for 142 Canal Street titled "Proposed Retail for 142
• Canal Street,Salem,MA 01970;' prepared byMarchionda &Associates,L.P., and dated June 23,
2008.
I hereby wtfy that a copy cf this danion and plans hz been fried with 6e City Clerk and mpia are on file zath die
PlarmT Bozni The Dan=shall nat take Ok eartd a copy q this decuxn hearing the apt fuamn cf dx City Cork that
neeiuy(20) dct)s haze alVaiaced oro appeal bas lien file!or that zf suds appeal has been frlal, and it has leen dzsrrassecl or
denied zs rtmrdei in the Sauthem Essoc Dzstna RVtry of Dash and is irulered under the nacre gibe ozvk-r of mord is
marded on the om-,vr s Cen#iwte c¢Tetle The owner ar appl=rrt, his suazsors or assigns, shall pay the fee for raveling or
Caades M. Pulm
Czair
-5-
O R
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
moa Ur — fo i- �3
,,
Form C- Dec ision CITY Li ' (.
40 Circle Hill Road Definitive Subdivision Plan,
Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit
December 1, 2009
DeIulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc.
31 Collins Street Terrace
Lynn,MA 01902
RE: Decision for the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 40 Circle Hill Road - Form C and Wetlands
and Flood Hazard Special Permit
Dear Mr. DeIulis:
On November 5, 2009, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a public hearing regarding
the applications of DeIulis Brothers Construction Co.,Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the
• "Applicant" and/or"Owner") to allow extension of Circle Hill Road into a new cul-de-sac serving
three new single-family house lots. The development is proposed on the property located at 40
Circle Hill Road (Assessors Map 9, Lot 255; Land Court Plan 856-J, Lots 56, 57, 59 and 60).
This decision evolved from the Form B - Preliminary Subdivision Plan Application, for which the
Board issued a decision on July 29,2009. The decision specifically directed the Applicant to consult
the neighbors in the creation of plans showing contoured land for proper drainage. The decision
also directed the Applicant to install a sidewalk and guardrail on the side of Circle Hill Road where
DiBiase Park is located, and for the sidewalk to extend to the park, with an entry point into it.
However, in the course of reviewing the application,the Board agreed to the Applicant's revised
drainage plans, which, in the interest of promoting low impact development techniques, eliminated
curbing from the park side of the cul-de-sac in order to allow stormwater to flow into the grassy
park area.
The public hearing was continued to November 19, 2009 and was closed on that date. At the
regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on November 19, 2009, the Board voted five (5) in
favor (Hanscom,Ready, Puleo, Sullivan and Kavanaugh) and none (0) opposed to approve the
Form C- Definitive Subdivision Plan and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit for the
proposed subdivision, subject to the following conditions, in addition to all other requirements
for a definitive subdivision plan:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform with the plans titled, "Definitive Subdivision, Layout, Grading &LID
• Stormwater Management for a Cttl-de-Sac &Three Residential Lots for a site at N 40 Circle Hill
Road, Salem,Massachusetts," prepared byPatrowicz Land Development Engineering and North
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 * TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
Shore Survey Corporation, 14 Brown Street, Salem,MA 01970, dared October 1, 2009 and revised
November 18, 2009.
• 2. Drainage
Grading on the three proposed lots shall be done as per the approved plans in order to ensure
appropriate drainage.
3. Endorsement of the Plans
Following the statutory twenty(20) day appeal period, the Planning Board will sign the original
subdivision plans, subject to conditions of this approval, which shall be recorded at the South Essex
Registry of Deeds. Prior to endorsement of the plans, the following items must be submitted for
approval by the Planning Board:
a) A Covenant to secure the construction of ways and installation of municipal services,
including required description of mortgages and assents of mortgagees.
b) Acceptable form of grants of easements, if applicable.
c) The conditions of approval of this subdivision shall be placed on the original plans, or
referenced on the plans, or this decision shall be recorded at Essex South Registry of Deeds
prior to endorsement by the Planning Board.
4. Security(Section III(B)(5) of the Subdivision Regulations)
Prior to the release of any lots for sale or building, the Planning Board shall require that an
• acceptable form of surety is posted along with a proposed schedule of releases. If partial release
of surety is to be requested,the Planning Board may, at its discretion, require deposits to be
broken down in amounts of anticipated requests for release. The applicant agrees to complete
the required improvements in accordance with Section V of the Subdivision Regulations for the
subdivision. Such construction and installation is to be secured by one and/or in pan by the
other of the following methods which may from time to time be varied by the applicant with the
reasonable approval of the Planning Board:
a) Endorsement of approval with covenant
The Owner shall file a covenant, prior to endorsement by the Planning Board, executed
and to be duly recorded with the Subdivision Plans by the owner of record, which
instrument shall with the land, and shall state that such ways and services shown on the
approved plans shall be provided to serve any and all lots before any lot may be built
upon or conveyed, other than by mortgage deed; and/or
b) Endorsement of approval with bonds, surety or tri-party agreement
The Owner shall either file a performance bond, a deposit of money or negotiable
securities, or a tri-pany agreement in an amount determined by the Board to be sufficient
to cover the cost of all or any one phase of the sub-division of the improvements. Surety,
if filed or deposited,shall be approved as to form and manner of execution by the City
Solicitor and, as to sureties by the City Treasurer, and shall be contingent on the
construction of the roadway through binder course. The amount of the surety shall be
reasonably determined by the City of Salem Engineering Department and shall include an
• additional 10% to cover the cost of inflation or maintenance for eighteen (18) months
after completion of the phase and release of surety.
2
The Owner may file a covenant to secure the construction of ways and services for the
entire subdivision and said covenant may be partially released for phases of the sub-
division by bond, surety or tri-party agreement being filed for any phase or phases of the
subdivision by execution of a recordable instrument so stating by the Planning Board.
c) Timeframe
The construction of all ways and the installation of all required municipal services shall be
completed within 18 months from the date of receipt of bond or surety by the Board or
within two years of the date of approval of the Definitive Plan, whichever is earlier.
Failure to do so shall automatically rescind approval, unless an extension is granted by the
Planning Board.
5. Amendments
Any modification to the approved plans must receive the prior approval of the Planning Board
unless deemed insignificant by the City Planner. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall
require the approval of the Planning Board.
6. Subdivision Regulations
The Subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations and any other applicable regulations as affected by this decision.
7. Transfer of Ownership
Within five days of transfer of ownership of the subdivision,the Owner shall notify the Board in
writing of the new owner's name and address. This shall not include the sale of lots within the
• subdivision in the ordinary course of business, but only a sale of the entire subdivision. The terms,
conditions, restrictions and/or requirements of this decision shall be binding on the Owner and its
successors and/or assigns.
8. Board of Health
The developer shall comply with all conditions of the Board of Health, including but not limited to
the following:
a) The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent
of the name,address, and telephone number of the project (site) manager who will be on
site and directly responsible for the construction of the project.
b) If a DEP tracking number is issued for this site under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan,no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible
for the site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use.
c) The developer will give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report.
d) The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer.
e) The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior
to construction,demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's
invoice to the Health Agent.
f) The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction.
The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street
sweeping which will occur during construction.
h) The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and
removal of debris,vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated
• during demolition and/or construction
i) The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting.
3
j) Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations, including but
not limited to refrigeration and heating,shall not increase the broadband sound level by
more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line.
k) The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material
needed for the project.
1) The resultant establishment shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its
operation in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health.
m) The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast
Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District.
n) The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final
inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
9. Office of the Building Commissioner
All work shall comply with the requirements of the office of the Salem Building Commissioner as
affected by this decision.
10. Office of the City Engineer
The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer
11. Fire Department
All work shall complywith the requirements of the Salem Fire Department as affected by this
decision.
12. Conservation Commission
• The developer must adhere to the conditions set forth in the Order of Conditions issued by the
Salem Conservation Commission on April 21, 2009.
13. DiBiase Paris
a) Applicant is to purchase and install a new slide to replace the one currently located in the
public right-of-way to a new location within DiBiase park, under the direction of Doug
Bollen,Director of Park, Recreation &Community Services.
b) Applicant is to install fencing or a guard rail, as directed by Doug Bollen, Director of
Park, Recreation &Community Services,where the roadway extension borders DiBlase
Park.
14. Construction Practices
All construction shall be carred out in accordance with the following conditions:
a) The operation of tools or equipment used in construction or demolition work shall
occur in accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting
and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work
shall take place on Sundays or holidays. The Planning Board will agree to changes in the
startingtime, at the request of the applicant and if approved b a formal vote of the Ci
4 PP PP Y t7'
Council, as per the ordinance.
b) Any blasting, rock crushing, jack hammering, hydraulic blasting, or pile driving shall
occur in accordancewith Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 U: Construction and Blasting
and be limited to Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. There
• shall be no blasting, rock crushing,jack hammering, hydraulic blasting, or pile driving on
Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
4
c) Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations.
d) All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on
abutters. Advance notice shall be provided by the applicant to all abutters in writing at
least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction of the project.
e) All construction vehicles and equipment shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that
they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they exit the site.
f) The applicant shall abide by any and all applicable rules, regulations and ordinances of
the Ciryof Salem
g) All construction vehicles and equipment left overnight at the site must be located
completely on the site.
h) No Street shall be closed without prior approval of the Department of Planning and
Community Development,unless deemed an emergency by the Salem Police
Department.
i) Applicant shall install a temporary fence or gate when construction begins, which shall
remain until such time the road is completed,inspected and approved.
15. Blasting
The applicant or agent shall distribute the flyers entitled, "Facts for Massachusetts Property Owners
• About Blasting" to all abutters within three hundred (300) feet of the blasting area at least 72 hours
prior to blasting.
16. Pre-Construction Conference
Prior to the start of work on the approved subdivision, a pre-construction conference shall be
scheduled with the Gty Planner, the ClryEngineer(or his designee), the Building Commissioner, the
Health Agent,and any other departments that may be necessary. The Owner shall submit a
construction schedule at the time of the pre-construction conference.
17. Clerk of the Works
The services of a consultant to serve as a Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the
expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns as is deemed necessary by the City Planner.
18. Utilities
Any utility installation for housing lots shall be reviewed and approved by the Cry Engineer prior to
the issuance of a Building Permit. All utilities shall be installed underground.
19. As-built Plans & Street Acceptance Plans
As-built plans and Street Acceptance Plans, stamped by Registered Professional Engineer, shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public
Services prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision and/or the
acceptance of any streets.
The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the
City�s use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of
Occupancy for the subdivision and/or the acceptance of any streets.
5
A completed tie card, a blank copy(available at the Engineering Department) and a certification
signed and stamped by the design engineer,stating that the work was completed in substantial
compliance_with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision and/or the acceptance of any streets; as well
as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer.
20. Violations
Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless
the violation of such condition is cured within fourteen (14) days, or waived by a majority vote of
the Planning Board.
Enclosed please find the covenant (required by condition N 3, above) to secure roadway
construction. This covenant is to be submitted prior to endorsement of the plans by the Planning
Board. Also enclosed is a boilerplate tri-parry agreement, should you choose to use a tri-party
agreement as the security for the subdivision (see condition N 4, above) in order to release the lots
for sale and building.
I certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on
file with the Board. The decision shall not take effect until a copy of this decision bearing the
certification of the City Clerk that twenty(20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that
if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied,is recorded in the Essex South
Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded on the
Owners Certificate of Title if Registered Land. The owner or applicant, his successors or assigns,
shall paythe fee for recording or registering.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Puleo
Chairman
CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
6
10 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board p4 A A LA �n OA
Date / H_/ o�_
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
n 9a C-b7)tt r VlePitlaYl gD9-3 1 Ro33 /iumr
Rdµ ✓h�* or"n-I
64,v <,c k em k14 9-1 1— y i—IL£lo , fAc�57
C i�RrS �a f} 3E2 3r. s4��t 4 7`f 4-D�4 9 ,`oN
�2n�u E2rzL,y,
Ai
nl�l� uL�o IG cvfgjz[ ST WIRIIIg o1V7L IYI-ou-Ig 9` 7DiIAWAC19CA A� T.►k.•r",
nor lei t`I �� �� �� 6►� y , Imo naa VL\b •C-001.
��rA eco Ida 15C !s IGAPUS
PiOb tai DLtkp �, SNI Q`Q 34og� o t63 019 Sao ( waaa vDrs ��
Page of�
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decisions fJ�
At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,
November 19, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington
Street, Salem Massachusetts,the Planning Board voted upon the following items:
Applicant: DEILILIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Location: 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD,Salem,MA, Assessors Map 9, Lot 0255
Description: Definitive Subdivision Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special
Permit,to create three (3) new single-family house lots and to allow the
extension of Circle Hill Road to serve the new lots.
Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk December 1, 2009
Applicant: SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC
Location: 142 Canal Street (Assessors Map 33, Lot 006) Salem,MA 01970
Description: Site Plan Review Special Permit and Drive-Through Facilities (Fast Food)
Special Permit for a fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a
previously approved bank with a drive-through.
Decision: Approved - Filed with the City Clerk December 1,2009
phis mice is I-ring sero in corrpliarxe with the Massao7usetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,
Sazion 9 and does not require action by the recipient A ppeal, if any, shall be nude pursuant to
Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall Ie filed within 20 dais from the date whz&the derision was
filed with the City Cl k.
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING Z09q GC'T 2$ 0 2' 09
You are hereby Mc fol that the SalemPl..TBoani will hold its ngul,dyff rr ng qn
Thursday,Nowmber 5,2009 at 7:00 pm at C4Ha&Amxx,Room313, 120 Washington Stmt
P'L/An'
Charles M. Puleq
Chaimun
MEETING AGENDA
L Approval of Minutes
➢ 10/15/09 Planning Board meeting.
2. Old/New Business
➢ Request of ANGELO MEIMETEAS for approval of insignificant change to a Definitive
Subdivision Plan at the end of Cloverdale Street,Map 8, Lots 269,280 and Map 9, Lot 122.
3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit-
Fast Food- Petition of SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC The proposed project is a fast food facility with
a drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through on the properly located
at 142 Canal Street (Assessors Map 33,Lot 006).
�1
4. Public Hearing: Petition of DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO.,INC,for a Definitive
Subdivision Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,to create three (3) new single-family
house lots at 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD,Salem,MA,Assessors Map 9,Lot 0255, and to allow the
extension of Circle Hill Road to serve the new lots.
5. Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP for a
Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit,and for a Definitive Subdivision Plan,to allow the
subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE,Salem,MA
(Assessors Map 41, Lots 235,236,243,244,246, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots,the
construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes,and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
6. Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to allow the
subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74,75, and 76)
into eleven (11) new single-family house lots,the construction of a new street off Highland Avenue,and
the construction of eleven (11) single-family homes. Q
7. AdjournmentT POOL* �;C�/'���, I� ��
Q�
Yy� 6B1��di ei�.'riY�p'ti�uffyi� ' ` 456
3t Bq
120 WV SHIN6To S l hl r 1, SALE., NIASSAc ll ISr:]TS 01970 PxON'�' 973.619.5685 FnY 973 740.0404
��Ct3111(D1P
CITY OF SALEM
, MASSACHUSETTS
,. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DincrOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: October 28, 2009
RE: Agenda- November 5, 2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Minutes from October 15, 2009
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
1. Old/New Business: Request of ANGELO MEIMETEAS for approval of
insignificant change to a Definitive Subdivision Plan at the end of Cloverdale
Avenue,Map 8, Lots 269, 280 and Map 9, Lot 122.
Mr.Meimeteas is coordinating with the City Engineer to schedule completion of the paving
of Cloverdale Avenue. He is proposing the elimination of sidewalks from the cul-de-sac and
requesting approval as an insignificant change. The rest of Cloverdale Ave. does not
currently have sidewalks, and the plan would put sidewalks in only a portion of the street.
The owners of 25 Cloverdale Ave.,Darren and Michelle Ambler, have sent a letter stating
they do not want sidewalks in front of their house because they would prefer to keep all of
their yard area. The other owners who would be affected by sidewalk installation are Kim.
and Nicholas Driscoll,who are also expected to send a letter stating they would prefer no
sidewalks be built.
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility
Special Permit- Fast Food - Petition of Snakebite Realty LLC. The proposed
project is a fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a previously approved
bank with a drive-through on the property located at 142 Canal Street(Assessors Map
33, Lot 006).
I will bring a draft decision to the meeting in case the Board is ready to vote on 11/5.
I have looked into answers to several questions that were raised about this project at the last
meeting:
1. Parking- Currently,there are 12 spaces devoted to the space,previously intended as a
bank). One space was required for every 150 square feet of retail (the building is 1800
square feet- this divided by 150 is 12). With the change to a restaurant,the applicant will
need to specify the number of seats and employees planned for the restaurant. The zoning
ordinance requires 1 space for each 4 seats,plus 1 space for each 2 employees, for
restaurants. Dan DiLullo has not yet told me what the configuration will be, but
understands it will need to be specified in the decision. If the number of seats and
employees requires parking in excess of 12 spaces,he will either need a variance from the
ZBA or will have to add more parking.
2. Emplovee-onlyparking at rear- There are 3 parking spaces located at the rear of the
proposed restaurant space, and the Board noted they are located inside the queue of stacked
cars on the plan. There was discussion about whether those spaces should be removed or
marked as "employee only" parking. The Planning Department's recommendation would be
to simply require the applicant to post signs on those spaces indicating they are for
employees only(rather than losing the spaces entirely,or trying to move them elsewhere).
. 3. On-street parking on Canal Street- There is a sign posted on Canal Street just south of the
Hertz building that says "8 AM to 4 PM 30 Minute Parking," since parking is allowed on this
block However, according to the City Engineer,no parking will be allowed on this stretch
of Canal Street (all the way up to the College) once its reconstruction plans are complete. In
the meantime, I've asked Lt. Preczewski whether he would recommend restricting parking
there, but he told me he prefers to leave all questions of public parking to CityCouncil.
4. Change in use for Family Dollar building-- If the new building changes from a Family Dollar
to another use,the applicant will not need to come back for additional site plan review.
However,the applicant will need the Building Inspector to ensure the required parking for
the new use complies with zoning.
5. Fast Food Drive-Thru Special Permit- Once a permit is granted for a fast food drive-thm
facility,the restaurant could change from one fast food type to another. This is why the
Board requested the applicant base the traffic study on the most intense fast-food use, a
coffee/doughnut shop (which is also the intended use). If the coffee/doughnut shop were
converted to a different fast food use,this would be unlikely to pose new problems,since
the peak traffic volumes on Canal Street are in the morning and evening,not during lunch
time.
6. Allowed hours of operation for retail- The Family Dollar could only stay open from 6 a.m
to 11 p.m. - anything beyond that would need Council approval.
-2-
• 7. Plantings from landscaping plan from first SPR- Rick Rennard,head of DPW, agrees with
the suggestion made at our last meeting that the spring would be the best time to replant any
vegetation that did not "take" the first time around.
8. Snow removal areas and bypass lane - Lt. Griffin has told me it's important that snow
removal not interfere with the bypass lane around the drive-through queue. I will put a
condition in the draft decision that addresses this.
3. Public Hearing: Petition of DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
for a Definitive Subdivision Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,
to create three (3) new single-family house lots at 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, Salem,
MA,Assessors Map 9, Lot 0255, and to allow the extension of Circle Hill Road to
serve the new lots.
Discussions with neighbors: At the meetings for the Form B preliminary subdivision for this
property,the Board wanted to ensure that communication would continue with neighbors,
many of whom had concerns about the project,particularly blasting. I spoke to Patrick
DeIulis,who told me he has met with neighbors and continues to be in contact with them
via email. As a result of these discussions,he is planning to repave the street all the way to
where they are tying in to the utilities, rather than simply patching the street (neighbors are
concerned about the street being damaged, since it was so recentlyrepaved). He also plans
to provide a fence and gate at the end of Circle Hill Rd. so that cars could not enter the area
before the development is complete. One of the requests he says he is unable to meet
• concerns the street edge bordering the park- neighbors prefer curbing there, but Patrick
says this will interfere with the drainage plans. Also,the main concern continues to be
blasting, but Patrick says he simply will not know how much blasting will be necessary,or
whether he could use alternative methods to remove rock, until the work begins. He said
the neighbors still prefer that as much of the blasting be done at once, rather than in stages,
and he is willing to do this to the extent possible.
Final Action- Because a preliminary subdivision was done,the number of days the Board
has to act on the subdivision application and notify the City Clerk of the decision is 90 days,
rather than 135 (if no preliminary plan were submitted). The deadline for a decision and
filing it with the City Clerk for this application is January 12,2010.
4. Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE
PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a
Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land
between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem,MA(Assessors Map 41,
Lots 235, 236, 243, 244,246, and 274) into fifteen(15) single-family house lots, the
construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes, and the construction a new street off
of Szetela Lane. Attorney John Keilty.
ZBA: In September 2008,the Zoning Board of Appeals issued dimensional variances to
allow for the construction of single-family homes on the proposed lots to pave the way for a
subdivision application for undersized lots. The decision is included in your packets.
•
_3_
• Ownership: The applicant owns most of the property, but is still in the process of acquiring
parcel 274 from H8&H Propeller(I have a copy of the Purchase and Sale). The City is in the
process of acquiring a portion of parcel 243 and intends to convey it to the applicant.
Because this process is unlikely to be complete by our meeting,I have asked the applicant to
obtain a signature from the current owner authorizing him to go forward with the
application.
Department Review: The application and plans were routed to Fire, Engineering,Building,
Conservation and Health. The Building Inspector has concerns about the lack of snow
storage area and the narrow width of the proposed street- 22 feet rather than the 24
required bysubdivision standards. The CityEngineer recommends civil engineering peer
review. The Conservation Commission will also likelyrequire review,particularlyof the
proposed stormceptor, so if the Planning Board does require peer review,the scope
requested by both boards could be combined. I have not yet received feedback from Health
or Fire.
Other deviations from the subdivision design standards:No grass strips are shown on the
plans; sidewalks are 4'wide instead of 5'; and while 3.5" caliper trees 30'apart are required,
no trees are shown on the plans. Also,utility easements are 10'wide rather than 20'.
WFH Special Permit: The plan triggers the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, since
a small portion of a drainage pipe to be replaced falls within the buffer zone of nearby
wetlands. The applicant is filing a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission for
• this and for other impacts to wetlands that are outside the subdivision site. I have not yet
received a plan that clearly shows the wetlands,proposed pipe and buffer area,but Attorney
Keiltyhas agreed to provide them. These should make the Board's evaluation for the WFH
Special Permit easier.
Final action on subdivision: The Board has 135 days to act on this application. The deadline
for a decision and filing it with the City Clerk is February 27, 2010.
5. Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision Plan
to allow the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem,MA(Assessors
Map 3, Lots 74, 75,,and 76) into eleven(11) new single-family house lots,the
construction of a new street off Highland Avenue, and the construction of eleven(11)
single-family homes. Attorney George Atkins.
ZBA: The Board of Appeals issued dimensional variances for these lots in April 2009.
When the hearing was opened, abutters had concerns about density,traffic, and drainage,
and the proximity between the project and the abutter at 403 Highland Ave. Plans were
revised to address these concerns, and as the decision explains,the Board felt the changes
were adequate (the number of lots was reduced from 12 to 11,decreasing the density and
enlarging the average lot size, for example). The decision is included in your packets.
Department Review: The application and plans have been routed to Fire, Engineering,
• Building, Conservation and Health. The City Engineer,Dave Knowlton, is recommending
peer review for traffic and civil engineering; I have let the applicant know this is a possibility.
Dave is also concerned about the feasibility of constructing a street that does not align with
-4-
• the current intersection at Highland Ave. and Olde Village Drive; he expects Mass Highway
to reject the plan. At the very least,the signals would have to be retimed. Another of
Dave's concerns is that the development would feed into the Ravenna Ave.pump station,
which ah-eadyhas capacity problems. Anyincrease in demand would require significant
upgrades. Dave is in the process of getting a quote for what the necessary upgrades would
cost.
The Building Inspector commented that neighbors'concerns were discussed during the
ZBA application process and expressed a preference that the applicant apply to Council for
acceptance of the proposed street as a public way,rather than leaving it private, as shown on
the plans. Other departments have not yet commented.
Easements: Utility easements are not shown on the plans, but Scott Patrowicz,the engineer,
told me they are unnecessary because utilities are in the road. He also told me that if the
street is to become a public way rather than private,Parcel A and parts of Lots 6 and 7
would become drainage easements.
Street trees : The plans comply with subdivision design standards except that they do not
show trees 30' on center. Scott told me the applicant was planning one tree for each lot,
though this is not shown on the plans. Since the lots are wide (more than 40 feet in some
cases),this would not meet the standard. The distance between trees is something the Board
can discuss and decide to waive if appropriate.
• Final action: The Board has 135 days to act on this application. The deadline for a decision
and filing it with the City Clerk is February 27,2010.
-5-
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
• November 5, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Christine
Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh and Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey
Dupuis, Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of October 15, 2009 were reviewed.
There being no comments on this matter, a motion was made by John Moustakis to accept the minutes,
seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved unanimously.
Old/New Business
Request of Angelo Meimeteas for approval of insignificant change to a Definitive Subdivision Plan at
the end of Cloverdale Street, Map 8, Lots 269, 280 and Map 9, Lot 122.
Chuck Puleo said that when this project was originally approved in 2001, most present members were
• on the Board, but not all. He explained that this project (which is off of Glenn Avenue, off of
Marlborough Road) is a 3 lot subdivision and that Angelo Meimeteas is proposing to not have to build
sidewalks. Chuck said it's recorded in the original decision that he put sidewalks and this request would
waive that requirement. He says It's a short street and they also required a guard rail, which is shown
on the plan. Chuck said he would like to know if he's going to put curbing in or eliminate it entirely.
Chuck Puleo suggested the board decide whether Mr. Meimeteas should come in to explain how he's
going to treat the rest of the street. Gene Collins remembered that originally they were concerned
about the direction of the water draining off the street. Chuck Puleo noted there is a double catch basin
at the end of the street.
Danielle McKnight said there are two families whose houses originally had sidewallk proposed in front
of them, and both have submitted letters saying they prefer the sidewalk be eliminated in front of their
homes, but that there was also a third neighbor who contacted the Planning Department in opposition,
saying he thought there should be a public hearing if the sidewalks were to be eliminated. She
explained the issue arose when the Planning Dept. contacted Mr. Meimeteas regarding timing of
completing his roadwork,. Tim Ready recalled this request being before the Board about 18 months ago
and says Mr. Meimeteas was directed to meet with the neighbors and bring information back to the
Board.
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to request Angelo Meimeteas to come before the Planning
Board to explain his plan for the street, sidewalks and curbing, seconded by Tim Ready and approved
unanimously. A letter will be sent to Mr. Meimeteas stating same.
• Continuation of Public Hearing:Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit-Fast Food-
Petition of Snakebite Realty LLC.The proposed project is a fast food facility with a drive-through on
the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through on the property located at 142 Canal
Street (Assessors Map 33, Lot 006).
1
Danielle McKnight recently spoke to Mr. DiLullo and informed him that the traffic study is still being
• reviewed by one of the city's on-call engineers, not as a formal peer review, but just to help the City
Engineer evaluate the applicant's study. She says Mr. DiLullo preferred waiting two weeks to the next
meeting until the review was finished.
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the public hearing to November 191", seconded by
Nadine Hanscom and approved unanimously.
Chuck Puleo explained that since there were three new subdivision hearings, about 45 minutes would
be allowed for each during the meeting.
Public Hearing: Petition of DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc.,for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,to create three(3) new single-family house lots
at 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, Salem, MA,Assessors Map 9, Lot 0255,and to allow the extension of Circle
Hill Road to serve the new lots.
Patrick Delulis, petitioner, explained that they received an approval with the preliminary plan, and were
directed to address two issues in the definitive plan, which he says they have done. He says the first was
to extend the sidewalk on the opposite side of Circle Hill Rd around to the park from where it currently
ends on Circle Hill Road. He says they will create a walkway from that sidewalk into the park to give
clear definition to where the sidewalk ends and the park begins. Mr. Delulis said the other issue he had
been asked to address was drainage. On the park side of the roadway they had provided for overland
drainage and so there was no curbing on that side of roadway. However, he said there is an
• embankment around a certain portion of the cul-de-sac before it leveled off with the park and is at
grade with the street, so they have provided on the plan a guard rail. Mr. Delulis said he spoke with the
City Engineer about it, and he said as long as it meets Mass Highway specs he was fine with it. He says
the neighbors would prefer a wood guard rail, which they are proposing. Chuck Puleo said he was
concerned about the use of wood,just in thinking of long-term maintenance. Mr. Delulis said he would
do whatever the Board preferred. He said a guardrail will be provided so that no cars could skid down
the embankment and into park. He said they spoke with neighbors and they are open to another
possible barricade system including fencing, or continuing a guardrail. He says whatever they put there,
they would prefer it be set back off the grass swale area which is provided to handle overland drainage.
Mr. Delulis said they did some additional analysis in terms of the overland drainage scheme and made
some modifications, including crowning the road a little more in the center to push water more across
the cul-de-sac so it wouldn't go down Circle Hill Road, and creating ridgelines so that landscaping and
contours act as a natural barrier directing water away from the street and abutting properties. The says
they are trying to capture as much water from the lots as possible and direct it to the park.
Mr. Delulis said they are all R1 conforming lots, and they're not asking for any waivers from subdivision
regulations. He said all utilities will be underground. He also says they've met with the neighbors
multiple times, and they've been to the Conservation Commission. He says they feel they have a plan
that covers everything.
Chuck Puleo says he understands neighbors are concerned about the patching of the road; Mr Delulis
says they will take the pavement back to the utilities where they'll connect with water, sewer&gas,
before the finish coat. If they trench, they will patch that. Chuck Puleo asks about the location of the
• fire hydrant and says he would like the fire department and/or City Engineer's opinion of its placement.
Chuck Puleo asks for clarification of which contour lines are existing and which are proposed. Scott
Patrowicz, Project Engineer, explained that on the plans, the green lines are existing contours, purple
2
lines are proposed. Chuck Puleo noticed that the contours look to be almost level with the road. Scott
said they pulled the ridge line further to take more water to the back of property rather than front.
• Chuck Puleo asks if short of compl(kting the building sites, they will complete all the grading shown on
the plan? Mr. Delulis says they wido all the woRk outside of the existing roadway and bring that grade
down before tying into utilities. They will deliver with the finished proposed grades as shown. He also
says they will do as much of the ledge removal as possible when they are doing the roadwork. Chuck
says he wants to clarify that these will be the finished grades at the time that the lots are sold, and
wants to make sure finished grades for the lots are referenced in the approved plans; Mr. Delulis says
they would.
Gene Collins asks about the drainage on the side of McGrath Park and asks where the retention basin
would be; and how would the water be kept off the abutting properties? Mr. Delulis says the aren't
constructing a retention basin, and the water would percolate into the ground because of the grading
they propose, and they don't anticipate any standing water.
Gene Collins asks about the proposed sidewalk and guardrail and the reason for where they are placed ;
Mr. Delulis explains the function of the guardrail, and that it's placed in the park so as not to interfere
with the Swale needed for drainage. He says as it exists now, there is a lot of water that goes down the
slope into neighbor's yards; they're trying to minimize that. He says there is a naturally occurring storm
water retention basin in the area, to which water will be directed. He also says playground equipment
will need to be relocated but they are unsure how the City wants it done. Danielle said they will work
with Doug Bollen to determine who is responsible for moving the equipment. Patrick Delulis said they'd
be willing to move it, but they need to know where to move it to. Danielle said will be talking to Doug
Bollen about the playground reconstruction.
• Nadine Hanscom asked if they will be building homes and who would be responsible for utilities. Patrick
Delulis explained that they will be building the lots with infrastructure, lines will be brought in to each
property, then selling the lots. They will post signs that say'work area' and gate at end so that access
into the work area from the park would be difficult during construction.
Chuck Puleo opens up the issue for public comment
Richard Sakowich, 36 Circle Hill Road, said there was not much opposition anymore to this, other than
the sidewalk and blasting issue—he feels the sidewalk on the park side should be extended further.
Also, he would like all blasting be done at once. Chuck Puleo said he understood from previous
meetings that the neighbors were concerned that about possible damage to existing water/sewer pipes
in the course of the new pipes being put in, and that they would need to do a preconstruction survey
prior to blasting. Mr. Delulis said they would deal with the main but didn't know how many of the other
connections they would be able to survey. Chuck Puleo said their work would extend well beyond the
first two houses, and they should at least look at the connections in front of those two.
Tim Ready said since the roadway has recently been resurfaced leading up to the park, were there any
complaints about that construction? Ward 4 Councilor Ryan said he didn't get any complaints.
Chuck Puleo asks for clarification of where the sidewalk ends; Mr. Delulis shows on the plan where the
sidewalk ends and explains there is no curbing as they are trying to spread the water into the park.
• Scott Patrowicz explains this is a low-impact development technique recommended by DEP to handle
stormwater, and says it's preferable to catch basins draining to point sources. Nadine thought that with
the cul-de-sac not having curbing, it may not be aesthetically appealing, and couldn't they place a pipe
around the cul-de-sac and construct curbing. Scott said that in this situation, the best solution is to
3
spread out the drainage over the entire cul-de-sac to handle the water. He says the other way would be
to have a point source discharge, but the ConComm doesn't want them to direct it into the wetlands
• without treating it first, and there wouldn't be any room to do that in the cul-de-sac. Chuck Puleo asks
for clarification on the plans as to where exactly the sidewalk begins and ends. Regarding reflectors at
circle for snow removal, Patrick Delulis said that there is a high guard rail that they could possibly put an
extension on.
Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, said he spoke with residents and many are concerned about
blasting. He's concerned about fencing off the area from the park for kids, so they won't try to get in
the work area. Patrick Delulis reiterated that they will post signs during construction, after that, they
won't have anything there blocking the road that will be a nuisance. He mentioned that they have a
timeline to build the road, but no timeline to sell the property.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, mentioned that there is a playground and soccer fields at
McGrath Park nearby, and wondered if the roads built would cause more runoff into the park or soccer
field. Patrick Delulis explained that McGrath park is quite large and it would be too far away to suffer
any impacts from this development. He said they will be maintaining the water on the property,
discharged and percolated into the ground.
Tim Ready said that the last time these folks were at a Planning Board meeting, they were sent to the
neighborhood to talk with the residents, they did that, and brought Councilor Ryan with them, and they
should be commended.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready to continue the public hearing to
• November 19th, seconded by Christine Sullivan and unanimously approved.
Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and
Flood Hazard District Special Permit,and for a Definitive Subdivision Plan,to allow the subdivision of
92,740 square feet of land between Szetela Lane and Fort Avenue, Salem, MA(Assessors Map 41, Lots
235, 236, 243, 244, 246 and 274) into fifteen (15)single-family house lots,the construction of fifteen
(15)single-family homes, and the construction of a new street off of Szetela Lane.
Attorney John Keilty, Lowell Street, Peabody, representing Shallop Landing, explained that there are 15
proposed single family lots. Some are accessed by Szetela Lane, some by Shallop Lane and some by Fort
Avenue. There are proposed retaining walls on the northeast side and on southwest side with an
average of 2 %_ -3 ft, highest of 4 ft. They have been to the Zoning Board of Appeals for relieve from lot
area. Now they are looking for a Special Permit for wetlands and for approval of roadway for the
definitive subidivison plan. The water, sewer and gas will be from Fort Avenue onto Shallop Lane and
drainage is down Szetela Lane. He says they are going to ConComm next week. He says there will be
reconstruction of a pipe on Szetela Lane which triggers the Wetlands and Flood Hazard special permit
and Filing of Notice of intent.
Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey explained that Essex St. turns into Szetela Lane at the southerly
side of railroad tracks. Parcel D is the vacant land, across from H&H propeller. The radius of the cul-de-
sac is 85.76.The fire department requires a radius of 90 ft. The City Engineer is recommending civil
peer review of this project.
