The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-PLANNING BOARD ��nn 4� f.� (-CLS dCtS� d`1 ��t J1�S� �e �,r, � �q - �� b� a��a CITY OF SALEM Department of Planning & CommunityDevelopment Board Meetings Agendas** inutes-'Decisions*Sign In Sheets PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2009 TO SEPTEMBER 2010 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1.019 4 . .-n REVISED NOTICE OF MEETING G1T r You are limby not fled that the SalanPlarrrang Board will bold a special nwing on Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hag A ,Reem313, 120 WashvrgtonStreet Chwla M. Puled, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 9/16/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock wall,or to move the guardrail inwards. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. r� 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the propertylocated at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1),Salem MA. Attomey Joseph Correnti. k 5. Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review for an approximately4.8 acre part of the propertylocated at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7,Lot 79),Salem,MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). Dan DiLullo G. Public hearing: Request of CLEARWIRELESS, LLC for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit for the property located at 52-60 DOW STREET (Map 34,Lot 211),Salem,MA. The applicant proposes to install three (3) W1MAX antennas and three (3) backhaul dish antennas to be mounted on the existing chimneys on the rooftop of the multifamily residential building. 7. Old/New Business New Business: Request to extend final action on a Form A plan believed not to require approval, 12 Derby Street (petitioner Ian Hunter) to 10/25/10. 8. Adjournment This no ® P081 `' , 1 "OfnCip.! Wolin BMW ofty Flail snaiim, mass, nn ser: a7, da/a 1l1 w a�g�~ If: . 39 Oft t at a3A a a M.G.L.. _,,\ ! ti .--:i , r'.'.'\ �v CITY OF SALEM ' PLANNING BOARD 20'0 cl=P 2I n 4- n� rf EIIY, NOTICE OF MEETING )'ou are hereby notfiiad that the Salem Plan ng Baird will hod a spxial nwtirg on Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 7:00 pin at QyHall Annex,Room 313, 120 WashiigwStreet Charles M. Puleq U."ir MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes i 9/16/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7.17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock wall, or to move the guardrail inwards. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan • Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new, expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 4. Continuation of Public Heating: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1),Salem MA. Attomeyjoseph Correnti. 5. Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review for an approximately 4.8 acre part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7, Lot 79),Salem,MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). Dan DiLullo 6. Public hearing: Request of CLEARWIRELESS, LLC for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit for the property located at 52-60 DOW STREET (Map 34,Lot 211), Salem,MA. The applicant proposes to install three (3) WiMAX antennas and three (3) backhaul dish antennas to be mounted on the existing chimneys on the rooftop of the multifamily residential building. 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment Tkim notlee poetod oil °O'M,2i"O Bugwllr 00ccdo City Hall S.0o !i, M' s. on SEP Ay C'o/-0 v ISA " of U.Q.L. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS •' '� ,.. tis DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KINIBER1.EY DRISCOLL. MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOONIN ULINCAN,/\ICP Dua::croa TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Tom Devine, Interim Staff Planner, DATE: September 24, 2010 RE: Agenda—September 30, 2010 Special Meeting Please find the following in your packet: Planner's Memo • ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ 9/16/10 Planning Board Meeting Minutes Memo from City Engineer regarding completion of Cloverdale Subdivision Notes on Agenda Items: Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock wall,or to move the guardrail inwards. David Knowlton recommends eliminating the guard rail and keeping the rock wall. See enclosed memo. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special�ermit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, • INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property 1 i located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. • The applicant's civil engineer will present updated plans incorporating comments from the city's peer reviewer. Changes include expanded hydrological modeling and access to Camp Lion through the main site drive. The applicant will also be presenting renderings showing the project's appearance from the Apple Hills subdivision, as well as other locations,,which were not shown at the previous meeting due to lack of time.. Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review for an approximately 4.8 part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY (Map 7, Lot 79), Salem, MA (proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). Dan DiLullo. U.S. Biological,with support from local and state tax incentives, proposes to relocate from Marblehead and expand at the proposed site in Salem. The applicant has presented the plan to the planning, health, fire, engineering, and building departments, as well as to the conservation agent. The proposal is on the October 12`"Board of Health agenda, and we await comments from fire and engineering. Public heating: Request of CLEARWIRELESS, LLC for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit for the property located at 52-60 DOW STREET (Map 34, Lot 211), Salem, MA. The applicant proposes to install three (3) WiMAX antennas and three (3) backhaul dish antennas to be mounted on the existing chimneys on the rooftop of • the multifamily residential building. The applicant received a special permit in July from the ZBA to construct an equipment cabinet at ground level at the rear of the building to support this proposed roof-mounted equipment. We anticipate comments from the City Engineer prior to the meeting. Note regarding the final release of cash surety for the Cloverdale Ave. subdivision (not on the agenda): David Knowlton again reviewed the roadway and drainage issues and determined that the remaining problems were not related to the developer's work. He approved the work as complete, and placed this stretch of roadway on a list of improvements to be done by the city. 2 M t,C 1 Vl✓ TQC_ QC S-/ 1 2 U, S✓t e/ L 1,:7 9 — /G S- v I City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet M Board _Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address / Phone # E/-mail /f 7DO r� -�:e/d c�G. ��/9;? 0 %3��3ff /i /`a2G� S ea Y"11 � c � V, c 5 2 Sie .ce r . � (7 �Qyrvir)nd C /.scalGy .s7- so,lem V6 7y/o7Y5' 2 18( e -�- SOItln �7,F- 7ys- ys�� v iy N 0ov 7i/Y. 7L K3 ' f� � -� �✓ 7�/ DDD ANN Si cy2 �l �d t.-)t �<. A rscc. o ws � -�1od-8�d1 1—li�lc Cp Z'3 4 !e?Azty �/ r� vc S / �+ . 0 G 4 ld- L.h CCS e / k.K,.4J`4S 6 12.5`7 3"b /C �[icY E4-5T,4,A4✓ 2 ✓Mrt ay 5T EA6,JV 76r-/ �-2 Sol ? A�no -ST fl LEe Street SI m 111970_ Z (978)7 5-259 e , � d ni�wlNq a� �C l'eA13 , l`Q.1DpK • � Ldos r\c"iy\ tS 5,V, N�rtA fof7 -$3G- RTAO �/ L �3f✓'� 2a (1 ,c- s. sj Cu^ ?` t C, 32 G 7711 C.�Iti1 N M.,-- �(�Cvv� �S/f�G _ Page 2— of/ da � �6r I a ext,.)�o Tom„ Liww lMw OilOD- _761-_116-OSI -,;L • City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Board Date 30 /_moo Name MailingAddress Phone # E-mail c- n iCl fuz 'AwiS 3 Tho�n✓�SC� r x(75 7�S-Oy o e A 1,HS 1 S 3 • V j4i N Cl/.o(?7atY e2 Q�c�Eiir,2� /Q�✓E� �Y"'N ��i�.��Sa- igy-1- d 2Lt 5 L e�T QC/1�1L 37 � 5T Z 8`` 263 D2 G, 9 c4 L l Y001.41 Z, ulojry �Zzs /31_� U �1 2Vk s�Zve--- e�voev- /,m �sTZ,Z2 � 84Z-6 5_Z3 ALEX C r,RISLIQ L.u) &f c(1�sTnr�?si ja 8,40 �,S i/)r s�a // � ,a y�t�(7�i��3y6 -ia 9 �o cdL � eL Sa(1 1 A)�(Q 5i� ��qJ,a�/./ /)1T • ��v�c s C�r� h 101 L. C�1 ��s � . Sa IP,., cmc. '779 7V, 0�G 3 At,k/ i0s Ju�WV d,c,.UC) jaq _FC4yS +e Lyme (on� ql �, M&O 10( OQ (03 DM01-df} Lev►+ lq� Fc,yS �tve LyNliMA COGs �� -�7voTi M 10) �Q� ��D.1✓�LrO 3U Vir_ior Rj. IW ft. 0472- 78( 35g78(0� 00 177&211 �thri,`s�ri2 25 e 5 f, SP (rte ll9_ 178 C CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 20M orT Wireless Special Permit Decision_ r;I_i , For The Petition of CLEAR WIRELESS, LLC, an aft1:lliatelof SPiUNT'SPECTRUM, L.P. For The Property Located At 52-60 DOW STREET A Public Hearing on this petition was held on September 30, 2010. The following Planning Board members were present: Chuck Puleo (Chair), John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, and Helen Sides. 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 6.6, Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the installation of three (3) WiMAX antennas, and three (3) backhaul dish antennas to be mounted on the existing chimneys on the rooftop of the multifamily residential building at 52-60 Dow Street(Map 34, Lot 211), 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 30, 2010, the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor, none (0) opposed, to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the location stated above, in accordance with the applications dated August 11, 2010 and site plan last dated June 25, 2010, titled "Site Name: 52-60 Dow Street; Site Number: MA-BOS7546-B," sheets T-1, GN-1, C-1, A-1, A-2, D-1, D2, G-1, G-2, and E-1, and drawn by Aerial Spectrum Inc. submitted and now part of the tile. The Special Permit was approved with the following conditions: 1. The equipment that extends beyond the rootline shall be painted black; equipment mounted below the rootline shall be painted the same color as the roof. 2. 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, Chair 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM e�iL �k�' 3II t�o'J ' PLANNING BOARD Notice of Decision At a special meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at CityHall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted upon the following item: Applicant: Clear Wireless LLC Location: 52-60 Dow Street, Salem,MA Description: Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit Decision: Approved— Filed with the City Clerk October 7, 2010 This notme is being sent in crnrpliance with the Massadncsetts Gerreral L airs, Chapter 40A, Section 9 and dff not requim action by the mpter2 Appeals, if any shall be mmde pursuant to • Chapter 40A, Sftion 17, and shall be filed within 20 dais from the date whiob the decision was fill with the City Clerk. Salem Planning Board 1 Minutes of Meeting • September 30, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,September 30,2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready,and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan,Director,Department of Planning and Community Development,Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:08 pm Approval of Minutes Approval of Minutes -The minutes from the September 30,2010 meeting were reviewed. Chuck Puleo asked for clarification on the minutes on pages 4 and 6, . John Moustakis makes a motion to approve the minutes with edits,seconded by Randy Clarke and approved 9-0. Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock wall, or to move the guardrail inwards. Chuck Puleo states that Dave Knowlton recommended that the boulders be retained,rather than installing a guardrail because the guardrail could not be installed on ledge and would result in a • narrower pavement width. Christine Sullivan stated that her understanding of this issue was that contractors putting in guardrail had concerns that the guardrail would not hold well. Issue is openxt up far pubic mnvrem Susan Howland,3 Thomas Circle, stated that there was an approved plan from 2006 showing the guardrail, and that it should be installed as approved;it is important to the safety of the neighborhood. Richard Williams, 3 Thomas Circle, noted that the plan was approved in 2000 with numerous changes proposed since then. He does not think the plans should be changed.He also stated that he thought the board decided at last meeting to ask Mr. Tiro to post a$77k bond to get an occupancy permit for his 4th house,to make sure that all the requirements around the plan were performed. Additionally there were hours spent talking about widening that road. Mr.Williams'daughter was willing to give the city the 6 feet of land to make a 20 foot road and nothing has been resolved. Mr. Williams urged the board to stick with plan as it was signed for years ago. Helen Sides asked for clarification on what about these boulders and why the request has been submitted leaving the boulders where they are rather than removing them and replacing with the guardrail. Anthony Tiro,9 Gianna Drive, Saugus,MA,said the plan that he inherited stated that a guardrail should be placed in that location byMassl-lighway specifications. After doing research with 4 different guardrail companies and speaking with the Department of Transportation's engineering department, all 4 stated that no specification is possible because they cannot bolt a guardrail into ledge, for safety reasons. The guardrail company stated that to ensure the integrity of the guardrail • that the guardrail be placed in suitable material below the ledge,which would bring the guardrail in 1 and narrow the roadway. Lynn Duncan noted that the City Engineer recommends that he would rather see the road be wider rather than the guardrail being installed. . Helen Sides asked if this was the same location as the curve where Mrs.Howland was willing to give up land. Chuck Puleo said that location was across the street. Randy Clarke asked where the city stands on this. Lynn Duncan stated that they are awaiting a determination from the Building Inspector and Cry Solicitor on whether the donation of the Howlands'land for the roadway would cause a non-confomuty in their lot. Susan Howland,3 Thomas Circle,stated that Mr.Tiro's plot plan was not updated,and that originally her property consisted of two lots of land,but they were now merged. Chuck Puleo stated that the Board needed to hear from the City Solicitor about this issue. Mr. Tiro stated that once that is resolved, he is willing to do what is asked of him once City Solicitor makes his decision.Nadine Hanscom said it was strange that the guardrail was approved if it wouldn't work. Board members discussed the narrowing of the roadway with the guardrail versus leaving the greater width with the boulders;Ms.Duncan reminded the Board of the City Engineer's recommendation that the guardrail should not be installed. Board members asked if the City Engineer could provide greater detail as to why he made this recommendation. Richard Williams,stated he felt the guardrail could in fact be installed as originally planned. Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the next meeting on October 21,seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 9-0. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 • HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Wahnart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. Attorney Joseph Correnti,63 Federal Street,representing Kennedy Development Group,updated the Board on the project, and said the project engineers would be showing a revised site plan showing changes to the site driveway, and a drainage report with an expanded scope,based on what was requested by the Board. He introduced Austin Turner from Tetra Tech Rizzo and Matt Smith from Bohler,the two site engineers. He said theywould also be presenting environmental issues misrepresented at previous meetings. He said traffic counts and suggested improvements by their traffic consultant would be presented at the next meeting. Austin Turner of Tetra Tech Rizzo, 1 Grant Street,Framingham MA,presented revised plans in a powerpoint presentation titled"Proposed Lowe's,Meineke and Wahnan Expansions, City of Salem Water Storage Tank,and Future Camp Fire Improvements" (hereby incorporated as part of these minutes and available for review at the Department of Planning and Community Development) He stated that they amended the site plan to get rid of the Camp Lion driveway,there is now one entrance. They also made minor modifications at the Lowe's site in the Garden Center area which included getting rid of the turning circle to allow a much longer stream corridor. Mr.Turner said the new plan improves their wetland mitigation,changing the ratio of replication from 3.5 to 1 to 3 to 1. He noted that relocating the camp driveway creates a greater buffer between the project and the • neighborhoods. Randy Clarke asked about the width of the driveway;Mr. Turner said it was 24 feet. 2 Mr. Turner said that per a request by Bill Ross,the City's engineering peer reviewer,they expanded . the area for the drainage analysis from 17 acres to 61 acres. He said they met with Lynn Water and Sewer to discuss the expanded drainage plans. He said conceptually Mr.Ross is on board with it. He said their findings demonstrate that this will reduce peak rate of runoff at all points of study which is requirement in state of Massachusetts water guidelines. He said their plan mimicks existing hydrology and takes care of the stormwater so that it's as if the project doesn't exist. Mr.Turner then explained how the project relates nearby natural resources,such as Spring Pond for example.He said that through correspondence with the US Fisheries and&Wildlife they confirmed that there are no federally listed threatened or endangered species or habitats of those species on or around the project area. He said the site is not located within a priority area of rare species and is not subject to review by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. He says they also had an expert field investigation,which also found that there are no endangered or threatened species. He said Mass Historical Commission also confirmed that there are no known sites of historical, cultural and archaeological significance on site. Additionally,Mass Historic Commission and Massachusetts Cultural Information System stated that there are no state or federal properties on site as well as no prehistoric significance. Lastly,he noted that Spring Pond at its closest location to the project is almost a 1/2 mile away. Rob Jess,Development Manager with Lowes gave an overview of their sustainability initiatives, including energy conservation and recycling, in response to questions asked at the last meeting. He described site specific initiatives including: • High reflective cool roof design • Additional roof insulation • Demand control ventilation • • Energy sub-metering • Energy management program • Building management system • Office space motion detectors • Use of day lighting in garden center • Partial green power purchasing He noted that PV solar panels are included in the designs, and there is a very good chance that they. will be used,as long as they are economical. Chuck Pttleo asked that the discussion return to the first part of the presentation as there were further questions on the expanded study. Mark George asked for clarification on the new driveway location and how the Camp would be accessed;Austin Turner explained the camp would be accessed through the development site and the old camp road eliminated. Mr. George asked about the movement of the building's footprint and changes to the garden center. Austin Turner said the garden center had previously had a truck turning area,which had now been removed to decrease impervious surface area and provide greater separation between the camp and the stores. Mark George asked about Mr. Turner's assertion that the drainage would be improved over the current-situation. Mr.Turner stated that the project will reduce peak rate of runoff to that location from the existing condition. Mark George asked how and Mr.Turner stated that it will mimic existing hydrology by holding back a lot of water and letting it out slowly. Chuck Puleo asked how significant of an improvement is it? Mr.Turner stated that it will hold back a significant amount of water. They designed the system to not overburden the stream which will allow for a less of a peak flow rate at study point. is 3 Nadine Hanscom asked if they would be replacing the older,ineffective drainage infrastructure on Highland Ave. Mr. Turner said no. Ms.Hanscom said she would'prefer to see this done;the • development's drainage system might not be effective if it's simplydraining into old infrastructure. Bill Ross said he discussed this issue with the project's engineers and they will agree to a condition requiring the developer to evaluate existing drainage on the site and fix anything that they find in front of the Mass 1 ighwaypropeny. While this detail is not shown on the demolition plans yet,Mr. Ross said the engineers assured him that all the old infrastructure on the site will be removed and replaced. Bill Ross agrees and further states that MassHighway is offering to look at site.Matt Smith of Bohler Engineering (engineer for Wal-Mart) stated that they also go through a state review process with MEPA. After this review, another group of engineers that will look at these issues. They are interested in maintaining good drainage;Wal-Mart does not want the road flooding in front of it. They will also go through the process with MassHrghway. Nadine Hanscom asked about having the developer get an evaluation of the current infrastructure. Matt Smith stated that this is just a phase of the project and is just a matter of timing. They don't prepare for that until after getting through the MEPA review process. Christine Sullivan stated that the Board doesn't want to approve a project that will cause Highland Ave to flood. Chuck Puleo stated that the new system will have to get approval from the state. Chuck Puleo asked what information from Lynn Water&Sewer indicated that there was anything to upgrade. Austin Turner stated that recently the outlet to Floating Bridge Pond was upgraded,but they currently have no other upgrades planned. Christine Sullivan asked for clarification of the project's impact on Buchanan Circle. and whether the project would make storm water drainage better or worse. Austin Turner said it is going to make it better but did not have a specific quantifiable amount that he could specify at the meeting. . Bill Ross explained that it would be a small improvement. Christine Sullivan asked if there is there something that could be done that could make the situation even better. Nadine Hanscom stated that we don't want to have anymore problems than there are currently, and the project's goal should be a significant improvement,perhaps a 25 — 30% improvement. • Tim Ready stated that we can't hold developers to the standards of the Hoover Dam He noted that the project would now be retaining a significant amount of water in the area that is currently uncontrolled. Chuck Puleo asked what the plan was for the existing roadway. Austin Turner said they would demolish the existing roadway. Randy Clarke noted that with the changes,the project gains 24 more feet of landscape and trees,and this would help with noise and drainage. Chuck Puleo asked Austin Turner to walk the Board through how trucks will function without a truck turning area,whether there would be a separate loading dock,and how trucks would exit. Austin Turner stated that trucks will come out through the signal. Chuck Puleo asked whether they would be showing new elevation drawings;Mr.Turner responded that the renderings were available, but not final and suggested we wait until the next meeting to view them Helen Sides wanted to hear more about sustainability and asked if Lowe's would receive LEED certification. Rob Jess said no,but it would meet manyLEED requirements nonetheless without undergoing certification;Ms. Sides expressed her preference that it be LEED certified,or at least the best possible green design that a Lowe's can be. M. George asked about the condition of the drainage pipes in Highland Avenue. John Moustakis asked the Planning Department to contact the State MassDOT to see if they would determine the condition of the drainage pipes because it is a State highway. John Moustakis asked what are the • 4 hours of deliveries going to into Lowe's. Rob Jess said they would be the same as the store hours - between 6 am and 10 