• Chuck Puleo added that the street is shown as 22 ft wide, and the city standards are 24 ft, so can they
make it wider?Jim McDowell said there are sidewalks on both sides which could be made narrower and
add that to the street width. Chuck commented that there doesn't seem to be much room for snow
4
removal, and also asked if the homeowners would be responsible for this. Atty Keilty responded that
since this is not a condo, they will not have private snow removal. Nadine Hanscom pointed out that this
• land is highly contaminated. Attorney Jack Keilty said that they are working with LSP getting estimates
and information on what clean up would entail in order for this land to be used for single-family homes.
He suggested that the LSP come to next meeting to explain the plans.
John Moustakis said that sidewalks are usually 5 ft, but they're asking for 4ft. Roads are usually 24 ft,
they're asking for 22ft and there are no grass strips. He says there seems to be a problem with the
roadway before they start, it seems like everything is squeezed in. Tim Ready agreed that it clearly is
squeezed in, and thought they should hear from the city engineer and city experts on their opinions.Jim
McDowell corrected the earlier number, saying the cul-de-sac radius is actually 45 ft, so the outside
diameter is the required 90. Gene Collins suggested that they make it known if is there an opportunity
to widen the road or not, and if not, Board would need to discuss what concessions would have to be
made. Jim McDowell explained that these single family homes are designed smaller for empty nesters
and will be set back about 18 ft, there will be a 2 car garage with room for 2 cars out front. He says this
dictated the depth of the lots, and that's how they established the width of the roadway. Gene Collins
wondered if they could take a foot off of each lot to get the road into compliance at 24 ft.Jim McDowell
said that there are some options for the roadway, they will take a look at them and come back to the
Board. He says there is a high water mark at Collins cove with a 100 foot buffer, and they propose to
drain Shallop Landing to a low point, build a new drain 18 inches in diameter off the roadway towards a
stormcepter they will put in. This will go to a storm drain manhole, which they will change to a 24 inch
drain and put a tide gate at the end of that. He says all of this will be under the jurisdiction of Wetlands
Protection Act. Nadine was concerned about emergency vehicles getting by with cars parked on the
street. Jim McDowell said there is parking on one side only with a street width of 24 ft, which would
. leave about 13 ft, enough room for emergency vehicles to get by. Christine Sullivan said she didn't think
the road needed to be 24 feet wide—22 was wide enough, and if necessary, perhaps parking could be
restricted to one side of the street.
Chuck Puleo asked about the proposed filling. Jim McDowell explained that as part of management of
hazardous material, as directed by their LSP, it's to cap it with vegetative cap which needs to be 3 ft
above existing grade. Philip Singleton, of Shallop Landing, said all the 1400 sq ft homes are built on slabs,
have a 2 car garage and room in front of garage for 2 car parking. He said grading will be fairly level
across all lots. Chuck Puleo asked about the ownership of the parking lot(Parcel B); Atty Keilty said H&H
Propeller will probably lease the parking lot from Shallop Landing with some restrictions on what could
be parked in that lot. Chuck asked if any of the parking area could be used by the new homes; Mr.
Singleton said the neighbors did not want that.
Chuck Puleo opens the issue up for public comment
Francis Page, 28 Webb Street, said that on his street there is a drainage problem around the retaining
wall which abuts their property, and would this development affect runoff? He asks what the empty lot
on the plan would be used for, and if it was used for dumping, that would be a fire hazard to his
property. He also asks if they intend to build a fence along the wall. He also wants to know what the
plan is for drainage, since the site is contaminated, and he expressed concern that the water would be
percolating through contaminated soil and into neighboring properties.
Jim McDowell said that the retaining wall height is about 2 %feet, so that they can grade the land away
• from his property and toward Shallop Lane. He says at the time they build the wall, they could put in an
impervious barrier behind the wall, and this would keep water from going towards their property. He
said they are not proposing a fence.
5
Ruth Page, 28 Webb Street, asks how much space there will be between the development and her
property. Jim McDowell indicates on the plans.
• Jim McDowell says they would be pre-clad block walls; they are looking to avoid any extra excavation on
the site. He says the walls would have nice looking materials and provide opportunity for impervious
barriers. Chuck Puleo would like details on the walls. Philip Singleton said they would put up a fence
along the wall.
Councillor Robert McCarthy said that over a year ago he had asked, but still had not heard the response,
about a 20 ft easement at this site that SESD owns, and this hasn't been addressed. He says the
easement runs along railroad tracks which would go right through 2 or 3 houses of the proposed houses,
and there is a pipe currently there. He says SESD owns the pipe and the easement. He says they're SESD
is trying to negotiate with the City on this land, but SESD has been dragging their feet and have not
made a decision. He says he knows the Mayor and administration have been talking to them and trying
to resolve this, but it hasn't happened yet. Another point Councilor McCarthy brought up was the
retaining wall—he asked what type of blocks they would be using for the wall. Jim McDowell said that
they would use 6 to 8 inch blocks, not the big 2-footers.
Councillor McCarthy also wondered where they are going to stack the snow, since this is a very tight
site. He also mentioned the 13 houses will be single floor, but what if someone buys a house and then
wants to add on a second floor in a few years? He asks if there will be a covenant preventing that. He
says that would mean maybe more bedrooms, more people in the house and more parking. Danielle
McKnight said by right they can't build a two family houses by right, even though this is in the R2 zone,
because they would need relief from lot area per dwelling unit from the ZBA, but any single-family
• house can build a second story.
Councillor McCarthy also gave the developer a lot of credit, saying he has attended a lot of meetings and
has gone through a variety of plans. He would like to see some development on this land as it's not
attractive but he wants it done right and doesn't want it to affect the surrounding homes.
In response to the question about the easement, Attorney John Keilty said Beth Rennard has been
working with John Dowling at SESD to establish how that will be done. He said they are doing an
appraisal, and SESD will determine whether they need it or not, but he thought they would not need to
keep it, since they're not using it. He said the only questions for SESD are whether or not they will
release the easement, whether they will ask for money, and whether they want the pipe removed.
Philip Singleton said they would be reluctant to remove the pipe, they would rather cover it. Chuck
Puleo asked about the use of the pipe today; Jim McDowell responded that records to date show a
bulkhead has been built over it and that the pipe is not part of the SESD system. He says there are no
manholes nearby; the nearest one is on Derby Street. He says the city will extinguish the easement
before they buy it.
Francis Page, 28 Webb St., asked if there are any power wires as he thought the power plant put wires
under the properties. Jim McDowell stated that there is nothing in the title search that shows any
easement for wires. Tim Ready commended Councilor McCarthy with his continued efforts with the
community.
Danielle McKnight received a call from Helen Twardowsky of 9 English street, she's concerned with
. traffic, aesthetics, and the height of houses (blocking view).
A motion was made by Tim Ready to continue the public hearing to November 19`h, seconded by Gene
Collins and approved unanimously.
6
. Public Hearing: Petition of Paul Ferragamo for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to allow the subdivision of
405-419 Highland Avenue,Salem, MA(Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75 and 76) into eleven (11) new
single-family house lots, the construction of a new street off Highland Avenue, and the construction of
eleven (11)single-family homes.
Attorney George Atkins, representing Paul Ferragamo, gave brief overview. Last May they brought in
proposal for 12 houses to the Board of Appeals, which was reduced to 11. He says the Zoning Board
made some changes to accommodate the neighbors. Since then, he says there have been many
changes: they have moved some parking areas, and there will be a landscape buffer/easement along
one side between the roadway and an abutter. He says this project is an attempt to make a small
neighborhood. He says there are sidewalks on both sides, and the sidewalk would be extended down to
Highland Ave where there isn't one now. He says the site itself is a difficult site to develop because of
ledge. There will be blasting requirements. He also says the engineering of drainage is difficult because
of the site. The City Engineer has requested a peer review and getting a traffic engineer but Attorney
Atkins explains to the Board why he thinks this is unnecessary. He says they will need a curb cut
permit from Mass Highway, so Attorney Atkins suggested that the approval be conditional upon the
developer getting a curb cut permit from Mass Highway. If there are changes during the Mass Highway
process, they will need to come back..
Scott Patrowicz said since the road slopes, they made a 10%slope to level that area up, and that set the
elevations for the houses. He says they are trying to blast as little as possible. He says the goal of storm
drainage is to sub divide each area into small little areas, then grade around house, then grade into a
small swale then into crushed stone. The houses are set so there is a patio that is higher than Highland
Ave, about 10 ft or so that their yards are not on Highland Avenue. He'll be giving drainage calculations
to Dave Knowlton on Monday. There is a sidewalk on both sides, grass strip will be small swale with
crushed stone and will go into catch basins. Each catch basin is connected two leeching basins, then
into sediment Torbay and into a bigger detention basin. On one side, he says the state has provided 10
inch pipe that will provide overflow. He says there are a lot of water and sewer lines on Highland Ave
and an 8 inch water main on Clark St, and they are going to connect with a 16 inch water main on
Highland Ave. He says they are not looping the water main near Clark Street so that it won't impact
that street at all. He says they will be using the EnvironmentOneSystem used all over Gloucester, and
says Dave Knowlton is familiar with it, it's used in the Vinnin Square area. He says some homes'
drainage is going into certain manholes that he showed on the drawing, and 4 homes will pump into a
different manhole and then some will use gravity.
Attorney Atkins said there is snow storage on parcel A. That parcel would remain owned by Paul
Ferragamo, but the city would use it for snow storage. If necessary, they could have a neighborhood
association for snow removal.
Harry Gunderson, Architect, explained when they began working on this project the concept has always
been to bring a road through and work with the contours of the property. He says they have designed
the houses so that they are dimensionally small, 2,000 sq ft range. There is a steep slope towards
Highland Ave. There will be uphill houses and downhill houses. For houses on the uphill side you would
walk onto patio, then up into house; on the downhill side you would walk down onto patio. They feel
this neighborhood would be quite walkable. Attorney Atkins said for the location and size of houses,
. they would be moderately priced,. John Moustakis wondered if there is any landscaping there.
Attorney Atkins said there are trees and shrubs there and they will try to save as much as they can,
they don't want houses exposed to Highland Ave. Chuck Puleo added that they would want to buffer
the homes from the sights and sounds of Highland Ave. Attorney Atkins said they also heard from
7
neighbors that there is some water pressure issues. He says Scott Patrowicz has designed it so that the
water pump station down the street would not be affected since it has some problems.
• Issue opened up for public comment
Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, said he has been meeting with the Lowes developer and the
architects, they'd like to meet with board before the end of the year. He says this project is still in the
works and it will include improvement to the pump station and water tank.
Christopher Lane, 403 Highland Ave, wondered if the meeting with Lowes is a public meeting; Councillor
Ryan said not at this stage. Mr. Lane commended the folks working on this project and the councilor
and says they have been accommodating to neighbors' requests.
Tim Ready wondered what"moderately priced" meant; Paul Ferragamo said in the high 300's .
Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, is concerned that they will be blocking off Clark St., the intent is for both ends
to be open and that right now it's only a right or left turn off of Old Village Drive. She said Mass
highway redid the poles and handicap ramps. Attorney Atkins believes the position of that location will
create a right turn only, they don't think anyone will be able to do left turn there. Chuck was concerned
with there being no breakdown lane on certain parts of Highland Ave it will be hard to try to make a
right hand turn. Scott Patrowicz said they could make that turn a gentler curve which is possible.They
have a leveling area, so turning off would be a radius issue.
Dennis Colbert, 37 Clark Street, is concerned with the end of Clark St. being open with Dunkin Donuts
traffic. He said he thought there was supposed to be a fire gate installed. Right now, he said large
• tractor trailers go down there with difficulty.
Wayne Silva, 20 Barnes Circle, said right now they have 20 ft of buffer on his property and he's
concerned that it will be opened up. He says he doesn't want to hear Highland Avenue. Attorney
George Atkins asked if fencing would be address this.
Councillor Jean Pelletier, Ward 3, said he was under the impression from the ZBA meetings that that was
going to be blocked off with a fire gate,just for traffic alone. Atty Atkins said it had been discussed, but
was not a condition of the decision. Councillor Pelletier said he thought it should be one, since traffic
was a problem and this project would aggravate the intersection; also, a gate would prevent people
cutting through the development.
Councillor Pelletier also said he appreciated Mr. Ferragamo's work with the neighbors, and was glad the
project had been scaled down from the original proposal, and that even with the congestion in the area,
this time they have it right. He said he thought the Board should listen to Atty Atkins and get this before
Mass Highway for the curb cuts. Also, he said he would like to know the exact square footage for the
radius of the blasting, and he would like the abutters list for blasting and he wants the Board to have a
copy of the blasting regulations. Gene Collins said these were available at the Fire Department.
Councillor Pelletier said he was happy to see the developer using low-impact development techniques
to manage stormwater, though he is still concerned about whether manholes would be put in—and he
indicated areas of the plan where he's concerned about increased runoff. He suggested placing a pipe
across the entire street. Scott Patrowicz explained the drainage system. He says they will have crushed
• stone so the water would percolate, then overflow to another basin. Councillor Pelletier asked if they
would be dead-ending the water line and said they should talk to the City Engineer about that. He said
he also was going to speak to Dave Knowlton about the condition of that pumping station on Ravenna
8
Ave. He said if that pumping station would be negatively impacted, he asked for the Board's assistance
in getting the developer to contribute to it.
Councillor Pelletier said he also wanted to remind the Board that only Council could give new streets
names—developers name their streets, but the names need to be confirmed by Council. He said the
City Clerk asked him to address this with the Board. Chuck Puleo said they only go by what's proposed
on the plan. Christine Sullivan said a project might have a street name indicated on a plan, but the
Board knew that the only people who could name a street were Council. Atty Atkins points out there is
no name given to the street on this subdivision.
Councillor Pelletier said again he thought the fire gate issue was very important, and. Chuck Puleo said
the fire dept will give their opinion on the fire gate and may not like blocking one end.
Attorney Atkins said he would like to get going on the peer review right away. Danielle suggested the
Board needed to decide whether they need a traffic review. Danielle says they need to get an estimate
from whoever will be doing the peer review. Gene Collins felt that a traffic review is redundant, since
Mass Highway would already be reviewing the curb cut. Other Board members agreed that they clearly
understood the impacts associated with 11 single family homes.
Nadine Hanscom thanked Attorney Atkins for his presentation, which she said was thorough and easy to
understand.
A motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the public hearing to November 19`h seconded by John
Moustakis and approved unanimously.
• Old/New
John Moustakis thought the Board should have copies of blasting regulations, and have someone here
to explain them. Danielle says she spoke to the fire department about this, but Lt. Griffin prefers that
the Planning Department refer people directly to her rather than giving out the regulations themselves.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to adjourn, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved.
Meeting adjourned at 10 pm
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 12/17/09
•
9
w City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board PI&evjl 'IAj D0
Date II / S / 02-
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
a� 9,7(f-7s°5'_
-�3 ylf
Lf
S '��a- LAhiF �y� f�yacp ASF_ %7S- 7vZ- 9K CCPr1E�F/AA�NC, car,
lyS-9Z_71
c,2�c� �((Alf:
�� �.1 91 l ,! -i 3k zs� u, tee, cp aO
i.
3layV (4,JL 926- F, C)G Yeo
FAVL Fetz,/L/� 612M o 2
Pagel of�
l_
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2009 OCT -8 P I: 50
CITY CLEi;'t,
NOTICE OF MEETING
You arr hereby nwfral that the Salem Plaww g Band uill hold its ngulady sd dined rrreting on
Thursday, October 15,2009 at 7:00 pm at City Had Army,Room 313, 120 Washington Stroe
Gaarle M. Puleq
Gbaimun
MEETING AGENDA
L Approval of Minutes
➢ 9/17/09 Planning Board meeting.
2. Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- 1 and 5
Florence Street(Map 34 Lots 273 and 102). Benny J. Fisheries Ltd. and Anthony J. Picariello
• represented by Attorney George Atkins.
3. Public Hearing: 12 First St. Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit- Petition of
Goodman Networks,on behalf of Sprint/Clearwire for the property located at 12 First Street
(Assessor's Map 13,Lot 6). The proposed project includes the relocation of two (2) existing antennas to
a different position on the existing arrays, and the addition of four(4) new backhaul antennas, on the
rooftop of the existing Pequot Highlands Apartment Complex.
4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit-
Fast Food- Petition of Snakebite RealtyLLC. The proposed project is a fast food facility with a drive-
through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through on the property located at 142
Canal Street (Assessors Map 33,Lot 006).
5. Old/New Business
6. Adjournment
This nottot. poet®d on "Officlal BOOM Boar"
;Ify Hall Salem, Mass. on 0a. 4" ,_206g
:a /.,6z el, r=ftM Wt1 Com. 39 1
251A A 20 of U.0
�106V:?�Ia :A(,Int SrRLk Ss51.tA., 1 1C 1l 11.'16 (II910 ' PI i()N97J.619.565 x ;'.S t:"'i"C(Ai
r :C
(6 R!
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner B'K
DATE: October 7, 2009
RE: Agenda- October 15,2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Newly Recodified Zoning Ordinance
➢ Agenda
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Recodified Zoning Ordinance
Enclosed in your packet is a copy of the new Zoning Ordinance, adopted by Council on September
10, 2009.
• Notes on Agenda Items
Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- 1 and 5
Florence Street(Map 34 Lots 273 and 102). Benny J. Fisheries Ltd. and Anthony J. Picariello
represented by Attorney George Atkins.
I have not received any updates about this application. Attorney Atkins extended final action until
10/16/09, so the Board will need to act at the 10/15 meeting unless he extends it further.
Public Hearing: 12 First St. Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit- Petition of
Goodman Networks, on behalf of Sprint/Clearwire for the property located at 12 First Street
(Assessor's Map 13,Lot 6). The proposed project includes the relocation of two (2) existing
antennas to a different position on the existing arrays, and the addition of four(4) new
backhaul antennas, on the rooftop of the existing Pequot Highlands Apartment Complex.
The application was routed to Conservation, Engineering,Building,Fire Prevention and Health.
Conservation and Health responded that their input/involvement is not needed. The other
departments have not commented.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special
Permit- Fast Food- Petition of Snakebite Realty LLC. The proposed project is a fast food
facility with a drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through
on the property located at 142 Canal Street(Assessors Map 33,Lot 006).
Dan Dilullo has submitted a revised plan, which is scaled and shows the proposed new fast-food
• drive-through with the required stacking spaces. The previously approved bank drive-through
allowed the Board to use its discretion in determining an appropriate number of stacking spaces.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALYM.COM
However,fast food drive-through special permits require 8 stacking spaces (20 feet long and 10 feet
wide; 12 feet wide where curved). The revised plan shows 10 stacking spaces, but the first two are
• slightly undersized, measuring approximately 19 feet. The width of the spaces along straight
segments is adequate,but the widths along the curved segments do not appear to be 12 feet wide.
However,there appears to be adequate space around the stacking spaces - there is a by-pass lane
around the stacking lane - together,they are 33 feet wide.
Fast food drive-throughs also require 4 stacking spaces between the order board and the transaction
window;the revised plans show 5 spaces. The entrance to the stacking lane must be 20 feet from
the curb cut measured at the property line;the plan shows a distance of 80 feet.
•
2
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
• October 15,2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third
Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Gene Collins, and Tim
Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. Absent: Nadine Hanscom
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of September 17, 2009 were reviewed.
There being no comments on this matter, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to accept the minutes, seconded by
John Moustakis and approved unanimously.
Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- 1 and 5 Florence Street(Map 34 Lots
273 and 102). Benny J. Fisheries Ltd. and Anthony J. Picariello represented by Attorney George Atkins.
Danielle McKnight explained that Attorney George Atkins requested that this application be withdrawn for now because
there are ownership issues that he wants to clear up before going ahead.
Gene Collins made a motion to allow withdrawal without prejudice, seconded by John Moustakis and approved
*animously.
Public Hearing: 12 First St.Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit-Petition of Goodman Networks,on behalf
of Sprint/Clearwire for the property located at 12 First Street(Assessor's Map 13, Lot 6).The proposed project
includes the relocation of two(2)existing antennas to a different position on the existing arrays, and the addition of
four(4) new backhaul antennas, on the rooftop of the existing Pequot Highlands Apartment Complex.
Heather Carlisle presented on behalf of Clearwire; Patty Masterson of Clearwire was also present. She explains that
Clearwire has a relationship with Sprint and First Street is an existing Sprint site. Clearwire will utilize Sprint's existing
antennas, moving them slightly and will add four backhaul antennas. Chuck Puleo asked for clarification of which
antennas they were theirs. Heather showed which two sets of antennas they were theirs—on the upper level at 135 ft.
She explained this work is part of an equipment upgrade—the backhaul antennas eliminate wires and brings wireless
communication outside (it is 4G network). Eventually they plan to re-do all their antennas this way. She says Clearwire
hopes to start selling their services next summer; they will be available to residents and commercial sites.
Chuck Puleo opened up the item for public comment; no comments were made, and he closes the public comment
portion.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim
Ready and unanimously approved.
Chuck Puleo asked if they had to do any other reconstruction to the equipment or anything else on the building; Heather
16rlisle said no.
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the proposed project, seconded by Gene Collis and unanimously
approved.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit-Fast Food-Petition of
akebite Realty LLC.The proposed project is a fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a previously
proved bank with a drive-through on the property located at 142 Canal Street(Assessors Map 33, Lot 006).
Dan DiLullo of DiLullo Associates, Inc presented. He said the Family Dollar is now open and functioning well. He reviews
the current application, saying that at the time of approval for this project, an 1800 square foot section of the building
was approved as a bank drive-through. He says the owner of the building has been talking with donut/coffee shop
establishments that are very interested in that section of the building, but they don't want to commit yet. Reviewing
the contents of his application, he says that drawings showing the as-built site plan and the new fast-food drive-through
were provided to the Board members. Chuck Puleo noticed that the current plan doesn't show as much snow storage as
on previously approved plans of this site. Also, he says that some stacking spaces at the drive-through don't seem to
adhere to the required footage. Dan DiLullo said that the requirement for queuing is 8 cars, and they have 10, so if any
spaces were undersized, there would be ample room since more spaces are shown than required. He also said the
discrepancy might be due to how they were measured—he measured the length of the spaces from the center, so along
the curved spaces,they might appear undersized if they were measured from the innermost point. Chuck Puleo
mentioned that since these new plans have circulated, he wants to make sure Fire Prevention is okay with the amount
of space around the queuing area. John Moustakis suggested having a "right turn only"turn at the entrance area to
possibly help ease the traffic flow. Dan DiLullo said that is reasonable and may help. John Moustakis noticed that the
landscaping vegetation at the site didn't take. Dan Dilullo explained that it all has a one year warranty and that in the
spring they can take out what didn't work and re-do it.
Rob Woodland, a licensed Traffic Engineer of Woodland Design Group, reviewed the traffic study that they did for the
proposed coffee shop style drive through. He said they did traffic counts in July and on September 15th, after school
and the Dollar Store had been open a couple of weeks. In the morning, he said the volume count was 250 cars heavier
wing southbound towards the school, and all the other counts were about the same as their previous study. Mr.
oodland said that since the store doesn't open until late morning, the only traffic activity they saw at the store was the
manager opening the store to prepare for the day.
Mr. Woodland said they wanted to get a sense of other traffic operations in the area so they looked at Bagel World,
McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts sites; he shows the Board aerial photos of each of these sites. He shows how Bagel
World has a narrow stacking distance for only 4 or 5 cars before spilling into street; he says Dunkin Donuts' stacking is
not too bad; and McDonalds' stacking looks like it meets the standards of the ordinance. He says that on the 142 Canal
St. site,there is an existing drive-through window that could possibly be moved back to allow for more queuing,though
he didn't think it would need to be moved. Currently, he says there is room for at least 4 cars between the pickup
window and menu board, and there are 10 spaces at least 50 ft from the street, so stacking would be 15 or 17 cars
before it interfered with anything on the road. Of the facilities reviewed, he says this has the longest stacking queue.
Mr. Woodland reviewed the trip generations for this type of facility. He says he found that for coffee/donut facilities,
80%are pass-by trips, those that can take a right in, right out. Right now, he says there are about 900 cars traveling
southbound and 500 traveling northbound by the site. He says that since the site is on the southbound site,for many
this would be a pass-by trip. For new trips, he says there would be a net increase of 39 cars in the morning, 17 in the
evening, with about 40%would be coming to and from the north and roughly 60%to and from the south. He says this
project would be generating a relatively small amount of traffic; existing sites with some difficult left exits will not
experience more difficulties because of this project; and existing coffee places on the other side will capture some of the
flow because of convenience of making a right turn rather than a left.
uck Puleo asked about the number of turns into the driveway, and Mr. Woodland said that they would be going from
out 6 left turns into each driveway to about 26 turns. Also, he says there are about 16,000 to 17,000 cars a day that
travel on Canal Street. John Moustakis asked about the flow of traffic coming in and out of the driveway. Rob Woodland
explained that the activity right now is low and that some parking spaces would be taken up since there will be some
tables inside to sit down.
em Ready pointed out that the drawing shows three parking spots directly behind the coffee shop in front of the menu
board and suggested they block those out because it looks like a dangerous area to park, given that the drive-through
queue goes around those spaces. Rob Woodland said they can designate those spaces for employees only, since they
would arrive before the business opened and leave after it closed and would not need to cut through the queue.
Christine Sullivan noticed on the plan that when entering the site and heading towards the queue,there doesn't seem to
be enough space between the corner of building with the parking and the ramp. Rob Woodland said there is 27 ft in
between the ramp,the corner of the building and the existing retail building. He suggested making some difficult
parking spaces employee spaces, so that there is a low turnover rate for those spaces. Tim Ready asked if the Fire
Department requirements have been satisfied. Danielle will contact the Fire Department and check, and said she would
find out how parking would be reviewed again if other buildings on the site have a change of use.
Chuck Puleo opened the issue up for public comment.
Polly Wilbert,7 Cedar Street, asked if they took into consideration that there is parking on that side of Canal Street. Rob
Woodland mentioned that when he was there for traffic counts, about 16 hours,there weren't any cars parked there.
Chuck Puleo said he noticed that there is a 30 minute parking limit sign in front of the Hertz building, so someone could
conceivably park on that side, and there doesn't appear to be a sign that prohibits parking on that side. Polly Wilbert
also mentioned that it's possible that the coffee shop could wind up serving lunch, since once a fast food permit is
granted, it doesn't specify the type of restaurant, adding to the afternoon hours. Also, she said the Family Dollar store
could open earlier than they do now, and that they should take all this into consideration because this part of Canal
Street is very busy.
landra Power, 18 Loring Ave, representing the Beautification Committee, says she hopes thisproject's landscaping will
be maintained; she suggests waiting until Spring to replant any dying vegetation to improve its chance of survival. She
said Canal Street is going to be reconstructed and wants to see this site contributing to the improvement of the area.
Dan DiLullo said that it's to the owner s benefit that the street looks good, and they're hopeful that the rail trail in the
back is improved as well.
Marsha Lambert, 26 Charles Street, asked what would happen if during the process an entirely different store wants to
go in, do they have to reapply under Site Plan Review? Chuck Puleo thought that if it was food-related use,they would
have to come back. Danielle McKnight said it may not have to come to the Board if it's something other than fast food
use—she will check.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready to continue the hearing to November 5th,
seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and unanimously approved.
Gene Collins thanked Rob Woodland for his thorough presentation.
Old/New Business
Christine Sullivan suggested that since Dave Weiner resigned, the Board should acknowledge his contribution. Chuck
Puleo is currently looking into this, will be talking with Pam Lombardini and will get back to Board members at the next
6eting.
Gene Collins reminded all that Board members had talked about putting a plaque at the small park area on Derby St for
Walter Power and that he noticed they are working on that area; he doesn't want to lose the opportunity to put a
plaque there. Gene also mentioned about a curb cut near the jail,they were supposed to give that piece of land back to
the city. Danielle will look into this.
Om Ready inquired if there will be a replacement now that the Board is 2 members short. Danielle said that Lynn
Duncan and Mayor Driscoll are trying to find new members.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to adjourn,
seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and unanimously approved.
Meeting adjourned 8:47 pm
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 11/5/09
•
•
• City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board Oay�v �4 goA
Date I p l Is l_0
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
�
n 5-��30+
:`O�jW000LRN(� 1Wzv2N�M 0363 't 66 C`t� c159c (LotSQ_W00D-ANQpFS (0IvG(t
t Ita c2 y5T4 srn-e est
�>>-CLW m�-V�.SIe- "fit c-- oa�7� 7_�'(e(o'7�34�j', ��l,dA.ot+c eurrncr�sr,nar
each<< �(i�l� ��hla�n S'filu���hfMdN1 ° ' 2l�-Jy3 yy�� �tc��l�d vin ka.
Y
•
Page I of I
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
99 P 3: 3
FORM A - WITHDRAWAL CITYr it-I. ,r
CL�:�!s, S;'.' EM. �!'•,: .
I and 5 Florence Street
October 19, 2009
Attorney George W. Atkins
Ronan, Segal &Harrington
59 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Attorney Atkins:
The Salem Planning Board voted 6-0 (Puleo, Moustakis, Ready, Kavanaugh, Sullivan, and
Collins in favor, none opposed) on October 15, 2009 to allow withdrawal without prejudice of
the Form A application, "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required,"on the
following described plan:
• 1. Applicant: Benny J. Fisheries Limited, 5 Florence Street, Salem, MA and,
Anthony J.Picariello, 1 Florence Street,Salem,MA
2. Location: 1 Florence Street (Assessor's Map 34, Lot 272) and 5 Florence
Street (Assessor's Map 34, Lot 490).
Sincerely,
Charles M. Puleo
Chairman
Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SAI.EM.COM
N NCITY OF SALEM
� 11, PLANNING BOARD
aw
70112 nrr 29 PL+ 24
CITY c ;_f it.r. ;
,LFT,
Wireless Special Permit Decision
For The Petition of Goodman Networks on behalf of Sprint/Clearwire
For The Property Located At 12 First Street, Salem,MA
A Public Hearing on this petition was held on October 15,2009. The following Planning Board
members were present: Chuck Puleo, Timothy Ready, Timothy Kavanaugh, Gene Collins,John
Moustakis and Christine Sullivan. Notice of this meeting
was sent t to abutters and notice of the
hearing was properlyP ublished in the Salem News.
The petitioner is requesting a Wireless Communication Facility Special Perot under Section 6.0 of
the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow for the installation of relocation of two (2) existing
antennas to a different position on the existing arrays,and the addition of four(4) new backhaul
antennas on the rooftop of the existing Pequot Highlands Apartment Complex located at 12 Fust
Street,Salem,MA(Assessor's Map 13,Lot 6).
• The Planning Board reviewed the application and plans submitted and found that the petitioner
addressed the requirements of this section for the issuance of a Special Permit.
On October 15,2009,the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a vote
of six (6) in favor,none (0) opposed,to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit
for the location stated above,in accordance with the application dated September 28,2009 and site
plan last dated June 2,2009,titled "Salem Paquot[Pequot]Apartments,MA-BOS5769a, 12 Fust
Street,Salem,MA 01970," Sheets T-1,T-2,A-1,A-2,A-3,A-4 E-1 and E-2 and drawn by Robert
J. Lara,Morrison Hershfield,submitted and now part of the file.
The applicant, his successors or assigns shall maintain the appearance of the equipment.
This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing certification of the City
Clerk that twenty(20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been
filed that it has been dismissed or denied,is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is
indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the
owner's certificate of title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or
applicant.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision is on file with the City Clerk and that a copy of the
decision and plans is on file with the Planning Board.
. Charles Puleo,Chairman
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW,SALEM.COM
5 CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decision
At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,
October 15, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington
Street,Salem Massachusetts,the Planning Board voted upon the following item
Applicant: Goodman Networks on behalf of Sprint/Clearwire
Location: 12 First Street (Assessor's Map 13,Lot 6),Salem MA
Description: A Special Permit was requested to allow for the relocation of two (2) existing
antennas to a different position on the existing arrays, and the addition of
four(4) new backhaul antennas on the rooftop of the existing Pequot
Highlands Apartment Complex.
Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk April 17,2009
•
This notice is baT sent in aw plianx with the Massadnssetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,
SW=9 and dcEs not require action by the nripienL Appeals, if any; shall be nude pursuant to
Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall le filed within 20 day from the date zdxd)the&dsion zuu
filed with the City Clerk.
•
E�
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2009 SEP I I A 10; IS
NOTICE OF MEETINQ ITY CLEii., �71�,i , it.
MASS.
You are hereby nmfied that dye SalemPla=ng Bc and will hard its rtgubdy sdxduled Ming on
Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Am x, Room 313, 120 Washirtgtaz
Stmt
Charles M. Pulte
C 6aimnn
MEETING AGENDA
I Approval of Minutes
➢ 7/1/09 Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing,7/9/09 Special Planning Board Meeting (on
zoning re-codification), and 7/16/09 regular meeting.
• 2. Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit- Petition of Goodman Networks, on behalf of
Clearwire (an affiliate of Sprint-Nextel) for the properly located at 217-219 Essex Street (Assessor's Map
35, Lot 251). The proposed project includes the installation of four (4) new backhaul antennas to the
roof of the existing building, and ancillary equipment stored in Sprint's existing cabinets within the
building.
3. Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit- Petition of Goodman Networks, on behalf of
Clearwire (an affiliate of Sprint-Nextel) for the properly located at 488 Rear Highland Avenue (AKA 0
Cain Road) (Assessor's Map 3, Lot 139). The proposed project includes the installation of five (5) new
backhaul antennas and three(3) panel antennas to the roof of the existing building, and ancillary
equipment on a 10'x 20'concrete pad within the compound.
4. Fonn A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- 1 and 5
Florence Street(Map 34 Lots 273 and 102). Benny J. Fisheries Ltd. and Anthony J. Picariello
represented by Attorney George Atkins.
5. Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit- Fast Food- The proposed project
is a fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through
on the property located at 142 Canal Street (Assessors Map 33,Lot 006). SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC
APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO 10/15/09.
6. Old/New Business Thts notla5, past®d on "®�cirl Bulletin Boars "
>aty F9s11 Salem, Mass. on 112009
"At /v./5 /1�0 !r+ h .
• 7. Adjournment 29A & 2 ®t Ulk
120 SAla M. R(.'S AC tl S!,1"lS 01970 PIIO\ 9'5,619.565 }'r+,g 9 x, .1t).(lails �1.CCYI
1I I:C
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner
DATE: September 10,2009
RE: Agenda- September 17, 2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
The draft minutes of 7/1/09 Planning Board/CityCouncil Joint Hearing, 7/9/09 Special Planning
Board Meeting (on zoning re-codification), and 7/16/09 regular meeting were in your packets from
last meeting,which we did not hold. We will be voting n
• g, g o the approval of these minutes at the
9/17/09 meeting.
Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit- Petition of Goodman Networks, on
behalf of Clearwire (an affiliate of Sprint-Nextel) for the property located at 217-219 Essex
Street(Assessor's Map 35, Lot 251).
The application for this project was in the packet for 9/3. However,I am including additional
photos I requested from the applicant of the property from several views, including from the street,
to give us a better sense of what the equipment will look like.
Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit- Petition of Goodman Networks, on
behalf of Clearwire (an affiliate of Sprint-Nextel) for the property located at 488 Rear
Highland Avenue (AKA 0 Cain Road) (Assessor's Map 3,Lot 139).
Materials from this application were in the 9/3 packet.
Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit- Fast Food - The proposed
project is a fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank
with a drive-through on the property located at 142 Canal Street(Assessors Map 33, Lot 006).
SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC.
• Dan DiLullo contacted me early this week to let me know he would like to continue the hearing to
October 15 in order to have adequate time to complete the traffic study,with counts being done
after the opening of the FamilyDollar and the start of the school year at Salem State.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SA4EM.COM
Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- 1 and 5
• Florence Street(Map 34 Lots 273 and 102). Benny J. Fisheries Ltd. and Anthony J. Picariello
represented by Attorney George Atkins,.
The applicants are using the Derelict Fee Statute to claim they each own to the center of the paper
street,Porter Street, which divides their property. The plan submitted shows the addition of Parcell
to 1 Florence Street (which would add 20 feet of frontage to 1 Florence St., increasing its frontage
from about 135 feet to about 155 feet) and the addition of Parcel 2 to 5 Florence Street (which
would add 20 feet of frontage to 5 Florence St.,increasing its frontage from 60 feet to 80 feet).