pm • Randy Clarke asked that the project be as green as possible and incorporate solar panels,especially considering the large footprint of the building. Issue is opened up for public c wwit Chuck Puleo stated that there are a lot of labor representatives and requested that 1 or 2 represent the unions. Calvin Anderson, 12 Concord St,Lynn, asked what the retaining pools consist of? Will theyhave leeching capabilities? Are they mosquito incubators? How are they controlled as far as the flow? Austin Turner stated that they identified areas where the pools are going to be. Chuck Puleo asked what's there now. Austin Turner responded that there is steep rock base. He said the storm water will be directed to the pools,which will be in a mild depression. The pools will let the water out at a slow,controlled rate. Maintenance will be done to keep them working properly. He says that currently the geology on the site is just big rocks;water that hits it today runs off in sheets. Chuck Puleo asked,when the rain stops and dries out what will the pools look like? Austin Turner explained said the basins take about 36 to 48 hours to dry out;there might me a small amount of standing water below the lowest outlet. Ron Tarme 60 Cavendish Circle; asked if the project will block access to Cam Lion. Austin Y> P J P Tumer said the camp would now be accessed.through the development. Richard Morrison,4 Riverbank Road,Salem says his interest is in providing jobs and states his support for the project. • Tom Demakis,Lynn, asked if the installation of solar panels makes the building more visible from the road. Rob Jess stated that they would be installed at about a 5-degree angle, so they would not be very high. Tom Marcus asked if the panels are reflective. Rob Jess said he will find out. Chuck Puleo asked about the roof of building. Rob Jess states that it is a 1" slope with a large gutter along the back Timothy Fandell,Local 12 in Boston(building trades),states his support for the project,noting the area is properly zoned for the proposal. He says the project would create 150 retail jobs and upwards of 200 — 250 total jobs. He notes how dire construction has been in this economy. He says Lynn, Peabody, and Salem residents will be working on these jobs. He says the project will increase the tax base. He says both Lowe's and Wal-Mart should be commended for green design. He believes that this is a proactive developer trying to be a good neighbor,good steward for the environment. Paul Lynch,representing the ironworkers,states their support for the project because of its potential to create jobs and increase the tax base. Katerina Panagiotakis,Ocean Ave,Lynn,says this project is not in the right place,since archaeological resources have been discovered in this area. She says the land has a clearly man-made bridge and kiln from long ago. She spoke to the National Park Service and says they are very concerned about the possible resources on the land. She says the Mashpee tribe says that stones are ceremonial. It is correct that a recent letter was sent from the State stating that there is no evidence of archaeological resources. But another letter in 2008 said artifacts found on the site may be archaeological. Chuck Puleo asked if there is a specific part of the site she is referring to. Ms. 5 Panagiotakis stated that there is a specific site,but the tribe does not identify these areas publically. Chuck Puleo said the Board welcomed any additional information she might have. iJoe Marra,4 Malin Ave,states his support for the project;he is impressed with the green design plans and the potential job creation. Councillor Jerry Ryan,4 Nichols Street,states his support for the project,noting that the drainage problems already exist and this project affords an opportunity to address these problems. He also supports the creation of jobs the project would provide. Norm Cole,Coolidge Road,Lynn,presented photos of the camp site access road and surrounding area which showed the drainage infrastructure neglected and overgrown,saying this must be fixed for the current project to provide any flooding relief(photos are dated 9/16/10 and are hereby incorporated as part of these minutes;they are available for review at the Department of Planning and Community Development). He also asked about balloons the developers were supposed to put up to show the proposed height of the buildings. Austin Turner stated that the balloon study is complete;they left them up for two days. BarryNeally, 15 Lynn Street, Salem. Asked if there is there any commitment by Lowe's and Wal- Mart to use local labor for these projects? He would like to see such a commitment. Nadine Hanscome moved to continue the public hearing to October 21st,seconded by Helen sides and approved 9-0. Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review for an approximately 4.8 acre part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7, Lot • 79), Salem,MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). Dan DiLullo, architect in Melrose,MA presented the site plan (plans are titled"United States Biological" Salem Business Park in Salem,MA," dated August 17,2010 and revised September 10, 2010;they are hereby incorporated as part of these minutes and are available for review at the Department of Planning and Community Development). He explained that the site is a 43,000 +/- parcel of property off Technology Way. The site is undeveloped. They are in discussion with Department of Public Works,Fire Department and have a package in front of Conservation Commission and Board of Health. He also noted that the 21E is done;the site is clean. They are getting prices on site development. Warren Shore,US Biological. Stated that he is privileged to be welcomed into Salem and gave a brief description of what US Biological does:Molecular biology,biotech,pharmaceutical,distributers of reagents used in research as well as proteins used in research. Nothing that is used in humans. They currently have another operation in Marblehead. He invited the Planning Board to come by and get a tour at anytime. Tim Ready asked how many people are employed? Warren Shore said 23 and this would be large expansion of the business. Tim ready asked if these are professional jobs. Warren Shore said these new jobs will be in technical support,customer service,etc. They are hiring from Salem State and NSCC for higher level jobs,both technical and nontechnical. Christine Sullivan asked how his company cleans up a spill?Warren Shore explained the process. Randy Clarke asked if they were subject to state regulations regarding dangerous substances;Mr. • Shore said no,they no longer ship poisons,corrosives or flammables. 6 Christine Sullivan asked how manyjobs theythought theywere going to add, given theywere . occupying half the building. Warren Shore responded 5 -10, but plans to expand in the additional space. Donald Seaberg,the project's engineer,explained the site plan. He stated that there are two entrances off Technology Way. He also noted that this was land court property, and they would be coming in for an 81P plan to separate out the project site from the rest of the parcel. The project would take up 4.8 acres of the site. He discussed drainage- there would be a retention pond to handle any increase in flows. Donald Seaberg showed the wetlands around the site. He says they pushed the road over a little and got the site up as high as they could because it's ledge. He says the plan is 47% open space and the building coverage is well below what is allowed. Randy Clarke asked how much open space between the facility and closest house. Donald Seaberg responded about 200 feet. Randy Clarke asked what kind of elevation is the project? Donald Seaberg responded that the highest elevation is 120'. Randy Clarke and Helen Sides asked about the height of the project and how it compares to the nearby houses;Don Seaberg says the neighborhood should not be able to see the rooftop,considering the heights and landscape buffer.Dan DiLullo stated that he doesn't envision using any rooftop mounted equipment. Mark George asked how far is the site from wetlands? Donald Seaberg said about 40'at the closest point. Chuck Puleo asked what are the hours of operations and Warren Shore responded stating 9-5. Mark I George asked what is the nature of buffer,is it wooded? Donald Seaberg said he's proposing to keep what's there. Mark George asked what is the elevation? Donald Seaberg states that he is not 100% • sure. Mark George asked if the surrounding houses are higher? Ron Tarmey, 60 Cavendish Circle asked if they have had problems with the Town of Marblehead— their Fire Dept.,for example,or any issues with biohazards? Warren Shore stated that there have been no problems. Danielle McKnight added that the Salem Fire Marshall has been in contact with the Marblehead Fire Dept. and Lt. Griffin will base her comments on feedback from Marblehead. Lynn Duncan stated that they are waiting for comments not only from Lt. Griffin but also from the City Engineer. Danielle McKnight asked if the Board had the latest revised plans. Mr. Shore provided copies of the revised plans. Chuck Puleo asked if there were plans to add additional lights to the parking lot besides the wall pack? Donald Seaberg- stated that was not in the plans at this time. Helen Sides and Randy Clarke asked if he could cut back on the parking. Lynn Duncan recommended making it pan of the plan to be reserved for future parking- grassed over for now,and paved if they need to expand. Donald Seaberg said he could pull some of the parking back. Lynn Duncan stated that the Planning Board can approve it with future plans for the area. Christine Sullivan stated that the lighting could be an issue; are they confident that the lighting will eliminate dark comers? Dan DiLullo offered to do a photometric plan of lighting on the building. Chuck Puleo stated that he wants to make sure it's lit enough and safe enough. Tim Ready asked about delivery trucks. Warren Shore stated that he uses Fed Ex and UPS. Tim • ready then asked about security capabilities at night. Warren Shore stated that he uses a local alarm l 7 company. Tim ready asked if the building was manned. Warren Shore said he shared the alarm s)�stem with Salem Glass and he would discuss it with them • Helen Sides made a motion to continue the matter to the October 21't meeting,seconded by Randy Clarke and passed 9-0. Public hearing: Request of CLEARWIRELESS,LLC for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit for the property located at 52.60 DOW STREET (Map 34, Lot 211), Salem,MA. The applicant proposes to install three (3) WiMAX antennas and three (3) backhaul dish antennas to be mounted on the existing chimneys on the rooftop of the multifamily residential building. Anne Grant,representing Clear Wireless directed the board to the plans on Tab 3 and the views on sections Al and A2. She explained that Clear Wireless is an affiliate of Sprint. The applicant proposes adding three WiMAX antennas and three wireless backhaul dish antennas to the existing chimney and painting them to match the building. Additionally there is a supporting cabinet proposed. Christine Sullivan asked what it would look at before and after;Ms. Grant referred to the renderings in the application. Randy Clarke noted that the Board had approved similar plans before. Tim Ready stated that the plans are not obtrusive and look fine. Helen Sides explained that the color the applicant should paint the equipment depended on what structures they are attached to- equipment above the roofline should be black, but equipment below the roofline should be painted the color of the roof. Randy Clarke made the motion to approve with the condition that the equipment be painted black above the roofline and the color of the roof below the roofline. Tim Ready seconded. The motion passed 9-0 (Clarke,Ready, Sides,Puleo,Moustakis,Hanscom,Kavanaugh,George and Sullivan in favor,none opposed). Decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes and is attached. • Old/New Business New Business: Request to extend final action on a Form A plan believed not to require approval, 12 Derby Street(petitioner Ian Hunter) to 10/25/10. I Danielle McKnight stated that the applicant for 12 Derby Street has requested to extend the deadline for Planning Board action until October 25,2010. Randy Clarke moved to extend final action on the petition to October 25,2010,seconded byHelen Sides and approved 9-0 (Clarke, Ready,Sides,Puleo,Moustakis,Hanscom,Kavanaugh,George and Sullivan in favor,none opposed). Motion to adjourn made by Tim Ready,seconded by Randy Clarke and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Beth Gerard,Planning Board Clerk Wireless Special Permit Decision 8 For The Petition of CLEAR WIRELESS, LLC, an affiliate of SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. For The Property Located At 52-60 DOW STREET A Public Hearing on this petition was held on September 30, 2010. The following Planning Board members were present: Chuck Puleo (Chair), John Moustakis,Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George,Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, and Helen Sides. 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 6.6, Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the installation of three (3)WiMAX antennas, and three (3)backhaul dish antennas to be mounted on the existing chimneys on the rooftop of the multifamily residential building at 52-60 Dow Street(Map 34, Lot 211), 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 30, 2010, the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor, none(0) opposed, to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the location stated above, in accordance with the applications dated August 11, 2010 and site plan last dated June 25, 2010, titled"Site Name: 52-60 Dow Street; Site Number: MA- BOS7546-B," sheets T-1, GN-1, C-1, A-1, A-2, D-1, D2, G-1, G-2, and E-1, and drawn by Aerial Spectrum Inc. submitted and now part of the file. The Special Permit was approved with the following conditions: • 1. The equipment that extends beyond the roofline shall be painted black; equipment mounted below the roofline shall be painted the same color as the roof. 2. 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, Chair Minutes approved by the Planning Board 10121110 • 9 Salem Planning Board • Minutes of Meeting September 30, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,September 30;2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready,and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan,Director,Department of Planning and Community Development,Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:08 pen. Approval of Minutes Approval of Minutes—The minutes from the September 30,2010 meeting were reviewed. Chuck Puleo asked for clarification on the minutes on pages 4 and 6, . John Moustakis makes a motion to approve the minutes with edits, seconded by Randy Clarke and approved 9-0. Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock wall,or to move the guardrail inwards. Chuck Puleo states that Dave Knowlton recommended that the boulders be retained,rather than • installing a guardrail because the guardrail could not be installed on ledge and would result in a narrower pavement width. Christine Sullivan stated that her understanding of this issue was that contractors putting in guardrail had concerns that the guardrail would not hold well. Issue is opened up forpublic comment. Susan Howland,3 Thomas Circle, stated that there was an approved plan from 2006 showing the guardrail, and that it should be installed as approved;it is important to the safety of the neighborhood. Richard Williams,3 Thomas Circle,noted that the plan was approved in 2000 with numerous changes proposed since then. He does not think the plans should be changed. He also stated that he thought the board decided at last meeting to ask Mr.Tiro to post a$77k bond to get an occupancy permit for his 4th house, to make sure that all the requirements around the plan were performed. Additionally there were hours spent talking about widening that road. Mr. Williams'daughter was willing to give the city the 6 feet of land to make a 20 foot road and nothing has been resolved. Mr. Williams urged the board to stick with plan as it was signed for years ago. Helen Sides asked for clarification on what about these boulders and why the request has been submitted leaving the boulders where they are rather than removing them and replacing with the guardrail. Anthony Tiro,9 Gianna Drive,Saugus,MA, said the plan that he inherited stated that a guardrail should be placed in that location by MassHighway specifications. After doing research with 4 different guardrail companies and speaking with the Department of Transportation's engineering department,all 4 stated that no specification is possible because they cannot bolt a guardrail into • ledge, for safety reasons. The guardrail company stated that to ensure the integrity of the guardrail that the guardrail be placed in suitable material below the ledge,which would bring the guardrail in 1 and narrow the roadway. Lynn Duncan noted that the City Engineer recommends that he would rather see the road be wider rather than the guardrail being installed. • Helen Sides asked if this was the same location as the curve where Mrs. Howland was willing to give up land. Chuck Puleo said that location was across the street. Randy Clarke asked where the city stands on this. Lynn Duncan stated that they are awaiting a determination from the Building Inspector and City Solicitor on whether the donation of the Howlands'land for the roadway would cause a non-conformity in their lot. Susan Howland, 3 Thomas Circle, stated that Mr. Tiro's plot plan was not updated,and that originally her property consisted of two lots of land,but they were now merged. Chuck Puleo stated that the Board needed to hear from the City Solicitor about this issue. Mr.Tito stated that once that is resolved, he is willing to do what is asked of him once City Solicitor makes his decision. Nadine Hanscom said it was strange that the guardrail was approved if it wouldn't work. Board members discussed the narrowing of the roadway with the guardrail versus leaving the greater width with the boulders;Ms.Duncan reminded the Board of the City Engineer's recommendation that the guardrail should not be installed. Board members asked if the City Engineer could provide greater detail as to why he made this recommendation. Richard Williams, stated he felt the guardrail could in fact be installed as originally planned. Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the next meeting on October 21, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 9-0. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit,and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 440,460,462,and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home • Improvement retail store,new,expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,representing Kennedy Development Group, updated the Board on the project, and said the project engineers would be showing a revised site plan showing changes to the site driveway, and a drainage report with an expanded scope,based on what was requested by the Board. He introduced Austin Turner from Tetra Tech Rizzo and Matt Smith from Bohler, the two site engineers. He said they would also be presenting environmental issues misrepresented at previous meetings. He said traffic counts and suggested improvements by their traffic consultant would be presented at the next meeting. Austin Turner of Tetra Tech Rizzo, 1 Grant Street,Framingham MA,presented revised plans in a PowerPoint presentation titled"Proposed Lowe's,Meineke and Walmart Expansions,City of Salem Water Storage Tank,and Future Camp Fire Improvements" (hereby incorporated as part of these minutes and available for review at the Department of Planning and Community Development) He stated that they amended the site plan to get rid of the Camp Lion driveway; there is now one entrance. They also made minor modifications at the Lowe's site in the Garden Center area which included getting rid of the turning circle to allow a much longer stream corridor. Mr.Turner said the new plan improves their wetland mitigation, changing the ratio of replication from 3.5 to I to 3 to 1. He noted that relocating the camp driveway creates a greater buffer between the project and the • neighborhoods. Randy Clarke asked about the width of the driveway;Mr.Turner said it was 24 feet. 2 • Mr.Turner said that per a request by Bill Ross, the City's engineering peer reviewer, they expanded the area for the drainage analysis from 17 acres to 61 acres. He said they met with Lynn Water and Sewer to discuss the expanded drainage plans. He said conceptually Mr.Ross is on board with it. He said their findings demonstrate that this will reduce peak rate of runoff at all points of study which is requirement in state of Massachusetts water guidelines. He said their plan mimicks existing hydrology and takes care of the stormwater so that it's as if the project doesn't exist. Mr.Turner then explained how the project relates nearby natural resources,such as Spring Pond for example. He said that through correspondence with the US Fisheries and&Wildlife they confirmed that there are no federally listed threatened or endangered species or habitats of those species on or around the project area. He said the site is not located within a priority area of rare species and is not subject to review by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. He says they also had an expert field investigation,which also found that there are no endangered or threatened species. He said Mass Historical Commission also confirmed that there are no known sites of historical, cultural and archaeological significance on site. Additionally,Mass Historic Commission and Massachusetts Cultural Information System stated that there are no state or federal properties on site as well as no prehistoric significance. Lastly,he noted that Spring Pond at its closest location to the project is almost a 1/2 mile away. Rob Jess,Development Manager with Lowes gave an overview of their sustainability initiatives, including energy conservation and recycling,in response to questions asked at the last meeting. He described site specific initiatives including: • High reflective cool roof design • Additional roof insulation • Demand control ventilation • • Energy sub-metering • Energy management program • Building management system • Office space motion detectors • Use of day lighting in garden center • Partial green power purchasing He noted that PV solar panels are included in the designs, and there is a very good chance that they will be used, as long as they are economical. Chuck Puleo asked that the discussionreturn to the first part of the presentation as there were further questions on the expanded study. Mark George asked for clarification on the new driveway location and how the Camp would be accessed;Austin Tuner explained the camp would be accessed through the development site and the old camp road eliminated. Mr. George asked about the movement of the building's footprint and changes to the garden center. Austin Tuner said the garden center had previously had a truck turning area,which had now been removed to decrease impervious surface area and provide greater separation between the camp and the stores. Mark George asked about Mr.Tuner's assertion that the drainage would be improved over the current situation. Mr.Tuner stated that the project will reduce peak rate of runoff to that location from the existing condition. Mark George asked how and Mr. Turner stated that it will mimic existing hydrology by holding back a lot of water and letting it out slowly. Chuck Puleo asked how significant of an improvement is it? Mr.Turner stated that it will hold back a significant amount of water.They designed the system to not overburden the stream • which will allow for a less of a peak flow rate at study point. 3 Nadine Hanscom asked if they would be replacing the older,ineffective drainage infrastructure on Highland Ave. Mr.Turner said no. Ms. Hanscom said she would prefer to see this done; the • development's drainage system might not be effective if it's simply draining into old infrastructure. Bill Ross said he discussed this issue with the project's engineers and they will agree to a condition requiring the developer to evaluate existing drainage on the site and fix anything that they find in front of the Mass Highway property. While this detail is not shown on the demolition plans yet,Mr. Ross said the engineers assured him that all the old infrastructure on the site will be removed and replaced. Bill Ross agrees and further states that MassHighway is offering to look at site. Matt Smith of Bohler Engineering(engineer for Wal-Mart) stated that they also go through a state review process with MEPA. After this review,another group of engineers that will look at these issues. They are interested in maintaining good drainage;Wal-Mart does not want the road flooding in front of it. They will also go through the process with MassHighway. Nadine Hanscom asked about having the developer get an evaluation of the current infrastructure. Matt Smith stated that this is just a phase of the project and is just a matter of timing. They don't prepare for that until after getting through the MEPA review process. Christine Sullivan stated that the Board doesn't want to approve a project that will cause Highland Ave to flood. Chuck Puleo stated that the new system will have to get approval from the state. Chuck Puleo asked what information from Lynn Water&Sewer indicated that there was anything to upgrade. Austin Turner stated that recently the outlet to Floating Bridge Pond was upgraded,but they currently have no other upgrades planned. Christine Sullivan asked for clarification of the project's impact on Buchanan Circle. and whether the project would make storm water drainage better or worse. Austin Turner said it is going to make it better but did not have a specific quantifiable amount that he could specify at the meeting. . Bill Ross explained that it would be a small improvement. Christine Sullivan asked if there is there something that could be done that could make the situation even better. Nadine Hanscom stated that we don't want to have any more problems than there are currently,and the project's goal should be a significant improvement,perhaps a 25—30%improvement. • Tim Ready stated that we can't hold developers to the standards of the Hoover Dam. He noted that the project would now be retaining a significant amount of water in the area that is currently uncontrolled. Chuck Puleo asked what the plan was for the existing roadway. Austin Turner said they would demolish the existing roadway. Randy Clarke noted that with the changes, the project gains 24 more feet of landscape and trees,and this would help with noise and drainage. Chuck Puleo asked Austin Turner to walk the Board through how trucks will function without a truck turning area,whether there would be a separate loading dock,and how trucks would exit. Austin Turner stated that trucks will come out through the signal. Chuck Puleo asked whether they would be showing new elevation drawings;Mr.Turner responded that the renderings were available, but not final and suggested we wait until the next meeting to view them. Helen Sides wanted to hear more about sustainability and asked if Lowe's would receive LEED certification. Rob Jess said no, but it would meet many LEED requirements nonetheless without undergoing certification;Ms.Sides expressed her preference that it be LEED certified,or at least the best possible green design that a Lowe's can be. M. George asked about the condition of the drainage pipes in Highland Avenue. John Moustakis asked the Planning Department to contact the State MassDOT to see if they would determine the condition of the drainage pipes because it is a State highway. John Moustakis asked what are the • 4 hours of deliveries going to into Lowe's. Rob Jess said they would be the same as the store hours - • between 6 am and 10 pm. Randy Clarke asked that the project be as green as possible and incorporate solar panels, especially considering the large footprint of the building. Issue is opened up forpublic comment Chuck Puleo stated that there are a lot of labor representatives and requested that 1 or 2 represent the unions. Calvin Anderson, 12 Concord St,Lynn, asked what the retaining pools consist of? Will they have leeching capabilities? Are they mosquito incubators? How are they controlled as far as the flow? Austin Turner stated that they identified areas where the pools are going to be. Chuck Puleo asked what's there now. Austin Turner responded that there is steep rock base. He said the storm water will be directed to the pools,which will be in a mild depression. The pools will let the water out at a slow, controlled rate. Maintenance will be done to keep them working properly. He says that currently the geology on the site is just big rocks;water that hits it today runs off in sheets. Chuck Puleo asked,when the rain stops and dries out what will the pools look like? Austin Turner explained said the basins take about 36 to 48 hours to dry out;there might me a small amount of standing water below the lowest outlet. Ron Tarmey, 60 Cavendish Circle;asked if the project will block access to Camp Lion. Austin Turner said the camp would now be accessed through the development. Richard Morrison,4 Riverbank Road, Salem says his interest is in providing jobs and states his • support for the project. Tom Demakis,Lynn, asked if the installation of solar panels makes the building more visible from the road. Rob Jess stated that they would be installed at about a 5-degree angle, so they would not be very high. Tom Marcus asked if the panels are reflective. Rob Jess said he will find out. Chuck Puleo asked about the roof of building. Rob Jess states that it is a 1" slope with a large gutter along the back. Timothy Fandell,Local 12 in Boston (building trades), states his support for the project,noting the area is properly zoned for the proposal. He says the project would create 150 retail jobs and upwards of 200—250 total jobs. He notes how dire construction has been in this economy: He says Lynn, Peabody, and Salem residents will be working on these jobs. He says the project will increase the tax base. He says both Lowe's and Wal-Mart should be commended for green design. He believes that this is a proactive developer trying to be a good neighbor,good steward for the environment. Paul Lynch,representing the ironworkers,states their support for the project because of its potential to create jobs and increase the tax base. Katerina Panagiotakis, Ocean Ave,Lynn, says this project is not in the right place,since archaeological resources have been discovered in this area. She says the land has a clearly man-made bride and kiln from long o. She spoke to the National Park Service and says the are very g g a g P Y Y n' concerned about the possible resources on the land. She says the Mashpee tribe says that stones are ceremonial. It is correct that a recent letter was sent from the State stating that there is no evidence of archaeological resources. But another letter in 2008 said artifacts found on the site may be archaeological. Chuck Puleo asked if there is a specific part of the site she is referring to. Ms. • 5 0 Panagiotakis stated that there is a specific site, but the tribe does not identify these areas publically. Chuck Puleo said the Board welcomed any additional information she might have. • Joe Marra,4 Malm Ave,states his support for the project;he is impressed with the green design plans and the potential job creation. Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, states his support for the project,noting that the drainage problems already exist and this project affords an opportunity to address these problems. He also supports the creation of jobs the project would provide. Norm Cole, Coolidge Road,Lynn,presented photos of the camp site access road and surrounding area which showed the drainage infrastructure neglected and overgrown,saying this must be fixed for the current project to provide any flooding relief(photos are dated 9/16/10 and are hereby incorporated as part of these minutes;they are available for review at the Department of Planning and Community Development). He also asked about balloons the developers were supposed to put up to show the proposed height of the buildings. Austin Turner stated that the balloon study is complete; they left them up for two days. Barry Neally, 15 Lynn Street,Salem. Asked if there is there any commitment by Lowe's and Wal- Mart to use local labor for these projects? He would like to see such a commitment. Nadine Hanscome moved to continue the public hearing to October 21't, seconded by Helen sides and approved 9-0. Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review for an approximately 4.8 acre part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7, Lot • 79), Salem, MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). Dan DiLullo, architect in Melrose,MA,presented the site plan (plans are titled"United States Biological"Salem Business Park in Salem,MA," dated August 17,2010 and revised September 10, 2010;they are hereby incorporated as part of these minutes and are available for review at the Department of Planning and Community Development). He explained that the site is a 43,000 +/- parcel of property off Technology Way. The site is undeveloped. They are in discussion with Department of Public Works, Fire Department and have a package in front of Conservation Commission and Board of Health. He also noted that the 21E is done; the site is clean. They are getting prices on site development. Warren Shore,US Biological. Stated that he is privileged to be welcomed into Salem and gave a brief description of what US Biological does: Molecular biology, biotech,pharmaceutical, distributers of reagents used in research as well as proteins used in research. Nothing that is used in humans. They currently have another operation in Marblehead. He invited the Planning Board to come by and get a tour at any time. Tim Ready asked how many people are employed? Warren Shore said 23 and this would be large expansion of the business. Tim ready asked if these are professional jobs. Warren Shore said these new jobs will be in technical support, customer service, etc.They are hiring from Salem State and NSCC for higher level jobs,both technical and nontechnical. Christine Sullivan asked how his company cleans up a spill?Warren Shore explained the process. Randy Clarke asked if they were subject to state regulations regarding dangerous substances;Mr. • Shore said no, they no longer ship poisons,corrosives or flammables. 6 . Christine Sullivan asked how many jobs they thought they were going to add,given they were occupying half the building. Warren Shore responded 5 -10,but plans to expand in the additional space. Donald Seaberg, the project's engineer,explained the site plan. He stated that there are two entrances off Technology Way. He also noted that this was land court property,and they would be coming in for an 81P plan to separate out the project site from the rest of the project arcel. Th would take up 4.8 acres of the site. He discussed drainage- there would be a retention pond to handle any increase in flows. Donald Seaberg showed the wetlands around the site. He says they pushed the road over a little and got the site up as high as they could because it's ledge. He says the plan is 47% open space and the building coverage is well below what is allowed. Randy Clarke asked how much open space between the facility and closest house. Donald Seaberg responded about 200 feet. Randy Clarke asked what kind of elevation is the project? Donald Seaberg responded that the highest elevation is 120'. Randy Clarke and Helen Sides asked about the height of the project and how it compares to the nearby houses;Don Seaberg says the neighborhood should not be able to see the rooftop, considering the heights and landscape buffer.Dan DiLullo stated that he doesn't envision using any rooftop mounted equipment. Mark George asked how far is the site from wetlands?Donald Seaberg said about 40'at the closest point. Chuck Puleo asked what are the hours of operations and Warren Shore responded stating 9-5. Mark George asked what is the nature of buffer,is it wooded? Donald Seaberg said he's proposing to keep what's there. Mark George asked what is the elevation? Donald Seaberg states that he is not 100% • sure. Mark George asked if the surrounding houses are higher? Ron Tarmey, 60 Cavendish Circle asked if they have had problems with the Town of Marblehead— their Fire Dept., for example,or any issues with biohazards? Warren Shore stated that there have been no problems. Danielle McKnight added that the Salem Fire Marshall has been in contact with the Marblehead Fire Dept. and Lt. Griffin will base her comments on feedback from Marblehead. Lynn Duncan stated that they are waiting for comments not only from Lt. Griffin but also from the City Engineer. Danielle McKnight asked if the Board had the latest revised plans. Mr. Shore provided copies of the revised plans. Chuck Puleo asked if there were plans to add additional lights to the parking lot besides the wall pack? Donald Seaberg- stated that was not in the plans at this time. Helen Sides and Randy Clarke asked if he could cut back on the parking. Lynn Duncan recommended making it part of the plan to be reserved for future parking-grassed over for now, and paved if they need to expand. Donald Seaberg said he could pull some of the parking back. Lynn Duncan stated that the Planning Board can approve it with future plans for the area. Christine Sullivan stated that the lighting could be an issue;are they confident that the lighting will eliminate dark corners? Dan DiLullo offered to do a photometric plan of lighting on the building. Chuck Puleo stated that he wants to make sure it's lit enough and safe enough. Tim Ready asked about delivery trucks. Warren Shore stated that he uses Fed Ex and UPS. Tim ready then asked about security capabilities at night. Warren Shore stated that he uses a local alarm company. Tim ready asked if the building was manned. Warren Shore said he shared the alarm system with Salem Glass and he would discuss it with them. . Helen Sides made a motion to continue the matter to the October 21,t meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke and passed 9-0. Public hearing: Request of CLEARWIRELESS, LLC for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit for the property located at 52-60 DOW STREET (Map 34, Lot 211), Salem,M.A. The applicant proposes to install three (3) WiMAX antennas and three (3) backhaul dish antennas to be mounted on the existing chimneys on the rooftop of the multifamily residential building. Anne Grant,representing Clear Wireless directed the board to the plans on Tab 3 and the views on sections Al and A2. She explained that Clear Wireless is an affiliate of Sprint. The applicant proposes adding three WiMAX antennas and three wireless backhaul dish antennas to the existing chimney and painting them to match the building. Additionally there is a supporting cabinet proposed. Christine Sullivan asked what it would look at before and after;Ms. Grant referred to the renderings in the application. Randy Clarke noted that the Board had approved similar plans before. Tim Ready stated that the plans are not obtrusive and look fine. Helen Sides explained that the color the applicant should paint the equipment depended on what structures they are attached to- equipment above the roofline should be black, but equipment below the roofline should be painted the color of the roof. Randy Clarke made the motion to approve with the condition that the equipment be painted black above the roofline and the color of the roof below the roofline. Tim Ready seconded. The motion passed 9-0 (Clarke,Ready,Sides, Puleo,Moustakis,Hanscom,Kavanaugh,George and Sullivan in favor,none opposed). Decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes and is attached. • Old/New Business New Business: Request to extend final action on a Form A plan believed not to require approval,12 Derby Street(petitioner Ian Hunter) to 10/25/10. Danielle McKnight stated that the applicant for 12 Derby Street has requested to extend the deadline for Planning Board action until October 25, 2010. Randy Clarke moved to extend final action on the petition to October 25, 2010, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 9-0 (Clarke, Ready, Sides,Puleo,Moustakis, Hanscom,Kavanaugh,George and Sullivan in favor, none opposed). Motion to adjourn made by Tim Ready;seconded by Randy Clarke and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Beth Gerard, Planning Board Clerk Wireless Special Permit Decision , 8 For The Petition of CLEAR WIRELESS,LLC,an affiliate of SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. For The Property Located At 52-60 DOW STREET A Public Hearing on this petition was held on September 30,2010. The following Planning Board members were present: Chuck Puleo(Chair),John Moustakis,Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom,Mark George,Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, and Helen Sides. 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 6.6, Wireless Communications Facilities(WCF)of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the installation of three(3)WiMAX antennas, and three(3)backhaul dish antennas to be mounted on the existing chimneys on the rooftop of the multifamily residential building at 52-60 Dow Street(Map 34,Lot 211), 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 30,2010, the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor, none (0) opposed,to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the location stated above, in accordance with the applications dated August 11,2010 and site plan last dated June 25,2010, titled"Site Name: 52-60 Dow Street; Site Number: MA- BOS7546-B," sheets T-1,GN-1, C-1, A-1, A-2, D-1, D2, G-1, G-2, and E-1, and drawn by Aerial Spectrum Inc. submitted and now part of the file. The Special Permit was approved with the following conditions: 1. The equipment that extends beyond the roofline shall be painted black; equipment mounted below the roofline shall be painted the same color as the roof. 2. 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, Chair Minutes approved by the Planning Board 10/21/10 9 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notiz*d2at the Salem Plammrg Board will hold a special meting on Thurs day', Septgr ber 16, 2010 at TOO pm at City Hall A mee,Rcwm313, 120 Waslnngton Street G)adzM. P:aeq CJri�n -sm MEETING AGENDA ca zr 1. Approval of Minutes 8/19/10 Planning Board special meeting minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive- through facility). AttomeyJoseph Correnti. • 3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Developm f.t Special Permit and Site Plan Review for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET(Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building). AttomeyJoseph Correnti. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the propertylocated at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey joseph Correnti. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1),Salem MA. Attomey Joseph Correnti. 6. Public Hearing:Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review for an approximately 4.8 part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7,Lot 79),Salem,MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq.ft.of light industrial space). Dan DiLullo 7. Old/New Business Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant: BVS CORPORATION,for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA. 8. Adjournment This no+Ett a posted on "Oi ^aa! Bas atilt owl Fl0il ease. on fia, Aot0 City at 7; H y m a; 3" 23A & if "L. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ��'G7�IIN«tit1G,`�1' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOOMN DuncruN,AIQ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DIRECTOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX: 978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Tom Devine, Interim Staff Planner DATE: September 9, 2010 RE: Agenda - September 16, 2010 Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ 8/19/10 Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes Notes on Agenda Items: Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building). Attorney Joseph Correnti. In response to the call for further scrutiny of the building's design, Helen Sides and David ' Jaquith of the Design Review Board have met with the project's architect and are scheduled to meet once more before the Planning Board meeting. We will also have comments from the Board of Health and City Engineer for the meeting. The applicant is expected to ask to 1 . continue the pharmacy hearing to a future meeting and seek a vote on the simpler non-pharmacy plan. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. The applicant's traffic engineer will present a response to the city s traffic peer review(the full document from GPI is included in the packet). The peer reviewers plan to have a written response to this at the meeting. The applicant will also be presenting new renderings showing the project's appearance from the Apple Hills subdivision, as well as other locations. It is anticipated that the applicant will be addressing the civil engineering issues at the meeting on September 30,2010. • Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review for an approximately 4.8 part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY(Map 7, Lot 79), Salem,MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). Dan DiLullo. U.S. Biological,with support from local and state tax incentives,proposes to relocate from Marblehead and expand at the proposed site in Salem. The applicant has presented the plan to the planning, health,fire, and building departments, as well as to the conservation agent, and we are awaiting formal comments from all. The applicant has agreed to request to continue unless the other agenda items happen to conclude quickly and leave enough time to open a hearing. Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant: BVS CORPORATION, for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA. Approved at the 6/3/10 meeting. Applicant's engineer is working to receive final approval of the bituminous asphalt berming from David Knowlton, as required by the Board's decision. • 2 • Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting September 16, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, September 16, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis, Vice Chair,Mark George, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, and Tom Devine, Staff Planner. Absent: Nadine Hanscom Approval of Minutes The minutes of the August 19, 2010 special meeting were reviewed. Mr. George noted a typo. There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of August 19 with revision, seconded by Mark George and approved unanimously. Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Pemut for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307),Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a • pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attomey Joseph Correnti. Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building). Attomey Joseph Correnti. Joseph Correnti,63 Federal St., attorney for the applicant, said they are again running the two hearings together. We will ask to continue the pharmacyplan to the October meeting, and then seek a decision on the non-pharmacy plan. We received comments from Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) and the public, and met with two Design Review Board members. Ed Bradford of The Architectural Team, Inc., architect for the applicant,presented the updated plan with a PowerPoint presentation. We have tweaked the distribution of units. The new building will have 51 instead of 54,with three shifted to the school. This is to increase slightly the number of three bedroom units in the new building from 4 to 7 without changing the building size. We have also modified the architecture in response to comments. Mr. George asked if they need more parking with the addition of bedrooms. Mr. Correnti said the requirement is based on units, not bedrooms. And with a PUD,the Board determines the requirement. And we don't yet know how the school will be configured. The goal is to benefit the community with more 3 bedroom units. • Mr. Puleo asked if any parking is designated for commercial space. Mr. Correnti said there will be no assigned parking. 