I have sent a copy of the plan to Assistant City Solicitor Jerry Parisella, and will speak to him before
the meeting to determine whether there are any ownership issues that would stand in the way of the
Board's endorsement.
•
•
2
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
• September 17, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312,
Third'Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Christine
Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, City Planner, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. Absent: David Weiner
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the July 1, 2009 Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing were reviewed.
There being no comments on this matter,a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept the minutes, seconded by
Pam Lombardini and approved unanimously.
The minutes of the July 9, 2009 special Planning Board meeting were reviewed.
There being no comments on this matter, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by
Gene Collins and approved unanimously.
The minutes of the regular Planning Board meeting on July 16, 2009 were reviewed.
Onere being no comments on this matter,a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept the minutes, seconded by
John Moustakis and approved unanimously.
Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit-Petition of Goodman Networks,on behalf of Clearwire(an affiliate of
Sprint-Nextel)for the property located at 217-219 Essex Street(Assessor's Map 35, Lot 251). The proposed project
includes the installation of four(4) new backhaul antennas to the roof of the existing building, and ancillary
equipment stored in Sprint's existing cabinets within the building.
Heather Carlisle, Esq. presented on behalf of Goodman networks on behalf of Clearwire. She stated that Clearwire is
licensed by the FCC to provide broadband internet services. She says Sprint has ownership in Clearwire and Clearwire
wants to update Sprint's antennas by replacing their existing antennas with new ones at 217-219 Essex Street. She says
this will give them a two mile service radius in Salem. She explains the internet service Clearwire provides—their target
market is business and residential, and can also benefit police, as many now have laptops in their police cars. Ms.
Carlisle indicates the plans, showing the roof plan proposal on page Al. She says the plan is to replace the existing
antennas with the same type and add equipment to an existing stack. There will also be four new backhaul antennas,
which are 4 round discs, installed.
John Moustakis doesn't think they will be very visible from the roof. Chuck Puleo asked if they have done structural
analysis. Heather Carlisle said that they haven't yet done the structural analysis to ensure the roof can support the
equipment, but said that they will be doing that soon. Nadine Hanscom questioned approving the plan prior to
�tructural analysis, if the building is found to not be structurally sound and there are changes to the plan, Clearwire
uld have to come back before the Planning Board. There was a brief discussion on this issue. Tim Kavanaugh said
that the building inspector could not issue them a building permit until they had the Wireless Communication Facilities
Special Permit in hand, and that if there are any changes made to the plans because of structural issues, they would still
1
have to come back to the Board. Christine Sullivan asked if changes were needed to the plans, could the Planning
Department simply review them and determine if they were significant enough to have to come back before the Board?
0nielle McKnight said the department often approved changes deemed insignificant by the City Planner. Christine
Ilivan said she would not want the Board to have to review minor changes.
There being no further comments,a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to approve the proposed project, seconded
by Christine Sullivan, and approved 8-0 (Lombardini,Sullivan, Moustakis, Ready, Kavanaugh, Puleo, Collins,and Hanscom
in favor, none opposed).
Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit— Petition of Goodman Networks, on behalf of Clearwire(an affiliate
of Sprint-Nextel)for the property located at 488 Rear Highland Avenue (AKA 0 Cain Road) (Assessor's Map 3, Lot 139).
The proposed project includes the installation of five(5) new backhaul antennas and three (3) panel antennas to the
roof of the existing building,and ancillary equipment on a 10'x 20'concrete pad within the compound.
Heather Carlisle, Esq. presented on behalf of Goodman Networks. She explained that this site at 488 Rear Highland Ave
has an existing tower. They want to add 3 panel antennas at 86 ft and 5 backhaul circular at 90 ft to the existing tower.
She said they will also add ancillary equipment on a 10'x 20' concrete pad and two cabinets.
Chuck Puleo noted that there is no building currently on this site; Ms. Carlisle confirmed that this was true.
There being no further comments,a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to approve the proposed project and
seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 8-0 (Lombardini, Sullivan, Moustakis, Ready, Kavanaugh, Puleo, Collins, and
Hanscom in favor, none opposed).
0 r A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval-1 and 5 Florence Street(Map 34 Lots
3 and 102). Benny J. Fisheries Ltd.And Anthony J. Picariello represented by Attorney George Atkins.
Danielle McKnight explained that Attorney George Atkins asked to extend action on this application to October
15thbecause of questions that had arisen about potential access rights of other abutters to the property. Lynn Duncan
noted that extending the action on this application to October 15th would not actually allow the Board time to file its
decision with the City Clerk by that date, since the next meeting is on October 15`h and the decision would not be filed
until the following day. She recommended that the Board vote to extend the deadline to October 16th.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to extend the deadline on action on the
application to October 16th, seconded by Gene Collins and unanimously approved.
Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit-Fast Food-The proposed project is a fast food facility with
a drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through on the property located at 142 Canal
Street(Assessors Map 33, Lot 006). Snakebite Realty LLC. Applicant has requested to continue the hearing to
10/15/09.
Danielle McKnight explained that Dan DiLullo has asked to continue the hearing to October 15th, after his traffic study
has been completed.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to continue the hearing to October 15th,
seconded by Gene Collins and unanimously approved.
Old/New Business
2
Since she is retiring from the Planning Board, Chuck Puleo commended Pam Lombardini on her years of service on the
I nning Board and to the City of Salem and presented her with accolades.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to adjourn, seconded
by Nadine Hanscom and unanimously approved.
Meeting adjourned 7:40 pm
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Salem Planning Board 10/15/09
•
•
3
a
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
709q SEP 24 P 3: 01
` F 'r
CITY CLFi{iS. SP",Li. N.A.SS.
Wireless Special Permit Decision
For The Petition of Goodman Networks on behalf of Sprint/Clearwire
For the Property Located at 217-219 Essex Street
A Public Hearing on this petition was held on September 17, 2009. The following Planning Board
members were present: Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis,Pam Lombardini, Gene Collins,Nadine
Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, Tun Ready,and Tun Kavanaugh. Notice of this meeting was sent to
abutters and notice of the hearing was properly published in the Salem Evening News.
The petitioner is requesting a Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit under Section 5-3,
Special Permit Uses, (recodified as Section 6.6 on September 10,2009) of the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinance,to allow for the installation of four(4) new backhaul antennas to the roof of the existing
building, and ancillary equipment stored within Sprint's existing cabinets within the building,located
at 217-219 Essex Street,Salem,MA
The Planning Board reviewed the application and plans submitted and found that the petitioner
• addressed the requirements of this section for the issuance of a Special Permit.
On September 17, 2009,the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a
vote of eight (8) in favor,none (0) opposed,to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special
Permit for the location stated above, in accordance with the application (dated July 24, 2009) and
site plan last dated July 14, 2009,titled "Eastern Bank,MA-BOS5189/BS01YC189/BS23XC362,
add new antennas at existing telecommunications site on existing rooftop,217-219 Essex Street,
Salem,MA 01970" (Sheets T-1, T-2,A 1,A-2,A3, A-4,A-5,E-1, E-2, and E-3) and prepared by
Morrison Hershfield,submitted and now part of the file.
'Me applicant,his successors or assigns shall maintain the appearance of the
g ppe equipment.
This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing certification of the City
Clerk that twenty(20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been
filed that it has been dismissed or denied,is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is
indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the
owner's certificate of title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or
applicant.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision is on file with the City Clerk and that a copy of the
decision and plans is on file with the Planning Board.
• Charles Puleo, Chairman
120 WASHINGTON STREET, .SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978,745 9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2009 ScP 2U P 3: 01
CITY C!_F i i(, S'.l.Fil. PASS.
Wireless Special Permit Decision
For The Petition of Goodman Networks on behalf of Clearwire
for the Property Located at 488 Rear Highland Avenue (AKA 0 Cain Road)
A Public Hearing on this petition was held on September 17,2009. .The following Planning Board
members were present: Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis,Pam Lombardini, Gene Collins,Nadine
Hanscome, Christine Sullivan, Tun Ready,and Tun Kavanaugh. Notice of this meeting was sent to
abutters and notice of the hearing was properly published in the Salem Evening News.
The petitioner is requesting a Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit under Section 5-3,
Special Permit Uses, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (recodified as Section 6.6 on 9/10/09),
to allow for the installation of five (5) new backhaul antennas and three (3) panel antennas,and
ancillary equipment on a 10'x20'concrete pad within the compound, on the properly located at 488
Rear Highland Avenue (AKA 0 Cain Road) Salem,MA(Assessor's Map 3,Lot 139).
The Planning Board reviewed the application and plans submitted and found that the petitioner
addressed the requirements of this section for the issuance of a Special Permit.
• On September 17, 2009,the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a
vote of eight (8) in favor, none (0) opposed,to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special
Permit for the location stated above, in accordance with the application dated August 17,2009 and
site plan last dated August 12,2009,titled"MA BOS7030-a;Salem MA 8, Cain Road,Salem,MA
01970" (Sheets T-1, GN-1, GN-2, G1,A-1,A-2,A-3,E-1,E-2, and E-3) and prepared by EBI
Consulting for Clearwire,submitted and now part of the file.
The applicant,his successors or assigns shall maintain the appearance of the equipment.
This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing certification of the City
Clerk that twenty(20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been
filed that it has been dismissed or denied,is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is
indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the
owner's certificate of title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or
applicant.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision is on file with the City Clerk and that a copy of the
decision and plans is on file with the Planning Board.
C Ili,/&?V�
Charles Puleo, Chairman
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • Tet.: 978.745.9595 Far: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI,EM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decision
At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,
September 17,2009 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313 at CityHall Annex, 120 Washington
Street,Salem Massachusetts,the Planning Board voted upon the following items:
Applicant: Goodman Networks on behalf of Clearwire/Sprint-Nextel
Location: 217-219 Essex Street (Map 35, Lot 0251),Salem,MA
Description: Petitioner requested review under the following section of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance: Article V,Section 5-3 (m),Personal Wireless Service Facilities.
The project includes the installation of four(4) new backhaul antennas to the
roof of the existing building,and ancillary equipment stored within Sprint's
existing cabinets within the building.
• Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk September 24, 2009
Applicant: Goodman Networks on behalf of Clearwire/Sprint-Nextel
Location: 488 Rear Highland Avenue (AKA 0 Cain Rd.) (Assessor's Map 3, Lot 139),
Salem,MA
Description: Petitioner requested review under the following section of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance: Article V, Section 5-3 (m),Personal Wireless Service Facilities.
The project includes the installation of five (5) new backhaul antennas and
three (3) panel antennas to the existing structure, and ancillary equipment will
be installed on a 10'x 20'concrete pad within the compound.
Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk September 24,2009
This nmw is leiTserrt in mVlkarxe wth theMassadnuetts General Lazes, Chapter 40A,
Section 9 and does rust require action by the Tmprem Apperls, tan} shall be mule pursHaru to
Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall lx fil u&)in 20 dais from the date vhk b the decision zeas
filed wth the City Clerk.
• City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date / I / q
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
Page of
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2009 SEP -3 P 5: 2t
f
PLANNING BOARD MEETING CANCELED
77)e SalemPlannng Boads nxetiT sAduledfor Thurs day, September 3, 2009 at 7.00 pm at City
Hall A mix,Room313, 120 Washington Strad has baja CANCELED due to I,& ofa quonan The
fd(creingawida item ud le heanl at the noct ming m septemxr 17, 2009.
Cbada M. Puleo,
Chaimun
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 7/1/09 Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing, 7/9/09 Special Planning Board Meeting (on
zoning re-codification), and 7/16/09 regular meeting.
2. Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit- Petition of Goodman Networks, on behalf of
• Clearwire (an affiliate of Sprint-Nextel) for the property located at 217-219 Essex Street (Assessor's Map
35, Lot 251). The proposed project includes the installation of four(4) new backhaul antennas to the
roof of the existing building, and ancillary equipment stored in Sprint's existing cabinets within the
building.
3. Wireless Communication Facility Special Pernut- Petition of Goodman Networks,on behalf of
Clearwire (an affiliate of Sprint-Nextel) for the properly located at 488 Rear Hghland Avenue (AKA 0
Cain Road) (Assessor's Map 3,Lot 139). The proposed project includes the installation of five (5) new
backhaul antennas and three(3) panel antennas to the roof of the existing building, and ancillary
equipment on a 10'x 20'concrete pad within the compound.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
This nottet
tt poted on "Official B
uflAtht hoad
Cl4Y FaII s�alam Mass. on 3 -
� :2 argaonp q,,In� ae�rd Wfth U-5110
'�r3A W 8 f R�4a la�a
120 SHINGTON STR k':, SALEA!, MASSAC tl"S111'1S 01970 - PkiO,,i'i 918.619 5685 EA% 91,&740.040A rr WW.Sr i k NUCOM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2aaq JUL 13 P 3 3y
i' L _ �t
AMENDED
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby nvfied that dx SakmPlanning Baird a ll hold its rgdady s&a ide l nxetirrg m
Thursday,July 16, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Ar=,Room 313, 120 WasbnVon Stmt
05arl8 M. Puleq
Chairman
MEETING AGENDA
i. Approval of Minutes
June 4,2009 Planning Board Meeting
2. Continued Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan- Proposed extension of Circle Hill Road to serve
three new single-family lots. The proposed development is located at 40 Circle IFilI Road (Assessors
Map 9,Lot 0255). Delulis Brothers Construction Co, Inc.
3. Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit- Fast Food- The proposed project
is a fast food facilitywith a drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through
on the property located at 142 Canal Street (Assessors Map 33,Lot 006). SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC.
4. Old/New Business
Planning Board Officer Elections
5. Adjournment
This notie?, poPted on "Otttei?l Bulletin Board"
City Hall ` SaleM, Mass. on s.,1. 13 zoo
at 3; 3 y P-14. 1
23A & 239 of &J.% ' Chi'. 3"' Sep"
12(?W,�u1vUx0 S rhi Sal.Fhy N1ASSAC"11 Sl.'1,is 01970 ' lliim 978,619.5645 FAX 978,740.040kLV ti;l t.:11'. J1 I
CITY OF SALEM
' PLANNING BOARD
2069 JUL -9 P 4= 2b
F ILE. #
01T-1
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby rmt iad that dx Salem Plarmrg Ba-ird wll hold its regularly s&xfulez'rnn?ting m
Thursday,July 16, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City HaYAmzx, Room 313, 120 Washington Stmt
Charles M. Puleq
0yaimzm
MEETING AGENDA
i. Approval of Minutes
• June 4, 2009 Planning Board Meeting
2. Continued Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan- Proposed extension of Circle Hill Road to serve
• three new single-family lots. The proposed development is located at 40 Circle Hill Road (Assessors
Map 9,Lot 0255). DeIulis Brothers Construction Co,Inc.
3. Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit- Fast Food- The proposed project
is a fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through
on the property located at 142 Canal Street (Assessors Map 33, Lot 006). SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
i'nis notksa po=•ea✓ omc;ae Bulletin Board"
City Hall ,���� Salern, Mass. on Jctl�- 9, acm9
at in accortlance WM Cti80. 39 SM,
23A & 238 of M.G.L.
120 sm. ,PoP.S i�"i E' SALEM,M NIASSACiU SIEFIS 01970 • PHONE 978.619 5685 I;Sx 978.740.040 t.St."v:.-S
• ca QTY OF SALEM
3 �
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET 0 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TEL:978-745-9595D FAx:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: , July 8,2009
RE: Agenda-July 16,2009
Please find the following in your packet:
• ➢ Agenda
➢ Draft Minutes of 6/4/09 Planning Board Meeting
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan- Proposed extension of Circle Hill Road to serve
three new single-family lots. The proposed development is located at 40 Circle Hill Road
(Assessors Map 9, Lot 0255). DeIulis Brothers Construction Co, Inc.
I have no new materials since the last meeting, but I do have notes from Carey Duques, our
Conservation Agent,who updated me on the issues that came up during the Conservation
Commission review. Much of the property is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission,but there
are issues the Commission was concerned about that should be addressed during the definitive
subdivision review. Several of these points were brought up at the site visit.
1) Several residents opposed the project because of stormwater/flooding concerns.
2) The Commission was concerned about the maintenance of the retention basin, and who
would be responsible for it. Scott Patrowicz stated at our June 4 meeting that standing water
would not be a problem because this is a very small watershed, but we ought to find out
what size storm the basin will accommodate.
• The application was also routed to Fire Prevention (Lt. Griffin told me she had no concerns), and
Building and Engineering do not have comments at this time. The Health Department met on June
1
9,2009 and voted to approve the preliminary subdivision plan,with conditions that are included in
• your packet.
The Board will need to act on the Form B application within 45 days of the last continued hearing-
by July 19.
Scott Patrowicz will not attend this meeting - Patrick DeIulis will be there.
Drive-through Special Permit for Fast Food - SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC, 142 Canal Street
(Assessors Map 33, Lot 006) Salem,MA 01970.
Anthony Gattineri is requesting a new special permit for 142 Canal St. for a fast food facility with a
drive-through on the site of the previously approved bank drive-through. The application is
currently missing a traffic study. If I receive the study in time to include in your packets,I will send
them to you- otherwise,we will need to discuss it at a future meeting.
I received comments from the Building Inspector that he required additional detail about the facility
before he could determine the parking requirements. I also received the following comments from
the City Engineer:
1. Depending on proposed impacts, a new/different water meter maybe warranted.
2. Information should be provided on the proposed oil and grease management program.
3. Traffic issues should be reviewed to ensure there are no impacts from the proposed change.
The requirements for a fast food drive-through special permit differ from other drive-through
facility special permits as follows:
1. A traffic impact analysis by a professional engineer is required for fast food, but not other
facilities unless the Board chooses to require one. This requirement has not yet been met.
2. Fast food drive-throughs require a minimum of 8 stacking spaces within the site before the
order board, and another 4 stacking spaces between the order board and the transaction
window. The submitted plans show the correct number of stacking spaces; however,
because the plan's scale is not included, it is difficult to determine how realistic the distances
on the plan are. I have asked Dan DiLullo,the project's architect,to bring scaled plans to
the meeting. Additionally,the transaction window is not labeled on the plan,but Mr.
DiLullo tells me it is at the location of the final car pictured,where the double arrow is
shown. He will correct this omission in his next submittal of plans.
3. Outdoor service facilities for fast food drive-throughs (service lane,menu boards,speakers,
etc) must be at least 200 feet from the property line of a residential use (the standard for
other drive-throughs is 50 feet). The plan submitted does not show the abutting properties
or indicate what their uses are. However,rough measurements on the Gigs GIS show the
residential property across the street is less than 200 feet from the drive-through area,so a
variance from the Board of Appeals may be needed.
4. Menu boards must be 30 square feet or smaller with a maximum height of 6 feet and must
be shielded from public streets and residential properties. Menu board details are not given
on the submitted plan.
• 5. Fast food drive-throughs asking to operate between 11 p.m and 6 a.m. need approval from
City Council.
2
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
• July 16, 2009
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on July 16,2009, at
7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Dave Weiner, Tim Ready,Pam
Lombardini, Christine Sullivan, and Nadine Hanscom. Also present were Lynn Duncan,
Director, Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk Absent: Tim
Kavanaugh and Gene Collins.
Chuck Puleo opens the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Approval of Minutes - The minutes from the June 4, 2009 meeting were reviewed. Tim
Ready makes a motion to approve the minutes,seconded by Nadine Hanscom. Allin favor.
Continuation of Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan- Proposed extension of
Circle Hill Road to serve three new single-family lots. The proposed development is
located at 40 Circle Hill Road(Assessors Map 9,Lot 0255). DeIulis Brothers
Construction Co, Inc.
Christine Sullivan asks why the Board is voting if this is not a public hearing; Lynn Duncan
explains that the applicant has the choice of submitting a preliminary subdivision plan if he
• wishes and explains what still must be done in teras of submitting full subdivision plans.
She says this reduces the time period for review for the definitive plan. A key difference
between the preliminary and definitive subdivision approval is there is much less information
required than for a definitive plan,which requires full engineering plans,etc.
The applicant has not yet arrived,so the Board decides to review the next application first.
Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit- Fast Food - The
proposed project is a fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a previously
approved bank with a drive-through on the property located at 142 Canal Street
(Assessors Map 33, Lot 006). SNAKEBITE REALTY LLC.
Dan DiLullo presents the petition. He states the Family Dollar site is almost complete and
they hope to occupy at the end of July. He says at the time the Planning Board approval was
given for the drive-thruSpecial Permit, it was intended to be a bank branch,and due to the
market they wish to change it to a coffee/pastry type drive through. He apologizes for not
having submitted a traffic study, which is a required part of the application, but says his
traffic engineer, Robert Woodland, is present tonight.
Chuck Puleo is concerned there are no dimensions on the building,so it's hard to determine
whether the stacking of cars, as drawn, is appropriate - it's hard to determine whether the
cars would actually fit around the building. Dan Dilullo says he has brought scaled plans
• with him and hands them out to the Board. Chuck Puleo notes there are still no dimensions
on the buildings and requests a scale ruler.
1
• Pam Lombardini says the presentation is missing a lot of information and says the Board
isn't prepared to discuss the project. Dan apologizes that the traffic study was late.
Christine Sullivan says this is unacceptable.
John Moustakis says this is a completely different project from what was presented before -
now there will be deliveries, longer hours, noise, more people going through the drive
through, and he wants to know how these things would be handled,when will deliveries be
made,etc. John Moustakis asks, "Don't you know if you will have a tenant?" Dan Dilullo
says no. John Moustakis says the Board has to know more about what's going to happen
here.
Nadine Hanscom says if they approve a fast food drive-through for doughnuts,and that
doesn't work out,they probably don't have to come back in front of the Board to put in a
restaurant such as Burger King, and she would be uncomfortable with that. Danielle
McKnight explains that the Board would be approving a restaurant of a particular size,
capacity, etc. Dan Dilullo says the space is smaller than this room, and so it couldn't
accommodate many types of restaurants. Nadine says it's crucial that the Board know what
would be going in there.
Dan Dilullo asks for the opportunityto talk about the traffic studyto address some of those
concerns.
Tim Ready notes this plan is generic and says this is a very substantial change to what was
• there before - he's uncomfortable with how little they know about the new proposal.
Chuck Puleo says this doesn't hold up his CO for the other building on the site. Once the
Dollar Store opens,he says they ought to look at how the site functions,whether the parking
is adequate,etc.
Dan Dilullo says their schedule is to take occupancy at the end of July,then they stock for
three weeks.
John Moustakis says that without knowing what's going to be here,they are not going to get
a comprehensive traffic study. Dan Dilullo says they can make assumptions based on the
size of the space, and his traffic engineer can address that. He asks if he continued the
discussion to September, would he need the name of a store? Chuck Puleo responds that
the Board would have to look at the worst case scenario to make assumptions about traffic,
parking and other impacts.
Chuck Puleo asks if the traffic study will cover a multiplicity of uses? Robert Woodland says
they looked at a Dunkin Donuts we use, and that intensity is substantially higher than other
drive-thru uses. Chuck Puleo asks if they've done traffic counts; Robert Woodland says yes.
Chuck Puleo says he hopes when they did the study the college students were in town, since
the City is extremely quiet right now since it's summer.
• Pam Lombardini asks if they can look at doing an amendment, if the store opens in August,
and is successful, it will put can in that parking lot and add to the congestion. She notes that
2
Salem State is across the street and it will be a madhouse in September,she says they need to
• count traffic when both are open.
Chuck Puleo suggests continuing the petition,since they Board needs to give this project the
consideration it deserves.
Tim Ready moves to continue the petition to September 17,2009,seconded by Pam
Lombardini. The motion passes 7-0 (Ready, Lombardini, Sullivan,Puleo,Moustakis,
Hanscom and Weiner in favor,none opposed).
The Board returns to the 40 Circle Hill Rd. preliminary subdivision application. Patrick
DeIulis,the applicant, apologizes for being late. He acknowledges the comments he has
heard from the neighborhood and questions from the Board during the site visit. He says
the site plan they will submit as a definitive subdivision plan will incorporate guard rails, a
bollard system after the guard rail so that cars can't drive into the park, extension of the
sidewalk along the park side of the street, and a readjustment of some of the contours of the
cul-de-sac to shed water toward the far end of the park rather than toward Circle Hill Rd.
Chuck Puleo says there was a lot of discussion about blasting,which is a major concern of
the neighbors, and acknowledges the impact on those living there. Selling the lots with a
prepared area,they would have a large enough area prepared and could fit the houses on the
lot,which would be preferable so that the neighbors don't have to deal with extended
blasting times — the development could be completed once and for all. Mr.DeIulis says he
may be able to minimize some of the blasting,though putting in the utilities will require
• disruption. He says their intention was to bring utilities in so the properties and street would
be complete. He will consider the suggestion, but he doesn't want to tie himself into a
situation where he preps the lots and then they sit idle for a period of time and become a
nuisance or cause an injury.
Chuck Puleo points out that either way,the�ll have to protect the property— if they don't
sell the lots, they still have to protect them. Mr. DeIulis says if they don't disturb the lots,
there won't be a need to protect them.
Mr. DeIulis notes they are not connecting into the city drainage system. Chuck Puleo says
that Scott Patrowicz,the project's engineer, had spoken about collecting the drainage so that
it could be directed off away from the houses. Mr. DeIulis says the intention is to not direct
the water to the basketball court.
Christine Sullivan says the City has a thorough set of blasting regulations, noise decibels,
hours, etc. Also,they must do a pre-blast survey, and every neighbor should be given a copy
of the regulations.
Chuck Puleo notes that the city cannot require more stringent blasting regulations than those
required by the state.
Nadine Hanscom says the sidewalks should be shown on the plan, and Councillor Ryan had
• told her he was concerned about that. Mr. DeIulis says they would continue the sidewalk on
their side of the street to the end of the cul-de-sac,and on the other side up to the entry of
3
the park that brings people into the park- a trail made of stone,gravel, etc. so people would
• know this was the entry to the park. There would then be a series of bollards and a
guardrail. Chuck Puleo says at the site visit,Mr. DeIulis had mentioned the possibility of
using wood there, but the Board would like to see something more permanent than that.
Tim Ready asks if there has been a dialogue with the neighborhood. Mr.DeIulis says no,
but he'd be open to a conversation with the neighbors. Tim Ready says he is troubled that
we've gotten this far and there's been so little discussion with the neighborhood.
Chuck Puleo says that while this is not a public hearing,he will entertain comments if they
have not covered all of the concerns that were raised.
Rick Sakowich, 36 Circle Hill Rd., is concerned about blasting impacts. He says DiBiase
park was once supposed to be two house lots, but there was too much ledge. He says he
knows technology has changed, but blasting will still affect him and others. He is also
concerned about animals on the construction site and says wildlife will be disturbed, and
also,the newly paved street could be damaged.
Mr. Delulis says the question is still whether we blast or break the ledge with a hammer. He
says they want to do what impacts the neighborhood least, and they need to test to see what
is necessary. He says theywill break if possible, but blast if necessary.
Jim Decareau, 38 Buena Vista Ave., says he has some of the same concerns, and says the
blasting will disturb the sewer pipes. Chuck Puleo says the Board can require the applicant
• to have an engineer inspect the flow and put a camera through the pipes,and the city could
also require a bond for any damage. Mr. Delulis says he already has a bond for that street
on file with the city.
Pam Lombardini says one of the hardest things about going through a development is that
the developer has the right to build. She says it's the Board's job to make sure theydo it in a
way that protects those around the development. She says the Board understands the
neighbors'concerns, but they make sure they are as protected as they can be, and it sounds
like the developer is willing to do what he needs to. She brings up what Tim Ready had said
earlier about meeting with the neighbors - this can work wonders - and many of the
concerns can be ironed out.
Sonia Ernst, 17 Buena Vista Ave., says she never got a notice about this meeting by email.
She says she prefers for blasting to only happen once and for the lots to be finished. She
wants to be notified about road work and blasting.
Tim Ready says that before this meeting, Councillor Ryan was here and expressed that the
city is prepared and almost ready to fund within this month a major improvement to DiBiase
Park. He says significant upgrades are planned;the developer is aware of that process and
must work with the city and can't disrupt the city's plans.
Claire Wilson, 27 Circle Hill Rd., asks if there is a fence that can be put up between the park
• and the new street. Chuck Puleo said they had discussed a guardrail, which the original
proposal did not have. Ms.Wilson says a guardrail or something similar should be there to
4
protect children in the park from cars on the street. Chuck Puleo says that Danielle
McKnight could get a copy of the plan for the park before the subdivision is filed so that the
Board and the applicant know what is planned there.
Neighbors ask if people will be notified before blasting; Chuck Puleo says yes, notice is
required and there is a fire detail required, and sometimes a police detail.
Ron Mercier,21 Circle Hill Rd., asks what makes a buildable lot- would they need to be
prepped? Chuck Puleo says a prepped pad would be provided. If any damage was done,
how would that be handled?
Mr. Delulis says this is not a large project, with 3 individual lots, and he doesn't know how
long they'd be on market, but he has mis-timed the market often and undersold
developments. He says he won't sell unless he gets the price he wants for them; it could be a
considerable amount of time these lots sit not built on.
Chuck Puleo says they need a vote for his Form B plan. He asks if Mr. DeIulis knows when
he would file the definitive subdivision plan; he says in September. Tim Readytells him to
meet with the neighborhood before filing that plan; that is looked on very favorably.
John Moustakis makes a motion to approve the Form B plan, seconded by Pam Lombardini.
Christine Sullivan says the Board should add conditions about the drainage and guard rail.
Chuck Puleo reads the Board of Health conditions and the Conservation Commission
• conditions and concerns,which are outlined in the draft decision. Christine Sullivan adds to
the conditions that a guardrail and sidewalk on the park side be built, and extended to the
Park with an entry Point; as well as the recontouning of the land for proper drainage as a
result of conversations with neighbors. She suggests that they scope the sewer pipe (with a
camera) prior to construction.
John Moustakis has moved to approve the plan,seconded by Pam Lombardini. The motion
passes 7-0 (Moustakis, Puleo, Sullivan, Hanscom,Weiner, Ready and Lombardini in favor,
none opposed).
Planning Baird QTuerElxriorrs
Pam Lombardini nominates Chuck Puleo as Chair,seconded by Nadine Hanscom and
unanimously approved.
Pam Lombardini nominates John Moustakis as Vice Chair,seconded by Nadine and
unanimously approved.
Motion to adjourn made by John Moustakis; seconded by David Weiner. Meeting adjourned
at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner
Approved by the Planning Board 9/17/09
5
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
vvL ,
Form B —Decision rIIY CLE:'; f.
40 Circle Hill Road Preliminary Subdivision Plan
July 29, 2009
DeIulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc.
31 Collins Street Terrace
Lynn, MA 01902
RE: Decision for the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for 40 Circle Hill Road—Form B
Dear Mr. DeIulis:
The Salem Planning Board opened the meeting on June 4, 2009 on the preliminary subdivision
plan submitted by DeIulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc. for the property located at 40 Circle
Hill Road (Assessors Map 9, Lot 255; Land Court Plan 856-J, Lots 56, 57, 59 and 60).
Subsequently, the Planning Board held a site visit on July 16, 2009. The Planning Board
• concluded its discussion of the plan at a meeting on July 16, 2009 when the Board voted by a
vote of seven (7) in favor (Hanscom, Moustakis, Puleo, Lombardini, Sullivan, Ready, Weiner),
and none(0) opposed, to approve the preliminary subdivision plan entitled, "Preliminary
Subdivision: Layout, Grading & LID Stormwater Management for a Cul-de-Sac & Three
Residential Lots for a site at #40 Circle Hill Road, Salem, Massachusetts," and dated May 11,
2009, prepared by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering and North Shore Survey
Corporation, subject to the following conditions, in addition to all other requirements for a
definitive subdivision plan:
1. Plans will show a sidewalk and a guard rail to be installed on the side of Circle Hill Road
where Dibiase Park is located. The sidewalk will extend to the park, with an entry point into
it.
2. Plans will show contouring of the land for proper drainage, as a result of conversations with
the neighbors.
3. Board of Health
The developer shall comply with the following specific conditions issued by the Board of Health:
a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health
Agent of the name, address, and telephone number of the project (site) manager who
will be on site and directly responsible for the construction of the project.
b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for this site under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible
• for the site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use.
c. The developer will give the Health Agent a copy of the 21 E report.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
d. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer.
e. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area
prior to construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the
•
exterminator's invoice to the Health Agent.
f. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction.
g. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and
street sweeping which will occur during construction.
h. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and
removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated
during demolition and/or construction
i. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting.
j. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations, including
but not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound
level by more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line.
k. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill
material needed for the project.
1. The resultant establishment shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its
operation in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health.
in. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast
Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District.
n. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final
inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
4. Conservation Commission:
• The developer must adhere to the conditions set forth in the Order of Conditions issued by the
Salem Conservation Commission on April 21, 2009. In addition, the Conservation Commission
expressed the following concerns about the project, which should be discussed during the
Definitive Subdivision application process:
a. Stormwater/flooding concerns.
b. Maintenance of the retention basin, and who would be responsible for it.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans are on file with the City Clerk and a copy is
on file with the Planning Board.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Puleo
Chairman
CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
2
• City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board ' n
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
12W A F /G c4Sr Jr 0e6u-,&! L12i74p ���a��.3V 9 r ;�L✓LCo i�:L�rn�asi•n�i
r _
( n
i`✓K c/ '-•�•oc✓i v�•. 36 Ci2c,(C -{�i�/47. ?7t�-7'Yl• 134 Xs4wow:i.4G? r4c 1.
Cn.�
Qb� l �alal,c. 3-7 cycle q, j M, 97�-5 9y-d3�S <abs�u�C�Mcr�fi, ne�'
efit Lermen _34 5y 1e 978 ' 7N5 -r-15 er(c,lernc. @Y% tiva, i.o,,,
'G� '! (T�LJiw✓l��„ 3L
J�w��r�✓-oast 3g %�Uc�jG ��Tti Q�B.��/�'-9��-
Page of�
' CITY OF SALEM
P PLANNING BOARD
204 JUL —2 P 2: 38
NOTICE OF MEETING Itt
CITY CL`K, :;; LEM, 'ASS.
You are hereby notified that the SalemPlanning&nd vill hold a.special meting on Thursday,July 9, 2009
at 7:00 pm at C4 Hall Awkx,Room313, 120 Washington Stn4 to tote on a propqsed re-aelif cation of the
Salem Zoning Ordinarxts.
c6rles M. Puleq
Chaimun
MEETING AGENDA
1. Proposed Zoning Re-codification: discussion and vote to issue recommendations to City
Council.
The proposed re-codification provides for the adoption of re-codified Sections 1 through 10;the
repeal of certain ordinances not included therein; and providing when such code and this ordinance
shall become effective. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the recommendations the Planning
Board will make to City Council regarding the proposed recodification.
The purpose of the recodification is to reorganize the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed recodified
sections contain"housekeeping" changes, rather than substantive changes.
• In addition:
Section 2. All zoning ordinances enacted on or before February 6, 2009 and not included in the zoning
ordinance or referenced therein are hereby repealed.
Seaion3. The repeal provided for in section 2 hereof shall not be construed to revive any ordinance or
part thereof that has been repealed by this ordinance.
Section 4. Additions or amendments to the zoning ordinance when passed in such form as to indicate
an intention to make the same a part of the zoning ordinance shall be deemed to be incorporated in
the zoning ordinance, so that reference to the zoning ordinance includes the additions and
amendments.
Section 5. Any person who violates the zoning ordinance may be fined as provided in section 9.2.3
thereof.
Section 6. Ordinances adopted after February 6, 2009, that amend or refer to ordinances in the zoning
ordinance shall be construed as if they amend or refer to like provisions of the attached zoning
ordinance.
Section Z This ordinance shall take effect as provided bylaw.-
The complete tent of the proposed re-codified Zoning Ordinance is on file at the Department of
Planning &Community Development, 120 Washington Street,. ' Salem,, sac d a moble
• for review during regular business hoursa=' P10f�C8 � �& 0 uTTIG��a �U�9 t�
� Salem, lass. on 3Jr j "905
a
a : ' �r'1' a, orVM ith
2.Adjournment � dwNIP' 3Q .
120 W ,SIIINGTor; S h,A ;. S.atrN:, NIASWHUSETiS 01970 i ONH 979.619.5685 F.�x 978.740.0404
Salem Planning Board
. Minutes of Meeting
July 9, 2009
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on July 9, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third
Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis, Dave Weiner,Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready,
Christine Sullivan and Gene Collins. Also present were Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Danielle
McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk, Absent: Pam Lombardini
Proposed Zoning Re-Codification: Discussion And Vote To Issue Recommendations To City Council.
Based on the July 1 public hearing and further review with Councillors, Lynn Duncan had some proposed
amendments for the zoning recodification which she reviewed:
1. Within the Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations, under"C.Commercial Uses",
delete Commercial parking facility. The implications of this type of use and where it should be
located has not been explored. This would be a substantive change.
2. Delete all proposed wording changes in "Section 5.1 Off-Street parking" and replace with the
existing wording from Section 7-3 of the current Zoning Ordinance.
3. Delete the words Chief of the Fire Department in "Section 4.2.1 General" and replace with the
words Head of the Fire Department or his designee.
• 4. Delete the words Fire Department in Sections 7.2.3, 7.3.7, 8.1.7,8.3.8 and 9.5.5 and replace with
the words Head of the Fire Department or his designee.
5. Delete the word petition in Section 7.2.3 Cluster Residential Development and replace it with
the word application.
6. Delete the definition of Assisted Living from "Section 10.0 Definitions" as it is not contained in
the proposed Table of Principal Uses.
7. Delete the "III" and replace with "3" under Nursing orconvolescent home in "Section 10.0
Definitions".
For the Purpose section (page 4,first page of narrative), keep the original "purpose" Section A but not
131, B2 or B3. At the end of A, add what Attorney Bobrowski recommended "the provisions of the Zoning
Act, G.L. c.40A, as amended, Section 2A of 1975 Mass. Acts 808, and by Article 89 of the Amendments to
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"Tim Kavanaugh recommended changing the
introduction on Section A to These regulations are enacted to promote the health....
In regards to Item 6, Christine Sullivan wondered what the consequence would be if someone comes
into the city to build an Assisted Living Facility, since there is no provision for one. Lynn said that the City
agrees it's a need for assisted living and that this is an important "parking lot" issue. It's inconsistent to
put in a definition for it but not include it in the table of uses, until there is a provision for it.
In regards to the Table of Required Parking Spaces,John Moustakis questioned the number of spaces
required for gyms/health clubs, golf courses and driving ranges.
• For Item 7,Tim Kavanaugh suggested that Chapter III should probably be renamed Chapter 111 instead
of III. He will look into it and get in touch with Lynn.
Tim Ready remembered that there was a cultural issue raised during the public hearing during
• discussion of the introduction, but Lynn Duncan said that the issue goes away by reverting back to
provision A of the current purpose, and she is comfortable with that.
John Moustakis moved to approve the proposed zoning recodification.
A man in the audience asked to speak. He mentioned that there is a church up the street from his
residence that will be putting in rooming houses. It started out as religious institution, but then changed
to an educational institute so that it would put in rooming houses. He feels there should be a specific
category in the recodification so.that laws cannot be manipulated. Lynn Duncan explained that they are
not making any changes with this recodification and also, it is a state law, and this provision simply
regurgitates state laws. She said the City can't change zoning that is mandated by state law. This is an
issue that could be challenged later on.
There being no further questions on this matter, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the
proposed zoning recodification and returned it to the City Council for discussion at their meeting on July
16, 2009, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved unanimously.
Board members commended the planning department on this terrific document and all their hard work.
Other Business
Chuck Puleo asked about the project on Canal Street regarding requirements for the parking area.There
was some discussion as to what they were supposed to be, according to the decision. Danielle
McKnight said according to the decision, the applicant is required to stripe spaces only when the lot is
• repaved. While the plan indicates they must at least fill the potholes currently there in the interim, it
doesn't say they are required,to pave and stripe until they reuse the lot for something else. Chuck
added that the applicant has remodeled the other building on the lot. Lynn Duncan mentioned that
they will be coming to the Planning Board for a special permit since they want to change the drive thru
to fast food (from its currently permitted bank use), and perhaps at that time, the Planning Board can
instill these parking lot requirements.
There being no further items to come before the Board, a motion was made by Gene Collins to adjourn,
seconded by John Moustakis and approved unanimously.
The meeting ended at 8:00 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 9/17/09
•
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1609 JUL 13 P 3: 33
CITY CLci:a.
Report to City Council
July 13, 2009
At its meeting on July 9, 2009, the Planning Board met to review the proposed zoning ordinance
re-codification for the City of Salem, Massachusetts, and voted to recommend as follows to the
City Council:
The Planning Board voted seven (7) in favor(Puleo, Kavanaugh,Ready, Sullivan, Weiner,
Collins, and Moustakis) and none (0) opposed to recommend adoption of the proposed re-
codification, with the following amendments.
1. Delete the proposed wording for"Section 1.1 Purpose"and replace with the following
paragraph:
"For the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, morals or welfare of the
• inhabitants of Salem, the zoning regulations and restrictions of this ordinance, ordained in
accord with the provisions of Chapter 40A of the General Laws and, in the case of signs,
ordained in addition in accord with the provisions of Section 29 of Chapter 93 of the
General Laws, are.designed among other purposes to lessen congestion in the streets; to
preserve health; to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to provide adequate
light and air; to prevent overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population;
to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and
other public requirements; to conserve the value of land and buildings; to encourage the
most appropriate use of land throughout the City; and to preserve and increase its amenities,
to preserve and protect the water supply, open space and conservation of natural resources,
to prevent the pollution of the environment and community blight, to ensure housing for all
income levels and compliance with the master plan of the City of Salem; all as authorized
by, but not limited to, the provisions of the Zoning Act, G.L. c. 40A, as amended, Section
2A of 1975 Mass. Acts 808, and by Article 89 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
2. Within the Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations, under"C. Commercial
Uses," delete Commercial parking facility as this would be a substantive change.
3. Delete the proposed Table of Parking spaces in"Section 5.1.8 "Off Street Parking" and
replace with the following Table of Required Parking Spaces as contained in Section 7-3 (g)
of the current Zoning Ordinance:
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM
Table of Required
Parking Spaces
Use Required Parking:
Dwellings (RC, R1, R2. One and one-half 1 (1/2)
R3) rooming houses, spaces per dwelling unit,
tourist homes, home with a minimum of two
occupations (2)spaces, plus one (1)
space for each home
occupation
Historic buildings open One (1)space for each
to the public, two(2)employees, plus
museums, libraries, such additional spaces
municipal buildings for visitors as shall be
other than schools deemed necessary by
the board of appeals
Recreation buildings One (1)space for each
and areas operated by two(2)employees, plus
membership clubs one(1)space for each
four(4)members
• Public and private golf One (1)space for each
courses, golf driving two (2)employees, plus
ranges, miniature golf one (1)space for each
courses hole
Hospitals and sanitaria, One (1)space for each
nursing and doctor accredited to
convalescent homes practice therein, plus one
(1)space for each two
(2)employees, plus (1)
space for each four(4)
beds, excluding
bassinets
Philanthropic and One(1)space for each
charitable institutions two (2)employees, plus
such additional spaces
for visitors as shall be
deemed necessary by
the board of appeals
•
Funeral homes One(1)space for each
four(4) seats, plus one
• (1)space for each two
(2)employees, plus one
(1)space for each
company vehicle; there
shall be a minimum of
twelve spaces.
Retail business and One (1)space for each
service establishments, one hundred fifty(150)
except eating and square feet of gross floor
drinking places. area of the building,
excluding storage area.
Theaters and other One(1)space for each
places of public four(4)seats, plus one
assembly, restaurants (1)space for each two
and other eating and (2)employees
drinking places, but
excluding drive-in
restaurants and drive-
in snack bars
Drive-in restaurants One (1)space for each
and other eating and two (2)employees, plus
• drinking places fifteen (15)spaces
Bowling alleys One(1)space for each
alley, plus one(1) space
for each two(2)
employees
Other places of One (1)space for each
commercial recreation thirty-six(36) square feet
and entertainment of floor area plus one (1)
such as roller rinks and space for each two (2)
dance halls employees
Music and dancing One (1)space for each
studios, trade and two (2) employees,
business schools including teachers and
administrators, plus one
(1)space for each four
(4)studios in trade or
business schools
Hotels, motels and inns One( 1)space for each
guest room, plus one (1)
space for each two (2)
• employees
• Business Offices One (1) space for each
employee
Professional offices, One (1)space for each
medical and dental professional person, plus
clinics one(1)space for each
two (2)other employees,
plus two(2)additional
spaces for each
professional person in
the case of medical or
dental clinics
Wholesale One(1)space for each
merchandise brokers, company vehicle, plus
service industry one(1)space for each
establishments such as two(2)employees, plus
plumbing, carpentry, one (1)space for each
sheet metal and thousand (1,000) square
printing shops, feet of gross floor area of
warehousing and the building, excluding
industrial uses storage area
• Wireless Where a monopole is
communication facility located, a minimum of
one (1)parking space
shall be required per
monopole
4. Delete the words Chief of the Fire Department in"Section 4.2.1 General" and replace with
the words Head of the Fire Department or his designee.
5. Delete the words Fire Department in Sections 7.2.3, 7.3.7, 8.1.7, 8.3.8, and 9.5.5 and
replace with the words Head of the Fire Department or his designee.
6. Delete the word petition in Section 7.2.3 Cluster Residential Development and replace it
with the word application.
7. Delete the definition of Assisted Living from "Section 10.0 Definitions" as it is not
contained in the proposed Table of Principal Uses.
8. Delete the "III" and replace with "111"under Nursing or convalescent home in"Section
10.0 Definitions."
Notes:
1. The proposed Purpose Section 1.1 reverts to the existing Section 1.1 (a) of the current
Zoning Ordinance with an additional phrase as recommended by Attorney Mark
Bobrowski. Amendment recommended by Councillor Sargent.
2. The only substantive changes to the Parking Section 7-3 were those contained within the
Table of Required Spaces. Other changes to the "Off Street Parking" are very minor in
nature and the Planning Board does not recommend any other amendments to this
section.
3. Proposed amendment 3, 4, and 5 above were recommended by Councillor O'Keefe.
In making this recommendation, the Planning Board considered the need to reorganize and
simplify the structure of the current Zoning Ordinance, and to update many of the outdated terns
it used. The Board felt that the Ordinance lacked clarity and was difficult to use, and the
proposed re-codified text was easier to understand and apply. The Board noted the need to make
substantive changes to the Ordinance in the future, and discussed several of the issues to be
addressed in later amendments, but agreed that before substantive changes could be made, the
text must be re-codified as proposed.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please feel free to contact Lynn Duncan at the
Department of Planning & Community Development at(978) 619-5685.
• Sincerely,
C"-L,
Charles Puleo
Chair
Cc: Mayor Kimberley Driscoll
' CITY OF SALEM
' PLANNING BOARD
7003 JIINI 7a
CITY ci F7- it
NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION R s'''
You are hereby notified that the regular Salem Planning Board meeting scheduled for
Thursday,July 2, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. is canceled because City Hall is closing at 4 p.m.
for the Fourth o f July holiday. The next meeting will be held on July 18, 2009.
Charles M. PUL4
CYmmmn
•
Tris notice_ po: '.ed on "Qf'firiai BUH tin Board'
City Hall ' ' Salem, Mass. on &Ng a3, moa
at ll'S7 i9rw� Chep. 3® Sia
23A i 238 Af wA .L.
121;0 W!vs.il�xi,"SON S ikl r:, SALEM, NI ASSAC iCSITIS 01970 ' PHONE' 973.619.5685 FAX 978.740.04{)4
0
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2609 JUN 1`5 P 12: 48
The City of Salem Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing pursuant to Gk3_i_ct40A, s. 5
with the Salem City Council on Wednesday, July 1, 2009, at 6:30 JttW'Iaf dityl I$a11 -do mdif.
Chambers, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts on the proposed zoning ordinance re-
codification for the City of Salem, Massachusetts; providing for the adoption of recodified
Sections 1 through 10; the repeal of certain ordinances not included therein; and providing when
such code and this ordinance shall become effective.
The purpose is to reorganize the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed recodifred sections contain
"housekeeping"changes, rather than substantive changes.
In addition:
Section 2. All zoning ordinances enacted on or before February 6, 2009 and not included in the
zoning ordinance or referenced therein are hereby repealed.
Section 3. The repeal provided for in section 2 hereof shall not be construed to revive any
ordinance or part thereof that has been repealed by this ordinance.
Section 4. Additions or amendments to the zoning ordinance when passed in such form as to
• indicate an intention to make the same a part of the zoning ordinance shall be deemed to be
incorporated in the zoning ordinance, so that reference to the zoning ordinance includes the
additions and amendments.
Section 5. Any person who violates the zoning ordinance may be fined as provided in section
9.2.3 thereof.
Section 6. Ordinances adopted after February 6, 2009, that amend or refer to ordinances in the
zoning ordinance shall be construed as if they amend or refer to like provisions of the attached
zoning ordinance.
Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment
on the proposed changes to the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
The complete text of the proposed re-codified Zoning Ordinance is on file at the Department of
Planning& Community Development, 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and is
available for review during regular business hours.
Charles Puleo, Chairman
This notice p®
€ ed on "CDtfilLsa8 u ®tln boa
city 'Salem, Mass. oC saw
in
ax
120 WASHINGTON STREET, .SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.SALEM.COM
Minutes of Joint Public Hearing with the City Council and Planning Board
• July 1, 2009
A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 6:30
pm in the Council Chambers, 93 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts to discuss proposed re-
codification of the Salem Zoning Ordinances.
The proposed re-codification provides for the adoption of re-codified Sections 1 through 10; the repeal of
certain ordinances not included therein; and providing when such code and this ordinance shall become
effective. The purpose of the recodification is to reorganize the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed recodified
sections contain"housekeeping" changes,rather than substantive changes.
The meeting was posted on June 26, 2009 and advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 17th and 24th,
2009 by the City Clerk.
City Council Members present: Paul Prevey,President,Mike Sosnowski,Jerry Ryan, Arthur Sargent 111,
Jean Pelletier,Robert McCarthy and Joseph O'Keefe, Sr. Absent: Steven Pinto,Joan B. Lovely,Matthew
Veno and Thomas Furey.
Planning Board Members present: Chuck Polio, Chairman,Tim Ready, Pam Lombardini, Christine
Sullivan,John Moustakis,Tim Kavanaugh and Gene Collins. Lynn Duncan,Executive Director, Danielle
McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. Absent: Nadine Hanscom and Dave Weiner.
Also present: City Solicitor Beth Rennard and Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre
• City Council President Paul Prevey opened the meeting, read the meeting notice and acknowledged the City
Councillors who were present. He introduced Chuck Puleo, Chairman of the Planning Board, and Planning
Board members.
Lynn Duncan explained that the purpose for recodification was 'housekeeping',to make it easier to use. The
intent was not to change zoning,but to make it more user friendly. The process started in November 2007 and
they hired Attorney Mark Bobrowski to assist in the process. Two versions of the Zoning Ordinance
Recodification are available, a clean copy and a copy with strike-throughs to show the changes. Some issues
came up during the recodification process that will need to be addressed in the future, these were put in a
"parking lot" and include: PUD, cluster, site plan review process,assisted living, entrance corridor, off-street
parking. Another purpose for the recodification is to follow state governs and have consistency; they added uses
or terminology that are now common(for example, "bed and breakfast" was used instead of"tourist homes").
Lynn Duncan explained that with the proposed changes, the City would not need to change its ordinances every
time state statutes changed. Councillor Sosnowski questioned whether the recodification document will contain
verbiage such as "See ......" to direct the layman where to look for further information. He wants to make sure
that when someone wants make changes or additions, for example,put in a pool, that when they look at the
zoning recodification documents, they know where to find necessary information.He suggested putting Mass
General Law numbers in the recodification document instead. However,Lynn Duncan said that the Mass General
Law numbers change a lot, so that may not be helpful. Lynn Duncan mentioned that in the recodification
document, 5.1 needs to be deleted,replaced with 7.3 and renamed 5.1. She asked the City Councillors and
Planning Board members to assist in moving this process along, and suggested that the public hearing be closed
tonight.
•
Lynn introduced Attorney Mark Bobrowksi who went over some highlights of the strike through document:
Section 1-Changes are minor.
• Section 2- Districts-shows boundaries, lines, etc.
Section 3-Establishes a use regulation table, there was no attempt to make changes of uses. Accessory uses on
page 23-no changes.
Section 3.3-this section was rewritten to update based on case law. Attorney Bobrowski is willing to work with
the ZBA if they have any questions. Also, for the first time, tear downs, nonconforming are included.
Section 4-Table of dimensional requirements are now included.
Section 5- "Fire Dept" will be changed to "Chief of Fire Dept", as well as in the rest of document.
Section 6 -no changes
Section 7- "Petition" will be changed to "application".
Section 8-A chart for dimensional use is included.
Section 9- Site plan review is section 9.5.12
Section 10 -This is the definition section.
In reference to section 10 (rooming,boarding or lodging house) Councillor O'Keefe asked about the number of
roomers. Christine Sullivan asked for clarification of section 3, ability for demolition.
Meeting Opened to the Public
John Carr, 7 River Street, followed up on Christine's question and asked about voluntary demolition. Attorney
Bobrowski said with voluntary demolition, to rebuild,you could ask for a variance if the dimensions required it,
but if you voluntarily demolish your house you have lost your rights.
Robert Levins was concerned with the phrase"preserve the cultural heritage". At the informational meeting held
in Sept/Oct, Attorney Bobrowksi said that this is commonly used in a purpose section,but Mr. Levins hasn't
• found it in any other zoning documents. Also, Mr. Levins wondered if, for permitted uses in a residential
conservation, should there be a provision for a license for piers as it's different in each city. Attorney Bobrowski
commented that if the City Councillors want"preserve the cultural heritage" taken out,they can do that. As for a
license for piers,he will need to look into that. Robert Levins said, in response to a question by Councillor Jean
Pelletier, that about 10 years ago, when a pier was last rebuilt, they got a permit from the City and Chapter 91,
but they didn't have to go to the zoning board.
Councillor McCarthy thanked Attorney Bobrowski for all his hard work and says the tables and charts will be
much easier to use. He wondered if this new document is adopted, what sort of advantage would it give
applicants' attorneys. Attorney Bobrowski mentioned that it does not necessarily offer advantages other than ease
of use—it will have updated definitions and consistency. Councillor Sargent wondered if it would hurt if we
were to keep the old purpose in section 1. Attorney Bobrowski said they could keep 1.1 to 1.3, but add "the
provisions of the Zoning Act, G.L. c.40A, as amended, Section 2A of 1975 Mass. Acts 808, and by Article 89 of
the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"at the end. Lynn Duncan explained
that the current purpose section relates to the "point" system, a system once used by other cities to regulate
growth, but which the City of Salem had never used, and was not to the city's benefit. They will take a look at
and see what make sense for the purpose section.
Councillor Pelletier suggested they get amendments out on the floor so it can be moved to the Planning Board.
Lynn Duncan agreed that it's great to get issues out tonight; it's still feasible to close the public hearing. The
Planning Board could go over these and make a recommendation to the Council, the Council can make
amendments during their first passage. Councillor Sosnowski asked about protocol as he wants to move this
forward but wants to make sure amendments are made.
• Councillor Pelletier moved to close the public hearing.
Teasie Riley Goggin asked where the Salem Mission falls under these codes and Lynn explained that since it's a
homeless shelter, organized as a nonprofit, and could possibly be characterized as exempt.
' There was a brief discussion on protocol for this project.
A motion was made by Councillor Pelletier to close the public hearing, all in favor.
A motion was made by Councillor Pelletier to move this to the Planning Board for recommendation, all in favor.
A motion was made by Councillor O'Keefe to adjourn, all in favor.
Meeting ended at 8:30 pm
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 9-17-09
•
i j!r CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2001 JUI 12 A 8 55
ei_Eti
CITY C_ER' . St_E M, f' ?SS
NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION
You are hereby notified that the regular Salem Planning Board meeting scheduled for
Thursday,June 18, 2009, at 7.00 p.m. is canceled due to a lack of agenda items.
NOTICE OF SITE VISIT
The Planning Board will meet on Thursday,June 18, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.
for a site visit at 40 Circle Hill Road.
Site Visit- Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan- Proposed extension of Circle Dill Road to serve
three new single-family lots. The proposed development is located at 40 Circle Hill Road (Assessors
Map 9, Lot 0255). DeIulis Brothers Construction Co,Inc. Visit will be held at 40 Circle FEU Rd.
ON 6lkd-I plt /&K
• Charle M. Puleo,
Chaimun
This not.lee posted on "Official BuNetln Board'
City Hall / Salem, Mess, on jvve is j'00 9
23A & 23 n09 WG.L. With Ghee^ 30 SK
a
120 WASHINMN S R t. ', SALEA1, NlkSSAC IIS YIS 01970 ' PHONE 913.619.5685 FAY 973.740.040A
CITY OF SALEM
'lJY PLANNING BOARD
MR KAY 28 P 3: 12
Le
lrAUPI
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby n�ifid that the SalemPla=ngBa%rd will hold its nv&dysd�ecluled rrce[ing on
Thursday,June 4, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Anrrex,Room313, 120 WashingtonSt?&
dko � A,�/&2q
Charle M. Puleq
Chairman
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
■ May 21, 2009 Planning Board Meeting
2. Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan- Proposed extension of Circle Dill Road to serve three new
single-family lots. The proposed development is located at 40 Circle Hill Road (Assessors Map 9,Lot
0255). DeIulis Brothers Construction Co,Inc.
3. Old/New Business
4. Adjournment
This 0000e pasted on *Official Bulletin Board"
C� Wall diem, mass. or, 217a�r L .,��09
3 :�� Plj With dam. 39 S"
• lA & of i!.
120 W. Seitvc'zro� St v r,: , SALEM, MASSAr it Seats 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 Fnx 978.740.0404
CITY OF SALEM
• DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET❑ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TEL: 978-745-9595❑ FAx:978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: May 28, 2009
RE: Agenda—June 4, 2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Draft Minutes of 5/21/09 Planning Board Meeting
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan— Proposed extension of Circle Hill Road to serve
three new single-family lots. The proposed development is located at 40 Circle Hill Road
(Assessors Map 9, Lot 0255). DeIulis Brothers Construction Co, Inc.
Scott Patrowicz will be presenting the application.
The applicant has chosen to go through the optional Form B preliminary subdivision process. No
public hearing is required. However, in order to make neighbors aware of the plans early on, I have
sent a courtesy notification to abutters within 300 feet of the project.
The purpose of the preliminary subdivision review is for the Board to identify questions and
potential issues to be addressed later on, in the definitive subdivision process. The level of detail
required in this stage of the review is not as great as that of a definitive subdivision; for example, the
engineering, topographic detail, drainage, etc. is much more preliminary than we will be seeing later,
in the Form C application. Preliminary subdivision approval will not guarantee definitive approval.
The Board has 45 days to act on the Form B application.
I have not received any feedback from abutters with concerns about the application, other than one
person who wanted to be sure the project would not encroach on DiBiase Park (it would not). The
•
1
application was also routed to Engineering, Conservation, Fire Prevention,Building, and Health.
The Building Inspector concurs with the proposal and has told me no zoning relief would be •
required; no other departments have provided comments.
In addition to approval under Subdivision Control, the project will need a Wetlands/Flood Plain
Hazard Special Permit because some of the construction will be within the buffer zone of a
bordering vegetated wetland. The Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions for
the project, and the appeal period has passed.
•
•
2
Salem Planning Board
• Minutes of Meeting
June 4, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,June 4, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room
312,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini, Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready,
Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Absent: Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins and David Weiner
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of May 21, 2009 were reviewed.
There being no comments on this matter, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to accept the
minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved unanimously.
Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan- Proposed extension of Circle Hill Road to serve three new single-
family lots. The proposed development is located at 40 Circle Hill Road (Assessors Map 9,Lot 0255).
Delulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc.
• Scott Patrowicz, P. E. and Pat Delulis in attendance. Scott Patrowicz explained that this is land court
property. He showed on a map the layout of Circle Hill Road. Where there are 5 lots right now,they
want to make it into 3 lots. They have met with the Conservation Commission, have had multiple
meetings with neighbors, and have since changed the plans a bit. The current plans have passed with
the Conservation Commission and now they would like to get comments from the Planning Board.
Pat Delulis said there will be curbing, sidewalks, plantings, and they are allowing for overland drainage.
They have addressed some flow issues on this plan. Some drainage goes through a neighbor's yard; it
flows over their yard into a catch basin.To repair the situation, they will put in a grass Swale to send the
water a depressed area in the property, which will lessen the amount of water going into the abutter's
yard. This has satisfied the neighbors. The City Engineer has approved the drainage as well. Also,the
highest point is 119.6 elevation and they will have to meet the existing street.They are not sure yet if
they will have to blast.
Danielle McKnight asked about the rate at which the area will drain. Scott Patrowicz explained that
there should be no issues with standing water. The depressed area on the property is naturally
occurring.
Delulis said they plan on developing the lots for sale to give people an option to build a house with their
own contractor. If they know who the buyers will be ahead of time,they may be able to do the
excavation and foundation.They will also be adding a turn around that is needed on that street which
meets the Fire Department regulations.They aren't asking for any Board of Appeals waivers, all the lots
meet zoning regulations,there are no setback issues and they will bring in utilities underground. The
• Conservation Commission delineated a "no build zone" which limits the development allowed on lot 3.
. Rich Sakowich from 36 Circle Hill Road is concerned about drainage and sidewalks. Scott Patrowicz
explained that for the roof drainage they surveyed the area and their proposal would improve the
situation. They would pull the water more towards the natural retention basin near Sable Hill Road.
They have done sketches of the watershed that they can show board members. Scott said they can go
over the grading as well. Mr. Sakowich is also concerned about cars driving into the park and suggested
having something there to prevent this such as a fence. Chuck Puleo said they will plan a site visit once
the final plans are submitted and will view and consider the sidewalk issue. The site visit is tentatively
scheduled for Thursday 18th at 6:30 and the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting will be at 7:30.
Old/New Business
The Beverly Co-Op bank has complied, screens are in.
The new restaurant Tavern on the Square is now open. John Moustakis said there is a BOH ordinance
that you can't have open windows or doors without screens,there are provisions they will have to
follow.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Board, Pam Lombardini made a motion to adjourn,
seconded by John Moustakis and approved unanimously.
Meeting ended at 8:00 pm
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Clerk
• City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
T
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
Page ' of�
v �
f CITY 0 SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1004 MAY 13 A 4: 4�
FILE t
CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby mtiti;W that dx SalernPlamung Baird udl hdd its ng darly s&ffUed rrxting on
Thursday,May 21, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Amyx,Room313, 120 Washbrgm Sm-et
P4-&eb5 t
Charles M. Puler
Chairnvn
MEETING AGENDA
i. Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval—
25 Cedarcrest Avenue, Salem, MA(Map 21, Lot 0243). Steven J. Caruso represented by
Attorney Michael P. McCarthy.
2. Zoning Recodification discussion- Lynn Duncan
• 3. Approval of Minutes
♦ March 19, 2009 Planning Board Meeting
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
CItY Hall -Sf"lem, Mass. on
at 9!47aMl in acWrdat e with `7n9v 3e sa
i3, X009
23A d 2,39MG
3� of .L. °
1201 Sf1V(sT(N STIKIHASALEM, MASSu iUSrrrs 01970 • Prior� 978.617.5685 l,Ax 97M40,040,1 rar
• �, CITY OF SALEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
fe COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET❑ SALEM,M,95SACHUSETTS 01970
TEL: 978-745-9595 0 FAY: 978-740-0404
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
M.1YOR
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: May 12, 2009
RE: Agenda–May 21, 2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Draft Minutes of 4/16/09 Planning Board Meeting
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval—
25 Cedarcrest Avenue, Salem, MA (Map 21, Lot 0243). Steven J. Caruso represented
by Attorney Michael P. McCarthy.
The proposed plan shows the division of 25 Cedarcrest Ave. into two parcels: Lot 1, which
has frontage on Cedarcrest Ave. and sufficient lot area for the Rl zone, and Lot 1A, an
undersized parcel with no frontage. According to case law, a parcel can be created through
an ANR with no frontage if it is labeled on the plan as not a building lot. The copy of the
plan you have says "Not a buildable lot"; I have asked Attorney McCarthy to clarify this as
"Not a building lot" on the Mylar he brings to the meeting.
Zoning Recodification discussion–Lynn Duncan
Your packet contains both a clean copy of the proposed zoning recodification with
tables included, and a strike-through version showing the tables as separate documents.
It is the Planning Department's understanding that Councillor Sargent will bring the
zoning recodification proposal forward at Council's May 14 meeting. The next step will
be to schedule a joint public hearing with the Council and Planning Board. Originally
Walter Power and Chuck Puleo served on the Zoning Recodification Committee;Tim
Kavanaugh is now the second member. If you have any questions, feel free to call in
• advance of the meeting.
1
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
• May 21, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 21, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 312,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and
Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, City Planner, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey
Dupuis, Clerk
Absent: Chuck Puleo (Chair), Dave Weiner and Pam Lombardini
John Moustakis chaired the meeting.
Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval-25 Cedarcrest Avenue
PP q PP
Salem, MA(Map 21, Lot 0243). Steven J. Caruso represented by Attorney Michael P. McCarthy
Attorney Michael McCarthy said the smaller lot created by the ANR would not be a building lot, and was
marked as such on the plan. Christine Sullivan asked why his client wished to divide the land this way;
McCarthy said there is no agreement yet, but the lot would probably be conveyed to an abutter. This
would add on to the rear of the abutter's lot. If the abutter wanted to build on it, they would have to
come to the Planning Board.
There being no further discussion on this matter, a motion was made by Tim Ready to approve the
application, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved unanimously.
•
Approval of Minutes-March 19, 2009
The minutes o March
min f19, 2009 were reviewed. There being no discussion on this matter, a motion was
made by Nadine Hanscom to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Ready and approved unanimously.
Zoning Recodification Discussion—Lynn Duncan
Lynn Duncan gave a brief update on the Zoning Recodification effort. Each Board member had two
copies of this document, the original and a copy with strike-through to show changes. Lynn Duncan said
that the end result of the Zoning Recodification would be an easier to understand document for Board
members and the public; it would have clearer and more up to date terms. For example, she said that
currently,this zoning ordinance has no provision for frontage; instead the building inspector has used lot
width, so there is now a frontage requirement based on lot width that is spelled out in the document.
She said that the Zoning Committee, which is made up of two representatives from each city Board, and
the Planning Department has set aside some "parking lot" issues that will be dealt with at'a later time,
since the priority for now was to reorganize the document for clarity and ease of use; larger zoning
changes would be undertaken at a later time. Lynn Duncan will be meeting with the (City Council)
Committee of the Whole next week regarding Zoning Recodification and hopes it will then go to the City
Council on the 28`h From there it would then likely be referred to the Planning Board and then a joint
• public hearing would be held. Lynn would like the recodification be adopted by August.
Parking was brought up as one future issue to be addressed through zoning. There was a brief
discussion about addressing parking in downtown Salem.
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board PIO-&A ;r,a � 66A
Date 5-
Name
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
Page of I_
CITY OF. SALEM
PLS NNING B fu
• H p /
700 14AY - 55
CITY CI-ERII- L #
Al F
NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION
You are hereby nmified that the SalemPlamung Bazrd m ting s6,dl aa'meting for Thursday,May 7,
2009 at 7:00 pm at City Hall A roree,Room313, 120 Washington Stray has leen canceled due to la&
of arxla item. The next nBiing uN he held m May 21, 2009.
Charles M. Pula, \
Chairmen
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Boars"
City Hail ae-d m, on koyacs?
at S,.ss ilm in �.ccord,=.00 With Clap. 39
3A i 232 of G,L.
120 W.,Szir C,Cery S�it� t, , S^,i i.3-:, MASSAC Hr Si as 01976 • Purn 97/8.6R5685 F,�x 978.740.0404v:a�,r�.d E;,:. 0m
CITY OF SALEM
r � PLANNING BOARD
1004 APR -9 P 5* 51-1
Cottee+-,
CITY CLc:rl, St,t._ii , t'IASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby rutioez'that the SalemPlawrg Board will hdd its rtgularly sdxdu1ed Ming on
Thursday,Apri116, 2009 at 7:00 pm at CttyHd Arrntx,Room313, 120 Washington Street
Charly M. Puleq
Chairman
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
March 19, 2009 Planning Board Meeting
2. Continued Public Hearing - Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District
Special Permit, &North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit—
• Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, &71 Mason Street (Map 26,Lots
0091, 0095 &0097) (former Salem Suede Propert} — Attorney Scott Grover
3. Old/New Business
4. Adjournment
r":1e6 a't„ :, - " Bulletin Boards
�2ilP �1 Ma
e t r� t M'r, �� Q� s ,{��" PPh
at -5, -5 J,�,� r , ,tee[ '
�,r €� w6.v�'Y u.:»7�iv� �gt�2Z"i Csjy�jJo
VA � 232 of K�,.
120 is :SHIN MN STnl E.:', SALEM, MASS C kl Sl1l`1'8 101970 - RioN :978.619.56R5 FAX 9"N,740.04104 R q';%i.ti 7 k:61.i!i1d
I �
CITY OF SALEM
• I
� DEPARTN-LENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
120 WASHINGTON STREET❑ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TEL: 978-745-9595 0 FAX:978-740-0404
Kr IBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
LI"NN GOONIN DUNCAN,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: April 7 2009
RE: Agenda–April 16, 2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Draft Minutes of 3/5/09 Planning Board Meeting
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
r
Notes on Agenda Items
Continued Public Hearing– Site Plan Review,Wetlands and Flood Hazard
District Special Permit, & North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District
Special Permit—Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street,
& 71 Mason Street. Attorney Scott Grover.
The applicant has submitted an irrigation plan, a lighting plan (which I have submitted to the
City Electrician for approval), and an updated landscaping plan, all of which had been requested
by the Board.
A unresolved issue from our last meeting was traffic mitigation and the Oak St. island proposal.
Since our last meeting, Lieutenant Preczewski has reviewed the submitted signage/traffic
calming plan, including the Oak Street island. He believes the proposed signage and the island at
Oak St. will be helpful, and also recommends a "Tow Zone–No Parking" sign on Mason St. on
either side of that driveway. A copy of his comments are included in your packet.
As requested by the Board at our last meeting, AE COM prepared a series of drawings showing
the turning radius of a truck entering and exiting the Mason St. driveway. These are included in
• your packet. They show that there are instances where a single-unit truck would enter the
1
p p
oncoming lanes upon entering or exiting the site. The applicant is prepared to limit truck traffic
to the Flint St. driveway only, which the Planning Department recommends. •
There were also several outstanding engineering issues. Our peer reviewer, Bill Ross, will attend
this meeting to review them and discuss their resolution. Mr. Ross has provided us with
recommended conditions for all unresolved issues. At this point, we believe all issues have been
addressed and offer the following conditions.
Recommended Conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plans
Work shall conform to the following plans:
a. "Site Development Permit Plan of Riverview Place in Salem, Massachusetts," Sheets 1
through 8, dated January 24, 2008 and revised on March 17, 2008, November 12, 2008,
December 23, 2008, February 19, 2009, and March 26, 2009, prepared by Eastern Land
Survey Associates, Inc., Peabody, MA;
b. "Riverview Place, Flint & Mason Street, Salem, Massachusetts," Sheets CIA, A1.0
through A1.7, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3c, and A2.4b.
c. "Conceptual Landscape Plan," Sheets L-1 and L-2, dated March 18, 2009, prepared by
Huntress Associates, Inc., Andover, MA;
d. "Traffic Signing and Pavement Marking Plan," dated March 2009, prepared by AECOM,
Concord MA; and
e. "Riverview Place, Salem, MA, Site Lighting with Wall Fixtures," dated March 25, 2009,
prepared by Peter Beane. •
2. Amendments
Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed
necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board. Any waiver of
conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board.