1 • Mr. Bradford displayed the landscaping plan. Mr. Puleo asked what happens with the 3 residential buildings on the site. Mr. Bradford said they propose intense screening there. Mr. Puleo asked what type of plantings. Mr. Correnti answered that they will plan 8-10 foot arbor vitae. Mr. Bradford described the waste removal plan and fire truck access. He identified locations of fire hydrants. He displayed the updated architectural renderings. We incorporated comments from Historic Salem and the 2 DRB members. We removed the bay windows and created a more unified retail base. He displayed the rear and side elevations and described proposed materials. We have added a wall and fence at the Dow/Lafayette comer, as suggested by HSI. Mr. Puleo asked how HVAC will be screened on the roof. Mr. Bradford displayed how it is proposed to appear. It will not be completely screened, but it will take the curse off. And the architectural features screen the view on the front side. Ms. Sullivan said the landscaping in the renderings differs from the landscaping plan. Mr. Bradford said that the renderings do not show all the trees, but the landscaping plan will prevail. Mr. Puleo noted that an amended plan will show the arbor vitaes along the property line with the neighboring residences. Mr. Puleo said he doesn't see lighting in the renderings. Mr. Bradford described the proposed lighting. Mr. Puleo asked what the pole height and lighting type will be. Mr. Correnti said the parking lot light poles will be 12 feet and they will submit the details. Ms. Sullivan asked how they will avoid dark comers. Mr. Bradford said the first floor unit entries will have lights. Mr. Clarke asked if they will have security cameras. Peter Roche,development consultant for the applicant, said they will not have any cameras outside, but the commercial spaces will likely have cameras inside. Mr. Puleo asked how tall the trees will grow. Andrew Truman,civil engineer for the applicant said the red maple trees can grow 20 feet high. Issue is opmed up to the public James Sowers, 15 Lynde St., asked what kind of sound deadening there will be for the HVAC. Mr. Bradford said they work with an acoustic engineer to minimize impact on the building and the neighborhood. David Pelletier, 12 Crombie St., asked if the meetings with the two DRB members were public. Ms. Duncan said the DRB has jurisdiction in the Urban Renewal Area and the North River Canal Corridor and this is in neither. This was a compromise to have DRB expertise enhance this building. Mr. Pelletier asked to have better windows in the storefronts. We need parking for the stores. Will the stores have rear entries into the parking lot? Mr. Bradford said they will not. Mr. Pelletier suggested moving the building back to provide angled parking in front to support the stores. Ms. Duncan said to create an urban fabric we want buildings built up to the street,like we require in the NRCC. The commercial space is small and neighborhood oriented. The urban design is important. Ms. Sides said she agrees. Richard Morrison, 4 Riverbank Rd.,asked if the developer will provide funding for that eyesore we call Lafayette Park. Mr. Correnti said they want to improve the park. Funding was included in the • previous decision, and we anticipate it will be included again. 2 • Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St,said he is happy the DRB is involved. The laws say environmental and historic review happens early in the process, but none has concluded yet. I ask the board members to attend those hearings as citizens. A respected firm concluded the church is National Register eligible. The law and the process should be respected. There has to be a 5 foot screen of solid wall or evergreen adjacent to this project. Landscaping is important and this is an entrance corridor. Lack of parking is a stress on this neighborhood. Site plan omits work do be done under the Public Works and Economic Development grant. Should talk about subsurface parking. A traffic study could be done for the drive through, as zoning permits the board to request. EmilyUdy, 7 Phelps St., representing Historic Salem, Inc., said she appreciates the architect having taken their comments into consideration. We hope to advocate for the preservation of the church in a separate forum. We request to see lighting as part of the public process. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., said she supports the comments of the two previous speakers. I am an interested party in the historic review process. I hope we do not make the mistake of losing another historic landmark. Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St., said she moved to the citypartlyfor its historic architecture and is disappointed that the applicant hasn't explored altematives to demolition. I urge the board to request that the applicant conduct a reuse study. Ms. Duncan said the proposed redevelopment has been around for years. The applicant initially spent a year talking with nonprofits about reuse options. This has gone through much review and • analysis of alternatives. The 106 and other required reviews will go forward regardless of the Planning Board's action, and the board doesn't supersede their rulings. Michael Connery, 17 Johnson Ave.,Peabody,said he attended this school and church. I think this would be good for the city and the plans are fair. Derby Lofts was built without parking. I understand why people want to save the church, but it just sits vacant and the city can make money on it. Ellen Galligan, 22 Cleveland Rd., said it is time to move forward and get the building built. The place is vacant and looks awful. No viable alternative came up at earlier meetings. As a social worker I know many people need housing and want to stay in Salem. Please do what you can to move this along. A member of the public said the church is worth preserving and we have three other buildings to put housing into. My college art professor in 1950 told us to go to Salem to see this church. There is also a statue buried there. I am totally against destroying the church. Linda Samis, director of Salem Cyberspace, 98 Lafayette St., said she supports what Ms. Galligan said. I think this would benefit families living in The Point. David McKillop, director of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, said he strongly supports the project. The scale of the retail will revitalize the neighborhood. There could be more parking for . retail, but you could designate some spaces for that. There is need for housing for workers, not just for the poor. A high density-helps downtown. 3 • VickySirianni, 6 Botts Circle,spoke as a member of Historic Salem. I want to know what the process will be and when it will happen. Mr. Roche said they filed with Mass Historic in December. We don't run the process. Mass Historic and the Department of Housing and Community Development will establish the process. Molly Ekerdt of the Planning Office for Urban Affairs said the review is triggered by public funding and a memorandum of understanding is needed. It takes place over a few meetings. We will deliver a case report in about 10 days. Mr. Puleo asked what the construction schedule will be. Mr. Correnti replied that no work will be done until the process is finished. Mr. Puleo asked if this impacts financing. Mr. Correnti said it doesn't. Ms. Duncan added that the Salem Historical Commission was identified as an interested parry and the department looks forward to playing a role. Mr. Puleo asked if all the people present tonight can attend the meetings. Ms. Duncan said it is limited to people identified as interested parties. Tom Furey, 77 Linden St., Councilor at Large,said this project has a good balance and is a win win for the city. Five years down the line it will be a jewel in this working class neighborhood. LucyCorchado, head of The Point Neighborhood Association, 1 Chase St., said she supports the project. I think the design is improved. As an alum of the school and a former parishioner,this has been years in the making. I was involved in the earlier process to keep the church open and then for reuse. But now I urge the board to act. • Joseph O'Keefe,Ward 7 Councilor, said there has been much study of this and it is time to move on. I supported the senior center at this location and now I urge the board to act favorably. Robert McCarthy, president of the City Council, said he agreed with Ms. Corchado. I thank the parishioners who built and maintained the church. I thank the developer for sticking through a long process. The applicant accepted the DRB review when it didn't have to. I think they will get it right and create an asset in the neighborhood, especially in conjunction with the road improvements. Mr. Puleo asked if the pharmacy option will need a historic review process. Mr. Correnti answered affirmatively. Ms. Udy asked if there will be funding for the park. Ms. Duncan said the city has set aside CDBG money for park improvements. And a condition will require the developer to commit money as well. It is an important part of the neighborhood and the front door of the development. Mr. McCarthy said he supports this project but thinks the drive through option needs some tweaking. Mr. Puleo asked if the financing is only for this plan. Mr. Roche said we would have to amend that plan. Ms. Duncan said they wouldn't have to apply again, but merely request to amend. And the housing plan is tonight's focus. Mr. Treadwell asked for clarification about the type of housing intended. Ms. Galligan said she is • concerned about not just the homeless, but the unemployed and underemployed. People can't keep their houses and they seek other housing options. Mr. Correnti said the main building will be restricted to at or below Area Median Income, with rents from$700 to $1100 per month. Working 4 • families are the target—people who are employed but need help. The two renovated buildings will be market rate, and we are exploring the ownership option. A motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to continue the Public Hearing for the proposal that includes the pharmacy and drive through at the October 21 meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke and approved unanimously. A motion was made by John Moustakis to close the Public Hearing for the proposal that does not include the pharmacy and drive through,seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved unanimously. Mr. Devine read the draft decision aloud. Mr. Puleo asked who is eligible to vote. Ms. Duncan said everyone is, since the two members not present at the previous hearing have reviewed the materials and signed the affidavit. Members clarified the conditions regarding screening between the project and the residential abutters and the wall and fence on the comer of Dow and Lafayette Streets. A motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan in accordance with the decision letter as revised,seconded by Mark George and approved 8-0 (Puleo,Moustakis, Clarke, George, Kavanaugh, Ready, Sullivan, and Sides in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND • AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walman store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney-Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. AttomeyJoseph Correnti. Nadine Hanscom, recused from the previous agenda items, arrived. Mr. Correnti said the focus tonight is on traffic, with GPI's response to BETA'S peer review comments. We are also looking at drainage and have had meetings with abutters and Lynn Water and Sewer to look at flows and see what can be done. The present condition is probably unacceptable and we would like to find ways to improve it. We will address civil engineering at the September 30 meeting. Jason Plourde of GPI,traffic engineer for the applicant, reviewed the document responding to BETA'S concerns. Mr. Puleo asked if Meineke customers driving southbound would have to go beyond the store and enter in the Meineke drive. Mr. Plourde answered affirmatively. Mr. Puleo asked if single axle trucks will be able to make a northbound u-turn. Mr. Ploude said it would only work for passenger vehicles. Mr. Ploude said that MassDOT is still monitoring the intersection at Marlborough Rd. Left turns there stack up to Swampscott Rd. Mr. Puleo asked what is holding up • MassDOT. Mr. Plourde said they didn't want to only count summer traffic. Mr. Puleo said the technology allows the system to account for changes in traffic volume. Mr. Plourde said they can detect the volume and work with that, but the coordination between signals can be adjusted. 5 • Ken Petraglia of BETA Group,traffic peer reviewer for the city, asked what kind of improvements result from the timing adjustment. Mr. Ploude said theywere able to mitigate some. Mr. Petraglia asked how much of a queue reduction. Mr. Ploude said it brings it to no-build status. It is less than once vehicle, but it mitigates the impact. Mr. Moustakis remarked that Marlborough Rd. is very difficult. Mr. Petraglia stated that a reduction of one vehicle is not enough. Mr. Correnti said that another way to look at it is to say there is no impact. The city and state have a problem at this intersection and they are looking for us to assist. We are reviewing it and continuing to talk about it. Mr. Clarke said this is a NbssDOT issue that remains whether the development happens or not. We don't have a right to put this on the developer. Mr.Moustakis said he thinks they are just having a discussion. Ms. Sullivan said this has been discussed before and needs to be addressed. Ms. Duncan said the applicant has stated they are willing to look at it. Mr. George asked to see the camp access and Mr. Plourde displayed it. He said that all changes will be reviewed with MassDOT. Mr. Puleo asked if the north driveway will be used for truck deliveries. Mr. Plourde said all delivery trucks will be directed through the main site drive. They currently enter through the existing main drive. Ms. Sullivan asked if a modified driveway will allow people to access the site from the neighboring shopping center. Mr. Plourde said the internal connection will remain. We accept BETA's recommendation to put in signs at the Camp Lion drive. Ms. Hanscom asked why there is no median strip at the camp drive. Mr. Petraglia said the fire department was concerned about fire trucks being able to make the tum if the median were extended. Mr. Plourde said they are moving forward to provide access to Camp Lion through the main site drive. Mr. George said this makes the most sense and it will not significantly increase flow through the site. • Mr. Moustakis asked who they make recommendations to on the Lynn side and what reaction are they receiving. Mr. Plourde said they are talking to MassDOT and have received preliminary feedback Mr. Plourde said we provided additional traffic counts to BETA,which were taken in June 2008 when school was in session. Mr. Petraglia said we asked for the counts to make a rough verification of the data just for due diligence. We wanted midweek counts and we haven't seen these yet. We have 10-15% fluctuations,so we are only looking for the numbers to reasonable match up. Mr. Correnti said that for the sake of time, we will focus only on the unresolved issues. Mr. Petraglia said that in their peer review they first identified 26 issues. Ten were not significant, and of the remaining 16, we quickly came to an agreement on all but three. The camp lion drive, if it is to remain, should have signage. Currently drivers make the turn despite the striping in the road. The applicant has agreed to add signage if the driveway remains. We asked for a 48 hour traffic count. GPI has given us something and I will be satisfied if it roughly matches what we are looking for. Mr. Puleo asked if BETA will return with a recommendation once they see it. Mr. Petraglia said the main drive u-turn needs a closer look. The,inside of the two left turns would be used for a u-turn and only a passenger vehicle could make that move. I am concerned that a truck behind a car making the u-turn would try it as well. I don't know if the signage would be clear, but if police and MassDOT are satisfied, we will yield to them Mr. Puleo asked how Meineke customers would enter without a u-tum. Mr. Petraglia said he understands the value of it, but the concern is safety The • customers would have to come through the site. Mr. Clarke asked if BETA Group has a recommendation for a better sign. Mr. Petraglia said he doesn't know of an appropriate sign. We would have to think about that. 6 • Mr. Petraglia said the applicant has looked at the 4 intersections we requested them to review. We would want to know about capacity of the roundabout on Stanwood Avenue. GPI submitted a credible report and has been cooperative. We are down to just a couple points to work out. Mr. Ready said it seems that the two Lynn intersections have considerable problems now. What you are proposing at least will mitigate existing problems with help from MaSSDOT. A Salem project can go a long way to mitigate problems on the Lynn side. Mr. Petraglia said the signal is recommended by CIPS regardless of the project. Mr. Clarke asked if the CIPS recommended project does not happen, will there be a net increase in traffic and decrease in level of service. Mr. Petraglia said just one additional car can increase delays. Mr. Plourde said there is an issue with looking at it with a computer model that can show infinite delays past some point of additional traffic. We are getting toward mitigating to the future no-build level. Ms. Sullivan asked whether BETA thinks the CIPS solutions are reasonable. Mr. Petraglia said the Eastern Ave. signal would be a significant improvement. Ms. Sullivan asked if CIPS missed anything. Mr. Petraglia said they only looked at Eastern Ave. Mr. Moustakis asked if someone should be in touch with the state regarding Eastern Ave. Mr. Plourde said that would be Lynn. Mr. Correnti said they are done for now with traffic. We will look at BETA's comments and get back to the board. We would now like to hear public comments. Nadine Hanscom left at 10:24 p.m. Issue is opened up to the public • Wdlian Trahant, Ward 2 Councilor for Lynn, asked for a show of hands in opposition to the project. He read a letter aloud from children opposing the project. I am concerned about traffic. We spent money to make improvements and this will damage our investment. They are threatening to abandon some improvements if the Eastern Ave. signal doesn't go in. Mr. Petraglia said he didn't intend to give that impression. Mr. Trahant said the area has many accidents and traffic will get worse. There is no easywayto fix that. Jean Pelletier,Ward 3 Councilor,said private developers have improved this roadway before,and we expect the same with this proposal. If you believe this isn't allowed here,where is it allowed? Salem needs commercial growth to ease residential taxes. This will increase revenue and add jobs. A significant amount of woodland will be left undeveloped. It is not projected land and it is not close to Spring Pond. There will be a big buffer. The zoning text amendment allows the projects to be heard together. As a private citizen I trust this board. We do everything right in this city and we have good development. A lot of these facts going around are not true. I don't know any we are talking so much about improvements in Lynn, but that is ok if the applicant is willing. Let them try to stop this project. I would like to see meeting minutes from the Lynn officials' meeting with Camp Lion. Dan Cahill, Lynn Councilor at Large, said he is concerned about the state traffic study. The study says heavy traffic is a regional issue. How many daily trips are expected? Mr. Plourde said between 1000 and 2000 per day. Mr. Cahill said these are added to a bad intersection. We are concerned • about impact on property values. We want economic development, but not at the expense of other interests. Our assessor gave us the opinion that the impact on traffic and drainage will lower 7 property values. There is no commitment as to where the workers will come from. We want better planning and we want this built somewhere else in Salem. Joan Lovely, Councilor at Large,said she supports this and supported the Tax Increment Financing and the text amendment. 1 disagree with Councilor Pelletier. We have a responsibility to make sure this works for both cities, including the residential streets in Lynn. I am happy with the level of detail before the board. I will talk to our assessor about whether property values will be impacted. This is an opportunity for tax revenue and a water tank. I have received 800 entails from a listserv. Maybe 1% are from Salem residents and many are from out of state. Kevin Mahar, 150 Lynnway,Lynn, said he is concerned about traffic impact. Highland Ave. will be like Halloween all year long. Tim Fandel, a business representative for a union, said he thinks many of the concerns raised are valid. My industry is in a depression, with workers unemployed for years. Lowe's is committed to working collectively with us. I support this project and I think the issues will be addressed. A member of the public asked what impact the increase in truck traffic will have. Mr. Plourde said they were applied to the projections. Andrew Carr, 7 River St. said traffic is not the biggest issue. Salem does need the water tower, and the city has money for that. It can be built without Lowe's. The inclusion of BPD in the PUD opens the floodgates for big box developments on Salem's precious remaining open land. You are • elected to be spokesmen for the people, not the developers. Mr.Moustakis said the board is appointed. Mr. Carr said that is a scary thought. I think you should reconsider this proposal. A member of the public said she is concerned about u-turns and the driveway between Wal-mart and the neighboring shopping center. There should be signs to alert the elderly pedestrians of the traffic. Otherwise the developer has worked with us abutters and they have addressed our issues. Richard Morrison,4 Riverbank Rd, said he is in favor of the project. Rich Antonelli of the electricians'union said his union asked him to speak in support of the project. The developer agreed to hire only from the community. Our industry has 30-40% unemployment. We support the project for the good paying jobs it will bring. Mary Ellen Polermo, 57 Sailor's Way, Lynn, said this is the wrong place to put Lowe's. Traffic and drainage will be pushed into Lynn. The Eastern Ave. traffic signal will be very close to an existing one. Mr. Clarke said that is purely a state recommendation and is separate from this project. Deborah Smith Walsh, 16 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said nothing has changed. There is no solution for these intersections. Eric Arsenault, 24 Basse Circle, Lynn, said he has been out for work for a year. This project would mean a lot to the construction trades. 2000 cars throughout a day is not that big of an increase. I • think the solutions proposed are a great improvement. I have all the confidence in the world in the workers to address the drainage issue. 