3. Landscaping
a. Applicant is to submit a final set of landscaping plans to concur with site development
plans, showing all bio-retention areas. Final landscaping plans are to be approved by the
City Planner.
b. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans.
c. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his
successors or assigns.
4. Lighting
a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way.
a. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Electrician for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
•
2
1
5. Construction Practices
• All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions:
a. Work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM the following
day on weekdays or at any time on Sundays or Holidays.
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 of the project.
c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be
undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations.
d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not
leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site.
e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances of the
City of Salem.
f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site
• g. All construction activities shall be in accordance with the attached "Salem Police Station
Construction Management Plan".
6. Clerk of the Works
A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his
successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner.
7. Design Review Board
All requirements as set forth by the Design Review Board (DRB) shall be strictly adhered to.
Violation of DRB requirements shall be considered a violation of the Site Plan.
8. Conservation Commission
a. All work shall comply req with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission
b. The applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation
Commission.
9. Signage and Traffic Calming
The applicant, his successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the following signage and
traffic calming measures, provided that any required City Council approvals are granted:
a. installation of an electronic speed monitor on Mason Street, with the location to be
determined by the Traffic Division Commander;
b. installation of,signage and pavement markings as shown on the submitted plans;
c. placement of a"No Parking—Tow Zone" signage on Mason Street on both sides of
• the site driveway, to be approved by the Traffic Division Commander;
3
d. installation of a traffic island and accompanying signage at the base of Oak Street, as
shown on the submitted plans; •
e. signage at the Mason St. driveway prohibiting the entrance and exit of trucks;
f. installation of a yellow flashing beacon at the intersection of Flint Street and Mason
Street, with the exact location to be approved by the Traffic Division Commander;
and
g. complete plans and specifications for the design of a traffic signal to be built at the
intersection of Mason Street, Tremont Street and the site's Mason Street driveway
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
10. Transportation Management Association Membership
The applicant is to contribute full membership dues of Riverview Place LLC to the North Shore
Transportation Management Association upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, in
exchange for membership privileges for Riverview Place residents, for a period of three (3)
years.
11. Affordable Housing
The Petitioner shall place an Affordable Housing Restriction on the development ensuring that at
least thirteen(13) of the one hundred and thirty (130) units shall be affordable. The form of the
restriction is to be approved by the City Planner and recorded with the Essex South Registry of
Deeds. The affordable housing restriction is to be in accordance with the eligibility criteria for
the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development's Subsidized Housing
Inventory for the purpose of ensuring that at least thirteen (13) dwelling units will be restricted as
affordable housing for households whose annual incomes are eighty percent (80%) or less of area •
median income with rents affordable to low and moderate income households, by standards
established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for a period of ninety-nine
(99) years from the date of the first occupancy permit.
12. Parking Spaces for Flint Street Residents
Twelve (12) on site parking spaces are to be reserved in perpetuity for the sole use of Flint Street
residents. The proposed mechanism for reserving the spaces is to be submitted and approved by
the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
13. Roadway Easement
The applicant, upon taking title to the premises, will grant to the City of Salem an easement to
construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the site in the location
shown on the site plan at any time within a_ year period after all necessary approvals for the
project become final. The easement is to be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and to be
recorded by the developer upon approval by the City Solicitor. The easement is to be recorded
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
14. Bypass Pumping and Sedimentation Control
Applicant is to maintain bypass pumping twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week during wet
weather conditions and plug the outfall to avoid sedimentation of the North River during
demolition.
•
4
J
• 15. Gas Lines
Applicant is to cut and cap the gas lines at the existing main prior to beginning demolition.
16. Drainage and Bio-Retention Plans
Applicant is to submit a revised Sheet 6 of 8 of the site plans to include the drain stubs from all
buildings and the bio-retention areas per the narrative submitted on March 9, 2009 by H.H.
Morant, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, applicant is to submit details for
review showing the oil-water separator proposed for the interior parking garage drainage, and the
flow splitting device proposed to proportion drain flows from the roof of Building#3, prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
17. Maintenance of Catch Basins and Stormceptors
Applicant is to submit a narrative describing the frequency of cleaning and maintenance of catch
basins and Stormceptors and clearly define responsible party for maintenance, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
18. Performance of Drain Piping and Stormceptor
Applicant is to submit a revised Sheet 7 of the site plans, and confirm that the drain piping will
not allow backflow from the stormcepter to the lower bio-retention area.
19. Replacement of Mason Street Water Valve
Applicant will replace the existing Mason Street water valve if deemed necessary by the City
• Engineer.
20. Board of Health
The owner shall comply with the following specific conditions issued by the Board of Health:
a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent
of the name, address, and telephone number of the project(site) manager who will be on site and
directly responsible for the construction of the project.
b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for this site under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for the site
meets the DEP standards for the proposed use.
c. The developer will give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report.
d. A radon remediation kit is installed and is operational in each below grade dwelling
unit.
e. A radon test is conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit.
f. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer.
g. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, From BWPAO6, must be sent to the
Health Agent.
h. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior
to constriction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's invoice to
the Health Agent.
i. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction.
j. Prior to renovation/demolition of any strictures, a Certified Asbestos Inspector must
• inspect all buildings and send a report to the Health Agent. If asbestos is found, the owner must
5
comply with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's regulations including
310CMR 7.15. •
k. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and
street sweeping which will occur during construction.
1. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and
removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during
demolition and/or construction.
m. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting.
n. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations, including but
not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by more
than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line.
o. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill
material needed for the project.
p. The resultant establishment shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its
operation in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health.
q. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast
Mosquito Control and Wetland Management District.
r. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final
inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
21. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
22. Building Inspector
ector
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. •
23. Utilities
Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
24. Exterior Elevations
Elevations shall be in accordance with the approved plans.
25. Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the
developer, his successors or assigns.
b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site.
c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the applicant, his successors
or assigns.
26. As-built Plans
As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of
Occupancy.
•
6
27. Violations
Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless
the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board.
•
•
7
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
April 16, 2009
• A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 16, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 312,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Pam Lombardini, Gene Collins, Dave Weiner,
Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready, Tim Kavanaugh, John Moustakis. Also present: Lynn Duncan, City Planner
and SRA Executive Director, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk.
Chuck Puleo mentioned that Tim Ready was reappointed to the Planning Board.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the March 19, 2009 meeting were reviewed.
There being no comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to accept the
.minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved 8-0 (Sullivan, Kavanaugh, Ready, Collins, Puleo,
Lombardini, Weiner, Hanscom in favor; Moustakis abstaining; none opposed).
Public Hearing— Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit & North River
Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit- Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint St., 67-69 Mason Street
& 71 Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) Former Salem Suede Property- Attorney Scott
Grover
Attorney Scott Grover, representing Riverview Place LLC, introduced David Zion and David Walsh both
• principals of this project. Also present were Jim McDowell, engineer for the project, and Bill Ross,
Engineering Peer Reviewer for the City. Attorney Grover thanked the Planning Board for their diligent
process on this project,which he feels will be beneficial for City; he also thanked the City's planning staff
for their work.
Bill Ross mentioned that at the last meeting there were 20 outstanding items in his review of the project
and of those 20, 13 have been resolved. Jim McDowell said for the few outstanding items, they will be
addressed through conditions. In response to Board questions about not being able to see the proposed
Oak St. traffic island on the plans, McDowell says that the island cannot be seen on the plans because
it's offsite; however, they have no problem incorporating it. Nadine Hanscom was concerned that a
snow plow won't be able to get by the island on Oak St. and suggested having painted arrows on Oak St.
instead. Lynn Duncan reminded all that the island was put in as a response to Planning Board's concern
to people cutting down Oak St. and across Flint St. to the project site. Christine Sullivan agreed with
Nadine that the island wasn't necessary, and just putting proper signage would address the problem. It
was suggested to add a condition for a six month report on whether the island would be necessary, and
to have the developer build it at that time if the City wished. In response to concerns about damage
from snow plows, Bill Ross mentioned that there are islands that don't need to be raised; they can be
painted on the street or done through textured pavement.
Dave Weiner had some concerns with the entrance on Mason St, that trucks would not have enough
• room and they would need to cross,the other lanes to make a turn. He also said he agreed that an island
on Oak St isn't needed.
Danielle McKnight pointed out that there have been some additions to the draft decision letter. She
handed out the Draft Site plan review decision and the Board reviewed section 9. There was discussion
as to whether 9D, the Oak St. traffic island condition, can be eliminated. Lynn Duncan suggested for
verbiage "Signage and pavement markings as appropriate as determined by the Traffic Division •
commander to control traffic from Oak St cutting across to Flint St entrance."
Section 9G conditions design of a traffic light at Mason and Tremont Streets, so the city will have design
in hand when money becomes available. There was concern about another condition, the flashing light
at Flint St. and Mason St., and the suggestion that this should be a hanging light, not on a post on the
corner where it could flash into someone's house. Danielle McKnight suggested that City approval of the
light's design be put in the conditions.
Chuck Puleo mentioned that after the last meeting, at which there were disputes from members of the
public about whether the City's traffic engineer peer reviewer had supplied accurate traffic counts, he
and Nadine Hanscom spent a few hours doing sample counts of their own, and their numbers were
close to those submitted by the engineers.
Steve Livermore reviewed the photometric lighting plan. The lighting at entrances is included in plan.
On Mason St., the lights will be on 12 ft poles; lighting is hidden and directional into parking lots. The
photometric plan is designed to show strength of lights. The lighting in parking area will have two
different types of light poles. One type is a more protective light, about 18 ft tall, those are hidden and
direct; the other is typical of what is on Washington St, traditional, about 12 ft high. In Mason Street
area, the lighting isn't shown but there will be spillage in from street lights. Christine Sullivan pointed
out that it looks like there is no light until you get down to the end of driveway, and she wanted to be •
sure that area was well lit for safety reasons. Steve Livermore says that on the back of the building
there are lights, as well as more lights at the entrance that are intended to be directed toward that area.
Chuck Puleo is concerned that since houses are very close to that driveway, if they were to put lights
there, the light may spill into their homes and be a nuisance along with traffic noise.
Attorney Scott Grover mentioned that since there are conditions for the lighting, the Planning
Department would have a chance to review the lighting at another time. Steve Livermore said they
could revisit the lighting if they felt it wasn't adequate.
Meeting Opened to Public
Councillor Steven Pinto is familiar with this project and he feels the developer has gone above and
beyond; he says it's a big project on an entrance corridor, he asked the Board to support this project.
Councilor Prevey, Ward 6, has an issue with the density of this project; he hopes traffic issues can be
addressed; he commends the developer as this has transformed into a much improved project from
what it originally looked like. He feels that the process of going through various boards has helped
tremendously. He's disappointed that he feels it doesn't meet all NRCC requirements, but is happy to
see a project going there. He is concerned with the construction and its effect on the neighbors (noise,
traffic, etc). He plans on being involved every step of the way. Chuck Puleo addressed some of •
Councillor Prevey's comments, and also suggested some neighborhood action, especially to address
speeding cars. For demolition, the Planning Board is putting on strict conditions for notifying neighbors.
Nadine Hanscom added that the traffic problem is already there and feels most people will enter from
Mason St. Christine Sullivan asked if they would be drilling geo-piers and Jim McDowell suspects that
may be the way to go. Pre-inspections of homes will be done because it's a requirement. Christine
Sullivan wants neighbors to be educated on what will happen, for example, that drilling does shake
• things. Lynn Duncan asked if geo-piers require pre-survey, and Steve Livermore said he would look into
it, and Lynn suggested adding it as a condition. Steve Livermore said they are not committed to a
certain type of system for foundation. Lynn Duncan discussed whether the condition should be added
under section 5, construction practices. John Moustakis said that blasting comes under the state; it
doesn't come under the City.
Ann Whittier, 10 River Street, says she can't understand how the Mayor, Board members and the City
would allow a development of such a high density to go there. She also has concerns about traffic.
Chuck Puleo explained that the intent is to keep traffic off of Flint St, have the access at the lower end
near Bridge St., as well as use entrance on Mason St. Ann Whittier feels the traffic has changed since
the courthouse construction.
Councillor Joan Lovely speaks in support of this project. She thanks the Planning Board for their work.
She feels that this is an opportunity to clean up an old building and site and replace it with something
viable. She also thanked the developer for listening to the neighbors and Board members.
Councillor Tom Furey is in support of this project. He feels in 5 years from now the area will be new and
very desirable with the COA and this development. He asks if the developers could comment on how
many jobs this project would bring to Salem.
• Attorney Scott Grover said the Brownfields will be addressed by the state. The DEP will oversee the
cleanup of the site and because it's for residential use, there are higher requirements. They are unsure
of how deep they will go for contamination testing. Once this project is started, Steve Livermore
estimated there could be dozens of workers/jobs brought into to the city. The total construction will be
about$20mil worth of work in about a 2 year period of time.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St, talked about the Planning Board obligations to the NRCC. He feels that
there are areas on noncompliance. For example, the surrounding homes are 2 levels, and these
buildings will be taller. He is asking that the Board deny this special permit.
Lynn Duncan said the Board needs to make findings for this special permit that show compliance with
the NRCC zoning. She read some compliance requirements, such as having mixed use on main corridor;
redeveloping the Salem Suede site, and improving access to the canal. She also discusses how this
project is in compliance with the overall NRCC goals in terms of architecture, pedestrian improvements,
and pedestrian-oriented development.
Bill Penta, 89 Flint St, feels the area is already a mess and that it doesn't make sense to add another
mess. He feels that the City should fix the area first before adding a development in.
. Lorene Scanlon, 77 Mason Street, says she is hoping that the development will include real mixed use
and services that will enhance the neighborhood.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, says she has been to every single meeting except for one. She
commented that a lot of changes have been made and that they have addressed some of the goals and
vision of the NRCC, but that some of these goals haven't been addressed. She doesn't see how this fits
with the goal of preserving the character of the historic neighborhood, because it will be the only •
residential complex and this project abuts the McIntire district. She feels the city is losing an opportunity
for mixed use property with this project. In the NRCC statement, it said the project should manage and
reduce traffic. Chuck Puleo asked how it would be possible for a project to reduce traffic. She feels that
by approving this project, they are missing out on an opportunity for better mixed use. She also feels
that it's important that neighbors are contacted prior to construction.
Pierre Pelletier, 124%: Federal St., addresses the Bridge St. transportation corridor. He notes that many
new parking spaces will be added to the area because of this site, the senior center and the MBTA. He
says that 1000 parking spaces within a half mile will impact the neighborhood streets. He says all these
projects should be looked at together and all this parking and traffic taken into account. He suggests
that the transportation corridor on Bridge Street be seriously reviewed for traffic impacts.
Bill Penta, 89 Flint St., mentioned that no heavy trucks are allowed on Flint St. He's concerned about
trucks going down Flint St. during construction, they should not be allowed. He also said that most
houses on the street were built in the 1700's, vibrations can wreck those homes. Chuck Puleo informed
him that the developer will have to submit construction plans. Bill Penta complimented Board members
because after the last meeting, there was police detail with speed traps on the street.
There being no further discussion, Nadine Hanscom made a motion to close the public hearing,
seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (9-0). •
Danielle McKnight reviewed the site plan decision conditions, reading those out loud that are not
standard:
# 5B is for beginning of construction. Lynn Duncan said pre-notification to neighbors about drilling, etc.
should be above and beyond this section. Christine Sullivan suggested that notifications be sent to
neighbors weekly or bi weekly. It was suggested to appoint a clerk of the works. It was recommended
that Attorney Scott Grover talk with the contractor about putting something up in the neighborhood
with information about the construction and/or submitting the information to the Planning Department
so it could be posted on the City's web site. The Board of Health has a condition to require notice to
DEP. Christine Sullivan feels it's only fair that a pre-survey be done.
# 5B-Add "72 hours prior to demolition".
#5G Danielle suggested saying "All construction activities shall be in accordance with the Salem Police
Station Construction management Plan," rather than attaching this document to the decision itself.
#8- Need order of conditions from the Conservation Commission.
#9D —Change to "signage at the Mason St. driveway prohibiting the entrance and exit of trucks (to be
added to a revised signage plan)."
#9E- Nadine commented that the signs that already there regarding heavy traffic are really bad, they
should be replaced
#9F- Make sure that light is in the middle of Mason Street and not impacting the houses on the corner, •
and that the light is shielded.
#10- Transportation Management Association membership requirement. Pam Lombardini felt that if
this is in this decision, it sets a precedent. She believes the City shouldn't impose this on a developer, it
shouldn't be on a site review plan. Lynn Duncan suggested rewording it to state that the applicant has
"volunteered" to be a member. Tim Ready agreed with Pam and says he's not comfortable with it.
Gene Collins felt that the intention is good and it's supposed to be voluntary but by putting it in the
• document it makes it mandatory. Tim Kavanaugh suggested rewording to the condition show that the
applicant has voluntarily agreed to contribute to the TMA. A motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to
change the language on #10, seconded by Christine Sullivan, 4 in favor. (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh,
Christine Sullivan, Dave Weiner). A motion was made to remove this verbiage (#10) from document, 4
in favor. (Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Tim Ready). Lynn Duncan says that since the
Special Permit requires a supra majority, this motion does not pass. The language is removed.
#12 Chuck suggested maintaining the parking area for Flint St. year round especially during snow
removal. Add "Spaces are to be maintained year round".
#13 For length of time for Commercial St. roadway construction easement, Attorney Scott Grover said
client is willing to do a little more than 10 years. It could decrease the value of the property but they're
willing. Attorney Grover said the easement will only be taken with construction of road, with plan in
motion, the easement will expire if it's not granted within 15 years of issuance of certificate of
occupancy.
#14 is a temporary condition.
#12 Tim Kavanaugh asked for it to say "Those residents who live on Flint St. between Mason St & Bridge
St.
There being no further discussion on this matter, a motion was made by Gene Collins to accept the Site
Plan Review, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved 8-0 (Collins, Lombardini, Puleo, Hanscom,
• Sullivan, Kavanaugh, Ready, Weiner in favor, none opposed; Moustakis abstaining).
A motion was made by Pam Lombardini to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and
approved.
Meeting adjourned at 9:42 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
•
c
. CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
201H h"M I l 10: 50
Site Plan Review Decision
April 17, 2009
Mr. Michael O'Brien
Riverview Place LLC
6 Cider Mill Road
Peabody, MA 01960
RE: Riverview Place, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, & 71 Mason Street (Map 26,
Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Property),
• Site Plan Review, North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use Special Permit, Wetlands
and Flood Hazard District Special Permit
On Thursday, January 15, 2009, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public
Hearing regarding the application of Michael O'Brien, Riverview Place LLC, 6 Cider Mill Road,
Peabody, MA 01960 for the property located at 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, & 71
Mason Street (Map 26, Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Property). The
proposed project includes three new structures containing a total of 130 residential dwelling
units, 5,540 square feet of commercial space, and 309 off-street parking spaces.
The Public Hearing was continued to February 5, 2009, March 5, 2009, and March 19, 2009, and
closed on April 16, 2009.
The Planning Board finds that the proposed special permit application meets the criteria of the
North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District under Section 7-21(e) (2) Residential:
multifamily residential uses as primary uses in town house, rowhouse flats, or multistory
arrangements; specifically:
1. The residential uses abut residential uses on Mason Street and Flint Street;
2. Multi-family residential uses retain first floor commercial use on a main corridor—
Commercial uses are proposed for the building on Mason Street.
3. A variance was granted by the Board of Appeals on October 17, 2007 allowing common
residential building entrances.
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
• In considering approval of the Special Permit, the Planning Board found that the goals of the
North River Canal Corridor Plan, as stated in the Salem Zoning Ordinance, were met, as follows:
1. Create appropriate development while preserving our historic neighborhood
character
The proposed project was unanimously recommended for approval without conditions by
the Salem Design Review Board(DRB) on February 25, 2009. The DRB's role is to
review proposals to ensure they are designed to complement and harmonize with
adjacent land uses with respect to architecture, scale, landscaping and screening. The
applicant responded to concerns expressed by the DRB about the project's massing,
placement on the site, relationship to site topography, architectural treatment with
respect to differing neighborhood character on the various sides of the property,
impervious surface and access. In a recommendation letter to the Planning Board dated
March 5, 2009, the DRB details how the applicant satisfactorily resolved these problems.
2. Address transportation issues for existing and new developments
The project is located within walking distance of the Salem MBTA commuter rail stop.
The developer has also agreed to mitigation measures, specified in the conditions below,
to address existing traffic congestion problems in the neighborhood.
3. Enhance the public realm in keeping with our unique neighborhood character
The project provides public access to the canal and includes walkways throughout the
• site and landscaping along the water's edge. The project includes pedestrian
improvements to facilitate access to the canal and throughout the site through wider
sidewalks, additional plantings and a new terrace. Walkways are also connected to
abutting properties.
In considering approval of the Special Permit, the Planning Board also found that the proposed
project complies with the North River Canal Corridor Master Plan, as follows:
1. Redevelops a key site in the NRCC, the Salem Suede site;
2. Enhances the streetscape along Mason Street;
3. Provides an easement to the City of Salem to allow it to construct an extension of the
Commercial Street public roadway across the development site; and
4. Provides off street parking for adjacent Flint Street residents.
On October 17, 2007, the Salem Board of Appeals granted Variances from the NRCC Zoning
District to allow for a minimum lot area of 1,440 square feet per dwelling unit, common building
entrances, and to allow construction within the 50 foot buffer area.
• At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on April 16, 2009, the Planning
Board, based on the information contained in the application and presented at the hearings, voted
2
. by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Chuck Puleo, Gene Collins, Nadine Hanscom, Tim Kavanaugh,
Pam Lombardini, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, and David Weiner), none opposed, to approve
the Site Plan Review application, the North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special
Permit and the Flood Hazard District Special Permit subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plans
Work shall conform to the following plans:
a. "Site Development Permit Plan of Riverview Place in Salem, Massachusetts," Sheets 1
through 8, dated January 24, 2008 and revised on March 17, 2008, November 12, 2008,
December 23, 2008, February 19, 2009, and March 26, 2009, prepared by Eastern Land
Survey Associates, Inc., Peabody, MA;
b. "Riverview Place, Flint & Mason Street, Salem, Massachusetts," Sheets C1.1, A1.0
through A1.7, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3c, and A2.4b.
c. "Conceptual Landscape Plan," Sheets L-1 and L-2, dated March 18, 2009, prepared by
Huntress Associates, Inc., Andover, MA;
d. "Traffic Signing and Pavement Marking Plan," dated March 2009, prepared by AECOM,
Concord MA; and
e. "Riverview Place, Salem, MA, Site Lighting with Wall Fixtures," dated March 25, 2009,
prepared by Peter Beane.
2. Amendments
Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed
• necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board. Any waiver of
conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board.
3. Landscaping
a. Applicant is to submit a final set of landscaping plans to concur with site development
plans, showing all bio-retention areas. Final landscaping plans are to be approved by the
City Planner.
b. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans.
c. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his
successors or assigns.
4. Lighting
a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way.
b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Electrician for review and approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. Construction Practices
All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions:
a. All provisions in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22, Noise Control,
shall be strictly adhered to.
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 demolition and construction of the project.
3
• c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
There shall be no drilling, blasting or rock hammering on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.
Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations.
d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not
leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site.
e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances of the
City of Salem.
f All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site
g. All construction activities shall be in accordance with the "Salem Police Station
Construction Management Plan".
6. Clerk of the Works
A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his
successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner.
7. Design Review Board
All requirements as set forth by the Design Review Board (DRB) shall be strictly adhered to.
Violation of DRB requirements shall be considered a violation of the Site Plan.
8. Conservation Commission
a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission
• b. The applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation
Commission.
9. Signage and Traffic Calming
The applicant, his successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the following signage and
traffic calming measures, provided that any required City Council approvals are granted:
a. installation of an electronic speed monitor on Mason Street, with the location to be
determined by the Traffic Division Commander;
b. installation of signage and pavement markings as shown on the submitted plans;
c. placement of"No Parking—Tow Zone" signage on Mason Street on both sides of the site
driveway, to be approved by the Traffic Division Commander;
d. signage at the Mason St. driveway prohibiting the entrance and exit of trucks (to be added
to a revised signage plan);
e. installation of a yellow flashing beacon at the intersection of Flint Street and Mason
Street, with the type and exact location to be approved by the Traffic Division
Commander;
f. complete plans and specifications for the design of a traffic signal to be built at the
intersection of Mason Street, Tremont Street and the site's Mason Street driveway prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
g. The Planning Department shall determine whether a traffic island is required at the base
of Oak Street within six (6) months following the last Certificate of Occupancy issued in
connection with the project. Should the Planning Department determine that a traffic
• island is necessary, then the developer shall cause the same to be installed at its sole cost
and expense within the timeframe determined by the Planning Department. During the
4
• interim, the developer shall be responsible for installing signage and making pavement
markings at the intersection of Oak Street and Flint Street as directed by the Planning
Department on the basis of recommendations made by the City Engineer and/or Traffic
Division Commander.
10. Affordable Housing
The Petitioner shall place an Affordable Housing Restriction on the development ensuring that at
least thirteen (13) of the one hundred and thirty(130) units shall be affordable. The form of the
restriction is to be approved by the City Planner and recorded with the Essex South Registry of
Deeds. The affordable housing restriction is to be in accordance with the eligibility criteria for
the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development's Subsidized Housing
Inventory for the purpose of ensuring that at least thirteen (13) dwelling units will be restricted as
affordable housing for households whose annual incomes are eighty percent (80%) or less of area
median income with rents affordable to low and moderate income households, by standards
established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for a period of ninety-nine
(99) years from the date of the first occupancy permit.
11. Parking Spaces for Flint Street Residents
Twelve (12) on site parking spaces are to be reserved in perpetuity for the sole use of Flint Street
residents who live between Mason Street and Bridge Street. The proposed mechanism for
reserving the spaces is to be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning and
Community Development prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Spaces are to be
maintained year-round.
12. Roadway Easement
The applicant, upon taking title to the premises, will grant to the City of Salem an easement to
construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the site in the location
shown on the site plan at any time within a fifteen (15) year period beginning on the date of the
issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. If no road is constructed within this time period,
the easement shall expire. The easement is to be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and
to be recorded by the developer upon approval by the City Solicitor. The easement is to be
recorded upon issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy.
13. Bypass Pumping and Sedimentation Control
With respect to that portion of the Mason Street storm drain system believed to pass through the
site, applicant is to maintain bypass pumping twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week during
wet weather conditions and plug the outfall to avoid sedimentation of the North River during
demolition.
14. Gas Lines
Applicant is to cut and cap the gas lines at the existing main prior to beginning demolition.
15. Drainage and Bio-Retention Plans
Applicant is to submit a revised Sheet 6 of 8 of the site plans to include the drain stubs from all
• buildings and the bio-retention areas per the narrative submitted on March 9, 2009 by H.H.
Morant, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, applicant is to submit details for
5
I
• review showing the oil-water separator proposed for the interior parking garage drainage, and the
flow splitting device proposed to proportion drain flows from the roof of Building #3, prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
16. Maintenance of Catch Basins and Stormceptors
Applicant is to submit a narrative describing the frequency of cleaning and maintenance of catch
basins and Stormceptors and clearly define responsible party for maintenance, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
17. Performance of Drain Piping and Stormceptor
Applicant is to submit a revised Sheet 7 of the site plans, and confirm that the drain piping will
not allow backflow from the stonncepter to the lower bio-retention area.
18. Replacement of Mason Street Water Valve
Applicant will replace the existing Mason Street water valve if deemed necessary by the City
Engineer.
19. Irrigation
Applicant is to revise plans to include proposed locations of irrigation piping and sprinkler
heads.
20. Board of Health
The owner shall comply with the following specific conditions issued by the Board of Health:
•
a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of
the name, address, and telephone number of the project (site) manager who will be on site
and directly responsible for the construction of thero'ect.
P J
b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for this site under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for
the site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use.
c. The developer will give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report.
d. A radon remediation kit is installed and is operational in each below grade dwelling unit.
e. A radon test is conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit.
f. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer.
g. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, From B WPAO6, must be sent to the
Health Agent.
h. An initial rodent assessment and a weekly report shall be sent to the Health Agent for the
first 30 days during demolition, then monthly inspections and reports sent to the Health
Agent until such time the report indicates no rodent activity. Rodent control is to be in place
one week prior to demolition. Abutters are to be notified 72 hours prior to demolition.
i. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to
construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's invoice
to the Health Agent.
j. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction.
• k. Prior to renovation/demolition of any structures, a Certified Asbestos Inspector must
inspect all buildings and send a report to the Health Agent. If asbestos is found, the owner
6
• must comply with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's regulations
including 310CMR 7.15.
1. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street
sweeping which will occur during construction.
m. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and
removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during
demolition and/or construction.
n. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting.
o. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations, including but
not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by
more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line.
p. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material
needed for the project.
q. The resultant establishment shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its
operation in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health.
r. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast
Mosquito Control and Wetland Management District.
s. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final
inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
21. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
• 22. Building Inspector
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector.
23. Utilities
Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
24. Exterior Elevations
Elevations shall be in accordance with the approved plans.
25. Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the
developer, his successors or assigns.
b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site.
c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the applicant, his successors
or assigns.
26. As-built Plans
As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of
Occupancy.
27. Violations
7
• Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless
the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and
copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy
of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty(20) days have elapsed and
no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or
denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the
owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant, his
successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering.
Charles M. Pulco,
Chairman
•
•
8
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date -1 / / q
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
'J,l(d T�c�yi;iP! �Lhavr I LI,&vv ,S� 97Z Lc/-292y
uaide-eurfis ��la��(t� 4'3 FvclevJ� Sf 97�—L�]y�y- 091
91 IZ
•
•
Page of
CITY OF SALEM
, ?
PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decision
At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday, April
16, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Salem
Massachusetts,the Planning Board voted upon the following item:
Applicant: RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC
Location: 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, and 71 Mason Street (Map 26,Lots 0091,
0095 and 0097) (former Salem Suede Propert} ,Salem MA
Description: Petitioner requested review under the following sections of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance: 7-18 Site Plan Review,7-16 Wetlands &Flood Hazard District
Special Permit,and 7-21 North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District
Special Permit for a proposed project that includes three new structures
containing a total of 130 residential dwelling units, 5,540 square feet of
commercial space, and 309 off street parking spaces.
• Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk April 17, 2009
This now is bw g serr m mVlianx with the Massadmetu Geigel Law, Chapter 40A,
Section 9 and" not' ?r aam by the racipeem Appeals, if aezyg shall be mtde pzmuarr to
O*ter 40A, Smion 17,and dell le filed within 20 dais front the date ubidh flee deision zeas
filed with the Cuy Clerk.
•
CITY OF SALEM
` fix z PLANNING BOARD
7001 MAR 21 A c: 0
ii
CITY CLER iLSA Ery. MAa
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby mtiyW that the ranting of the SalemPlanmrg Baud sAduled for
Thursday,Ap il2, 2009 at 7.00 pm at City Hall Amme,Room 313, 120 WashirgtonStrffthas
been canceled due to la& cfaWida item.
The met hearing forRiwr ueie Place 0&7 edy Salon Sus ) gill be held on Apnl 16, 2009.
Charles M. Adeq �h,.0.l,4
Ciaimnn
'his no le:e W)Stfld on "Of�"elal Builet4 Board%
CItY dell ry
S
���2
�£�y,y 95y.' aal�t/tdi
i6,W �3gg 01r6 a 2 ! •, "r ct�@ 0 4cl)- Ufa.
d.�7c'1
120 V."Siiiu(j,roN Sal. E;:;SAta., MASSA iT! ET a 01970 Mim,"'. 918.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404
(l
�� Iy xo �
CITY OF SALE. M
Department of Planning ,& Community De Velopment
Board Meetings
Agendas'Minutes- Decisions*Sign In Sheets
PLANNING BOARD
JULY, 2001 TO MARCH 2009
/ CITY OF SALEM
$ Fa PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled
meeting on Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120
Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo,
Chairman
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
• ♦ March 5, 2009 Planning Board Meeting
2. Public Hearing - Site Plan Review,Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special
Permit, &North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit—
Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, & 71 Mason Street(Map 26,
Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Property)—Attorney Scott Grover
g. Public Hearing- Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development, Old Salem
Ventures LLC, 50 St. Peter Street (Map 35, Lot 179)-Proposed amendment to
previously approved plans to allow the proposed restaurant use to be converted to three
housing units if necessitated in the future. Attorney Joseph Correnti.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
120 a-'6111NCroN S hE is SA..LI.v_. NIAsSACHUSE11S 01970 • PiioN973.619.5685 FAX 97k.740.0404Al i
aCITY OF SALEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMRERLEY DRisooLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
LYNN GOON[N DONCAN,AIC' 'II:L:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-0404
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members q-�
FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner i"\
DATE: March 13, 2009
RE: Agenda-March 19,2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Draft Minutes of 3/5/09 Planning Board Meeting
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
Continued Public Hearing - Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard
District Special Permit, &North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District
Special Permit— Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, &
71 Mason Street. Attorney Scott Grover.
Jim McDowell submitted a new plan with revisions for our peer reviewer, Bill Ross,
and the City Engineer,Dave Knowlton. Chris Huntress also submitted a revised
landscape plan showing roof drainage for engineering review. We will plan to have
Bill attend this meeting to finish the site engineering discussion. At this time,I do
not have comments from Bill to pass along, since this review will be taking place in a
short time frame.
Public Hearing - Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development
Amendment to Previously Approved Plans-Old Salem Ventures LLC, 50 St.
Peter Street. Attorney Joseph Correnti.
To satisfy requirements of the project's mortgage lender, the applicant is
• requesting an amendment to the approved plans to allow conversion of the
proposed restaurant to three residential units if necessary in the future (if the
owner is unable to rent the space to a restaurant within 12 months of closing on
• the property). The applicant remains committed to finding a restaurant—this
would simply be a worst-case scenario to avoid a vacant space. In fact, New
Boston Ventures explained to the Salem Redevelopment Authority that they are
going forward with construction of the space suitable for a restaurant. The Salem
Redevelopment Authority voted at its meeting on March 11, 2009 to approve this
amendment.
There are no proposed changes to the site plan. No additional parking is currently
proposed, and the driveway will remain as it is shown on the current plan. The
Board's review should simply consider any possible implications for the site plan
of this potential change in use. I am enclosing the last amended decision (from
July 2008) in your packets for your reference.
It is the Planning Department's recommendation that based on the previously approved plans,
parking requirements for Phase I will be sufficient. In the B5 zone, new units in previously
existing buildings require one space per unit (and can be either on- or off-site). At the
maximum, Phase I could include 26 units with the proposed amendment and would require 26
spaces, which could be located on- or off-site. According to the July 28, 2008 decision, there are
31 on-site spaces. All of these could potentially be used during Phase I if needed.
Phase II will consist of 13 new units; the B5 zoning requires units in newly constructed buildings
• to provide 1.5 on-site parking spaces. At full build-out, the project (without the restaurant)
would potentially contain 26 units which require one space each(26 spaces on or off-site), plus
13 units which require 1.5 spaces each (20 spaces onsite). The parking required would be 46
spaces, 20 of which must be on-site. Additional required parking for Phase 11 would need to be
accommodated through the purchase of passes from the municipal garage, or by securing the
spaces in another location.
The following is the language from the previous decision, Condition 4:
"a. There shall be thirty-one (3 1) parking spaces on site as shown on the approved plan to
support parking needs for Phase I." Our recommendation is that this will be sufficient for Phase
I, even with an additional three residential units, and should stay unchanged.
However, we recommend changing the wording for 4c, which discusses Phase II parking, to
require more off-site parking to meet the zoning requirements:
"c. Upon completion of Phase II, thirty-six (36) parking spaces are to be provided on site as
shown on the approved plans, and the condominium association/Old Salem Jail Ventures LLC,
their successors, or assigns, shall purchase ten (10)parking passes on an annual basis in the
municipal garage for residents' use. Documentation of the purchase of these parking passes shall
be provided to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to the issuance of
any Certificates of Occupancy for Phase II. The location of off-site parking spaces may be
• changed to a different facility within 1,000 feet of the development at the discretion of the
Department of Planning and Community Development."