8 Paul Campbell, 35 Travis St., Boston, said he is a business agent for the union. I am confident the developer will find adequate solutions. There is a significant jobs component in this project. Jim Kearney, 1 'h Cambridge St, said he is concerned about how the buildings will look I agree with Ms. Duncan that it is good to have buildings built up to the road. I don't want to see the sea of parking from the street. John Roth, 49 Gallows Hill Rd., said let's get this done and get it done right. The concerns of Lynn should be addressed. I am in favor of this because of how many workers are unemployed. Joseph O'Keefe, Ward 7 Councilor, said we need to move forward with the project. Jerry Ryan,Ward 4 Councilor, said he is totally in support of the project. I believe there should be a fair share of mitigation on the Lynn side. But without this project none of these issues would be brought to light. A key issue in my support is that the camp sold the land. We need the water tower and the project will improve traffic and bring jobs. A member of the audience asked what the Lynn residents are doing to give the consultants ideas for improvement. What are you doing to help? Maybe your insights could help them. Aikaterini Panagiotakis, 150 Ocean Ave., Lynn, said she is concerned with the area's history. I think crime will be an issue. There is no breakdown lane between Marlborough and Swampscott Roads on 107. I don't think big box stores help the economy. We are not creating new jobs, but • transferring them from other places. What happened to helping local businesses? I am learning as an architect to be responsible. Clearing the tree buffer will allow traffic noise to reach spring pond. We are going to ruin a beautiful place. A member of the audience said he is in favor of the project because it will create jobs. They are addressing concerns just like Stop and Shop did. Steven Pinto, Councilor at Large, said the project has been in the works for some time and looked at carefully. I appreciate Lynn officials advocating for their people. We can find a happy middle. Nothing is perfect. I support the project,even though I didn't support the TIF. We can reach out to make this work Andrew McNiff, 21 Bridge St.,said he has been out of work for 2 years before his current job that is winding down now. I am glad they will hire local union workers. The work will be done right and money will stay in the community. David Pelletier, 12 Crombie St., said Western Ave. was rebuilt ten years ago and it didn't increase capacity. No grand improvements will happen here. This isn't Endicott St. in Danvers. There is nothing beautiful on H ghland Ave. The face of Highland is ugly but the profile is beautiful. You should make a more consolidated plan with shared parking. Do smarter development. Robert McCarthy, president of the city council, said he supports the project. I would like to thank v n who m u t make this work, as well as the Planning Board. everyone oco comes k, g 9 • A motion was made by Randy Clarke to continue both Public Hearings at the September 30 meeting, seconded by Helen Sides and approved unanimously. Old/New Business Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant: BVS CORPORATION, for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA. Members signed the plans. Adjourmnent A motion was made by-Randy Clarke to adjourn, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Interim Staff Planner Approved by the Planning Board with corrections to pages 4 and 7 on 9/30/10. In addition to applications before the Board and related materials,the following documents are referenced in these minutes and are available at the Department of Planning and Community Development: St.Joseph's redevelopment PowerPoint dated 9-16-10 PowerPoint from GPI dated 9-16-10 Letter from 4`h grade students at St. Pius School dated 6-2010 GPI's Response to Traffic Review Comments dated 9-2010 • 10 CITY OF SALEM ' PLANNING BOARD crn Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision 135 Lafayette Street. September 17, 2010 Salem Lafayette Development, LLC C/O Joseph Correnti, Esq. 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 135 Lafayette Street/Former St. Joseph's Church site Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development On Thursday, August 19, 2010, the Plarming Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing under Sections 7-3 and 9-5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review, at the request of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC (the applicant, its successors and assigns), for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street. The proposed project includes the razing of the former church and convent building, the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new four-story building on the site. The mixed-use development will include 76 dwelling units (51 in the new building, 17 in the renovated school, and 8 in the renovated rectory), 4560 square feet of commercial space, and a 1,000 square foot community center. The Public Hearing was continued to, and closed on, September 16, 2010. The Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, sec. 7-3 and 9-5 as follows: i) The proposed plamled unit development is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section through mixed use redevelopment of the site in a comprehensive manner. 2) The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district. Specifically, the project incorporates affordable housing, providing substantial public benefit. 3) The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. Based on the information from the Environmental Impact Statement and plans, the project will result in a decrease in peak stormwater discharge rates and will improve the vacant site significantly from its current condition. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 Fax: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.SALEM.COM At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on September 16, 2010, the Planning Board voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Puleo, Moustakis, Clarke, George, Kavanaugh, Ready, Sullivan, and Sides), and none (0) opposed (Member Names) to approve the Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development application subject to the following conditions: 1 . Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the plans entitled, "St. Joseph's Redevelopment, Proposed Concept: Mixed Use with Neighborhood Commercial, 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA" Sheets T0.01, A3.01, A3.10, A4.01, A4.02, A5.01, C-1.1, C-2.1, C-3.1, C-4.1, C-4.2, C-5.1, and C- 6.1 prepared by The Architectural Team, Inc., 50 Commandment's Way at Admiral's Hill, Chelsea, MA 02150, dated July 30, 2010 and revised September 16,2010. Revised Plans reflecting all conditions and incorporating by reference this decision must be submitted to and approved by the City Planner for consistency with this decision prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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 for review and approval. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Plarming Board. 3. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: a. Exterior construction work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM the following day on weekdays and Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Holidays. Any interior work conducted during these times will not involve heavy machinery which could generate disturbing noises. b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of constriction 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. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a building pen-nit. 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. h. Special attention shall be paid by the developer to locate the statue of St. Joseph reported to be buried on the site. If said statue is located, the Applicant shall work with the Archdiocese of Boston to resolve its status, and if feasible, as determined by the Applicant, to preserve it in accordance with the requirements of the Archdiocese. i. A traffic management plan shall be submitted by the applicant to the Department of Planning and Community Development and approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. 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 Plainer. 5. Fire Department • All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 6. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 7. 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. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. d. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPA06, must be sent to the Health Agent. e. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. f A radon remediation kit shall be installed in each below grade dwelling unit. 3 g. A radon test shall be conducted following the installation and operation of the remediation kit. h. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. 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 externiinator's invoice to the Health Agent. j. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. 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. in. 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 Wetlands 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. S. Utilities 1. Drainage a. Confirm condition and capacity of 12-inch drain, and down stream piping to Salem Harbor, to convey new storm water flows by cleaning and internally inspecting that system, make improvements as necessary, including but not limited to the installation of a tide gate at the outfall pipe. b. Confirm elevation of groundwater on the site will not impact the perforated drain pipe. c. Confirm no roof drains are proposed from building in northwest corner. 4 d. Provide enough on-site storm water re-charge to groundwater that reduces post- development storm water flows leaving the site to less than pre-construction flows. e. Provide operation and maintenance plan for proposed storm water system. 2. Sewer a. Confirm condition and capacity of the existing sewer to convey new sewer flows by cleaning and internally inspecting that system, make improvements as necessary. Specifically evaluate the existing sewers proposed to be utilized in Dow and Salem Street, downstream to the connection at the sewer main in Congress Street. b. Remove existing sewer services to be abandoned in the public right of way, or fill with flowable concrete. 3. Water a. Confirm through investigations on the existing water mains in City streets, including fire hydrant flow tests, that sufficient capacity exists to eliminate the proposed 10-inch main loop on property. Connect buildings (domestic and fire flows separately) to existing mains in the Street. b. Hydrant on southwest corner of site should have service perpendicular off Lafayette Street, not 120 feet off Dow Street main as shown on the approved plan. • 9. Department of Public Services The Applicant, its successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services 10. Signage Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Sign Review Committee. 11. 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 permit. c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. HVAC If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. 13. Lafayette Park The Applicant its successors and assigns agrees to contribute $10,000 to the City of Salem • for the purpose of maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park. Such payment shall be made to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 14. Landscaping a. Trees shall be a minimum diameter of 3 Yz" dbh (diameter breast height). b. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. c. 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. d. A wood stockade fence shall be installed along the property line directly abutting the three residential properties on Dow Street. Details and specifications for the fence shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. e. Evergreen trees approximately eight to ten feet in height shall be planted along the property line directly abutting the residences on Dow Street. f. A revised landscaping plan including the size, species, and number of all plantings shall • be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building penmits. g. Details and specifications for the fencing and wall at the corner of Lafayette and Dow Streets shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. 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 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. 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. 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 Certificates of Occupancy. • 6 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 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 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 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. Puleo Chairman 7 . City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet " I F7 Board _Planning Board Date I / /6 / �U Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 7-72V PW 7f&d-e-lelota/iz zyesj-4�r flols�A-r KE otT ) ISS C1,I)aF,-POP lz�ve cyNN 7 1593 1QGL 5Lo r'T . {u.✓/ /21 c421WUVz-; � Cs� loll-2S7- f urb � KRN M�� a3 WlaP;pAa� �� Ly�u 7�I-SI i-7 C, L F�� LCl3u�e-�_ � S SP_hh PSS S"i LYirn 7a'/-�'8'i 76�a_ •T�d�.f/,¢,6,A�/r�G� /,94��/ST'Lfr�,d ��l-�Z-oSz3 r Gl 66f 2� L/ d ,yeeh,4d 1?D r'.Q Aaay1AaiL ao Die (017- Y/$--WF 7//I� fassr'�aif<ct �enN,; Z7 V La C 7VQ-X7 jAmm(�coMc44f)6( �N rKee l� ASO IyIDY�✓� ��r /l in �ynh � c � 6J Lr�/1 kiOR'1 it 02✓�. /"'le/f�'J G m y e j✓ _5-Ee1V- A✓_&,7 (.(l�[trHNl �A/ler-rr�� 77 �/�SiCI�r✓ /�✓E L�.✓� Page of City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Board Date f / r'6 / /C� Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail e? -7 - _t Kk . �� r`(� R�1c,,4 i 4 Jkrles �+r%cl� 16 Alh* s,-A ,5j; LYW J�/Sys x329 97'- 7yS \/CJ#A1 E. t A a-f ( Call pl r' !7 Soo KS� )gut ilk XLe U BUCK LGcc,1 -7 19/- 3�cv-,1&rc-1 grA�ca,L-" L4af—V w4LA s Le c /�/_ 7 ?sr/ -5�3��3 I� l'rhae.� Nn,w+� ae� PAD 1)t1- m z1S bmx ps7 s oQS Lce- s l 9 �qS os�Z L P4�1 cow o�c T e,r rev G Oc �4 1. ?x l sxi l ?5� �l q y t v ? cosh Page of <<Aif IIT „7fir, City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Board Date l Z� / Gc> Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail c U/0-D, / � Tuo R/ L W,L2C� S '76 7 n s 9 r 5'9 5903 ✓) v'av� [(.�' �pvn �o•J�a�im �n17`? tol_Y g6c; � o!w) . c,rn,DC�'g n QA ( c ria-DVA6a( 1 Uye�,v, Kb 9-R w I 5656 ccy Y)O- k4:: e b� V ;P 8-58� i�r P u Om1�� cool � de. 'toe 91 3 r r • *A,o•ev� 6 7 -1"-"2 �Y • • Paye of • City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Planning Board -CI,yGV13 t"'' Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail p/ C �76/-low,ayle 5>"< Yn 7 Wl- 5L0-cG,t2ZD L NxW AU 25 48/i(,q ke ,&&1g7Y-597 3Wd S •�/S s i e >ve fty4 S - G :►dam s pr.�'1 poi s i� 3S'z� aV Z( Com. Zq, I<f(-9'99 ,c'a3o dr,14(yX gia 3a�� l 3p Fu �� ZGZ Essex st . y�e 2-79- 79/- 57"-7 i t-W 0 \� MA-O 7 - rl4:,,-4,45 96 Ca;ghkK ar- 67- 72 �-r6�� I Pale of City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Board Date /Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail...- cow 11 <—� o C�^/ ✓c%c] � ii//1 fti�/� � /9 �/A ��6 3 90)? 2,x 2p L,t6A sr 9)F- 7yo4G 67 Page of City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet iy. hfTyr'; y Board Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail _pfiOz1m mn 8�( � rn.�d �� ,/ a3``� Ir_� � 7�- �r✓Q-y�<<� �E "9,L Remord Lgio-r1'e /S C/3tbv St .Sa.lem Mq 97$ 7K/ 07yy MLe o-r-+�_- @ AVL,6o,, GotVS 2JJ_t W s 6 Y-Z9Buz 044e d hao,coni. leg 4 [ �1JZ7�/- s93str J 3c S a �7 �iCG2 e v�rrc ?8 /� S fG — /➢ 37 WA friv,ou�� 2��SS�xsTw 7kif l % 4x/- i}ctco�s '3cr�„//y�L[ 39ua,� 71fr S99-ruy C�SeR1F�QRJco,1 A� &T Lyv� Page ro of _ \FA yy j Notice of Decisions At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday, September 16, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at CityHall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem Massachusetts,the Planning Board voted upon the following item: Applicant: Salem Lafayette Development, LLC Location: 135 Lafayette Street- former St.Joseph's campus (Map 34, Lot 307) Description: Request for Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review, to raze the former church and convent buildings, renovate the former rectory and school buildings, and construct a new four- story building on the site. The project will include 76 units of housing, 4,560 sq. ft. of commercial space, and a 1,000 sq. ft. community center. % • Decision: Approved— Filed with the City Clerk September 17,2010 Thu notice is Ding sem in compliance with the Massachusetts General Lazes, Chapter 40A, Section 9 and does not require action by the recipient. A ppa-ds, if arty, shall he rmde pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 da}s from the date uhich the cicsion-zeas filed wth the City Cle,k. CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2010 AUG 2u A a: 12 NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING CANCELLATION You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 2, 2010 is canceled. The next regularly scheduled meeting is September 16, 2010. C�.(r� wi �'u(x/ v Charles M. Pads, Chair • TUia pofte p (M "Orvici#'311 840tin ltd" CMy Malt . 8219m, Mass. on , 121 of. Milt � Fps=- i . I.s , Y 4 _ C �a . 5 � l, ),.,. SDI 9 )v.. iii.('.l)-5H5 Vi t K n0.0I 120 WASHINGTON STREET, .SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 . WWW.SALEM.COM 0 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1 NOTICE OF MEETING C I Yui are hereby na#i -l that the SalemPlann rg Baird will hold a speual nrwrg on Thurs day, Aug us t 19, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Amos,Rmm313, 120 Washington Street / Charles M. Pulec, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 7/15/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and constriction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 3. Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 4. Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant: BVS CORPORATION, for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment f 5 �` � hid t- on G� ��,ia! E3aalIetiPt owaroo Olty Mill QopNlern, Nfl ,ss. on 40E la A,10 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM ' lo ' '� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KiNMERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOONIN DuNcAN,AICP DIRECTOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Tom Devine,Interim Staff Planner DATE: August 12,2010 RE: Agenda— August 19, 2010 Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ 7/15/10 Planning Board Meeting Minutes Notes on Agenda Items: Approval of Minutes A change to the state's open meeting law requires that minutes include decisions and a list of all documents referenced at the meeting. Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti. This is a new iteration of the redevelopment of the St.Joseph's site. Since last approved by the Planning Board in 2006, an alternative location was chosen for the Senior Center, the site's zoning has changed from R-3 to B-5, and litigation surrounding the rezoning has been resolved. On the first floor of the proposed new building,this proposal includes a pharmacy with a drive- through and additional small commercial and community spaces. A total of 67 housing units are proposed in the upper floors of the new building and in the renovated rectory and school. An affordable housing component of the proposal depends on an approaching grant deadline, 1 which is whythe applicant sought to be heard at an August special meeting. The city is largely ' taking responsibility for traffic mitigation,with a Public Works Economic Development grant to fund the improvement of the Dow St./Lafayette and Harbor St./Lafayette intersections (see endcsed n&w f anLyrmDzauan, Daeaor). To differentiate this proposal from the following one,the applicant refers to it as "Mixed Use with Pharmacy." Note that the bound application includes an error page and a corrected cover page. Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building). Attorney Joseph Correnti. This is an alternative to the above proposal, referred to in the application as "Mixed Use with Neighborhood Commercial." Without the pharmacy and its drive-through,the first floor of the proposed new building includes additional housing units (for a total of 76),two small commercial spaces, and a community space. Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant: BVS CORPORATION, for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA. • Approved at the 6/3/10 meeting. Awaiting final approval of bituminous asphalt berming from David Knowlton. Upcoming Meeting Schedule With the cancelation of the September 2°d meeting and the number of projects coming before the board, members may wish to consider scheduling a second September meeting on the 30th, the fifth Thursday of the month. In addition, a meeting was inadvertently scheduled on October 7, the night of the Haunted Happenings parade, and no meeting is listed for the second Thursday of October. The board may wish to cancel the October 7`h meeting and determine its meeting schedule for that month. • 2 APPROVED Special Meeting Minutes 8/19/2010 • Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting August 19,2010 A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,August 19, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Helen Sides,Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present:Tom Devine, Interim Staff Planner. Absent:Nadine Hanscom,Randy Clarke,and Christine Sullivan. Approval of Minutes The minutes of July 15,2010 were reviewed. Mr. Devine stated that a change in the state's open meeting law requires documents to be listed in the minutes and decisions to be attached. There being no further comments,a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of July 15, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 6-0. Public Hearing:Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307), Salem,MA (proposed demolition of church and convent,renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti. • Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307),Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent,renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Mr. Puleo opened both hearings simultaneously. Mr. Devine said that the city has received a$1,000,000 Public Works Economic Development(PWED) grant from the state to do infrastructure work in the area around the St.Joseph's site. The work, currently in design phase,will include improvements to the Dow/Washington/Lafayette and Harbor/Lafayette intersections. Although the work will provide the necessary traffic mitigation for the redevelopment of the St.Joseph's site, the need for the work was identified in a 2005 downtown traffic study,prior to the redevelopment plans. This will go forward separately from the Planning Board review of the redevelopment. The city intends to hold two public meetings,with the first tentatively scheduled for early November. The public should sign in on the attendance sheet in order to be notified of the exact date and time. Joseph Correnti,attorney for the applicant, 63 Federal St.,said there are two plans for the site presented simultaneously. We are not asking you to choose the one you like,but to approve both. We are opening the two hearings simultaneously,but we don't expect both to conclude simultaneously. The plan without a pharmacy is simpler and very similar to what was previously approved. The plan with a pharmacy is newer and hasn't been publicly presented. It includes a request for a Drive-Through Special Permit. We expect that to go longer,but we will ask to close first,if you are satisfied,with the plan without a pharmacy. Peter Roche,development consultant for the applicant,presented PowerPoint slides. We have held our financing commitment together for 3 years and some of it is now at rick. We need to meet a September deadline to secure funding. We are in touch with Historic Salem, Inc. and other stakeholders. We intend to 1 continue with the 106 process. Our goals are to bring in a vibrant anchor to the site,leverage private and public investment,revitalize the neighborhood with sensitive reuse of historic buildings,and to provide • affordable housing. He showed the geographic context of the site. Ed Bradford of The Architectural Team, Inc., showed existing conditions. It covers the whole block except for three existing buildings in the corner. The rectory and school will be reused while the church and convent are removed. Most of the site is a parking lot. He showed the proposed site plan. Most housing units are in the new building,and just 22 in the renovated buildings. We have a concept for a strong pedestrian street edge with retail consistent with the buildings to the north of the site. We propose a landscaped rear courtyard. It would be a total of 121 parking spaces. He identified access points to the site and images of the neighborhood context. We break down the 175 foot frontage into two kinds of fenestrations. He displayed renderings. The ground floor rear units will have dedicated entrances and the rear design is to reflect The Point neighborhood. Andy Truman, civil engineer for the applicant,said they plan to break up the pavement with landscaping and close off a curb cut to keep traffic on main streets. The Dow St. intersection curb cut is being coordinated with the current traffic study. We are proposing new landscaping and ornamental fencing around the edges. Utilities are being reviewed by the city. We will put in new stormwater infrastructure and will work with the City Engineer on all this. Joe San Clement, transportation engineer for the applicant, said this is a great location. It is close to downtown and a half mile to transit. Only80% of peak commutes are b auto. This is lower density that the P Y ry previous project. He displayed vehicle trip generation for the non-pharmacy option. We anticipate 46 AM peak trips and 74 PM. That is 1 to 2 vehicles per minute during peak times. The previously approved uses would generate more. And this is conservative in light of the auto mode share and mixed use nature of the project. Some trips could be within the site, from a residential unit to the first floor retail. Mr. Puleo asked if there will be parking in front of the building. Mr. Clement said there is on-street parking. We are in excess of • parking requirements and it should be more than adequate to handle these uses. We will use transportation demand management to take advantage of the location with transit options. There will be a transportation coordinator who will make tenants aware of transit options. There will be bike storage and perhaps a shared car service. This is consistent with smart growth principles. Mr. Correnti said they are breaking here from the non-pharmacy option and what follows will be specific to the option with the pharmacy. Mr. George asked what the improvement will be for stormwater. Mr.Truman showed the site plan and said that currently there is a big parking lot that sheet flows to the comer of the site. The roofs of the buildings go into the storm sewer and we will correct that. In general, this will be a big improvement from a hydo perspective with a significant reduction of flow. Mr. Moustakis asked to see the difference between current and past proposals. Mr. Correnti said they are similar,but the previous proposal was for 97 units and a six story building. The school and rectory remain the same and the site plan has improved curb cuts. The site is much simpler and less dense. Mr. Kavanaugh asked if there is any commitment from the applicant to improve Lafayette Park like in the past approval. Mr. Correnti said the prior decision talked about the developer contributing to maintenance and those discussions are ongoing. We think the park is a jewel in the rough and we would very much like to see it improved. Ms. Sides asked which way Harbor St.nets. Mr.Truman indicates that it is one-way westward. Mr. George asked if traffic lights would be moved. Mr. Correnti said it will be addressed when they cover the pharmacy with its bigger traffic impact. Mr.Ready asked if there is any indication of what is underneath the asphalt. There is some idea that there may be a religious artifact there. Mr. Correnti said this was addressed in the last approval process. We would have to be sensitive to the possibility that there is a statue buried there and we would be willing to accept the same kind of condition regarding this as we had last time. 2 l Ms. Sides said more consideration should go into the architecture. I think this should be reviewed by the • Design Review Board (DRB) if the applicant is willing to do that. I have many questions about materials. The city should know more about a building itself at this location. Mr. Correnti said we are here now to answer questions. There is no doubt this is a significant property. Ms. Sides said she thinks the design has improved. Issue is opened up to the public. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St.,said he would support the DRB seeing this, as it is across from the urban renewal area. I don't like the concrete panels. Was there a curb cut on Lafayette in the last proposal? Mr.Truman answered affirmatively. Mr.Treadwell said the board should recognize that they are cutting into Lafayette St. and this could have a bearing on traffic. I would like to know what the increase in open space will be. I don't think there is as much parking as the applicant claims. He read from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding historic preservation. I think the claim that there is nothing historically significant is false. The possible buried relic is notable. You don't have to be on the national register to go under 106 review or Massachusetts Chapter 9. The church was found to be eligible for the national register. I would like to know who in the historic establishment you are talking to. The 106 review includes public input, as does the state review. The proposal demolishes one of the North Shore's few international buildings. The convent would be fantastic as Single Room Occupancy. I will talk later about MEPA, the environmental notification form, salvage,recordation,historical review of the area,and interpretive materials on the site. I don't think the Planning Board wants to know that interested parties have been left out. I will also discuss the DRB, the statue, eligibility for the national register,PUD requirements, and compatibility with abutters. Emily Udy, 7 Phelps St.,Preservation Project Manager,Historic Salem, Inc., submitted a letter to the Board. She said we need to acknowledge that these are historic buildings and I look forward to commenting further along in the process. We urge the Board to put this before the DRB. We are curious about the correlation • between the city's and the applicant's traffic studies. They should be done in conjunction. The mixed use strategy is very appropriate and desired. We appreciate the pedestrian environment along the street, but that will be diminished by the pharmacy. I am not here to debate the demolition of the church, but it is important to acknowledge its iconic and cultural status. The new building would be fine if built on an empty site. The site has only been vacant for 5% of its life. Merely using brick is not enough. We would like a better specific design to reflect the textures found throughout the neighborhood. One idea is to reflect the church's International Style. Units should be beautiful and made to last. We are concerned about the placement of mechanical equipment for the rectory and the school. There should be a strong street front with landscaping and we would like to see lighting chosen with care. As someone who fits the demographic of a potential resident, I think there should be expanded green space to make it a place where people can live. I have spent a lot of time walking through here,and there is not a lot of park land around it. There will be fewer parking spaces than adults living there. That should be looked at. Parking could be reduced if it is in excess of zoning to make it more amenable to residents. Breaking up the building like two buildings is a good option, but the back of the building should match the front. Joan Lovely, Councilor at Large, 14 Story St., said she supports this going to the DRB. I would like to have the PowerPoint on the website. Mr. Devine indicated that he can post it. Tessie Riley Goggin,9 Wisteria St.,asked if there is someone to contact regarding historic issues. Mr. Treadwell said interested parties have to notify the state. Mr. Correnti said he would make sure the city has that address. Wilson Tejada,Lafayette Hotel Manager, 117 Lafayette St., said people are forced out of our property if they need to live with a family member, since we can only allow people to live alone. I hate when I can't help these people. We need a project like this to help the community. People don't have money for high rent. • 3 Shirley Walker, 51 Lafayette St., asked how long it will take before people move into the building. Mr.Roche said they will probably have occupancy in the spring of 2011. Mr. Correnti said they expect a one year • construction timeline. Mr.Bradford presented the alternate plan with a pharmacy. It is similar but has a larger footprint. The first floor occupies the courtyard area,with roof space instead for the community. The units around the courtyard are gone. The new building would have 45 residential units rather than 54. The pharmacy drive-through needs a special permit. The rear of the building is different and there is loading access for the pharmacy. Mr. Puleo asked where the dumpsters would be located. Mr.Bradford said they would be inside the loading dock. Mr. Puleo asked about the scheduling of deliveries. Mr.Bradford said all services will be happening here in the rear. Mr. Puleo said he is concerned about blocking traffic. Mr. Truman noted that a whole truck can fit inside. Mr. Puleo asked if the drive through has the adequate space for stacking in compliance with the ordinance. Mr.Truman answered affirmatively. Mr. George asked what the estimated traffic increase will be with the pharmacy. Mr. Correnti said they wish to cover that at a future hearing. Mr.Truman shows that utilities are roughly the same for both proposals,but the pharmacy would bring a slight increase in impervious area. Mr. Ready ask what the pharmacy hours would be. Mr. Correnti said we don't know that yet. Ms. Sides said she finds the two programs significantly different. The drive through changes the effect of the building. It cuts off people who live there from their parking. Filling in the courtyard doesn't put the courtyard on the second floor;it is a roof. It is an extremely non-urban gesture to have the drive through. Issue is opened up to the public Mr.Treadwell said this plan is entirely different. What will you do with all the delivery trucks besides the one you fit inside? The drive through will bring traffic into the interior of the development. It is essential that we • retain the church's spire. We don't want to see the wrecking ball on the crucifix. It should be saved in mitigation. A member of the public said the destruction of St.Joe's is a terrible sin because it is great architecture. In Europe they keep their vacant churches. This building was built with great care and you can see the steeple all over the city. They could use the other three buildings for housing. I saw the buried statue and I have pictures of it. I regret that thechurch itself is going to demolish this building. Robert McCarthy,Ward 1 Councilor, 153 Bay View Ave., said he appreciates F- storic Salem, Inc.'s comment about how the site has only been vacant for a small part of its life. Anger shouldn't be placed at the Board or the developer. We want to thank the developer for sticking with this project. It will be a good neighborhood addition. I hope this will move forward. Questions about the removal of the crucifix and the disposition of the statue are valid. This developer does quality developments. They have an onsite presence to ensure that properties are maintained will. Mr.Moustakis asked whether the statue could be placed somewhere on the property if it is in good condition. Mr. Correnti said we understand the concern and there was a condition for this in the last approval. We will accept a similar condition. It has to be handled in a certain way. Mr.Ready recognized the good faith of the developer on this matter in the previous review. Lucy Corchado,head of The Point Neighborhood Association, 1 Chase St., said she regretted the closing of the church. But the area is becoming an uninviting blight. We can bring back families and recreate community and vibrancy. The developer is responsible and has worked with neighbors. I support the petition. I like the first option better,but the developer has shown how they can positively impact the neighborhood. • 4 J Thomas Furey,Councilor at large, 77 Linden St., said both plans can be a win-win for Salem. It will add to the vibrancy of downtown with a mix of uses. When it is all done,it will enhance the whole city. I am looking forward to seeing it in reality. A member of the public said it is sad to see the church go,but this will bring an improvement and we have to move forward. A motion was made by John Moustakis to continue both Public Hearings at the September 16 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved unanimously. Old/New Business None Adjournment A motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to adjourn, seconded by Helen sides, and approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Interim Staff Planner In addition to the applications before the Board and related materials, the following documents are . referenced in these minutes and are available at the Department of Planning and Community Development. Planning Office for Urban Affairs PowerPoint Presentation dated 8-19-10 Letter from Historic Salem,Inc. dated 8-18-10. Approved by the Planning Board on September 16, 2010. 5 iGdI1PP._l City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 8 Lee St 01910-2422 978 745-2j93 aved k �t 303 EMM UN '1 -1 Pe+ S STA 1761- l5 roR 761-l5roRC. SA M . i NL. Pa.-e_�_or City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail rf�Sr 007 r7F-74s-a76� 9-l� 111.E1LZ &9ITTP S, /gzY-i �7�-7yv�sa Pa,,c O(Z CITY OF SALEM ' t PLANNING BOARD 2010 JUL - R t 1 9 r NOTICE OF MEETING CITY Ct-E { ,E.„ You are hereby rAmfied that dx-Salem Plamw g Board-uill hod its ngularly sdaa:arl d nww g ora Thunday,July 15, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Armee, Room 313, 120 Wasbir:groraStrfft (i, ,� r f,0/T1 avna a M. Puler; Chair MEETING AGENDA L Approval of Minutes 6/17/10 Planning Board meeting minutes, 6/28/10 Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing meeting minutes and 6/28/10 Special Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Pernik, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE • (Map 3, Lots 1, 2,3 and 4),Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). AttomeyJosephCorrenti. 3. Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA Attomey Joseph Correnti. 4. Request for release of surety: ANGELO MEIMETEAS requesting surety release for the Subdivision at the end of CLOVERDALE AVENUE (Map 8, Lots 269, 280 and Map 9,Lot 122). 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment ' This fvtico� """Ch"aCh Af))Zl0ipy 4d1l f o� b ✓�� 120 WASHINGTON STRFFT, SALEM, MASSACNUSE'rrs 01970 • TFL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.SALFM.COM f J • Approved Minutes 7/15/2010 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting July 15, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,July 15,2010 at 7:00 p.m.in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were Chuck Puleo,Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Randy Clark,Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh,and Tim Ready. Also present:Lynn Duncan,Director, Department of Planning and Community Development,and Tom Devine,Interim Staff Planner. Absent: Mark George. Approval of Minutes The minutes of June 17, 2010 were reviewed. Mr. Puleo noted a correction on page 4. There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of June 17 with revision, seconded by Randy Clarke and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis,Randy Clark, Nadine Hanscom,Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh,and Tim Ready in favor,none opposed). The minutes of the June 28,2010 Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing were reviewed. Mr. Puleo noted corrections on pages 8 and 3. • There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of the June 28 Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing with revision,seconded by Randy Clarke and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis,Randy Clark,Nadine Hanscom,Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh,and Tim Ready in favor,none opposed). The minutes of the June 28 Special Meeting were reviewed. Mr. Puleo noted a correction on page 3. There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of the June 28 special meeting with revision, seconded by Randy Clarke and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Randy Clark,Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh,and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Request for release of surety:ANGELO MEIMETEAS requesting surety release for the Subdivision at the end of CLOVERDALE AVENUE (Map 8,Lots 269, 280 and Map 9,Lot 122). Mr. Puleo described the work that was remaining as of the last time the project was before the board. Mr. Devine read aloud an email dated July 15 from Richard Swiniuch,Trustee of Pheasant Hill Realty. Ms. Duncan noted that City Engineer David Knowlton has reviewed the work and recommended approval. Mr. Swiniuch submitted a photograph to the board,stating that it shows noncompliance with the conditions of approval. Mr. Puleo said these things should have been addressed during construction. Mr. Ready asked if Mn Knowlton is aware of this correspondence. Ms. Duncan said he is. She stated that some of these issues would have been pertinent during construction and the issue of the well is between two private parties. Mr.Ready said Mr. Knowlton's letter remains in effect. Ms. Hanscom asked if utilities should be underground. Mr. Puleo answered yes, and said that they are underground. Mr. Clarke remarked that Mr. Knowlton has signed off on the work. Mr.Puleo reviewed the approved plan and said that it begins beyond the scope of Mr. Swiniuch's property. Mr. Swiniuch said that the board has not enforced its conditions. Mr. 1 Puleo asked which specifically have not been enforced. Mr. Swiniuch replied that dust was an issue. Mr. • Puleo said that Mr. Knowlton has concluded that all conditions have been met. Ms.Hansom said that the issue of the well is between him and the blasting company. Mr. Puleo said that should have been taken up during construction. Ms. Hanscom said it is the same for the dust. Ms. Sides said the relevant issues are the utilities and the crest in the road,while the other issues happened during construction. The plan resolves these issues and Mr. Knowlton has given his approval. Michael Panneton, 19 Greenlawn Ave., said Mr. Meimeteas agreed to pave curb to curb. Mr.Puleo said that if that had been a condition,he would have had to do that. I went to the site and saw old patches. Mr. Panneton said that is new. Mr. Puleo said then that is something the engineer will have to look at. But the telephone pole is on the plan. Mr.Panneton said he understands that now. My concern is paving. There is a ditch that puddles. Mr. Clarke asked if the promise to pave curb to curb is documented. Mr.Puleo responds in the negative. Mr. Puleo asked how old the patch is. Mr. Panneton said 10 years. Mr. Meimeteas said it was preexisting. We opened the patch to install a hydrant,but we didn't set that sink hole. The new paving abuts the patch. Mr.Panneton said we did not previously have a water problem. He didn't fill it properly. Mr. Clarke suggested Mr. Knowlton could take a 2^d look, since he might not be privy to the differing views regarding this small piece of pavement. Ms. Sullivan said that there is no leverage left if we return the money. Ms. Hanscom said we often make developers go further than this with paving. Ms. Duncan said the engineer has not seen the photo,but the decision cannot be expanded. Ms. Sullivan said this is a discussion to have with the City Engineer. Mr. Meimeteas said there is no way to prove where the roadway was. Mr. Puleo said it is worth taking a look at. Mr. Clarke asked if we can release some but not all of the surety. He has completed most of the work. $10,000 is enough for the paving issue. Mr. Ready said the discussion is leading toward a partial release of the surety and to return this to the • engineer. If we do that,I would like Mr. Knowlton to know that we expect to have confidence in his recommendations. Mr. Puleo said that in all fairness,he has not seen the picture. Ms. Duncan said we can have confidence in Mr. Knowlton's recommendation, but he might not have seen the site after a rainstorm. Mr. Puleo asked if Mr. Meimeteas is agreeable to a partial release of surety with the remaining amount contingent upon Mr. Knowlton's review. Mr. Meimeteas said that is fine and he just wanted the board to know the patch was preexisting. Mr. Swiniuch said conditions have been broken and the planning department was informed. You have to enforce your conditions. Ms.Duncan said the board needs to narrow the issues and not open them back up. Mr. Clarke said the idea on the table is a partial release of surety until all conditions are addressed. Ms. Sullivan asked if we can leave it for the engineer and not have it return to the board. Ms.Duncan said you can vote to release:$10,000 and hold$15,000 while the puddling is being addressed. If the engineer says there is no problem and it is completed,you can make a condition that all cash is released and the issue does not return to the board. Mr. Moustakis sais once we sign off on a project, the board is not responsible—it is the building inspector and the city engineer. They are the enforcement officers for the city. Nadine said we can motion to release$15,000,but send the paving issue back to David Knowlton for review. The$10,000 would be released with his approval. If it is completed,it wouldn't have to come back to the planning board. Mr. Puleo asked if$10,000 is enough. Mr. Clarke suggested we flip the numbers. And we can talk with the councilor. Ms.Duncan said she will talk to the City Engineer. It makes sense to look at it in the rain and we will do our best to coordinate this to have everyone there at the same time. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Randy Clarke to approve the release of$10,000 cash surety, and the remaining$15,000 upon approval by the City Engineer, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis,Randy Clark,Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh,and Tim Ready in favor,none opposed). 2 I r I . Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2,3 and 4),Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal-water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1),Salem MA. Attomey Joseph Correnti. Joseph Correnti,Attorney for the applicant,63 Federal St.,identified the project's boundaries on a PowerPoint slide. He noted that they refiled their Wetlands and Flood Hazard application in light of maps that were recently located delineating the district. He identified the surrounding area and the limits of the PUD. Ms. Hanscom asked what is between the homes and the development. Mr. Correnti said that is offsite and where the Apple Hills subdivision is under construction. Ms. Sullivan noted that the aerial image is out of date. Ms. Duncan stated that a copy of the subdivision plan was given to the board members. Austin Turner of Tetra Tech displayed the wetlands map and identified the area requiring a wetlands permit. Mr. Clarke asked if 80% of Lowe's is in wetlands as it appears on the map. Mr.Turner said that is the permit area and Wal-Mart is not in the permit area at all. He began addressing NECE's peer review letter. Mr. Puleo asked about infiltration into the injector pump. Bill Ross of NECE, civil engineering peer reviewer, said a later comment addresses the capacity of the pump station. The site is within that station's catchment area. Mr. Puleo asked if all utilities will be removed from the lot. Mr. Turner answered affirmatively. Mr. Ross • remarked that they did not reference existing utilities, so we ask them to spell that out. Mr.Turner said we will make sure that is clear..Mr. Puleo asked if there will be an interruption in utility service. Mr.Turner answered that usually the lines are bypassed with no interruption in service. Mr.Ross said despite the service interruption it would entail,he suggests an alternative full body of work that is more appropriate for the site. Mr. Puleo asked when the water tank comes online. Mr.Turner said we don't know that yes,but the short answer is as soon as possible. Mr. Moustakis asked if there is sufficient capacity. Mr. Ross said once we get to the gravity system, the capacity is large. Mr. Clarke asked what the problem is with the pump. Mr. Ross said it is an old pump that clogs. Highland Ave. is overcapacity. Ms. Sullivan asked who provides the new pumps? Mr. Ross said it would be the city. Ms. Sullivan said this development could tip the system over. Will the city get any assistance for this from the developer? Mr.Turner said they are meeting with the city and Mr.Ross to start this process. Mr. Puleo noted that other projects have required a pump upgrade. He asked if the city is responsible for a utility line along an easement through the project. Austin said he believes so, but we will know for sure before the board needs to decide. Mr. Ross said the proposed shared easement with the city could have challenging wording. Mr. Puleo asked if the city would only access it for water. Mr. Ross answered affirmatively. Mr. Clarke noted that it is a complex and congested easement. Matt Smith of Bohler Engineering,engineer for the applicant,said a small outlet goes into a large wetland area and it may overflow in a large storm. Mr. Puleo asked if that is Strong Water Brook. Mr. Smith answered affirmatively and said only roof water goes in there. Mr.Puleo noted that parking lot water ends up in Forest River. Mr.Turner said that they have met with Lynn Water and Sewer and they are digesting the information for issues with drainage. He said that Mr.Ross found that the original drainage analysis missed the larger • watershed by Belleaire Ave. So we are expanding our study area. He identified the drainage through Lynn and said water ultimately ends up in Floating Bridge Pond. Mr.Puleo asked about the flow west onto 3 Highland. Mr. Turner described it. We are putting together the peer review comments and information from • Lynn. Mr. Puleo asked whether the area across Highland can handle and increase in water. Mr.Turner said there will be a very significant stormwater management system holding water and letting it go at a controlled rate. Mr. Puleo asked about water south of the site. Mr. Smith said that area will have a reduction in water. Mr. Ross remarked that none of the Lowe's drainage would end up in that area. Mr. Puleo asked where the Lowe's water goes. Mr.Turner indentified where the water flows. Mr. Clarke asked if Lynn is shown not to be able to handle the drainage, can it be diverted to Salem where there is capacity. Mr.Turner said that if they find a problem with Lynn's system, they will explore all options. Mr. Puleo asked if there will be an analysis of the piping carrying water across highland. Mr. Turner said their survey found that all that piping is operating correctly. Mr. Puleo asked if flooding is now due to a bad system in the parking lot. Mr. Turner said proper grading will help move water. Mr.Turner added that they will replace any drainage structures that are not working right. Mr. Puleo asked if Mass Highway must approve the connections and decide if the system is adequate. Mr. Ross said they would assume it is operating and leave it up to the developer. Mr. Clarke asked if they could study the condition of the pipe. Mr. Puleo replied affirmatively. Ms. Hanscom said her concern is what is wrong with the pump and whether the city can handle the water. Mr. Ross said that is a separate issue. The issue on Highland is runoff,and the pump is for sewage. The pump gets overwhelmed in wet weather. It could be that something is tied into a wrong pipe. But Highland's flooding is not leading to the pump's problem. Mr. Clarke asked if it is the case that the sewage injector system cannot handle any more. Mr. Ross answered yes. Ms. Hanscom stated that there is a major water problem on Highland. If this project goes forward,I should see no water there. Mr. Ross said the existing Wal-Mart is below Highland, so it is not the cause of the problem. Ms. Hanscom said if no one knows where the water is coming from,we can't fix it.. Ms. Sullivan asked if this is the time to get Mass Highway involved. Mr. Correnti said they are involved,but • you don't hear them now. We are seeking permits from them and there is the MEPA process. What have more work to do. We will continue and come back to you. Mr. Ross said if pipes are simply clogged with dirt,it could be fixed and be a major improvement. Mr. Clarke asked if any work is being done to look at shared parking to reduce the paved area collecting water. Mr. Correnti said so much was done prior to filing. We don't think there is much chance to adjust the site plan dramatically,because of the size, shape,and topography of the land. Isrue Opened Up for Public Comment Bill Trahant,215 Verona St.,Lynn,Ward 2 Councilor,approached the projector's screen and said the developers now have Lynn's information and have no answers. You have the pumping station problem and water going into Lynn. The abutting subdivision is suffering from this project. 'Vater goes into Buchanan Circle. We have recently had several major storms with water coming down to the bridge. Basements have to be pumped out every time. They know we have flooding issues and the water will come into Lynn neighborhoods. Residents have suffered major property damage in the neighborhood. This will only get worse. I am glad they met with Lynn `Vater and Sewer and plan to go to a public hearing in Lynn. The audience applauded. Deborah Smith Walsh, 16 Coolidge Rd.,Lynn, said we don't have answers yet and I appreciate the board's questions. I am concerned about the camp. Our understanding was that Camp Fire would have their whole facility rebuilt,but now they are getting land and a slab. I am concerned about how parents will drive in and out. I worry that there won't be a camp at all,with its affordable programs and summer employment for young people. • 4 Peter Frangipane, 40 Western Ave.,Lynn,said the Wetlands map is old and Wetlands have expanded. He displayed a more recent map. You should use accurate and up to date maps. The wetlands are behind my house. My neighborhood floods regularly. No pump is big enough to keep water off the bridge with this development. New pavement means less water is absorbed. I ask you where the water will go. It still goes into the reservoir without being filtered. A member of the public asked if traffic has been discussed. Mr.Puleo said yes,and that there will be more traffic discussion coming up. Dan Cahill,Lynn City Councilor at Large, 20 Belleaire Ave.,Lynn, thanked the board for its questions and thanked the applicant for improved maps. We received a rendering of the new Lowe's in the mail. Can we have a picture of the entire project? Katerina Panagiotakis, 150 Ocean St.,Lynn, said the project is horrid and wrong. Water flows now into wetlands,potential vernal pools,a stream and into Spring Pond. The pond is under Chapter 91 jurisdiction. The project will dry out wetlands and reduce the level of the reservoir. This is not an adequate solution. Is the cell phone tower remaining? I am concerned about cell phone radiation in drinking water. The project is unethical and this is an area loved by so many people. It was recently voted to be one of the 1,000 Great Places in Massachusetts. An expanded Wal-Mart will mean trees are lost. We have collected thousands of signatures. Lighting will reflect off cars, and headlights from cars going uphill will shine off the site. The buffer includes deciduous trees,which will lose leaves in the fall. A member of the public stated that Wal-Mart is always flooded and asked where water will go if the lot is raised. • Leslie Courtemanche, 97 Fellsmere St.,Lynn,said she rejects Mr. Correnti's statement that they don't have a sense of the area. We certainly do have a sense of it. It has been loved by many people for centuries. It is a perfect place for a natural reservation. The project should be denied based on traffic,runoff and the impact on the overall harmony of the area. A member of the public said he is for the project but has concerns about water. Are developers going to mitigate the water problem and to what degree? Mr. Corrend said first they identify the problem and find causes, then seek solutions. There is no doubt there is an existing problem. We now have a lot of good information from Lynn and a better understanding of the neighborhood. We can't talk about mitigation until we understand the problem. So the study continues. Ms. Duncan noted that the developer is required to ensure that the traffic and drainage situation is not exacerbated. So they will need to mitigate the impact of the development. Mr.Ready said there is an evolving water management plan. Perhaps after meeting with Lynn,there is an opportunity to incorporate Lynn into the plan. Mr. Correnti confirmed this. This is the first time a stormwater management plan has been proposed for these neighborhoods. This is an ongoing effort and we are committed to broadening our scope. Cynthia Stamatopulos, 3 Pond St.,Peabody, asked if Spring Pond will be in the study. Mr. Correnti answered affirmatively. Mary Dyce, 139 Marlborough Rd., said she supports the project if drainage can be controlled. I would like to also know more about the camp. My children went there. Mr. Ross said the drainage review is a long process that continues. The fust step is determining boundaries,which the applicant has agreed to expand. We don't agree that they have expanded far enough. Then the study will go deeper, so there is more to come. • 5 Scott Weisberg, 17 Tanglewood Lane,said he is chair of nearby condominiums which support the project. • We have worked from day one with the developers. This is a good project for the city and I support it. A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the September 16 meeting, seconded by Tim Ready and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis,Randy Clark,Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh,and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business None Adjournment A motion was made by Randy Clarke to adjourn, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis,Randy Clark,Nadine Hanscom,Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor,none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Interim Staff Planner Approved by the Planning Board on August 19, 2010. In addition to applications before the Board and related materials, the following documents are referenced in • these minutes and are available at the Department of Planning and Community Development: Email from Richard Swiniuch dated 7-25-10 Definitive Subdivision Plan for Cloverdale Avenue dated 2-12-01 Kennedy Development Group PowerPoint Presentation dated 7-15-10 NECE Peer Review Letter and Kennedy Development Group response dated 7-15-10 • 6 f • Cloverdale—Decision to Release Cash Surety July 16, 2010 Angelo Meimeteas 30 Cloverdale Ave. Salem, MA 01970 RE: Decision to release cash surety The Salem Planning Board met on July 15, 2010 to discuss the request of Angelo Meimeteas to • release a $25,000 cash surety for completion of all work relating to the construction of Cloverdale Avenue Definitive Subdivision as approved on April 19, 2001 and amended December 3, 2009. On July 15, 2010, the Board, by a vote of eight(8) in favor (Puleo, Moustakis, Clarke, Hanscom, Kavanaugh, Ready, Sullivan, and Sides) and none opposed, voted to approve the release of the cash surety, subject to the following conditions. 1. A portion of the surety in the amount of$10,000 is to be released. 2. The remaining surety in the amount of$15,000 is to be released upon approval by the City Engineer that all work relating to roadway paving, grading and drainage has been completed in a satisfactory manner. 3. In the event that the City Engineer does not approve the work as complete, the matter shall return to the Board for consideration. Sincerely, Charles M. Pulco Chair CC: Cheryl La Pointe, City Clerk 7 ��ONp11n� • , r fs City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet t , f ' Board Planning Board Date -7 / / /y Name --Wling Address Phone # E-m it uhv lac '27 y ✓d LrNN Pi-J9a-199.6 CA;eOL L N6 Sew 97R'-7�ls-iii.? PAUC R• dAm c AbsZ774684W,-iWPf6 psi SS3��9(�iar�R 'Pips a�� rftJ& P fidl 4, � y✓ 7.D 555 - `fol L ��r Zsy 3 3 , moo SI P �7e -7Yy �,s� ODLL 23,1 -pAztLs%. LC�ur; ri&)cr Sia �jeW�l 43 S rin5 Uiew Oque. WI-3f5-2M �n n Rl5 gwud 2z/f loru nta. 7 R 9101 LYNA) &,�M4)G�(4A� II Fr d(d� d d hSf- 61v� C,(7- Y(8'�0<! �a /QS$/ CQQi1�Tenn' 4 ng a� y6 KF) MR5VNQ !ib L -71?1 6 3o zS �A�aRu�r�oow Vc6t� •Nzi' L�a'v '7�(-V 7�-257'7 J� wi- Yh4Zw� y' l l PllSrn��e a 7b( -5-5 °r eiwoi9uyl� v��e LU crit 7 -7g� /G • _ /° e Ca� � y t7 � 7F 7� 6�5� • Page of • City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Board Date -7 Name Mailing Address Phone E-ma' MWkH_ D `5j M W IV\e-,vce�l �, (� wrlf ✓tLw K /n« 1Y?Idb) ( W^ u Sw� ti 14 -2Ll53 �ey�}irl�"1�2 0(-Hoy ` /,Ja Sbj c�ou3 'Me_( vv dfrS 30 00\)e( CUe u L3 doozol �t /"AL 0 8 Gee Street Salem1870-Z¢2Z�27e)7¢5 25-93 Page of �,,�COMOl fg7Q . City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet � T# �J �tnrrv�sw �` Board _Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail r Page 3 of 3 PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD MEETING Yon are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a special meeting on Monday,June 28, 2010 immediately following the 7:00 p.m.joint hearing of the Planning Board and City Council. Joint hearing will be held at 93 Washington Street; the Planning Board's special meeting will be held at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, directly after the joint hearing. Charles M. Puleo, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Discussion and vote: recommendation to City Council on a proposed zoning amendment to change the requirements for medical and business office uses in the Industrial and all Business zones. 2. Continued discussion: Request of ANTHONY TIRO for approval to place cash in escrow to guarantee completion of road work on THOMAS CIRCLE, including installation of a guard rail, as • part of the criteria for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the final house in the development. 3. Old/New Business 4. Adjournment N r N ♦ V A .�.�7 .. i f ' S9l O46PIW-fn lSYla ° a TS CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET a s DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND �g��AffFVE 11�`SiA"r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIM6ERLEY DRisooLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GooMNDuNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: June 25, 2010 RE: Thomas Circle Road Widening/Easement Issue As a follow up to our last meeting,I wanted to let you know that after speaking to our Assistant City Solicitor,JerryParisella, and Tony Tiro,we have come up with a proposed solution to allowing the • roadway to be widened in front of 3 Thomas Circle. According to Jerry,the following steps could be taken: 1. The parcel would be conveyed to the City in fee simple, rather than just an easement as originally proposed. 2. Tony would have his engineer prepare an ANR plan for Planning Board approval in order to convey the parcel. (i.e. "parcel A- not a building lot"). The plan should say that this Parcel A is to be conveyed to the Cityof Salem. Tony would be responsible for preparing this plan and application and getting the owner's signoff. 3. A document deeding the parcel to the citywould need to be drawn up. Tonywould also be responsible for having that deed prepared, and then the owner would need to sign off. 4. The Planning Department would then take the matter to Council to request the city s acceptance of the parcel. Tony and I have spoken at length about this issue, and he has verbally agreed to take responsibility for the preparation of these documents and plan,taking the process as far as he can (as someone who doesn't own the property), and then attempting to obtain signoff from the owners of 3-5 Thomas Circle at the appropriate time. This route would allow Tony to prevent any liability issues relating to taking on an easement in his own name - the parcel would owned bythe City. Should Council not choose to accept the parcel, it would remain with the owners. Should the owners of 3-5 Thomas Circle choose not to sign off on the documents,the roadway would be completed and would remain at its original 14-foot width, as allowed by the original Waiver of Frontage decision from 2000 if rights to that parcel could not be obtained. • 1 �� NOIP �U City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet h rP IA agLoe r ,,.>„ �� lriurt �� ' Board _Planning Board Date l o Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 7 Uardvilliaz 3 :[b� .5 GIU,b c ThQ M5 D C �V �, Page of 2 • ��v '`' City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet 4 { Board _Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 15� rcaCi i 57E 7q0 l� lei 2-C2> `s cc �7f�74��GG2(0 Ro 0C22�n IP. `11� Y 57005 ru g 9D (Ymnae- a`ty ` q57W5 n oevan qy-e� 0 &- err e '7 7& -704 e Page of Z— i APPROVED Special Meeting Minutes,June 28, 2010 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting June 28, 2010 A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Monday,June 28, 2010 immediately following the 7:00 p.m. joint hearing of the Planning Board and City Council, in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George, Randy Clarke,Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Discussion and vote: recommendation to City Council on a proposed zoning amendment to change the requirements for medical and business office uses in the Industrial and all Business zones. Mr. Puleo recused himself from the discussion and vote and handed the meeting over to John Moustakis. Mr. George asked if clinics can be built on the hospital campus with a variance. Ms. McKnight said they would apply for a special permit if continuing a nonconforming use, but otherwise, no means no. Mr. Ready said he is uncomfortable with the depth and speed with which • they are moving. Ms. Duncan said reviewing zoning amendments and making a recommendation to the Council is one of the board's responsibilities. Mr. Ready said he is concerned that this will impact unforeseen future uses, such as biotech. Mr. Clarke wondered why they cannot be more specific with the definition of medical clinic. Ms. Duncan said that would be a question for Mr. Ronan. The definition comes from state law and there was an effort not to be too narrow. The board could recommend something narrower. Mr. Clarke recommended using a specific definition for methadone clinic and dealing with whatever legal challenges follow. We should also have an exemption for the hospital district Mr. Kavanaugh said they should recommend an exemption for the hospital,where there are already many clinics. I don't know how the neighborhood groups' concerns would be furthered if the hospital can't have clinics. I think the wording of this will also bring an awful lot into the special permit process that has been by right for many years. The net is too big. They should at least allow the hospital to have clinics. Mr. Moustakis asked if others agree. Mr. Clarke and Mr. Ready expressed agreement. Ms. Duncan said you are identifying many types of offices that do not harm neighborhoods. Mr. Kavanaugh said this could further stress businesses that might already want to be closer to Route 128. The narrower the better. Ms. Duncan said the Department and the Solicitor could look into a narrower definition of clinic. Mr. Kavanaugh said clinics that dispense drugs is about as narrow as we can go. Mr. Ready said we need a careful balance because the city has certain needs and we should be careful not to harm our employers and tax-paying businesses. Mr. Kavanaugh • said that every time a physical rehab wanted to open,it would have to come before the ZBA with representation and extra time. It could even be an avenue for existing clinics to fight potential 1 t competition. That has happened here with hotels. If you provide a legal basis to challenge a competitor, eventually people will take advantage of that. I suggest a definition that is as narrow as possible. Mr. Clarke asked if this impacts veterinary services, since it deletes references to treating humans. Why would we trouble animal services with this? Ms..Duncan said the Solicitor could help work something out. Mr. Moustakis said that the Council's good intentions with zoning changes don't always work well. He continued reading the amendment aloud. Mr. Clarke said that if part B is worded right, C could be eliminated. Mr. Kavanaugh said the city is addressing dispensation of drugs without a diagnostic component, unlike a hospital clinic where there are doctors and other professionals who also offer some kind of diagnostic oversight and diagnostic capacity. There is none of that at a methadone clinic. If the definition can be narrowed by taking that into account, it would serve the purposes of neighborhoods and businesses. Ms. Duncan said they need to vote on something specific. Mr. Kavanaugh said Mr. Ronan didn't do enough to avoid further problems, so I recommend the definition be as narrow as possible. Mr. Ready said they should be explicit if they don't want a methadone clinic. Mr. Clarke agreed. Ms. Duncan stated that what she heats is that they will recommend to more narrowly define clinic as those without diagnostic capacity which dispense drugs in a non-hospital setting. And medical and dental clinics would be by right. Mr. Clarke added that the veterinary issue should be clarified. ' A motion was made by Randy Clark to recommend that the City Council approve the zoning • amendment with conditions, seconded by Tim Kavanaught and approved 5-0 (John Moustakis, Mark George, Randy Clarke, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed, Chuck Puleo abstaining). Continued discussion: Request of ANTHONY TIRO for approval to place cash in escrow to guarantee completion of road work on THOMAS CIRCLE,including installation of a guard tail, as part of the criteria for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the final house in the development. Mr. Puleo rejoined the meeting. Ms. McKnight said Mr. Knowlton provided a cost breakdown. The City Solicitor advised me of the possibility of conveying the parcel to the city,if the owner is amenable,instead of using the easement. The city would then be liable as work goes on. If Mr. Tiro initiated this,we would accept that he had done all he could, even if the owner doesn't want to do it. In that case, the roadway would retain current ownership. Mr. Kavanaugh said this makes sense but he is concerned about the time frame. Mr. Puleo said the November is the time limit. Mr. Clarke said he would prefer an earlier deadline. Mr. Puleo said the city has to gain ownership before Mr. Tiro can pave it. Is Ms. Howland agreeable? Susan Howland, 3 Thomas Circle, said she is agreeable with the condition that the property line changes legally at no expense to her. Ms. McKnight described the anticipated process. Mr. Kavanaugh said land court will approve this,but it will take time. Ms. Howland asked how we assure that Mr. Tiro follows through. Ms. McKnight asked whether Mr. Tiro can only start the work once the process is complete. Mr. Kavanaugh responded affirmatively. Mr. Moustakis asked what • 2 a happens if Mr. Tito completes everything but the section in question. Mr. Kavanaugh said there can be money for that. Mr. Puleo said there will be bond money there if he doesn't finish. Mr. Ready noted that Mr. Tiro returned to the board because the City Engineer was on vacation and it would be fair for us to take action on the matter at hand. Mr. Kavanaugh said he has no problem approving the bond with Mr. Knowlton's approval. Mr. Puleo asked when the money will be released. Mr. Ready said we release it when he completes the work and has started the land court process. Mr. Puleo said we need to keep enough money to be sure he will complete this. Mr. Clarke asked why we don't get the council to vote to accept the land to start the process. Jerry Ryan,Ward 4 Councilor, said he is willing to do what he can. Mr. Kavanaugh stated that the , regular process will be to go to the council, submit an ANR, present it to the homeowner, submit it to land court, and get a new title. Mr. Clarke said he read the minutes of the meeting which he missed so that he can participate. It is hard to understand what is holding us back. With the owner and developer agreeing on the outcome we are talking about,letters of support from attorneys and an updated drawing should be enough. Mr. Ryan said he will act as fast as he can and will talk to the City Solicitor. I don't see any problem with it and I will do what neighbors want. Mr. Tiro said he doesn't agree with Mr. Knowlton's numbers, but will accept them. I have informed the buyer of this situation and put in contingencies if the vote isn't in my favor. The timeframe is no longer as important. I have accomplished 6 out of 18 categories since the last meeting. Mr. Puleo asked which. Mr. Tiro read aloud the outstanding items. Mr. Puleo asked about ledge removal. Mr. Tiro said the ledge doesn't need to be removed and the guardrail is in dispute. The . road is slightly less than 20 feet at some points on the plan I inherited, so I can't put the guardrail in air. Mr. Clarke said this doesn't take away from what