Salem Planning Board
• Minutes of Meeting
March 19, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Pam Lombardini, Gene Collins, Dave Weiner,
Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, City Planner and SRA
Executive Director, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. Absent: John
Moustakis
1. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the March 5, 2009 meeting were reviewed.
There being no comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept
the minutes, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved (8-0).
2. Public Hearing — Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development, Old Salem Ventures
LLC, 50 St. Peter Street (Map 35, Lot 179)—Proposed amendment to previously approved plans
to allow the proposed restaurant use to be converted to three housing units if necessitated in the
future- Attorney Joseph Correnti
• Prior to the presentation, Tim Ready noticed that a member of the public, David Moison of 45 St.
Peter St., was recording the meeting. He said his reason for filming was that this project is in his
neighborhood, and he wanted a recording to view after the meeting. Attorney Correnti explained
that if someone wants to record a meeting, they are supposed to ask for permission beforehand. A
few Board members were not comfortable in being filmed since they were not previously asked.
Nadine Hanscom suggested that after this, the Board should be properly asked beforehand, and
Tim Ready insisted they get an unedited copy of a taping as well. Vote taken whether to allow
taping of this meeting- 2 in favor, 6 against. Not Approved.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing Old Salem Ventures explained that they are ready to close
and this is the last piece they need to do so. They have made this same presentation to the SRA.
They aren't making any changes to the site plan. Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, said that one
implication she sees for this proposed amendment, if in fact restaurant doesn't go forward, the
Board would need to change the condition regarding the number of parking passes required for
offsite parking to accommodate the possible new units. Ms. Duncan spoke with Councillor
Sosnowski and he does support this amendment. Ms. Duncan explained that the developer has
been creative and inventive with this project in response to market difficulties — one example is
their phasing of the project. She stated that with this amendment, there will be no exterior space
change; the only difference with this amendment is that, as opposed to a restaurant, it would be 3
residential units. As far as parking spaces, a restaurant doesn't require parking on site; the Phase I
residential units require one space per unit, on site or off site.
• Dennis Kanin, New Boston Ventures, said they will close on March 31 and construction will start a
week after that. The bank is requiring this amendment as a condition of the loan, however, he says
they are totally committed to putting in a restaurant. Mr. Kanin says this is a very attractive area
1
for restaurants and it comes with a liquor license and low rent. Charlie Perkins, a restaurant broker
• involved in the project, was also present. He has been involved in many popular restaurants in
Newburyport, Beverly, Salem, etc. It would be a 3,000 sq ft restaurant facility with rent $20/sq ft,
about $60,000 year; they are looking at moderately priced bistro. He strongly believes they will
find a restaurant for this space. Chuck Puleo asked if the driveway to the rear of the building
would have to be converted if the restaurant were changed to residential space. Attorney Correnti
said they would build the driveway to restaurant specs and if the residences are built instead of a
restaurant, they would leave it as is. Gene Collins mentioned that there is a curb cut on Bridge St.
that could allow an access point.
Meeting Opened to the Public
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., spoke in support of the project. She asked if they would need to
close the old jail cells if the restaurant didn't go through. Dennis Kanin and Lynn Duncan
explained that they are preserving 3 jail cells that are in the main space of the building; they will
not be affected by either possible use.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St. and member of Salem Preservation Committee said the committee
submitted a letter in support of this project and amendment.
Chuck Puleo read a letter from Councillor Joan Lovely, supports the jail renovation project, with a
restaurant. She is disappointed that the restaurant may not happen. She urges the Planning Board
to urge the developer to get a restaurant in that space within the year.
• David Moison, 45 St. Peter St, across from jail, asked when they expect to close. Dennis Kanin
said they expect to close March 31, 2009 with construction to start a week after, and finish a year
after that.
There being no farther comments on this matter, Nadine Hanscom made a motion to close the
public hearing, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved (8-0).
There being no further comments on this matter Christine Sullivan made a motion to approve the
amendment, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (8-0).
3. Public Hearing — Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit &
North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit- Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint
St., 67-69 Mason Street & 71 Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) Former Salem Suede
Property- Attorney Scott Grover
Attorney Scott Grover explained that since the project engineer and the city's engineering peer
reviewer are still working out some issues, they would not be discussing engineering at this
meeting. Instead they will discuss traffic issues that came up at the last meeting. Jason Silber of
AE COMM reviewed the following proposed mitigation measures: at Bridge St. and Flint St., they
will retime the signals; they will install a flashing light at Flint St. and Mason St.; and they will
contribute to signal at Mason and Tremont Streets. Newly revised signage and traffic calming
plans show a proposed traffic island at the end of Oak St. approaching Flint; its purpose is to
• discourage traffic from Oak St. onto the site. Lynn Duncan commented that she hasn't seen this
yet, and that these types of features have to be decided by City Council, as well as changes to
traffic signals. However, a condition can be written in regarding these items pending Council
approval.
2
• Jason Silber continued to explain that there would be two signs on the island on Oak St. (No
Traffic to Riverview Place and Trucks Right Turn Only). There will be signage on the Flint St.
driveway and left turn only markings; on Mason St. pedestrian warning signs and intersection
warning signs. Within the project site itself, there would be 15 mile/hr signs, and some access signs
to indicate which driveways to use. Chuck Puleo asked if the signs on street require City Council
approval and Lynn Duncan said the Planning Department would check to see if the Traffic
Lieutenant/police need to review. Christine Sullivan is still concerned about the Mason St.
entrance/exit because the buildings are right up to the corner, and they only have one stop sign.
Lynn Duncan said they did ask peer reviewer about stop lines and they will ask if mirrors will be
appropriate here. She also mentioned that the developer is willing to contribute some funds to a
traffic signal since BETA is recommending one at this area.
David Weiner asked if trucks could turn into and out of the Mason St. driveway staying in their
own lanes; John Silber said that trucks said he believed they should be able to. Chuck Puleo asked
about warning striping along Mason St.; Mr. Silber said that this type of marking wouldn't be
typical. Lynn Duncan pointed out that numerous warning signs along Mason were proposed in
order to slow traffic.
Meeting Opened to the Public
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., echoed Christine Sullivan's concern with the driveway on Mason
Street as the houses do block the corner.
• Bill Penta, 89 Flint St., said that there is a No Heavy Trucks sign posted and noted that many trucks
do not pay any attention to the signs. He said he did his own traffic counts and questioned the
traffic counts done by the traffic engineer, since his numbers were higher. He outlined the
differences between his counts and the engineers on a handout, which he made available. Where
there is a flashing yellow light proposed at the top of Flint on Mason, he pointed out that there used
to be stop sign there but it was taken down because people went through it. Nadine Hanscom
suggested that residents contact their councilors if they want a light or to hold ward neighborhood
meetings to encourage getting police on duty there with radar. Mr. Penta said that people trying to
go out the Flint St. driveway to take a left turn will cause a bottleneck at the Flint/Bridge
intersection. He is concerned about safety and the traffic study Earthtech(AE COMM) did.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St., said that Bill Penta, after doing the traffic counts, asked him to
run an analysis. The then handed out his analysis of the traffic counts and a comparison of traffic
counts done by EarthTech and Mr. Penta. He said the engineers counted a third of the cars
counted by Mr. Penta. Mr. Lebovici speculated that since there were lights installed at North and
Federal, traffic was directed more toward Flint Street. He said that to add another car an hour
would be too much and suggested that the Board could deny the special permit because of the
impact of the additional traffic generated by the increased density.
Tom Furey, 77 Linden St, Councillor at Large, feels this project should not be held hostage
because of a traffic problem that's already there. He said the site is an eyesore and it wouldn't
solve the traffic problem if the project is stopped. He also said the project would be an asset to the
• neighborhood, and any redevelopment of the site would pose the same problems.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St., was interested in the traffic count that Bill Penta had done and was
concerned that the engineers' evaluation of the traffic is based on old data; since the studies were
3
done, new lights have been installed at other intersections. Jason Silber said in the original traffic
• study, they did find that Mason & Tremont St. were over capacity and warranted a signal. Lynn
Duncan added that there is no outdated information; they asked the City's peer reviewer about the
new lights on North St and those haven't had any impact on the traffic situation near Riverview.
She also said that according to the peer review, the addition of traffic by this project is minimal.
There being no further comments, Gene Collins made a motion to continue the public hearing to
the next meeting, seconded by Pam Lombardini, all in favor(8-0).
There was a discussion among Scott Grover, Danielle McKnight and the Board members about the
materials the Board wished to have in preparation for the next meeting. It was agreed that for the
next meeting, all the updated engineering information would be provided, along with plans
showing turning movements for trucks into and out of the Mason St. driveway at David Weiner's
request. The Planning Department will ask the city engineer and Traffic Lt. Preczewski to review
the proposed island at Oak St. Attorney Grover said he would like to see the Board be able to
make a decision at the next meeting. Also, the possibility of a contribution toward the traffic light
at Tremont and Mason would still need to be discussed.
4. Old/New Business
■ 28 Goodhue St. site has been cleaned up.
■ Parking set back on Canal Street was investigated and is fine.
• ■ Danielle is still looking into traffic flow signage in front of homeless shelter downtown.
5. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by
Gene Collins to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (8-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
4
����ONDi7gg��e
yQ ?� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board Pia �OGt�e
Date -z 0/ _
Name Mail dress Phone # E-mail
Z,nre� Le )�c���� S� 17 9�3, lt�3cj VZ�aSS ���,z�,�P
�1fp � N - � I Il
J�r a 93 F(_olan s
_ ° 7k-7L1y - O /
�uwldM�I�_ l- 7 "- 5
0
rn�
Page—L of
QTY OF SALEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBER-LEYDRIS(X)LL
MAYOR 120 WASHING IONS IRLE'l *SAII"v%NLuSA(Ilt-'SI,1'1s01970
Tea-:978-619- 685 FAX:978-740-0404
L)'N.%G(X)NINDi:N(.%N,A101
DIKECIOR
March 19, 2009
Joseph C. Correnti, Esq.
Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP
63 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Request for extension 28 Goodhue Street
Dear Mr. Correnti:
The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday, March 5, 2009 to discuss the request of
North River Canal LLC for an extension of the Special Use Permit granted by the Board in a
0 decision date-stamped April 13, 2006, to December 31, 2009. This permit was previously
extended by the Planning Board to October 13, 2008 and then to April 13, 2009. Additionally,
the Planning Board discussed the extension of the Site Plan Review and Wetlands and Flood
Hazard District Special Permits, granted on February 20, 2007 and extended to October 13, 2008
and then to April 13, 2009, to run concurrently with the Special Use Permit.
The Board understands North River Canal LLC intends to go forward with the project,
though additional time is needed to put in place the necessary contracts and funding to be able to
begin construction.
The Board decided by a unanimous vote to approve the extension requests making both
decisions valid through December 31, 2009.
Sincerely,
Danielle McKnight
Staff Planner
Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
r
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Amended Decision (0) cn r
Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development
50 St. Peter Street
March 19, 2009
Old Salem Jail Ventures, LLC
C/o Joseph Correnti, Esq.
63 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Amendment to Previously Approved Plans
50 St. Peter Street/Old Salem Jail Site
Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development
On Thursday, March 19, 2009, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing
under Sections 7-15 and 7-18 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit
• Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review, at the request of Old Salem Jail Ventures,
LLC, to amend their plans for the property located at 50 St. Peter Street. The proposed four-
building development will feature a jail exhibit, a live/work artist space, and a restaurant, as well
as residential units; however, if New Boston Ventures is unable to rent the space to a restaurant
within 12 months of closing on the property, the proposed amendment would allow that space to
be converted to three (3) residential units.
The Public Hearing was closed on March 19, 2009. The Planning Board voted on March 19,
2009 by a vote of eight (8) in favor(Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, David
Weiner, Gene Collins, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, and Chuck Puleo) and none opposed
to approve the Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit as amended with
the following conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work for Phase I shall conform to the revised plans for"50 Saint Peter, Salem,
Massachusetts" Sheet C-3, last revised June 10, 2008 and Sheet L-10, dated June 19, 2008
prepared by Finegold, Alexander& Associates, 77 North Washington Street, Boston, MA
02114. Work for Phase 1I shall conform to the revised plans for"50 Saint Peter, Salem,
Massachusetts" Sheets C-2 and C-3, prepared by Finegold, Alexander & Associates, last
revised February 29, 2008. A full set of plans including the revised sheets, reflecting all
conditions, and incorporating a reference to the original decision as well as amended
decisions must be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a
is
building permit.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHU5ETT5 01970 9 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALEM.COM
I. Original Decision and Amendments Thereto
• All conditions set forth in the original decision dated December 12, 2006, recorded at the
South Essex Registry of Deeds Book 27583, Page 498, shall remain and be adhered to by the
applicant. All conditions set forth in the amended decisions dated April 22, 2008 and July
17, 2008 shall remain and be adhered to by the applicant.
3. Amendments
Any further amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed
necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board. Any waiver of
conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board.
4. Parking & Construction Staging
a. There shall be thirty-one (3 1) parking spaces on site as shown on the approved plan to
support parking needs for Phase I.
b. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Phase II, a parking and staging management
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval.
c. Upon completion of Phase II, thirty-six (36) parking spaces are to be provided on site as
shown on the approved plans, and the condominium association/Old Salem Jail Ventures
LLC, their successors, or assigns, shall purchase seven (7) annual parking passes in the
municipal garage for residents use, or ten (10)passes in the event that the restaurant
• space is converted to three residential units.
d. For a period of two (2) years during construction of Phase I, five (5) annual parking
passes shall be purchased by Old Salem Jail Ventures LLC in the municipal garage for
use of the residents of the senior housing. Documentation of the purchase of these
parking passes shall be provided to the Department of Planning and Community
Development prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
e. The applicant has volunteered to incorporate language into the condominium documents
which would prohibit residents from parking in the church parking lot. A copy of these
condominium documents shall be provided to the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
5. Fire Department
a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
b. The locations of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit
c. Specifications for sprinkler systems, fire alarms, fire service, and tunnel construction
have been outlined by the applicant's Consulting Engineer, Norton Remmer, P.E., in the
• document dated April 16, 2008, which was revised by the Salem Fire Department April
2
17, 2008, and is attached to this decision. These items were agreed to by the Consulting
• Engineer, the Salem Fire Department, and the State Fire Marshal during a meeting on
April 7, 2008 and any deviation shall require approval by the Salem Fire Department.
d. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for Phase II detailed tunnel plans shall be
provided to the Salem Fire Department for their approval.
e. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy details relating to the ownership
and management of the buildings shall be provided to the Salem Fire Department; the
Salem Fire Department shall be notified when changes in a building ownership or
management occurs.
6. Board of Health
The applicant shall comply with the following conditions from the May 28, 2008 decision of
the Board of Health:
I. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the
Health Agent of the name, address, and telephone number of the project
(site) manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the
construction of the project.
2. If a DEP tracking number is issued for this site under the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site
Professional responsible for the site meets the DEP standards for the
• proposed use.
3. A trash compactor must be installed in each unit.
4. A radon test is conducted in the basements of the Jail Building and the Jail
Keeper's Building while they are a closed condition.
5. The developer will give the Health Agent a copy of the 21 E report if one is
generated.
6. A lead and asbestos inspection is conducted prior to any demolition or
construction. If lead or asbestos is found it is removed contractors licensed
for such removal.
7. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City
Engineer.
8. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate
the area prior to the construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send
a copy to the exterminator's invoice of the Health Agent.
9. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout
construction.
10. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust
control and street sweeping which will occur during construction.
11. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for
containment and removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable
excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction.
12. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire
• fighting.
3
13. Noise levels from the resultant establishments generated by operations,
including but not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the
broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above ambient levels
measured at the property line.
14. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of
any fill material needed for the project.
15. The resultant establishment shall dispose of all waste materials resulting
from its operation in an environmentally sound manner as described to the
Board of Health.
16. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the
Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District.
17. The plans for a food establishment are approved by the Health Agent prior
to construction.
18. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete
for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
7. Violations
Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation of this permit by the
Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the
Planning Board.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with
the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of this decision bearing the certification of
• the City Clerk that twenty(20)days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed,
and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name
of the owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant,his successors or
assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering.
Charles Puleo
Chairman
ATTACHMENT: Fire Dept. Requirements 4/17/08
4
NORTON S. REMMER, P.E.
CONSULTING ENGINEER
SALEM JAIL MEETING WITH SFD AND STATE FIRE MARSHAL
04107108
BUILDINGS/SPRINKLER SYSTEM:
A. NFPA 13/standpipe (Standpipe will conform to NFPA 14 Class 3 system)
B NFPA 131 standpipe (Standpipe will conform to NFPA 14 Class 3 system)
C NFPA 131 standpipe (Standpipe will conform to NFPA 14 Class 3 system)
D NFPA 13D with Detection in the attic if residential/otherwise NFPA 13 and standpipe
E Dry system protecting parking located beneath tunnel/building (Covered Parking)
ALARM
LARM
1. City of Salem hard wired Master Box for entire site
2. Monitored central station for each building
3. Central Annunciator
4. Beacon on each building visible from St. Peters Street
FIRE SERVICE
1. FDC on St. Peters Street centrally located subject to approval by SFO (branched to all buildings
with hydraulically calculated piping to achieve required fire flows.)
2. Piped to each building fire service/standpipe with exterior FDC. Designed for appropriate flow.
TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION
• 1. Minimum 2-hour fire resistance rating separation from all building above and around
2. Structurally independent
3. At least 20'wide by 12'-6"high
4. Need to provide pdfs of sketches showing details of plan for tunnel
OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT
Information requested:
1. Form of ownership of each building
2. Management of buildings/project when complete
Knox Box on Buildings A, B, and C.
•
41l 7,08 1I1
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decision
At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,March
19,2009 at 7:00 p.m.in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem
Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted upon the following item:
Applicant: OLD SALEM JAIL VENTURES LLC
Location: 50 St. Peter Street (Map 35,Lot 179), Salem MA
Description: Petitioner requests an amendment to the Planning Board's approval for the
redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail,located at 50 St. Peter St. The
proposed amendment would allow the proposed restaurant use to be
converted to three housing units if necessitated in the future.
Decision: Approved—Filed with City Clerk Match 20,2009
w
•
This notice it being sent in compliance witb the Massachusetts General Laws, Cbapter 40A,
Section 9 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to
Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was
filed with the City Clerk.
CITY OF-SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2099 FEB 21 A 9. 02
FILE
CITY CL.F_r% , SM-Em,
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled
meeting on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120
Washington Street �q
l �..�.�a. -P-UI lice 2yl
Charles M. Puleo,
Chairman
MEETING AGENDA
i. Approval of Minutes
♦ February 5, 2009 Planning Board Meeting
E. Continued Public Hearing–Personal Wireless Service Facilities Special Permit–
• Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc.)
181 NORTH STREET (Map 27, Lot 120). The proposed project includes the installation
of six (6) antennas on the roof of the existing condominium building, and ancillary radio
equipment cabinets located within a ground-level fenced lease area. Attorney Scott Lacy.
3. Continued Public Hearing–Site Plan Review,Wetlands and Flood Hazard District
Special Permit, & North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit—
Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, & 71 Mason Street (Map 26,
Lots 0091, 0095 &0097) (former Salem Suede Property). Attorney Scott Grover.
4. Old/New Business
Request to extend Special Permit granted to North River Canal, LLC for the
property at 28 Goodhue Street.
5. Adjournment
This notice poste on :. Aid,,fln Goardf
My Hall , Salem, [� � oil FEB 2 7
gat 4,oc) Q, in cpocc��z.n ;�o vett 1eapm 39
ry, r 'xf r
?0 w ON Susi.er, SALFAI, MIAIS , Ci i:SLrrs 01,910 PHONe 978.6K5685 PAX 978.740.0-04 �nta ti i a vi.co ,i
CITY OF SALEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kiva ri I.I1Y DRISCOLL
MAYOR
120 WAS11 NcroN S rRis,[;r♦SAI.I1.N1,MASSACI IUSr'rls 01970
1.YNN000NINDLNCAN,AICD Til:978-745-9595 PAX:978-740-0404
DIRGCfOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: February 26, 2009
RE: Agenda—March 5, 2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
D Draft Minutes of 2/19/09 Planning Board Meeting
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Notes on Agenda Items
Continued Public Hearing— Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard
District Special Permit, & North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District
Special Permit— Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, &
71 Mason Street
Degen Review Board
The DRB met on 2/25/09 and voted to recommend schematic design approval of
the Riverview Place plans dated 2/25/09, as submitted. I do not yet have the final
letter endorsing the project to include in your packets, but I will have it on hand for
the meeting on 3/5/09.
Site Engineer
We are awaiting a submission from Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey to
address the concerns raised by Bill Ross, our peer reviewer from New England Civil
Engineering. Scott Grover had originally planned to finish addressing site
engineering at this meeting, but because Mr. McDowell needs additional time to
finish the revisions,which are in response to traffic engineering concerns and DRB
recommendations given on 2/25, we will wait until 3/19 to finish this discussion.
1
r
Ti'C! PC'
Riverview Place will be presenting a revised site plan to address traffic issues. I am
enclosing a copy of the plans submitted to the DRB — there will be new plans
including engineering submitted for the Planning Board which I will distribute when
I receive them. For now, however, I am enclosing copies of the DRB submission.
This plan, which was approved by the DRB at their last meeting on 2/25/09,
includes enhanced open space by the canal and the relocation of 49 parking spaces to
the garage beneath Building #1. The parking area in the Flint Street driveway,which
BETA (the City's traffic engineering peer reviewer) had advised us would be
dangerous, has been removed. Seventeen spaces remain in the parking area between
Flint Street and Building #2, tvelve of which will be designated for Flint St.
residents. Other surface parking area throughout the site has been reduced.
John Mirabito and/or Ken Petraglia of BETA met with Jeff Maxtutis, Riverview's
traffic engineer, on 2/25/09 to talk over any remaining outstanding issues so that the
Planning Board will not be in the position of mediating between the two engineers.
Since the issue of the City's option to take a portion of the self storage facility on
Goodhue Street to widen the roadway and potentially add enough area to make it a
safe two-way street was raised during our last traffic discussion, we provided the site
plans for the self-storage facility to BETA and asked them to consider whether this
would have changed their previous recommendations for two-way traffic flow on
Goodhue. John Mirabito will be at the meeting to discuss this in further detail, but
he has communicated to me that even considering the possibility of taking the •
additional land, he still does not believe it would be in the best interest of the City to
turn Goodhue St. into a two-way. Additionally, the final decision of whether
Goodhue Street remains one-way or becomes two-way again is ultimately a decision
of City Council.
Should further questions arise that will require BETA to perform more rounds of
reviews or explore new issues,we will need to ask Riverview Place to provide
P
additional funds, since the contracted amount has been spent.
Continued Public Hearing—Application for Wireless Communication Facility Special
Permit—181 North Street (Pickering North Condominiums)
I have not received any new materials or department comments for this project.
Old/New Business —Request to extend Special Permits granted for 28 Goodhue Street
Attorney Joseph Correnti submitted a written request for an allowance to extend the Special Use
Permit, Site Plan Review Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit
granted in April 2006 and extended to April 2009, an additional six months to December 31, 2009,
to give the petitioner additional time to put in place necessary contracts and obtain funding.
2
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
March 5, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 7:00
p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Tim Kavanaugh, Christine
Sullivan, Tim Ready, Dave Weiner. Absent: John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini. Also present
were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the February 5, 2009 meeting were reviewed.
There being no comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to
accept the minutes, seconded by Dave Weiner and approved (7-0).
Public Hearing- Personal Wireless Service Facilities Special Permit- Omnipoint
Communications, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc.) 181 North Street
(Map 27, Lot 1200. Attorney Scott Lacy — The proposed project includes the installation of six
(6) antennas on the roof of the existing condominium building and ancillary radio equipment
• cabinets located within a ground-level fenced leased area. Attorney Scott Lacy
As requested at the last Planning Board meeting, Attorney Lacy presented photos to Board
members. The photos included views of existing conditions from Simon Street side; a future
view of the building with a chimney superimposed, an approximate representation of what it
would look like. He also provided information from T Mobile, which explains that the site will
comply with Federal standards and contains comparisons of emissions generated from this
project and from other household items.
Issue Opened up for Public Comment
Karen Piotrowski, 181 North Street asked about decibel levels and emissions. Attorney Lacy
explained that the decibel level would be 46-56 db, quieter than a refrigerator, and emissions will
be less than 1%.
Ms. Markarian, 181 North Street, pointed out that although they took a vote in their building for
this project and it passed, those opposing were only slightly outvoted. She wanted to state for
the record that not everyone in the building and neighborhood is for this project because there are
potential health risks, potential drop in realty value and it wouldn't be desirable to look at.
John McDonald, 61 Buffum Street, is opposed to this project. He feels the building is not taken
care of now and adding on a chimney will make it even more unattractive to look at.
• There being no further comments, a motion was made by Gene Collins to close the public
hearing, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved (7-0).
1
Christine Sullivan mentioned that she read an article in the Boston Globe about the healthcare
risks of such a project. Although she'd like the Board of Health to look into this, Chuck Puleo
explained that neither the Planning Board nor the BOH have jurisdiction over this, they can't
deny based on the health risks.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Gene Collins to approve the Special
Permit, seconded by Tim Ready and approved (7-0).
Public Hearin—Site Plan Review. Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit & North
River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street,
67-679 Mason Street & 71 Mason Street (Map 26. Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) (former Salem
Suede Property) —Attorney Scott Grover
Attorney Scott Grover, representing Riverview Place, said that last week the DRB issued it's
recommendation to the Planning Board without any condition, and, they were pleased with how
the project has evolved. This meeting will be to discuss traffic issues and next meeting will be to
discuss civil engineering issues. They will be meeting with the Board of Health on Tuesday,
March 10`h
Steve Livermore, Architect, explained that they have increased the garage spaces from 203 to
252 spaces; the appearance of the garage would be the same as it was in the previous design; and
it will now be 3 flat garage floors. They have reduced surface parking to 38. The parking for
Flint St. residents will be in the same lot as before. The entrance into the building on Flint St. is
24 ft wide and is two-way. This same entrance is designed to discourage a right-hand turn onto •
Flint St.
Chris Huntress, Landscape Architect, said that with the reduction of spaces, there is reduction of
pavement but an increase of green. He provided to Board members Landscape & Lighting plan
that includes an inventory and sheets on plants, flowering, photos which show a variety of plants
over a time period. There will be no fence behind the back of houses on Flint St. There were
some minor lighting changes from the previous plan and Chris explained some of this. At the
parking lot for Flint St. residents, there is a walkway with streetlights on each side. They may
change those lights to ornamental lights. Chuck Puleo asked that they bring an updated page 2 of
the plans to the next Planning Board meeting. There will be lights on the building, especially at
entranceways, and these will be included on the plan as well.
Jeff Maxtutis, Traffic Engineer, said the outstanding issue of backing out of the Flint St.
driveway was accomplished by the applicant by moving some parking spaces. Chuck wondered
if a rumble strip or signs could be put in to discourage the right hand turn onto Flint Street.
Attorney Scott Grover said since the site plan is being re-done, he will ask for signage plan be
done as well. Jeff Maxtutis said they are not proposing any speed bumps, as there's not a long
stretch of lot to allow cars to speed up. Chuck Puleo suggested they look at options for
minimizing speed since they will be promoting pedestrian access on site. Rumble strips are an
option but they tend to be loud which may not be desirable at a residential site. Christine Sullivan
was concerned that the angle of the curbing at the entrance on Flint Street would not be strong
enough to suggest a left turn and discourage illegal right turns. Jeff Maxtutis explained that the •
curb will be raised granite 6" high and angled sharply to make it difficult to turn right. Christine
suggested that going from Mason St, down Flint St and turning left into the site should be
discouraged as well. Another concern is the entrance on Mason St which is a narrow entrance.
2
Jeff Maxtutis explained that the intersection of the entranceway/Mason St/Tremont St does not
meet site and stopping distance, so they suggest signs to improve this, a signal would greatly
• improve this. Chuck Puleo asked about the lighting during nighttime on Mason St, and the
possible placement of a stop sign (if approaching Tremont St coming from North St) at Mason &
Tremont Streets. Jeff Maxtutis explained that stop signs are not meant to be a calming device but
more to create a right of way and if they place a sign there, it may create some confusion.
However, they will consider this.
Discussion of placing a traffic signal at the Mason St/Tremont St intersection took place. John
Mirabito of BETA group said ideally a signal on Mason & Tremont Streets would be best, but
cost is a concern (about $200,000). If a traffic signal there isn't possible because of cost, they
recommend advanced warning signs. Scott Grover reminded them that this project doesn't add
a significant amount of traffic.
Issue Opened up for Public Comment
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., is concerned with pedestrians crossing the driveway entrance on
their way up Mason Street, cars coming out may not yield to them. Many people walk that way
towards the park.
Sonia Penta, 89 Flint St, pointed out that signs for turning/not turning at Walgreen's on Boston
St go ignored, no one pays attention to them, she feels that signs at this project would probably
go ignored as well. She feels people don't respect signs and won't do much good. Also, she
feels this is not a kid-friendly site because most apartments are only one bedroom. What about
• fewer, bigger apartments?
Lori Stanley, 77 Mason St, agreed with Jane's comments about pedestrians crossing the Mason
St. driveway. She wondered why the developers eliminated a fence on Flint St. Steve
Livermore and Scott Grover explained that the grading changes and the houses get higher on
Flint St, so they thought it would be better for those neighbors to have a view of landscaping
instead of a fence. The said if the Board and neighbors want a fence, they can add it in.
Nick Nowak, 336 Essex St., is concerned with the left turn out of the parking lot. He feels that if
it's angled too much, people won't be able to see to their right.
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge St, said that discussing the two intersections (of entrances on Flint
& Mason St.) is absurd because they both qualify for a traffic light due to the 309 car spaces this
project will have. There will be too many cars with no satisfactory way into the property and he
feels this needs to be improved.
Jane Arlander handed out a listing of motor vehicle accidents over the past two years in the area.
There were 93 accidents, 51 of them involving personal injury or damage over $1,000. Chuck
Puleo mentioned that the neighbors could advocate for a stronger presence in that area to slow
down traffic, such as police stopping people over a certain speed limit. Tim Ready added that if
they add enhancements such as signs and striping, they would be enhancing safety.
• Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St, said that the traffic situation on Flint St. is absolutely one of
the worst in the city, adding a car a minute at peak hours would make it worse. He informed
members that one of the neighbors took some video of the traffic at that area; it will be posted
online, and asked the Board members to please view it and take it into consideration.
3
Dave Weiner wondered if a signal is warranted at the Mason St. driveway. Jeff Maxtutis said the
driveway volume doesn't warrant a signal, Tremont St. does. It was suggested that the City pay
for half the signal, the developer the other half. Jeff said that they have suggested signal timing,
driveway structure to discourage traffic away from Flint St, etc. Also, they offered to pay a
portion of the signal at Tremont St. Scott Grover added that the City Council has to decide to put
a signal in, not the Planning Board. While Dave would like the Planning Dept to bring this into
discussion, Chuck Puleo suggested taking the next step and get estimates on cost. Scott Grover
thinks if they agree to contribute some money it should be put that in escrow. If they wait for the
City to decide about a traffic light, it would probably take too long. Christine wants to see a
complete signage plan.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St, asked about Flint St. driveway and Oak St, people might try to cut
across them. She also inquired about whether the garage would have a roof. Steve Livermore
said the garage will not have a roof but it won't be visible from the apartments, he wasn't sure
about the visibility from Mason St. As far as the Flint St driveway/Oak St., the City may want to
consider putting in a meridian strip on Flint St.
There being no further comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Gene Collins to
continue the public hearing on March 19th, seconded by Tim Ready and approved (7-0).
Old/New Business
■ Request to extend Special Permit granted to North River Canal LLC for the property at 28
Goodhue St. - Danielle McKnight read a letter from Councillor Paul Prevey requesting the •
Board to impose a condition on the extension for the owner to clean this site. Anthony
Roberto, one of the owners stated that the site was cleaned after the last clean up request. It
was recommended that he have the site cleaned up again and then contact Councillor Prevey
to check the site once it's done. Danielle had another letter from Councillor Sosnowski. His
letter questioned the Peabody Flood Mitigation Plan as to whether it will affect the project at
this site.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by
Dave Weiner to extend the special permit for six months, seconded by Christine Sullivan and
approved (7-0).
■ Beverly Co-Op Bank- Christine Sullivan spoke with Bill Howard regarding screening. All
materials are in hand, as soon as they are able to get onto the roof, they'll do it.
• Chuck Puleo would like the intersection in front of the Homeless Shelter to be investigated
because there are temporary stop signs and there should be permanent ones there.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was
made by Dave Weiner to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Gene Collins and approved (7-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
4
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
•
5
0
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
• ��� r1+a _q 4 11: 31
I_
Wireless Special Permit Decision
March 9, 2009
For The Petition of Omnipoint Communications, Inc.
(A wholly-owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc.)
For The Property Located At 181 North Street, Salem, MA
A Public Hearing on this petition was opened on February 5, 2009. The following Planning
Board members were present at that meeting: Chuck Puleo, David Weiner, Tim Kavanaugh,
Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, Gene Collins, Pam Lombardini, and Tim Ready. Notice of
this meeting was sent to abutters and notice of the hearing was properly published in the Salem
News.
The petitioner is requesting a Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit under Section 5-
3, Special Permit Uses, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the installation of six
(6) antennas on the roof of an existing condominium building located at 181 North Street,
• Salem, MA. The proposal also includes ancillary radio equipment cabinets located within a
16'6" x 15" ground-level fenced lease area. The antennas are to be enclosed within a 12'
faux chimney mounted on the rooftop.
The Planning Board reviewed the application and plans submitted and found that the petitioner
addressed the requirements of this section for the issuance of a Special Permit.
The hearing was continued to March 5, 2009; on that date, the Board closed the Public Hearing
and the Planning Board voted by a vote of seven (7) in favor, none opposed, to grant the Wireless
Communication Facility Special Permit for the location stated above, in accordance with the
applications (dated December 23, 2008) and site plan last dated December 23, 2008, titled
"Pickering North Condos, 181 North Street, Salem, MA 01970" (Sheets T-1, "Title Sheet"; C-1,
"Plot Plan and Notes"; Z-1, "Roof Plan and Elevations"; and Z-2, "Details") and drawn by
Daniel Hamm, submitted and now part of the file. The following Planning Board members were
present at that meeting: Chuck Puleo, Gene Collins, Nadine Hanscom, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim
Ready, Christine Sullivan, and David Weiner.
The Special Permit was approved with the following condition:
1. All construction will be done as shown on the plans submitted; the applicant, his
successors or assigns shall maintain the appearance of the equipment.
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI,EM.COM
This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing certification of the
is City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal
has been filed that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of
Deeds and is indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded
and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by
the owner or applicant.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision is on file with the City Clerk and that a copy of the
decision and plans is on file with the Planning Board.
Charles Puleo, Chairman
•
I •
,pND17gq
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board p
Date 3 / s / o`
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
���i�� �'.1!r'��/?, l,� ��e(P✓��/ S�• %Uhl- 5��� �eS�irle✓r'se--e��,��1G^ger%/.
G 1
t'c 11�_
l 2
te 979 ZYV-09*
c / XP v c �_ `�7� 7Y(-/, V eZ Z P Z 0.,)i-
wr�Jr, �1 174 -0 Fedzrj W l 7u
r,al 7- 974 273-519 i
Page -25 of
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decision
At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,March
5, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Salem
Massachusetts,the Planning Board voted upon the following item
Applicant: Omnipoint Communications,Inc. (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
T-Mobile USA,Inc.)
Request: Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit
Location: 181 North Street
Description: Petitioner requests a Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit to
allow for the installation of six (6) antennas on the roof of an existing
condominium building located at 181 North Street,Salem,MA. Proposal
also includes ancillary radio equipment cabinets located within a 16'6" x 15"
ground-level fenced lease area. Antennas are to be enclosed within a 12'faux
chimney mounted on the rooftop.
• Decision: Approved- Filed with City Clerk March 9,2009
This mice is 16Tsent in m7pharxe with the Massadmsetts General Lags, Chapter 40A,
Sazw 9 and dons not re tare adion by the rreipi m Appeals, tf any shall be=&pursuant to
Chapter 40A, Scc6m 17,and shall de filed within 20 dins fiom the date vhicb the deision gra
filed with the City Clerk.
CITY OF SALEM
`� y
.,, PLANNING BOARD
•
209 I l FEB P 1= 3b
FII-` #;
CITY CLERK. 51",t-EK 11,QSS,
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board Meeting scheduled to be held on Thursday, February
19, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Annex, room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled because of the
lack of agenda items (a request for continuance for 181 North Street has been received, and there are no other
agenda items). The next regularly scheduled meeting will be on Thursday, March 5, 2009 (Riverview Place and
181 North Street will be heard on this date).
Charles Puleo
Chairman
•
This notice pos`i_sd on "Official Bulletin Bard"
City Mall S ni=,srn, P ' on fry,
at
•'.�� ✓Jr''' ¢ » v z nisi C Chap. srib
23A & 238 of iat
R
120 WASHINGTON S r RI.I.�, S=i.F i:, MASSAC a SfzIS 01970 • PFim-l_ 973.619 5685 Pnx 978:140.0404 went a u.t�f�.ur+r
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
'v6 P/
40 10G9 FEB 13 A II: 03
`!I_Y Il'
LllIV
NOTICE OF MEETING
You etre hereby notified that the Salem Planting Board will hold its regidarly schechiled
meeting on Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120
Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo,
Chairman
MEETING AGENDA
*Reminder: the next Planning Board hearing for Riverview Place, LLC
will take place on March 5, 2009*
i. Approval of Minutes
♦ February 5, 2009 Planning Board Meeting
• z. Public Hearing—Personal Wireless Service Facilities Special Permit(Continued
from February 5,2009)—Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary
of T-Mobile USA, Inc.) 181 NORTH STREET (Map 27, Lot 120). The proposed project
includes the installation of six (6) antennas on the roof of the existing condominium
building, and ancillary radio equipment cabinets located within a ground-level fenced
lease area. Attorney Scott Lacy.
3. Old/New Business
4. Adjournment
,, nom^;tsi;,'.� n M
This notice post ,�� .7 t1 t�:,��b�:.,! Bulletin Board
City Hall
at //: a.3 am ; ; ,
2391 & 23:3 t'°$ E".f'l.
(>U A'V,j�llAl�lni� }161 ICf, 5A. .1 I, A( 'ijS: tl ISP"I"i'S 0I17O ' Plh VI: !17,�'..619.Sp�) �:-AX u � h4U,1)'�1!G \✓11Z1'l I ' Ll��bi
CITY OF SALEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
120 WASHINGTON STREET*SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
LYNN GOONINDuNcAN,AIQ' TEL:978-745-9595 FAx:978-740-0404
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner ,51&
DATE: February 13,2009
RE: Agenda- February 19,2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
➢ Draft Minutes of 2/5/09 Planning Board Meeting
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
• Notes on Agenda Items
Public Hearing - Application for Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit- 181
North Street(Pickering North Condominiums)
Lt. Griffin responded to the application with a comment that the Fire Prevention Bureau concurs
with the plans. Janet Mancini intends to discuss this issue with the Board of Health,which may
choose to coordinate with Tom St.Pierre to impose conditions on the building permit.
I have included copies of two letters received from residents who have concerns: Laura
Markarian and Lisa Lyne, 181 North St., who have concerns about health impacts and the
integrity of the building's roof, and Sharon Smidt, 181 North St., who has concerns about health
impacts, property values, and liability and security issues.
For your reference,an excerpt from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is included in your
packets. It states that local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities siting based on
environmental effects if the facility complies with FCC standards.
0
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1009 JA1,11 2q P 4: 32
CifY C
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled
meeting on Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 7.00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120
Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo,
Chairman
MEETING AGENDA
i. Approval of Minutes
# January 7, 2009 City Council/Planning Board Joint Hearing
• * January 7, 2009 Planning Board Special Meeting
* January 15, 2009 Regular Planning Board Meeting
2. Public Hearing– Personal Wireless Service Facilities Special Permit–Omnipoint
Communications, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc.) 181 NORTH
STREET (Map 27, Lot 120). The proposed project includes the installation of six (6)
antennas on the roof of the existing condominium building, and ancillary radio equipment
cabinets located within a ground-level fenced lease area. Attorney Scott Lacy.
3. Continued Public Hearing–Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District
Special Permit, & North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit—
Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, & 71 Mason Street-(Map 26,
Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Property). Attorney Scott Grover.
4. Old/New Business
* Election of Chair and Vice Chair
5. Adjournment
This notice post,:qj
City HTAW
al! LU
4
at
09
43A & 233 of 83a
I-, S� Ll t HA�,�ill 11 (i 10710 1:1 117 S.61
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members flp
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner C`jewuaJ �� ug�n
DATE: January 28, 2009
RE: Agenda- February 5,2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
➢ Draft Minutes of 1/7/09 Joint Hearing and Special Planning Board Meeting; 1/15/09
Regular Planning Board Meeting
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
• Notes on Agenda Items
Public Hearing - Application for Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit- 181
North Street(Pickering North Condominiums)
Attorney Scott Lacy submitted this application on behalf of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (a
wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile). The proposed antennae are to be installed on the roof of
Pickering North Condos; a signed copy of the rooftop lease is enclosed. Plans have been circulated
to Health,Building,Fire Prevention,Engineering and Conservation. Conservation has confirmed
the plans do not fall under the Commission's jurisdiction, and no Board of Health involvement is
needed. No other departments have provided comments. After the abutter notices went out, I
received two email messages from Pickering North Condo resident Laura Lyne (181 North St.,Unit
6) on behalf of herself and her sister,Lisa, expressing opposition to the project because of concerns
about"potentially damaging radio waves." She also told me in person that the building's roof leaked
on 1/29 due to the rain, and that she had concerns about the safety of the installation given the
roof's weakness. I also received a phone call from John Macdonald, 61 Buffum St.,expressing his
opposition because of concerns that the faux chimney encasing the antennae would be unsightly.
The application appears complete except for photo renderings,which Attomey Lacy has indicated
would be provided under separate cover. I still have not received the renderings as of today, but I
have placed a call to Attorney Lacy reminding him to provide them.
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALIM.COM
• Continued Public Hearing - Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard
District Special Permit, &North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District
Special Permit— Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, &
71 Mason Street
Outstanding Traffic Issues
At our last meeting,during the discussion of changing Goodhue St. from two-wayto one-way,the
issue of using land available through an easement at 2 and 12 Goodhue St.,the self-storage facility,
was raised. The decision letter for the development at 2 and 12 Goodhue St. states that"all land
owned by the applicant, his successors or assigns which is located between the 50 foot setback line
as shown on the approved plans and Goodhue Street shall be made available to the City in the
future at a cost of one dollar if deemed necessary by the City Planner for roadway improvements."
While the City could conceivably exercise this option,the site plans show that if Goodhue Street
were moved or widened and the entire 50 foot area was used,the roadway would come extremely
close to the existing buildings. I have asked John Mirabito of BETA to evaluate what benefits using
the 50 foot area would offer in terms of safety and how this might change their earlier assessment of
allowing two-way traffic flow. I also asked him to consider what the impacts to the site of 2 and 12
Goodhue St. would be if the City used the land this way. I don't expect John to be ready to present
these findings at our 2/5 meeting, so I have requested that he attend the 2/19 meeting.
There was also discussion at our last meeting of BETA's recommendation that the parking area
(including the designated spots for Flint St. residents) at the Flint St. entrance be removed. I spoke
with Scott Grover about this, and he has let me know that after discussion among Riverview's traffic
• engineers, no acceptable solution was found, and they believe the reconfiguration of parking spaces
that would be required to accommodate this suggestion would be too disruptive to the site design to
be feasible.
Site Engineering Peer Review
On 2/5,we will discuss site engineering. Jim McDowell will respond to the comments provided by
our peer reviewer,Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering (which were distributed to you last
month). Mr. Ross will also attend to give his feedback on the plans that have been filed since his
first round of comments. I met with Mr. Ross and Mr.McDowell on 1/29 so they could discuss
any unresolved issues in preparation for the 2/5 meeting. Mr. Ross will be providing written
comments,which I expect to receive by the end of this week. If I receive them before the packets
are mailed, I will include them; otherwise I will distribute copies at the meeting and email them to
those of you I have an address for.
Steven Livermore delivered 11"x17" site plans, revised to show the walkway along the canal and its
connection to the internal pathways within the site. He also provided color renderings in the set,
several of which show pedestrian-level views.
Height of Buildings
I also discussed with Tom St. Pierre whether the way height has been calculated conforms with
current building code. I have given him a copy of a memo I found in the file from Steven
Livermore dated 10/17/07 explaining Mr. Livermore's reasoning with regard to measuring height.
• Mr. St. Pierre is looking into the issue and will give me an answer for the 2/5 meeting.
2
Density: Planning Board/Board of Appeals Authority
I also received a memo from CitySolicitor Beth Rennard about the Planning Board's authority to
grant density bonuses in light of a Board of Appeals variance granted for relief from density
limitations. The opinion in the memo is that the Planning Board does not have the right to overrule
the Board of Appeals. The memo is enclosed. I have already sent this to those of you with email
addresses on file, but I am including a hard copy for everyone.
Department Comments
Board of Health:Janet Mancini noted that the applicant came before the Board of Health on
2/4/08 for the previous filing. The same list of conditions imposed on the old filing applyto the
new one. I've included a copy of the conditions in the packets.
Conservation: Carey Duques noted the following in the previous application and said the same
comments and questions apply- here is a summary.
1. The applicant has not yet filed a Notice of Intent with the Conservation
Commission, which he will need to do.
2. Has the applicant found any existing outfalls in the North River wall, and if so, is
there a plan for discontinuing them?
3. A profile diagram of the outlet pipe should be provided. The plans should
clearly show the tide flap;while the applicant was likely planning on providing
this level of detail for the Conservation Conurvssion, it would be best if the plans
eventually approved by the Planning Board contained it too so that all approved
. plans are consistent.
4. A report explaining considerations for high tide/extreme high tide and larger
storm events should be provided.
5. Will additional rip-rap (other than that mentioned in the application) be needed
to prevent erosion/scouring at the outfall?
6. A maintenance plan for the outfall should be provided.
7. Why was only a 10-year storm discharge velocity run, when 50- and 100-year
storms are becoming more frequent? Did this analysis take extreme high tides
into consideration?
8. Additional soil testing information should be requested; is an environmental site
assessment planned?
9. The snow management plan should clearly identify the areas on the plan where
snow will be stockpiled for loading onto trucks, and the applicant should explain
where the snow will be trucked to and disposed of. The applicant should also
indicate whether or not snow can be stored on the bioretention cells.
Additionally,Ms. Duques agrees with New England Civil Engineering's comments
regarding the proposed stormwater management and hopes to see more detail on this
area. The applicant shall also provide information on the environmental condition of
the site since this will be a driving factor in how infiltration of the stormwater will occur.
•
3
u2/UU/UU IU:UJ rAA 2110 140 JJON 111V11 4U11V1V Unurnn rwa. ��..
Feb U6 U19 ut$bWa UPOU 978-740-0404 p.2
.CITY OF SALEM
`
PLANNING BOARD FEB 0 6 2009
DEPT.0PAG S
L11}OPL nP'S'�t rLfrG' �r:MT
Request for Extension of DeadUpe for Planning Board
Final Action
Location: t)2,F1141-.St
� Q
Date: o
Applicant Name: A?(V4r-""Z
Cr
Type of Application(s): Approval Not Required (ANR)Plan
Preliminary Subdivision(Form B)Plan
Definitive Subdivision (Form C)Plan > w
v. Ua
_Wetland and Flood hazard Special Permit
Wireless Communications Special Permit
V/'Site Plan Review
• Cluster Development Special Permit
Waiver of Frontage Special Permit
Planned Unit Development Special Permit
Business Park Development Special Permit
✓�, SfvGta•P�►-«�tCusr� I11�2CL'.
As a duly authorized agent for the above al5plicant, I respectfully request an extension of
the deadline for Planning Board final action on the above listed applications) until the
date listed below.
Date to Extend final action: V ZAP
Signa re of R resentative for Applicant: Date:
SG• R-..,Oq- 4-7
120 WASHINUTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHJsens 01970 ♦TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 • WWW,SALEN._C0M
0
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
• February 5,2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 7:00
p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Tim
Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Dave Weiner. Absent: John Moustakis Also present
were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the January 7`h City Council/Planning Board joint hearing were reviewed.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by
Nadine Hanscom to accept the minutes, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (8-0).
The minutes of the January 7`h Planning Board special meeting were reviewed.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Pam
Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved (8-0).
• The minutes of the January 15`h regular meeting were reviewed. On page 4, Chuck Puleo
questioned whether the sentence "the number of vehicles are all less than 10 vehicles per
minute" makes sense. Danielle will check the recording for this to clarify who said, "will
generate a small amount of trips".
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Pam
Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved (8-0).
Public Hearing- Personal Wireless Service Facilities Special Permit- Omnipoint
Communications, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc.) 181 North Street
(Map 27, Lot 1200. Attorney Scott Lacy—The proposed project includes the installation of six
(6) antennas on the roof of the existing condominium building and ancillary radio equipment
cabinets located within a ground-level fenced leased area.
Attorney Scott Lacy, representing Omnipoint, explained that the site is a multi-story condo and
the proposed facility would be located on the center of the pitched part of the roof. The proposal
consists of 6 antennas that will not be visible as they will be within a proposed 12 ft tall faux
chimney. There will be cabling along roof edge and ancillary equipment cabinets. There is an
existing fence compound on the side of the building and they will add another fence compound
with the same type of fence 8 ft high to conceal the new radio frequency equipment. There will
be no HVAC for this equipment as it has its own internal fans. Cabling will run flat to roof and
will be inside a cable tray that will be painted to match brick facade. Attorney Lacy said that the
• site is necessary because T-Mobile has a gap in coverage and the new facility will cover some of
those areas not currently covered.
1
Hearing Opened for Public Comment
Councillor Paul Prevey, Ward 6, Tremont St., asked if there are any health concerns since the •
facility is proposed on top of a residential building. He also wondered if there were any photo
renderings and what kind of materials would be used. As far as health concerns, Attorney Lacy
said that the FCC regulates all licensed carriers who have to comply with Federal standards, and
these antennas and equipment have low power usages. There are a number of similar facilities on
residences, churches and schools and they meet FCC standards. The material to be used is
fiberglass. Attorney Lacy mentioned that if this isn't acted on tonight, he could try to present
some photos of similar sites. Chuck Puleo added that in Salem, they try to keep
antenna/equipment/chimney in one location; Attorney Lacy said that as long as they don't cause
interference with T-Mobile, there should be enough room to add additional antennas to this site
in the future.
Regarding the views, Gene Collins feels that the neighbors can't see the top of the building.
John McDonald, 61 Buffum St., spoke against the project. He can see the building from his
house and doesn't want to look at the proposed chimney, and he also doesn't want to risk any
health effects. He feels it would be a hindrance if he wants to sell his home. Chuck Puleo added
that as far as health risks, they do meet FCC health requirements as Attorney Lacy explained
earlier.
Karen Piotrowski, 181 North St, was originally against this and is now for it, has done a lot of
research with the World Health Organization (WHO), Cancer Society, etc. and found that there •
have been many studies showing these facilities are safe.
Sharon Smidt, 181 North St., spoke against the petition. She quoted what Ms. Piotrowski had
told her prior to the meeting: that she'd rather have the tower on their building emitting waves in
another direction than having it constructed elsewhere and emitting waves toward their building,
so Ms. Smidt felt that must mean there is something wrong with it. Ms. Smidt found that the
American Cancer Society hasn't determined the effects yet. She added that the roof has a lot of
problems such as water leakage and other damage. She explained that the Condo Association
voted against this the first time, but the second time it wasn't discussed. She also spoke with
real estate agents who said the condo values would go down if the facility were installed.
Max Freiert, 181 North St., is on the Pickering North Condo Association Board and he
confirmed that a meeting was not held to conduct the final vote; instead, paper surveys were
distributed to residents. According to Mr. Freiert, of the 25 units in the building, 78% of owners
responded to the paper survey and the majority in favor, so the vote is valid. To address the
issue of what the building will look like, Chuck Puleo suggested that Attorney Lacy come back
with photos with views from Buffum St, Simon St., before and after pictures, and renderings of
what neighbors will see. Chuck Puleo would like to see literature on health impacts as well.
Danielle McKnight said she passed the plans and application to Janet Mancini of the Health
Dept. The health concerns are up to the Board of Health to determine; Ms. Mancini will review
the proposal with her Board.
Councillor Jean Pelletier, Ward 3, asked about the company's position on the health hazards. •
Attorney Lacy explained that the FCC determines the level of radio frequency emissions that will
2
cause human harm and the company must comply with those standards. John McDonald added
that because the building is high, there is a concern with things blowing off, for example they've
• had slate shingles blow off in the past, which is a risk to neighbors. Chuck Puleo added that they
would need to get a permit from the building department and the building inspector would be
v r construction involved to be sure construct o as done to code.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Gene
Collins to continue the public hearing at the next meeting, seconded by Dave Weiner and
approved (8-0).
Public Hearing— Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit& North
River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street,
67-679 Mason Street & 71 Mason Street(Map 26, Lots 0091, 0095 &0097) (former Salem
Suede Property) —Attorney Scott Grover
Attorney Scott Grover representing Riverview Place LLC addressed the issue of parking near the
Flint St. entrance to the site. BETA suggested reconfiguring that area of parking because they are
concerned that cars backing out would have obstructed views and would be dangerous to cars
entering the site. He showed an alternative site plan, which has 32 spaces, as before, but with the
spaces placed so as to allow cars to back out away from the entrance. However, Attorney Grover
said Riverview Place prefers the original configuration of parking. Attorney Grover said the new
parking alternative negatively infringes on some of the landscaped area that acts as a buffer
between the parking lot and Flint Street. Chris Huntress explained with the new parking scheme
more impervious area is created, landscape buffer is lost and the arrangement is more awkward
• for cars to turn around. There are a total of 309 spaces on site - 260 spaces (2 spaces per unit),
12 for the Flint St. residents, and 37 spaces for commercial. Mr. Huntress said they are providing
the maximum parking that might be required for the commercial and residential space, since they
don't know what's going in for commercial use yet and want to be sure there is sufficient
parking for any possible commercial use. Mr. Huntress also said this plan meets landscape
requirements but would need to add trees to comply with zoning. Attorney Grover mentioned
that if the Board likes this parking layout better, they can do it, but it's not desirable.
The second issue discussed is the number of stories of the building. Steve Livermore submitted
an opinion to the building department stating why he felt the plans complied with the maximum
number of stories in the NRCC zoning (4 stories) and received feedback from Tom McGrath
agreeing with his opinion. However, Mr. McGrath had stated that he would need to see final
drawings showing grading in order to make a definitive determination.
Attorney Grover also said they met with the Design Review Board (DRB) the previous night so
they made some revisions based on some of the DRB's suggestions. Attorney Scott Grover felt
it appeared from that meeting that the DRB is getting ready to make a recommendation to the
Planning Board.
Bill Ross, NE Civil Engineering, presented his most recent peer review. He stated what his
concerns were, including the lack of existing utilities showing and the industrial wastewater
treatment facility on site. They need to get plans from SESD and will have to have a TV camera
inspection to see where the connection is. Mr. Ross has questions as to where will poles be dug
• into city streets; there are no isolation valves shown for city water mains, they need to get that
information. Mr. Ross said the largest issue is city drainage, particularly the drain that leaves
3
Mason St. and heads through the project. A TV line and report must be done on this because
they can see something going in but cannot find outlet into river. Mr. Ross said they want to see
where the gas utilities are; the drainage plan looks acceptable; for stormwater •
management/flooding, they need delineation maps and plans for bioretention. Mr. Ross said
that before final approval, every sheet of the plans still would require some form of revision.
There was a brief discussion of dumpster locations. Mr. Ross noted there would be one outside
dumpster and the rest of trash will be stored inside. Nadine Hanscom is concerned with gas lines
being worked on, particularly considering this is an old site, and as work is going on, wants to be
sure someone (from the City) is overseeing the work. Bill Ross said they are required to pull a
street opening permit from the City. Chuck Puleo believes a job this size should have a Clerk of
the Works.
Bill Ross would like more information on snow removal and how many parking spaces it will
take up. He also questioned the impact of lighting on adjacent properties as well as whether the
building with commercial space will require a loading area. Mr. Ross said there are also some
minor landscaping questions remaining such as whether there will be irrigation lines. Attorney
Grover expects to respond to the site engineering issues at the next Planning Board meeting, and
BETA, the traffic peer reviewer, will be coming to that meeting as well to finish the discussion
about traffic issues.
Christine Sullivan asked if BETA had looked into impacts from the court construction traffic
signal changes. Danielle McKnight said they asked BETA about the signal changes and their
impacts, and BETA doesn't predict there would be a significant impact. Tim Ready encouraged
the applicant to work with BETA to come to a consensus before coming to the next Planning •
Board meeting.
Chris Huntress went over the updated landscape plan. Revisions include: the removal of 4 spaces
from the parking lot on the Flint St side; the widening of the planting buffer between the parking
in front; 7 spaces removed from the site and put into the garage to increase the landscape buffer;
in the back of the building, a single entrance to the garage allows planting area to soften the view
from Flint St.; the strengthening of the pedestrian walkway by adding specialty pavers to define
it; and a bumped curb line in the middle of the walkway to visually break up the length of street.
It was noted that the walkway on the left side connects to state-owned parking lot.
Chris Huntress explained that there are two styles of lighting (shoebox and ornamental) and the
fixtures come with a feature to shield the residential/abutters side. Mr. Huntress said there will
be wall lighting to code. Once the project is complete, they can do photometric and field
adjustments and add shields if necessary to adjust impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Board received a letter from Beth Rennard, City Solicitor, explaining that with
regard to density bonuses, the Planning Board does not have any legal authority to vary, set aside
or modify any decision of the BOA. There are exceptions - density bonuses for historic
preservation and affordable housing - but neither of these applies to this case.
Hearing Opened for Public Comment
Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., feels the Board can, in fact, address the density issue through site
plan review. He suggests the Board deny the petition because this proposal doesn't fit the site. •
He also mentioned the connection of Commercial Street as in previous meetings. He asked
4
how people would get from their cars to their apartments and Steve Livermore explained that
there would be a connection from the garage into the building so they won't have to go outside.
• Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., mentioned that regarding traffic on Flint St., residents feel traffic
has changed immensely since the lights have changed. Nadine Hanscom suggested they bring
these concerns to the next meeting when a discussion of traffic was planned. Meg Twohey
attended the recent DRB meeting last night and said there was a suggestion to redesign the
garage with an additional 50 spaces to add green spaces to the area by removing surface parking.
There was also an idea for a green roof. Steve Livermore said they could look at the green roof
idea, but the client is concerned with economics.
Christine Sullivan is concerned about requiring the commercial space on the site; she feels it
doesn't make sense in a residential area and adds unnecessarily to the size of the site. Nadine
Hanscom said she'd had a similar concern and discussed it prior to the meeting with Danielle
McKnight. Danielle McKnight clarified that commercial space was required in the NRCC
zoning district and that waiving this requirement would require a use variance, which is not
permitted in Salem. Attorney Scott Grover said they moved the commercial to the back so it's
not in the residential area.
Councillor Paul Prevey wanted to know, what the landscaped buffer between the project and
abutters would look like. Chris Huntress said they have added evergreens, shade trees and
ornamental trees and showed perspective drawings.
Councillor Jean Pelletier commended Bill Ross and his work.
• Danielle McKnight mentioned that some board members would not be here at the next meeting
and asked which members knew they would not be attending. It was confirmed that three
members would be absent on February 19, so Attorney Grover indicated he would like to
continue the public hearing to the March 5, 2009 meeting. Attorney Grover expects that they
would have a DRB recommendation for the next meeting. Danielle McKnight confirmed that
the next DRB hearing was scheduled for February 25, 2009.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to continue the Public
Hearing at the March 5`h meeting, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved (8-0).
Old/New Business
• Elections - Pam Lombardini suggested holding elections when the full board is available at
the first meeting in April.
• Danielle McKnight said the Planning Dept. received plans for a Chapter 91 marina at
Hawthorne Cove. If anyone wants to see them, they can contact her.
• Chuck Puleo noticed the rows of parking at the project on Canal Street (Dollar Store). He
thinks the project looks like its closer to Canal St. than it should be; a few others agreed and
wondered who goes out and checks on projects once they are in construction. Danielle
McKnight said if there's no clerk of the works for a project, she would check. Other sites
• mentioned that needed inspection were the North Street garage (was it over 10,000 square
5
feet?) and Beverly Cooperative Bank (was there HVAC screening?). Danielle McKnight
said she would check into those.
•
Adiournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was
made by Nadine Hanscom to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Gene Collins and approved (8-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
•
•
6
K a-fLA �a1 yraskJ —Ul,
til
� -333 335
qq
lam( l�orrd,L s�,
`Qv City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
E
Board oarj
Date
T
Names,N• Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Sh�„�Sr�ld� IS OIP_4Sf �3
�V_4' S c�QYy�
�R, �oP;Sfi3-/off, 9 � 97y�,i��y
8 tp
OLAh 97 - '75��-9l00
C_ c�a .aN �97 � '2
•
Page of
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Gg4 ,.tl -8 0 3: 42
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly sched:ded meeting on
Thursday, January 15, 2009 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo,
Chairman
MEETING AGENDA
i. Approval of Minutes
♦ December 18, 2008 Meeting
2. Public Hearing - Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special
Pernut, &North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit—
. Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, & 71 Mason Street (Map 26,
Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Property)—Attorney Scott Grover
3. Old/New Business
Discussion of 2009 meeting dates
4. Adjournment
This notice postai aistin 8oaru"
City Hall _ Salam, 1d3<,ss. on !Aid ,-
Z3A 2 QGf r" r'. „w : VAth Chap. 39 9c
i ,::v ,r�;rvS � , S;,Lr . AI .v .a.i av;;ISD1970 Pnc ) bl'i�r�
CITY OF SALEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING .AND
• � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Krnnsr;Ri.ry Dxiscoi.t.
\L%)OR
120\\'\I IING"ION S"fIRF F;C♦ SALT-N(,,MAssna+use:rrs 01970
LYNN GoO N�iN DUNCAN,AICP _ 1e..1.:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:975-740-0404 '
DI IRl;c I'OR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: January 7, 2009
RE: Agenda–January 15, 2009
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
➢ Draft Minutes of December 18, 2008
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
• Notes on Agenda Items
Public Hearing– Site Plan Review,Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special
Permit, & North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit—
Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, & 71 Mason Street.
Attorney Scott Grover has submitted a new application, including new site plans,
engineering and all supporting materials. Revisions have been made to the engineering
plans in response to a peer review letter from New England Civil Engineering, which
found the original plans were incomplete. That letter, dated November 28, 2008,is
enclosed in the packets. I met with Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering, the
applicant and City Engineer Dave Knowlton together shortly after that letter was
submitted so that all parties could directly discuss the deficiencies in the engineering plans.
The new plans have been distributed to Dave Knowlton and to Bill Ross;Bill Ross is
expected to attend the February 5, 2009 Planning Board meeting to provide his review of
the new plans.
Also included in the packets is a memo from BETA summarizing their traffic peer review.
As indicated in the memo, BETA does not recommend changing Goodhue St. to two-way
traffic flow, but does recommend limiting the access/egress of the Flint Street driveway to
right turn in and left turn out. Ken Petraglia of BETA will attend the upcoming meeting to
• present his findings.
CITY OF SALEM
a
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Kmmrizi,n Dalscol.l.
\LN m
120ANASIJINc YONSrarr.r Sni.r.nl,1d.�ss,u:I ruscl-rs 01970
JANNGOON IN DCNcdN, AICD 111,978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 �
Dntu,I Olt
At the last hearing on Riverview Place (11/20/08), the Planning Board requested that we
ask BETA to determine whether the traffic signal changes related to the Court
construction would have a traffic impact on Riverview Place and the surrounding area.
The question has been relayed to BETA, but because it was not in the original approved
scope of work,it was not included in the report recently received. However,we have
asked BETA to consider the question of whether Earthtech, the applicant's traffic
engineer, should be asked to evaluate the impacts of the abovementioned signal changes.
In addition to Engineering, plans were circulated to the Building Commissioner,Board of
Health, Conservation Commission, and Fire Prevention. I am awaiting comments from all
departments. The Board of Health will be requesting that the applicant attend its February
meeting.
•
•
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
January 15,2009
• A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, January 15, 2009 at 7:00
p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Gene
Collins, Tim Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Dave Weiner. Also present were:
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk.
Public Hearing — Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit& North
River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street,
67-679 Mason Street & 71 Mason Street (Map 26, Lots 0091. 0095 & 0097) (former Salem
Suede Property) —Attorney Scott Grover
Attorney Scott Grover, representing Riverview Place, introduced Dave Walsh, Jim McDowell,
Steve Livermore, Architect, and Jeff Maxtutis. Attorney Scott Grover explained that this past
December of 2008 they withdrew their petition and then refiled so they could have the full Board
eligible to vote. Prior to withdrawal, many things had been discussed and the project has
evolved tremendously. He feels they have better a project than 12 months ago when they first
appeared in front of the Board. They filed their complete package with the Design Review Board
today and are hoping for a recommendation for the next meeting. The focus of tonight's
Planning Board meeting is to be traffic; Riverview's traffic engineers are in attendance (AE
Com, formerly Earthtech), as are John Mirabito at Ken Petraglia of BETA, the city's traffic peer
• reviewer. Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering (the Civil Engineering peer reviewer)
will appear at the next Planning Board meeting to discuss site engineering and present his
comments.
Arty. Grover gave an overview of the project: All buildings wilt be demolished and 3 new ones
will be constricted. The first building has 24 residential units, the second will have 42 units and
the third has 64 units. A parking garage was added to take some parking off the surface.
Attorney Grover stated that several permits are required for this project. Three variances have
been granted by the Board of Appeals (BOA): one from minimum lot size requirements; one for
construction within the 50 foot buffer zone; and one from first floor entrance requirements for
multi-family houses in the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC). The BOA granted a variance
for the latter which paves the way for the Planning Board to grant permit for multi-family use.
Attorney Grover said they are asking for 3 Special Permits from the Planning Board: flood
hazard/wetlands; NRCC Site Plan Review; and multi-family housing. For the last of these, the
project must satisfy 3 conditions: the property abuts a residential use parcel; any building on a
main corridor has to have commercial on the first floor; and residential units have to have first
floor entrance. For the NRCC Special Permit, there are additional criteria that the Planning
Board has to consider. These criteria include consistency with the NRCC Master Plan and a
recommendation from the Design Review Board. The Master Plan lists 7 items which include
extending access to pedestrians, considering redeveloping the Salem Suede Site for housing,
improving and maintaining views from the neighborhood of the canal, redeveloping industrial
•
1
sites, enhancing residential character, and enhancing the canal edge. Attorney Grover feels this `
proposal is very consistent with the objectives of the NRCC Masterplan.
Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey said there are 3 proposed buildings. There is a site
entrance/egress on Flint and Mason. There will be recommendations on curbing forthcoming. •
There are 309 parking spaces that include 223 garage spaces and 86 spaces throughout site, 12
will be reserved for neighborhood use. Near building 2, there is now one central access point that
opened up and allowed for placement of a planting strip. There are interior walkways along
buildings and up main driveways. They have proposed a walkway along the bank of the river.
There is still a provision for an easement if Commercial Street goes forward in the future. For
trash, they are proposing one dumpster in the comer of building one and interior to building one
and two will be central trash. Mr. McDowell gave an overview of the utilities and water supply
plans and said there are 2 connection points on Tremont and Mason Streets. There are 2 hydrants
proposed on site and they feel circulation for fire trucks will be fine. For sanitary sewer they will
use an existing 10-inch PVC line, will avoid making a new connection and terminate at manhole.
All wastewater will have gravity discharge. Storm drainage: catch basins throughout site will go
into gravity storm drain system and into North River. At this location, there will be a DEP-
approved stormcepter device for total suspended solids removal. This, in addition to the
proposed catch basins, will exceed DEP requirements. Any roof drainage that comes from areas
where there is rooftop mechanical equipment that could have any sort of lubricating oils, etc. will
be directed through the stormcepter. Two rain gardens are proposed to take clean roof runoff.
After the buildings are torn down, they will do more investigation to see if the soil is clean
enough for rain gardens to be a possibility. If not, the swales will be lined so that water does not
filter through the contaminated soil. They will still perform a stormwater volume reduction
function through evapotranspiration, and they are a nice site amenity. As part of flood hazard,
they have demonstrated in the elevations that the proposed buildings are above the base flood
level within the North River Canal floodplain. Basement and garage levels are also above this •
level, so they would not flood. With regard to the site being adjacent to a tidal waterway, the
North River, DEP is not requiring that water be held in a detention basin; they won't be installing
any large underground storage tanks. The water can go into the river once adequately pretreated.
Also, power, cable & phone will be in underground conduits.
The renderings developed by Chris Huntress were shown. Chuck Puleo mentioned that the
proposed 6 ft. wide walkway along the canal wasn't shown on the renderings. Jim McDowell
explained that the drawing is being modified and will be provided to the Board. Chuck Puleo
asked for confirmation that the walkway is still in the plan and noted that it would need to be
shown so that it was clear whether it would be disturbed if Commercial Street were to be
extended. Christine Sullivan noted that the walkway was also not shown in the landscape plans
provided to the Board as part of the new filing.
Danielle McKnight asked for clarification on the width of the easement. Was the easement a
total of 30 feet, 24 for the possible new roadway and 6 for the walkway, or was it 30 feet for the
possible new roadway and an additional 6 for the walkway? Jim McDowell confirmed that it
was 30 feet for the street and an additional 6 feet for the walkway.
Chuck Puleo asked if the plantings planned would have to be removed; Jim McDowell was
unsure.
•
2
John Moustakis asked if they had been before the DRB with this plan and Attorney Grover said
that they have with a slightly earlier plan and will be going back to the DRB the 28`h of this
month.
Jim McDowell had to leave.
Chuck Puleo opened the issue up for public comment and questions.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., asked how stormwater would run off the property when the river
crests its bank. Jim McDowell explained, as is required by the Salem Conservation
Commission, they're putting in tide gate/flap valve that holds the stormwater back; during
extreme events the water might flood, but that's something that happens throughout the city.
Water is retained on site within basins, it might flood parking lot a little bit. Jane Arlander
commented that it freezes in the winter in parking lots. Jim McDowell agreed that maintenance
is very important, if it freezes, they would need to get someone in there. Ms. Arlander also asked
about snow removal and Jim McDowell said the system could handle about a six to eight inch
storm then offsite removal would be necessary. The stormceptor capacity is 12,000 gal, so it
would hold that then would flood. Meg Twohey, Federal St, asked for him to show where snow
would go. He showed areas where snow could go, pushed back with plows.
Steven Livermore, Architect, described the buildings and their architecture. There was some
confusion as to the drawings presented and those provided in Board members' packages as they
were different, newer plans will be provided to members. The first building is 50 ft maximum
height with 203 car parking garage, combo 4 and 3 stories and an L-shaped building. Building
two is a 42-unit building with 20 car parking garage at lowest part of building in back. The third
is 24 units with commercial space. The image from Bridge and North St. will look like a
renovated mill, they showed image of the Mason St. side that will look more residential. The
architecture is similar to buildings around the site. He also showed view of the walkway image.
Christine Sullivan commented that she thought it was difficult for the audience and Board
members to see drawings, so she wanted changes to presentations (example handouts,
PowerPoint presentations, etc.) and updated color renderings. Scott said they made sure that
citizens got extra copies of colored renderings before meetings. Steve Livermore also
commented that they had not been asked to provide electronic files to project, and that the
renderings they were providing were above and beyond the requirements of the Planning Board.
Nadine Hanscom asked about the height of some of the buildings in comparison to those across
the street; Steve Livermore showed an overview of the buildings, they are 3 stories above grade
and the buildings across the street are about a grade higher, so they're about the same elevation.
Chimney forms on the mill buildings are above the 50 ft mark, which is allowed.
John Moustakis wondered why are they doing a mill-building image. Steve Livermore explained
that the DRB was looking for an image of a mill building because that's what was there before.
At the area around north river there were taller buildings of factory type in the late 70's that are
no longer there. The storage building on corner of Boston and Bridge is an image of a mill
building. Also, people on Flint St. and Mason St. wanted to see a residential image. John
Moustakis commented that by having a flat building, that allows 5 stories. Attorney Scott Grover
added that when first presented, the building had a more pointed roof. John Moustakis wondered
how much area the buildings cover. Steve Livermore said the footprint is 70,000 sq ft; about
• 40% of the site is covered with buildings. They have reduced the footprint by 10,000 sq ft.
3
Steve Livermore showed other images such as the view from Leslies Retreat park. Chuck Puleo
requested that for the next meeting, board members should have all renderings.
Shelby Hypes, Federal St, wondered since the buildings take up 40% of site, if you add parking
area and building together, what percent of open space would be left and if there a requirement? •
Attorney Scott Grover doesn't think NRCC provides requirements for percentage of open space,
it provides set number of trees, and other landscaping guidance and they've complied with
landscaping. Shelby Hypes, 157 Federal St., also asked how much impervious space is left on the
plan. Attorney Grover said they could have that information at the next meeting. Jane Arlander,
93 Federal Street, had a problem with views presented, as they were very far away and asked for
him to explain the number of stories. Building one is technically 5 floors, four floors above
grade. Scott said they spoke with the Building Inspector, Tom St. Pierre, regarding height
requirements and, based on this design and definition, they have complied, they don't exceed
height or story requirements. Christine Sullivan questioned the number of floors. Chuck Puleo
explained that it varies between the front and back of building.
Tim Ready suggested that height level seemed to be a point of contention and thought for the
next meeting maybe can get something in writing from building inspector confirming
compliance with zoning. Christine Sullivan would like to see renderings and what it looks like at
pedestrian level. Chuck Puleo suggested that Steve Livermore could divide up renderings so that
they have those with different perspectives including from pedestrian level. Daniel Little, 86
Flint St, asked about a comment made that there would be commercial space in the Mason St.
building. If that was the case, would the commercial space be entered from Mason St.? Steve
Livermore said the commercial entrance is at lower level of access garage. Mr. Little asked what
would be going into that commercial space. Steve Livermore said that there has been some
discussion on it but didn't know what will be going in there yet.
Chuck Puleo asked if there were further questions for Mr. Livermore. There were not, so AE
Com began their traffic presentation.
Jeff Maxtutis, who performed traffic study, briefly summarized AE Com's evaluation. After
initially assessing existing and future conditions and identifying mitigation measures in their
2007 report, they went through 2 rounds of questions from BETA and responded to those
questions. Changes were made to their original recommendations, including mitigation
suggestions and the configuration of the Flint St. driveway. For their assessment of the existing
conditions, they did a field inventory of the site, studied surrounding streets and intersections
(Tremont and Mason, Flint and Mason, Bridge and Flint and the project driveways), did traffic
counts at morning and afternoon peak periods, and performed accident research of the
intersections. He said that Tremont and Mason Street, and Flint and Mason do exceed state
average crash rates. They also performed capacity analysis for the intersections, including "no-
build" conditions and for the project itself.
Mr. Maxtutis stated that the Riverview project itself would generate a small number of trips for a
project of its size because apartments generally generate less traffic than single-family homes,
and also because the proximity of the commuter rail station would lessen traffic because
residents would use the trains as well as drive. Mr. Maxtutis estimated the project would
generate 56 trips in morning at peak hour, a little less than one vehicle per minute, and in the
evening peak hour there would be an estimated 87 vehicle trips. Mr. Maxtutis said the number of
trips would be divided about evenly between the project's two driveways. Mr. Maxtutis also •
4
said that the Flint St driveway, based on recommendations, was changed to allow left turn-only
out and right-only in. He explained that this reduces the number of vehicle trips at the North part
of Flint Street.
• Chuck Puleo asked for further specifics on new traffic activity onto Mason St., the numbers of
turns being made, and how many people might be traveling onto Tremont St. toward Peabody.
Mr. Maxtutis said that the numbers of the project trips are all less than 10 vehicles for any
movement. He explained that in the morning peak hour, there are more people leaving the site,
going to work. Chuck Puleo asked of those trips, how many would be leaving the site through
Flint St.? Mr. Maxtutis said at morning peak hour there would be 20 left turns an hour, or 1
vehicle every 3 minutes making that left tum. He said that at Mason St, he said there would be
little more than 20 turns, less than 10 vehicles for any movement, or 7 lefts, 7 throughs and 8
rights. Mr. Maxtutis said these are very small rates of trip generation, so small that they don't
change the local service results in any of the intersections. He said there are issues at some of
the intersections; not because of this project, but because of currently existing traffic problems
on the Salem streets.
Mr. Maxtutis went on to say that regarding the level of service, the intersection at Flint and
Bridge operates under acceptable conditions, as will the two project driveways. He said there is
an issue in the northbound left turn lane from Flint Street onto Mason which operates at level of
service F, as it does today. He said that the southbound Tremont St. approach to Mason St.
operates at level of service F, particularly at the morning peak hour, and on Mason St. there are
currently long delays. Mr. Maxtutis finished summarizing the existing conditions.
In terms of mitigation measures, which had been reviewed by BETA, AE Com suggests
optimizing the signal timing at Bridge and Flint St.; skewing the driveway to prevent trips to the
• North section of Flint St.. For safety at Flint St., they recommend a flashing beacon and
supplemental signage to increase driver awareness at the intersection; for Mason and Tremont
Street, thought about widening but would have to take 10 ft section of Mack park; BETA
suggested traffic signal to be 4 way signal. Delay would be reduced on Mason St. John
Moustakis wondered if they took into consideration potential extension of Commercial St. They
did not take it into consideration with traffic study, they were under impression it wouldn't
happen for 5 years. Christine Sullivan mentioned that there was a discussion as to whether
traffic patterns would change due to new courthouse. Danielle McKnight said they asked BETA
about that; BETA felt there would be no significant impact; she can elaborate further on this if
needed.
Nick Nowak, 336 Essex St., asked if there was another way out and about the number of cars.
Jeff Maxtutis said 56 would be the total of inbound and outbound trips. 43 will exit in the
morning.
Councillor Paul Prevey, Ward 6, asked if in regards to the light at Tremont St., would it require
an easement from Mack Park to work or would it be preferable to have an extra lane. Jeff
Maxtutis said the signal doesn't need additional lane to work or easement to Mack Park and as a
single lane, it would work well. Dave Weiner asked if it would need a signal if you had the other
lane. Jeff Maxtutis said that they were looking at that option. You don't have to have a signal,
but it would help separate left and right turns. Councillor Prevey added that it would be a long
process with the legislature to get land for that extra lane.
•
5
Nadine Hanscom needed to leave the meeting at 8:20 PM.
Ken Petraglia of BETA group, said they assessed that intersection was because of the Riverview
project, but they feel the light signal is needed there because of safety issues, not capacity issues.
Even without this project, there are concerns with poor sight distance at that intersection. •
Councillor Prevey asked for clarification of the standards for putting a light in, and Jeff Maxtutis
explained that based on 2 and 4 peak hour tests, called warrants, the intersection meets standards
based numbers at peak hours.
Nick Nowak, 336 Essex St., asked about the number of cars going north of the buildings and
commented that if it backed up, it might back up the queue onto Bridge Street. Chuck Puleo
remembered that there was discussion about re-striping the road. Jeff Maxtutis said they talked
about that at one point but it was taken off the table. He discussed signal optimization. Chuck
Puleo and Jeff Maxtutis discussed that the lights that are on Bridge & Flint Streets have
technology to do what they want to do with them so they can be adjusted. Meg Twohey, 122
Federal St., was concerned that the driveway on Flint St will be directly across Oak St, but Jeff
Maxtutis said that they're both low volume streets and the visibility is fine.
Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., commented that there should be a connection for the possible
extension of Commercial St. He suggested the Planning Board make a condition to have a
connection. Chuck Puleo responded that the Planning Board doesn't have the ability to make
that condition because some of the land that would be needed to build the street straight across to
Flint Street is owned by a third party. Mr. Imm thinks they have that power but Chuck reiterated
that some of the land needed is privately owned. Martin Imm said that they could make one of
the proposed buildings less massive to accommodate the street connection. Attorney Scott
Grover said they did not have the power to take someone else's private property and since that
party is not here, the Board could not negotiate that. •
Chuck Puleo asked what benefits the extension of Commercial St. would provide, assuming it
was possible. Jeff Maxtutis was not sure how much benefit that would provide. Tim Ready
wasn't sure it was fair to ask that at this time. Martin Imm argued it would benefit Salem to
create a section of Commercial St. and connect it with Mason St. Christine Sullivan said for
clarification, the plan indicates that the property line ends, and to cross Tremont St you'd have
to cross someone else's property. Martin Imm said that when the Master Plan was put together,
there was a stripe on the map. Now they're tearing down buildings, you have an opportunity to
add on now, an opportunity to follow the Master Plan.
John Mirabito from BETA group, the traffic engineering peer reviewer for the City was asked to
give a recap of BETA's assessment of the project. Mr. Mirabito summarized BETA's
assessment and referenced the correspondence between AE Com and BETA through which
BETA noted issues in need of resolution and AE Com responded. The Board and Planning
department had also specifically asked about making Goodhue St. two-way and limiting the
access/egress to Flint St.to left turn out/right turn in. Additionally, BETA was asked to note any
issues still outstanding since their last report in the Spring of 2008. Mr. Mirabito also
highlighted three issues: 1) Parking on Flint St. entrance driveway, they recommend no parking
there. Idea is that if there is parking there, it slows traffic entering and could cause accidents.
Chuck Puleo added that would change total number of spaces and those spaces are the ones that
were set aside for the abutting residents of Flint St. Chuck Puleo asked if there some way of
rearranging the parking so these can be rearranged, such as enter from another side. Perhaps Jim •
6
McDowell can look at this and see how to reconfigure these. Christine Sullivan thought it looks
like they have all the spaces they need and Attorney Scott Grover said because it's commercial,
they need more than just a residential development would, and the NRCC requires 2 spaces per
apartment. He didn't realize the spaces being recommended to remove were those allotted for
• neighborhood parking. Jeff will take a look at it.
John Mirabito said for the Flint St driveway they recommend when coming down Flint St not
being able to take a left into the site, you would have to go down to the bridge and back around
to North Street. Attorney Grover added that if City decides that its appropriate to have traffic
light at Tremont St., they would be willing to contribute to a portion of it or install it. John
Mirabito recommended this light at this intersection for safety. He said it would cost about
$200,000 to signalize and make minor road improvements.
Christine Sullivan asked about the impact on North St (with a light on Mason St) and would it
back up North St. Jason Silva with AE Cont said their study showed it wouldn't back up onto
North St. Chuck Puleo added that they received a memo in their packages regarding Goodhue
St. Dave Weiner wondered what would happen if they didn't put a signal in. John Mirabito said
they would still have problems that you have today. The traffic problems warrant this light
regardless of this project. Mr. Zion commented that they're inheriting a problem that is actually
the city's problem. He's concerned that they're going to link this project with that light.
Danielle McKnight had a conversation with Lynn Duncan and the City realizes that traffic is
already a problem in this area even without the project. Daniel Little, 86 Flint St., asked about a
study from Flint St. Traffic coming from Peabody will back up or go down Oak St. and straight
across into the driveway. He feels it's a major cut through and it's going to back up. Jeff
Maxtutis said the signal would provide additional gaps on Mason St. Mr. Little feels a person
would never get to North St.
• John Mirabito said, in regards to making Goodhue St. a two-way street, there could be quite a
few problems. First, they would have to phase the traffic signal (at Boston, Proctor and Bridge
Streets) and that would back up that intersection. Also, the grade of Boston St. is higher so it
would be difficult to see; the street would lose parking area; there would be some traffic cutting
through to Harmony Grove. John Moustakis respectfully disagreed. He said it used to be two
way, when there were many people working in that area. On the corner of Bridge and Goodhue
Street there is an easement across the Self Storage property; if the City wished to widen or move
Goodhue St., they could use a 50 foot wide strip of land from that property. He said that with all
the new developments proposed or expected in that area, Goodhue St. was needed to take some
of the traffic heading to Bridge St. Christine Sullivan agreed.
Nick Nowak, 336 Essex St., wondered if this was the last evening for traffic discussion and Meg
Twohey wanted to know, since they have identified a problem at Tremont onto Mason St, if
there is no traffic light, would they hear about it at next meeting. She asks that the Board ask for
more clarification since it's a safety issue. Chuck Puleo responded that this was not the final
discussion on traffic or the light at Tremont and Mason; the Board needed to hear the peer
review comment tonight, but there would be further discussion about traffic. Also, the Board
would need to hear more about how we might handle the Flint St. entrance given BETA had
suggested eliminating the parking area there.
John Mirabito then reviewed BETA's recommendations for the Flint St. access/egress and
explained the reasons for suggesting right turn in/left turn out only.+
7
t
Councillor Prevey, Ward 6, is concerned about the possible loss of the Flint St. residential
parking, where will the Flint St. residents park if the designated spaces are taken away? If those
spaces are relocated within the site, people could walk half a mile to their cars from their homes.
He's also disappointed that BETA group recommended against making Goodhue St. a two way; •
he felt the City collectively has to look at it. He said that in terms of reducing traffic in that area,
Goodhue St. seems to be the only way, the only "valve" that could relieve the pressure there. On
the subject of the light at Tremont St., he asked who would pay for that; he's also been trying to
get pedestrian crosswalk at Boston and Bridge, which would be $10,000-15,000 and questioned
where the city would get money for that or for the new light at Tremont. Christine Sullivan
added that given what John said about opportunities (the 2 and 12 Goodhue St. easement)it
would behoove them to take a second look now.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Gene
Collins to continue the public hearing to February 5, 2009, seconded by Christine Sullivan and
approved (8-0).
Dave and Pam left at 9:30 PM.
Chuck Puleo said at next meeting they will discuss the neighborhood parking spaces and
Attorney Scott Grover will get renderings to Board members.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the December 18th meeting were reviewed.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Gene •
Collins to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved (6-0).
Old/New Business
Discussion of 2009 meeting: Dates to be discussed at next meeting.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was
made by Tim Ready to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved (6-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
•
8
I
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board 2)ILA /4 (A rj
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
LJ,IL,,m BR 9&) /4 nik 87' gpg.)vi,.�gc;5
zzaQ�f 62 � -e
l y�� q�� 3t 13go
-T-( 5'?8 7Y-x (2(V
7S'»s'"-s aI
Page of
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board ,goad
Date j / js / 01 _
_Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
de 104 7 5
Page of
3 CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2003 DEC I b P I: 39
CITY
Notice of Public Hearing
City of Salem Planning Board
The City of Salem Planning Board will hold ajoint public hearing pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, s. 5
with the Salem City Council on Wednesday, January 7, 2009, at 6:30 pm, at City Hall,
Council Chambers, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts on the proposed zoning
amendment to amend Article VII, Sec. 7-15 Planned Unit Development of the City of Salem
Zoning Ordinance to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the Business Park
Development (BPD) District in accordance with the following conditions:
1. In the Business Park Development (BPD) district, residential uses and associated
improvements, such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the
parcel(s); or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of the gross
square footage of the proposed development.
2. The maximum number of stories of any building containing residential units in the BPD
• District is four stories.
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment
on the proposed change to the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
The complete text, as well as the zoning map, is on file at the Department of Planning &
Community Development, 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and is available for
review during regular business hours.
Charles Puleo, Chair
i h, f14t�C8 p0Cted ?i "Of`1ry1 l "11119iin 5 *�:3>rC1"
tLj # l JU
1.20 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
Minutes of Joint Public Hearing with the City Council and Planning Board
January 7, 2009
A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held Wednesday, January 7,
• 2009 at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts on the
proposed zoning amendment to amend Article VII, Sec. 7-15 Planned Unit Development of the
City of Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the Business
park Development (BPD) District with conditions.
1. In the Business Park Development (BPD) district, residential uses and associated
improvements, such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the
parcel(s); or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of the gross
square footage of the proposed development.
2. The maximum number of stories of any building containing residential units in the BPD
District is four stories.
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment
on the proposed change to the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
d
The meeting was posted on January 2 n2009 and advertised in the Salem Evening News on
December 23`d and December 30th by the City Clerk.
Present: Mayor Kimberley Driscoll
City Council Members present: Paul Prevey, President, Mike Sosnowski, Jerry Ryan, Arthur
• Sargent III, Steven Pinto, Joan B. Lovely, Jean Pelletier, Robert McCarthy, Matthew Veno,
Thomas Furey, Joseph O'Keefe, Sr.,
Planning Board Members present: Chuck Puleo, Chairman, Tim Ready, Pam Lombardini,
Christine Sullivan, John Moustakis and Dave Weiner. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Executive
Director, Danielle McKnight, Stacey Dupuis, Clerk Absent: Gene Collins, Tim Kavanaugh,
Nadine Hanscom
City Council President Paul Prevey opened the meeting, read the meeting notice and noted that
all City Councillors were present. He introduced Chuck Puleo, Chairman of the Planning Board,
who then introduced Planning Board members.
Mayor Driscoll thanked City Council and gave a brief synopsis. Earlier last year this proposal
was presented and it initially failed by 1 vote. They have re-filed and made changes to this
proposed text amendment. This proposal allows PUD'S within BPD zones with conditions: 1. In
the Business Park Development (BPD) district, residential uses and associated improvements,
such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcel(s); or in the
case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of the gross square footage of
the proposed development. 2. The maximum number of stories of any building containing
residential units in the BPD District is four stories. Much of the discussion of the proposed
amendment has centered around the potential Lowe's/Walmart project. Lowe's is still interested
in the site on Highland Avenue and if it goes in, it will bring more tax revenue to the City as well
. as more jobs. This text amendment could pave the way for other under-utilized sites. Of the
1
number of parcels that this text amendment could affect (44), only 9 parcels meet size
requirements and are developable. The largest piece is the Camp Lyons parcel, on which the
Lowe's/Walmart is proposed. The Mayor referred to discussions the City has had with Camp
Lyons about the remainder of that parcel (the portion not to be used for Lowe's/Walmart), which
the City wishes to remain as open space. Camp Lyons understands this and has pledged to work •
with the City. They Mayor referred to a letter from Camp Lyons documenting this. The Mayor
said there is still much to be worked out with the developer, including a land swap, MEPA filing,
the placement of a conservation easement on the property, etc., and there would be ample
opportunity to work with the developer to ensure the land is used appropriately and the site is not
overdeveloped.
Councillor O'Keefe, who supports this proposal, pointed out that the distributed letter states
"limit residential height to 4 stories." He suggested changing the language to 40 feet instead of 4
stories. Mayor Driscoll said there were various means by which allowed building height could
be determined, but they could work with the building inspector to clarify this.
Councillor Tom Furey agreed with Councillor O'Keefe in his support of the amendment. He
also said we were in an economic crisis and the City should take this opportunity to create jobs
and tax revenue through commercial growth.
Councillor Sargent asked if there has been anything in writing from Walmart or Lowe's relating
to their proposal. When the Irving Gas Station project began, they presented their intentions
beforehand. The Mayor responded there has been correspondence with Lowe's, which has
actually already spent money on the project. Lowe's is looking at putting the water tower about
50 ft. back from its current location, so they have had to hire engineers to evaluate this. In
addition, the Mayor noted that this proposed text amendment was not being done solely for
Lowe's, that it would be applicable to the entire BPD zone throughout the city. •
Councillor Sergeant felt that anytime they've had zoning changes for a parcel, they've had plans
beforehand. He said many people are for Lowe's, but to rezone parcels of land with uncertainty
is not good, they should be in presenting plans.
The Mayor said that there are many ways to do accomplish this (Lowe's) project. They
approached this by putting in place a text amendment, which she sees as a valuable tool. They
have done spot zoning before and said they shouldn't do it. She couldn't point out one instance
like this where there has been a failure for the City with bad consequences. With this economy,
most are struggling and this could help Salem. Councillor Sargent didn't agree with the Mayor's
assessment of PUD, they've had trouble with it. He's concerned with losing commercial property
from the limited developable land left in the City.
Councillor Prevey recognized Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Community Development,
who arrived.
Councillor Pelletier (to Councillor Sergeant) addressed concerns about losing commercial
property due to rezoning. Councillor Pelletier explained that when the Ctiy created the NRCC
zone, they basically took some BPD property and some B2 property and recoded it into the
NRCC. It allows businesses, but it's very restrictive. He feels the NRCC is so restrictive that
some businesses can't expand by right anymore. He feels his colleague wants to save BPD as it
•
2
is, but yet the Council voted for the NRCC, which was established very quickly. After the
NRCC passed, one business's taxes went up $1,000. If we keep this up, we'll lose businesses.
Councillor Ryan said he has spoken with some people whose concerns were that the Planning
• Board's decision would be the final word on proposed PUD projects in the BPD. He suggested
adding a provision to the zoning amendment that also requires City Council review.
Tom Furey asked if this would this preclude any manufacturing if it is voted in. Lynn Duncan
said that it would not preclude it, the manufacturing ability would absolutely be available.
Councillor Sosnowski had a difference of opinion with the NRCC, which took 2 years to work
on. He supports the NRCC but there are components within it he doesn't like. The setback is so
restrictive, he'd like to see it trumped so that certain things could go in there. Relative to the
current discussion, he feels the City is too restrictive and most properties are odd in shape & size.
Parcels need to be looked at individually, not as a broad sweep in zoning. Mayor Driscoll said
that Councillor Sosnowski made an excellent point regarding individual parcels and that's the
exact reason for PUD - so that the Planning Board will have greater flexibility in deciding what
is appropriate for individual projects. This text amendment will free up some restraints on some
parcels.
President Paul Prevey opened the Public Hearing, stating that people in favor would speak first,
then those in opposition.
In Favor
Patricia Liberti, 3 Lions Lane (Highland Apts), said the City needs to be aggressive and that the
Planning Board and City Council should check and balance each other. She feels that times are
• tough; Salem is a small city not on major highway, so we need to think outside of the box. She
added to give credit to Planning Board and City Council members.
Charlie B. Walsh, 2 Salt Wall Lane, feels that the Planning Board is a very serious group. He
would appreciate it if this went through and stated to get it done now, get the job
[Walmart/Lowes] in.
Scott Weisberg, 17 Tanglewood Lane (chairman of Highland Condos, immediate abutter) said
they've had discussions with the companies (Lowes and Walmart), which were willing to listen
to the neighbors and offered ideas with regards to traffic issues, lighting, etc. He, along with The
Board of Trustees, supports the project.
James Moskovis, Rawlins St., said those who worked on the NRCC worked very hard but it's
restrictive. Developers have come in with good intentions but have walked away because of
restrictions. Also, some people fight against opportunities in their wards. For example, the
parcel on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street is still empty. He is in support of the project and
any kind of development that could get the City on its feet.
Randy Clarke, 19 Bentley St. remarked on Councillor Prevey's speech on a previous night that
included Obama's quote on working together and looking inside ourselves to get things done.
He pointed out that the Planning Board has professional expertise and residents should take that
into consideration when considering their judgment with regard to this issue. He said this is a
• valuable tool for the Planning Board.
3
Charlie Butler is in favor of the project but would like to see the question of "why isn't this
working" answered in regards to zoning.
A representative of the Salem Chamber of Commerce at 265 Essex St. noted that if you go to the .
Career Center, there are more and more people there in line and this will project bring jobs to
those who need them. He asked the Council to please consider this opportunity and noted that
we have reputable businesses looking to develop in Salem.
Dave Pelletier, 12 Crombie St, is in favor of Lowe's/Walmart, but not the text amendment. He
recommends addressing the Lowe's/Walmart development first and not rushing projects the city
doesn't know the future of. All future potential developments under this amendment should be
discussed. He also noted that one group shouldn't have too much power, the Planning Board
should not be the last stop, and the Councillors should make these decisions.
Michael Marcil, 15 Crombie St, feels that having Lowe's/Walmart interested in coming in will
bring in jobs. Having tools for the City to use so that each time someone comes in to develop
will be good.
James Rose, 25 Linden St., is for the Lowe's/Walmart project and said there are very
knowledgeable people to make decisions for the City. At the Mayor's speech Monday night, she
talked about entrance corridors, which Highland Ave is. He feels an entrance corridor is only as
good as the property on them and Lowe's would make Highland Ave more attractive.
Eileen Luddy, 16 Intervale Road, was appreciated how Mayor Driscoll explained this and how
smaller parcels could be developed creatively. Because of that, she's in favor of this amendment.
While other communities are losing businesses, Salem has businesses wanting to come in. •
Martin Imm, 174 Federal St, feels this project would be a big win for everyone in Salem. The
process of creating the NRCC, which he took part in, took 3 years. All the planning for NRCC
brought together many resources and perspectives from professionals and citizens. He feels for
this case, other parcels should be considered while making a blanket decision. It seems to him
they're going too fast. Traffic, infrastructure, business patterns should all be considered for all
potentially developable parcels. He feels the neighbors and abutters of the other parcels should
be heard.
Sandy Power, 18 Loring Ave, supports the project although she is unsure if it should be done
piece-meal or not. She also applauded the Council and Planning Board members.
Stan Franzeen, 34 Daniels St., spoke in favor of the project as well.
Paul Prevey read into the record a letter from Goldberg Properties, which stated that they are in
favor of the project and they feel PUD mixed use development is important.
Inoppos t o .i i n•
Polly Wilbert, said business development requires more resources, financing, and legal
information. She pointed out that Salem lost the Weir property and Parker Brothers, and gained
residential and condominiums. She is concerned about the level of the density of new residential •
4
development. She stated her preference for more "sophisticated" business development that
offers high-skilled, high paying jobs, as opposed to high-density residential. She noted the need
for greater city resources (fire, police, etc.) when many new residences are brought in. By
allowing residential development instead of sophisticated business development, the City is
. breaking the bond with the students and administration of Salem State College. She feels Salem
will become a bedroom for somewhere else of residents don't have good job options. She
doesn't think Lowe's/Walmart is good business development, we should be bringing in
businesses that provide good jobs for those students and others. She also pointed out that what
Lowe's provides is the same as Home Depot's services and wonders what benefit the
development will bring if Lowe's causes Home Depot to close.
Leslie Lyman, North Salem, asked for clarification that PUD developments were mixed use. If
so, how do the JPI, Stop and Shop (Howley St.) and proposed Lowe's/Walmart developments
qualify as PUDs? Lynn Duncan explained that JPI predated her tenure in Salem, but when
proposed, it included commercial component that included a health or fitness facility; that the
Stop and Shop development has a single-family home on the site; and that Lowe's/Walmart
would qualify because a municipal use, a water tank, is part of the site. Ms. Lyman said she did
not think that the examples she mentioned exemplified cohesive mixed-use development in
which uses complemented each other.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St, is not opposed to Lowe's/Walmart but the problem is that
there are two different objectives. He suggested the Council not confuse support for this project
with proposed amendment. He said if the city applied the PUD language as described, we would
be opening doors for this type of development to happen all over. We don't want large
residential housing projects and Lowe's all over Salem. He also mentioned that there is a reason
zoning laws exist and are not left to local planning boards. These boards, change every couple of
• years, and if we want the kind of high quality developments Salem has had in the past, the City
has to allow people to plan for longer than a couple of years. Otherwise, we will get strip malls,
big box stores, high density residential, and other easily approved developments. With these
types of developments, the City is getting minimum wage jobs and housing to house those
workers. We need to do more to encourage long-range planning for families that includes good
jobs.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St, asked Lynn Duncan if there is any way to get the
Lowe's/Walmart project done without the proposed PUD amendment. Lynn explained that there
are other alternatives, such as overlay districts and use variances, but they feel this is the best
approach. Ms. Goggin asked for clarification on how a PUD would be created, and Ms. Duncan
explained it is done by special permit through the Planning Board, and that the zone of the BPD
parcels would not change. Ms. Goggin also asked if Walmart was currently grandfathered in.
Ms. Duncan confirmed that it is, and that retail is currently not allowed in the BPD. Ms. Goggin
asked if there was any other way to allow retail on the site. The Mayor clarified that the site is
on a very large parcel which is part of more than one zone, which complicates the issue of
grandfathering uses. Ms. Goggin then said that she knows that the Salem Chamber urges
improvements to the Highland Ave. corridor, and wonders if there has been a feasibility study
begun to assess possible improvements to the corridor, and whether any improvements have
begun? Mayor Driscoll said yes, all the lights on Highland Ave have been re-sequenced from
the Lynn/Salem line and noted that traffic studies along with other studies will be required. Ms.
Goggin suggested the PUD should be studied more before the Lowe's/Walmart project begins.
•
5
Tony Salvo, 18 Sumner Rd, thought adding residential on a parcel was a requirement, but
Mayor Driscoll explained that this was not the case. The proposed PUD amendment provides
flexibility; as part of that flexibility, the City can allow limited residential as part of PUD
projects, but it's not required. There are BPD zoned parcels that would be appropriate for the
addition of limited residential development (such as Salem Oil and Grease), and other areas for .
which the City would never recommend this (such as Lowe's/Walmart). This zoning text
amendment will provide flexibility to allow appropriate mixed-use development. She added that
the Planning Board will vet each project and evaluate the appropriateness of proposals for each
site. Allowing PUDs opens the door for mixed-use project on certain sites where appropriate.
Mr. Salvo said the reason the BPD zoning was introduced in the first place was to keep
residential out where business and commercial could generate more tax revenue.
Shirley Walker is for Lowe's/Walmart project, but for the other parcels, she's concerned. There
are many residents that don't know what it's all about and gave an example of a situation she
was in years ago that has made her uneasy about not knowing about what could be built around
residential areas. She feels the entire area shouldn't be rezoned; rather, the city should evaluate
changes on a property-by-property basis.
Natalie McSwiggin, Ward 6, was for Lowe's/Walmart but not the amendment. 2 of the 8 parcels
are in her ward and she is not in favor of"blanket zoning" all of the parcels. She wants to know
what's going on in her neighborhood, and she does not wish to see zoning changes without
knowledge of what projects could be proposed in the parcels the zoning change affects.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St., was not speaking for or against. hr response to an earlier resident
comment, she said a red flag went up for her when she was told to "trust the experts." She has a
master's degree in Planning and knows that Massachusetts has some of the oldest zoning laws
and now cities like Salem are struggling with them. She thinks what you zone is what you get •
and what concerns her is the rush to rezone. She said it seems it's being fast-tracked. She
suggested rather than working like "we're going to lose Lowe's" to use due diligence.
Councillor O'Keefe moved to close the public hearing.
Councillor Sargent asked about keeping it open so the public can go to the Planning Board
meeting. Lynn Duncan explained that this is the joint public hearing and the only forum for all
public questions and comments. The Planning Board will open their meeting, everyone is
welcome to listen, but it will not be a public hearing. There was discussion as to whether to keep
the public hearing open or not.
Councillor Sosnowksi reminded all that last time this was defeated, and there was an urgent call
to action memo sent out to various members of the public. He asked where the urgent action was
to the abutters to the 8 other buildable parcels in the BPD zone. He expressed a desire to see
more people affected by the proposal to be encouraged to attend a hearing. He is concerned that
not enough people know this is being discussed. He wondered if this goes to committee, would
the Council have the time to listen to the people that will be directly affected by this?
Mayor Driscoll clarified the basic concepts of the proposal: PUD can only be brought forward on
at least 60,000 sq ft. Within BPD zone there are a total of 44 parcels. Of those 44, 24 meet size
requirements and of those 9 are potential developments (not already built out) which include
Camp Lions, the Technology Way site, the Walmart shopping center, a property on Robinson •
6
Rd., the Salem Oil and Grease site (owners of which were at the last public hearing on this and
were in favor of it), the property off of Highland Ave next to the animal shelter, the site of the
factory across from Home Depot, and the old moose building. This project was started last July,
so it has not been rushed and the City is following the proper process that is laid out statutorily.
She said this is not traditionally sent to committee, but that this was done with this particular
draft, which is why the City was up against a 90-day timeframe. The Council should be ready to
vote on this tomorrow after receiving the Planning Board's anticipated recommendation. Mayor
Driscoll urged to close the public hearing and to let the Planning Board make their
recommendation.
There being no further comments, Councillor O'Keefe made a motion to close the public
hearing, seconded by Councillor Pelletier, all in favor.
Councillor Sargent asked when they would be meeting with Lowe's. A motion was made to
suspend the rules to allow the mayor to speak. Mayor Driscoll said there had already been
discussions between the developer and the City, and there would be many more discussions since
the process the developer must undertake (MEPA filing, an easement swap, the Planning Board
filing, etc.) was a long one, and there would be ample opportunity for Lowe's to share plans
throughout the process. The Mayor said she is happy to connect people with the developers who
wish to share ideas about possible proposals, but right now, the developers had no opportunity to
move forward with presenting proposals. This is a complicated process when zoning doesn't
exist that allows these projects. The Mayor also emphasized that the zoning change does not
apply just to any one particular parcel, but to the entire BPD zone.
There being no further business to come before the City Councillors and Planning Board this
evening, a motion was made by Councillor O'Keefe to refer this matter to the Planning Board
• seconded by Pelletier, all in favor.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the City Councillors and Planning Board this
evening, a motion was made by Councillor O'Keefe to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
7
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
7003 DEC 18 P 2: 0
i H-E
CITY t-14, 'h!"Iss
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a special meeting on Wednesday,
January 7, 2009 at 7:00 pm (at the earliest)immediately following the joint public hearing at
City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Pnleo,
Chairman
MEETING AGENDA
1. Discussion and Vote - Recommendation to City Council on revised Zoning
Amendment to allow planned unit development (PUD) in the Business Park
Development District with restrictions.
2. Adjournment
I hIg 11offee po2tnef mr? "Ofol-'111 r'.!'leAn r 11
OIL i 3 1008
01 Q70 P1
• City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board p)O-AA', 4
Date / 7-
Nam Mailing Address Phone # Email
�5� � , 2
s-� ST s-07 977- 74
Page of
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
January 7, 2009
• A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on January 7, 2009, at 8:50 p.m. in
Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini, Dave Weiner, Christine
Sullivan, Tim Ready. Also present were: Lynn Duncan, Director, Danielle McKnight, Staff
Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. Absent: Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Tim Kavanaugh,
Discussion and Vote- Recommendation to City Council on revised Zoning Amendment to allow
planned unit development (PUD) in the Business Park Development District with restrictions.
Chuck Puleo questioned section 7.3.3, `Uses', on page 56, "all uses or any combination thereof'.
Lynn Duncan explained that it could be any combination of uses (commercial, residential, etc).
In regards to Councillor O'Keefe's suggestion to change "floors" to "stories", Planning Board
members discussed whether 4 stories and 4 floors are the same. Lynn Duncan believes that 50 ft.
is the maximum for height in this zone, regardless of number of stories.
Christine Sullivan reminded everyone of the possibility that the exclusion of PUD from BPD
areas was simply an omission from years ago. Lynn Duncan points out that PUD is allowed in
Salem industrial districts, which may indicate it was originally supposed to be permitted in BPD
too.
• John Moustakis thinks feels that if the amendment passes, the Planning Department will have a
tool to make projects better or reject them.
Christine Sullivan added that she resents the strip mall on Canal St., which came about because
of the way the area is zoned. It's bad planning and a bad move on an entrance corridor. She
thinks having Lowe's/WalMart is essential for Salem(retail).
Tim Ready feels that Walmart and Lowe's is important but that this project is a much bigger than
that. The bigger issue is a proposal on more development. Without this amendment, developers
coming into the city will be frustrated by the current zoning.
A motion was made by Dave Weiner the amendment to say "4 stories, not to exceed 50 ft",
seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved (6-0).
Tim Ready pointed out that at the Joint Meeting with the City Council, there was some rhetoric
about the Planning Board. He feels the Planning Board operates with great transparency and full
disclosure.
There being no further comments on this matter, Dave Weiner made motion to make a favorable
recommendation to the City Council, including the amendment to height restriction, seconded
and approved (6-0).
•
1
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was
made by John Moustakis to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (6- •
0)
The meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
•
2