we have to decide. Mr. Puleo said we need to decide how much money to retain when he returns for his money. Mr. Tiro said he will have exhausted everything by that point. If the council accepts that land, I will do my part. Mr. Puleo said you will then have to pave the land. Mr. Tito said yes, only with the owner's permission. Mr. Clarke asked if we can have Mr. Knowlton give us an estimate for this small piece of land. Mr. Kavanaugh said that could be a good solution with Mr. Knowlton's approval. With enough money held for remaining work, I think it will be acceptable, provided the city will take it. I just want to know whether the council will go forward within a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Ryan said he will do this as soon as he can. Mr. Kavanaugh said it might be helpful to ask the solicitor whether it matters whether we go ahead without a land court decision. Mr. Ryan said he will ask what the fastest route is. Richard Williams, 3 Thomas Circle, said he is concerned about the grade around the fire hydrants. They are on a ledge and the trench needs to be dug deeper. I think the estimates are too conservative. Mr. Puleo asked if Mr. Tiro needs to lower the hydrants and not just grade around them. Mr. Williams answered affirmatively and said that Mr. Tiro is only proposing to grade around them. They are higher than normal and the inspector said they should be lower. I could find more discrepancies if I look further at the estimates. Mr. Clarke remarked that the estimates are from the city. Alexandria Pasquale, 197 Thomas Circle, said she was hoping for clarification regarding the drainage Swale size and submitted photographs to the board. I am concerned about the safety of my young • son. Mr.Tito stated that it is built to spec and approved by Mr. Knowlton. The pictures were taken before completion. Ms. Pasquale said the brim is not there. Mr. Puleo said the city can keep his 3 money if he doesn't complete the work as approved by Mr. Knowlton. Ms. Pasquale said she wants to address her son's safety,perhaps with some kind of barrier. Mr. Puleo said it is an approved plan. Ms. McKnight said the board may be able to sign off on that as an insignificant change. Ms. McKnight distributed the draft decision to the board. Mr. Puleo asked if there should be a timeframe for the ANR plan. Mr. Kavanaugh answered yes. Mr. Puleo asked if Mr. Tiro's engineer can prep an ANR plan by the second July meeting. Mr. Tiro said he would have to check with the engineer. Mr. Puleo suggested a deadline for the first September meeting as a condition. Mr. Kavanaugh said Mr. Tiro should contact the department if he doesn't have enough time. Ms. McKnight said it would be best to have it at the department a week before. Ms. McKnight asked if the language should be altered to allow the possibility of a taking. Mr. Kavanaugh suggested language. Mr. Puleo suggested that money needs to be referenced. Mr. Clarke proposed language allowing for the City Engineer to provide a separate cost estimate for phase 2. Mr. Clarke expressed concern that the cost estimate could be too small. Mr. Tiro said it should just be construction cost. Mr. Clarke said it should be enough money so that the applicant doesn't walk away. Ms. McKnight said it would be hard to retain money not in line items, but we could put in language to keep a certain minimum amount of money. Mr. Tiro said he doesn't want to put down $10,000 for this small piece of land, especially if land court takes 3 years. Mr. Kavanaugh asked if we can ask Mr. Knowlton how much he should put down. Ms. McKnight answered affirmatively. Mr. Kavanaugh proposed language to include cost estimates as an appendix. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Randy Clarke to approve the draft decision with revision, seconded by John Moustakis and approved 6-0 (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Mark George, Randy Clarke,Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business None Adjournment There being no further comments, a motion was made by Randy Clarke to adjourn, seconded by Mark George and approved 6-0 (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Mark George, Randy Clarke,Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 10:52 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 7/15/2010 • 4 f • APPROVED Joint Hearing Minutes 06/28/10 Salem Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing Minutes of Meeting June 28, 2010 A Joint Public Hearing of the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council for the purpose of discussing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relative to Use Regulations was held on Monday,June 28, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were City Councilors Robert McCarthy, Steven Pinto,Thomas Furey,Joan Lovely, Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski,Jean Pelletier,Jerry Ryan,John Ronan, Paul Prevey, and Joseph O'Keefe; and Planning Board members Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair, Randy Clarke, Mark George,Tim Ready, and Tim I�,nvanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk, and Tom Devine, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent from the City Council: None. Absent from the Planning Board: Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Christine Sullivan. Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting and recognized Planning Board Chair, Chuck Puleo. Mr. Puleo recused himself from the hearing. Vice Chair,John Moustakis,introduced Planning Board Members Randy Clarke,Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready, and Mark George. • Mr. Ronan said the existing zoning ordinance does not directly address a methadone clinic, though he would take the position that it is not allowed at all. In order to clarify and ensure future public participation, I moved to allow such clinics only by special permit. This would notify neighbors and let them speak at a public hearing. I understand this may need some tweaking. It was introduced by myself and Councilors Lovely and Pelletier. Mr. Pinto said he supports this amendment. He also suggested care be taken to that it does not unduly burden the many other medical uses we have in Salem. A ZBA special permit triggers an . alarm and isn't always as easy as you think. Mr. Furey said the clinic's process is like a stealth bomber. They are going into many communities and opening methadone clinics under the radar. My son would be walking by the location. I commend Councilor Ronan. Ms. Duncan said she is interested in hearing comments from the public and stated that the Planning Board is meeting at 120 Washington St. immediately after this meeting where they will discuss the issue and vote to make a recommendation. I have discussed the definitions with the City Solicitor and as a planner I am in full support. I, however, do recommend that the proposal be changed so that medical and dental offices, not clinics, are allowed by right. There are many such establishments and I don't think we need them to have a special permit process. Mr. O'Keefe raised concerns about the definitions of"dispensary" and"institute" and whether they could be disputed. Mr. Ronan said they drew from state statute and he wanted to be sure "clinic" is • in a category of its own. Mr. McCarthy suggested referring the matter to the legal department. Mr. O'Keefe said he is in support of the amendment,but has concerns about the definitions. 1 Mr. Pellitier said he has no problem with dental and medical offices having to go before the ZBA • when there is limited parking. When we split hairs, nothing gets done. Let's define it as one. Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from members of the public in favor of the proposal. Joseph Hannon, 270 Lafayette St., said he supports the amendment. With everything a doctor already has to do, the ZBA is the least of their concerns. They can be open with us about what they are doing. Erin Higgins, 270 Lafayette St., said she is totally on board with the amendment because it would allow more public involvement. Jean Porcello Giusto said she has a law office at 271 Lafayette St. It is important that residents and business owners know what is going on in their neighborhood. I support this amendment and thank Councilor Ronan. Helen Sullivan, 50 Ocean Ave., said she hopes the Council and Planning Board will go over specifics but also take a personal approach. I feel like you should use common sense and not be bogged down in law. Kevin Sullivan, 50 Ocean Ave., said he is in favor of the proposal. I appreciate the questions being raised because I don't want to impede business. At the same time transparency is important and we don't want things coming under the radar. • Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., attorney representing North Shore Medical Center, said he is not speaking in favor or opposition. We are concerned that the proposal prohibits certain medical uses in residential areas and that most of the North Shore Medical Center campus is zoned residential. It could be possible that a clinic such as the one in question could be appropriate there, although there is no plan for it. John Phelan, 3 Fairfield St., said he has no problem with the program coming to Salem because there are people with needs who are trying to recover. I ask you to consider the wealth of community, because we are a community. A member of the public said he has had issues with a neighboring doctor's clinic. He asked if a methadone clinic would be allowed in a residential area with a special permit. Mr. McCarthy said it would be prohibited. Mr. Hoyer said he strongly agrees with the proposed change. It is important that all the neighborhoods get involved. Keith Romanavits, 90 Ocean Ave., said he has lived here 45 years. Every neighborhood should be able to decide what they want. The local government should make sure residents have a say. I thank Councilor Ronan for his work on this. Meghan Romanovitz, 90 Ocean Ave., said some homes in the neighborhood are passed down through generations. We pay our taxes and want a say with what comes to Salem. We need to protect our children. We have a chance to be the next Marblehead or Lynnfield. • 2 • Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., said she thanks her fellow citizens for bringing light to this. I hope that if a clinic comes, it does not go into The Point, since they already have enough in there. Will our pharmacies have methadone clinics in them? A member of the public said the change will create a transparent process and allow neighbors to weigh in. It is important for these people to present themselves to the community and tell us their plans. I support the amendment. Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from members of the public in opposition to the proposal. Chuck Puleo, 5 Freeman Road, said he is not in opposition but would like to speak as a property owner and not as a Planning Board member. Doctors like to be near Salem Hospital, and it is important to keep Salem welcoming to businesses. I am concerned about the impact of this amendment, but I agree with the need for it. Joan Pelletier, 79 Ocean Ave., asked whether it can be difficult to get a special permit. Mr. McCarthy said neighbors are notified and there is an appeal period. Ms. Duncan said the special permit process can be viewed as burdensome, and in some cases that can be a good thing. There is a public hearing. Meghan Romanovitz, 90 Ocean Ave., asked if special permit notifications to neighbors would be clear about what type of business is coming. Mr. Ronan said that would depend on the transparency of the application itself. Even if the neighborhood gets only a vague letter, at least you would be • able to look into it,which is better than what we had before. Mr. Lovely said she is glad we are having this dialog. You can put medical offices in business and industrial districts, and you cannot and should not be able to put them in residential districts. But there are also business and professional offices. What is the difference between medical and professional offices? We have one of the biggest hospitals north of Boston. I am concerned about the broadness of the amendment I support Ronan in this effort. Peabody is pushing to be a medical hub. Will we lose business to Peabody? Joseph Hannon, 270 Lafayette St., said he spend a lot of time working with the city regarding the paint on his house. If I have to do that,let's have everyone go through a process. Helen Sullivan, 50 Ocean Ave., said she received that letter, but nothing regarding the methadone clinic. That is ironic and we need to return to common sense. Mr. O'Keefe said he is concerned about definitions and raised a question about the placement of a comma. Ms. Duncan said the definition in question is from Massachusetts General Law and we will check it. A motion was made by Jean Pelletier to close the Joint Public Hearing and was approved 11-0 (Robert McCarthy, Steven Pinto,Thomas Furey,Joan Lovely,Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Jean Pelletier,Jerry Ryan,John Ronan, Paul Prevey,and Joseph O'Keefe in favor, none opposed). Mr. Ronan thanked the neighborhood. Citizens collected 591 signatures in the ward. It was a • galvanizing experience. Mr. Pelletier said we need to work on the definition. We will wait for the Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Ryan said he has doctors and dentists in his family. The 3 amendment should err on the side of caution and also ensure that neighbors have a say. Mr. Ronan . said he agrees that the amendment may need tweaking, as long as it catches the offensive use. Mr. Furey asked how Shetland Park or the hospital could prevent a methadone clinic under this amendment. Mr. McCarthy said he assumes they have'a say in whom they want to lease to. Mr. Ronan said he believes the substance abuse company still wants to locate a clinic somewhere in Salem. It is important that we have a say in where it goes. Mr. Pinto asked about the North River Canal Corridor. Ms. Duncan said this does not apply to that because it has its own table of uses. It is unclear whether such a clinic is explicitly forbidden in the NRCC, but at this point we can't add the NRCC to this amendment. Mr. Ronan said it is our intention to do that later because we are limited by the publication requirements. Mr. Prevey said he intends to bring that forward, since the NRCC is in his ward. Mr. Sargent said he supports the amendment and thinks medical offices will have no trouble getting a special permit. Only a small minority of proposals will be challenged. We are bothered when a business leaves our city, but we should also be concerned when a resident leaves. A motion was made by Jean Pelletier to refer the amendment for the Planning Board and was approved 11-0 (Robert McCarthy, Steven Pinto,Thomas Furey,Joan Lovely,Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski,Jean Pelletier,Jerry Ryan,John Ronan, Paul Prevey, and Joseph O'Keefe in favor, none opposed). A motion was made by Steven Pinto to adjourn and was approved 11-0 (Robert McCarthy, Steven Pinto,Thomas Furey,Joan Lovely,Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski,Jean Pelletier,Jerry Ryan, • John Ronan, Paul Prevey, and Joseph O'Keefe in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 7/15/2010 • 4 CITY OF SALEM • NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING CANCELLATION You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board meeting scheduled for Thursday,July 1, 2010 is canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The next regularly scheduled meeting is July 15, 2010. Charles M. Pulm Chair r �a t c%w pwavd on °Otflcidl Bulletin Board° 5_: City Alai! . � Salem, Mass. an 4e -2-3-10 Z at q,3 JISA 20O w ¢„ CITY OF SALEM PANNING BOARD r NOTICE OF MEETING 20,10 I U P 3. 36 '�� I ; ' You are hereby not0&that the SaL npla=u,g.Bazrd will had its Vdazlysdt�liz[at Thursday,June 17, 2010 at 7.00 pm m at CtiyHallAee, Room 313, 120 W/ashingtonSt»�t Charles M. Pubo, Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA I. Approval of Minutes ➢ 6/3/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant: DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, Salem,MA. 3. Request of ANTHONY TIRO for permission to place cash in escrow to guarantee completion of road 4W work on THOMAS CIRCLE, including installation of aguard rail, as part of the criteria for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the final house in the development. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue to July 15, 2010. 5. Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Applicant requests to continue to July 15, 2010. 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment Some. 14 cel d -n Ply CITY OF SALEM f�qP a,A, PLANNING BOARD 2010 JLN in P 2- 2D NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLI- FILL -4 f, You are hemby nmfied that the SalemPlanning Bazrd wfi hdd its rgdady sdaa"&meting on Thursday,June 17, 2010 at 7:00 pm at CityHallAmee, Room313, 120 Washington Street Charles M. Puleq Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 6/3/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant; DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, Salem,MA. 3. Request of ANTHONY TIRO for permission to place cash in escrow to guarantee completion of road work on THOMAS CIRCLE, including installation of a guard rail, as part of the criteria for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the final house in the development. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). AttomeyJosephCorrenti. 5. Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment 3 1 MAL . 1UN 5 n.k -, SAILED;, MASSAC U,iEFIS 01910 - 1)11()\' 07�.(1]9.5685 141X 918.i40.Q O^ �, �ONllI3gA +`� -0r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSEY5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMEERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOOMN DUNCAN,AIQ' DIREcroR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: May27, 2010 RE: Agenda-June 17, 2010 Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from June 3,2010 Planning Board meeting Notes on Agenda Items: Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant: DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, Salem,MA. Patrick DeIuhs sent me a draft covenant; he will be delivering a fully executed version prior to the meeting. He will also drop off the mylars for endorsement. Since this is registered land, we will have two versions to endorse - the plans the Planning Board approved and the simplified version required by Land Court. Request of ANTHONY TIRO for permission to place cash in escrow to guarantee completion of road work on THOMAS CIRCLE, including installation of a guard rail, as part of the criteria for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the final house in the development. Mr. Tiro has scheduled a closing date for the fourth and final house on Thomas Circle for June 25, 2010. He does not yet have a Certificate of Occupancy, however, and the Planning Department's sign-off on a routing slip for the CO is dependent on completion of the roadway. . However,Mr. Tiro would like to request from the Planning Board permission to place cash in an escrow account to guarantee roadway completion, in the event that the work is not complete in time for the closing date, so that he could still obtain Planning signoff on the CO. If the Board approves this request,this wouldn't guarantee he could obtain the CO,since this is 1 ultimately the Building Inspector's decision, but it would allow the Planning Department to give • their consent for its issuance. Mr. Tiro has submitted estimates for the cost of completion of the work to David Knowlton, who is reviewing them and will provide a recommendation as to whether they are adequate for completion of the work prior to our meeting. While this is not an advertised public hearing,we have notified all the residents of Thomas Circle about the request. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Attorney Correnti plans to continue the traffic discussion. I have received a final memo from Beta and a list of questions from the last meeting they would like the developer's traffic engineer to respond to. These are both included in your packet. GPI has prepared a response to Beta, which they will provide them early next week for discussion at the meeting. I have asked Beta to attend. • Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. This is a notice revised filing of the Wetlands/Flood Hazard special permit only. The original application referenced the entire Planned Unit Development site; however, not all of the land included in the project is subject to the Special Permit, so the applicant will be withdrawing the original WFH application and has filed this one instead. The abutter notice we sent out provided this explanation. However, I have received a few emails from members of the public who wanted more detail about why this was done, and two who felt the entire properly should be subject to the special permit. Only one asked that her message be shared with the Board, so I am enclosing that letter,which includes a map showing that there are wetlands on the other parcels. I responded to explain that the overlay district that triggers this special permit does not necessarily encompass all the land in Salem that has wetlands or waterways, since the district is based on a specific set of maps created by Jerome Long and referenced in our zoning ordinance. However, I also made sure the residents were aware that the Conservation Commission would be reviewing e thim P Ys acts to wetlands and waterways in accordance with the most current DEP maps and regulations, and that in addition to the Con Com review,the state will also be doing an extensive review through the MEPA process. 2 , • APPROVED Minutes 6/17/10 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting June 17,2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,June 17, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Absent: Randy Clark and Nadine Hanscom. Approval of Minutes The Minutes of July 17, 2010 were reviewed. Ms. Sullivan identified a spelling error on page 8. There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of July 17 with revision, seconded by Mark George and approved 7-0. (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant: DEIULIS BROTHERS • CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., for a Definitive Subdivision Plan,40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, Salem, MA. Ms. McKnight noted that the land court plan is the same as the approved plan, but with less r detail. Mr. Puleo asked about the fence. Patrick Deiulis of Deiulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc., said he is open to whatever the neighborhood wants for the fence. Mr. Puleo noted the configuration of the curbing and said Doug Bollen would check it. Mr. Ready asked if neighbors have been approached. Mr. Deiulis said there had been some communication seeking consensus, but it has not yet been reached. We will continue to approach neighbors and the planning department seeking consensus. The fence shouldn't hold us up. Mr. Ready said the board recognizes the applicant's willingness to give the community what it wants. You should conduct final negotiations through your councilor. Mr. Deiulis said he sees no issue with that and they will be happy to do what the neighbors want. Mr. Puleo asked if playground equipment will be put in when they are done. Mr. Deiulis said once the old slide is gone, a new one will be put in. Mr. Puleo asked if the playground will be sued during construction. Mr. Deiulis said we don't expect to interfere with the use of the playground. There will be a construction fence. Mr. Puleo asked if a vote is needed. Ms. McKnight said the board only needs to sign the plan. Members then signed the plan and its copies. Request of ANTHONY TIRO for permission to place cash in escrow to guarantee completion • of road work on THOMAS CIRCLE, including installation of a guard rail, as part of the criteria for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the final house in the development. 1 Ms. McKnight said the applicant requested putting cash in escrow and the department told him • it would rather see the work completed. The applicant requested to ask the planning board and the department is ok with that. We have been talking to David Knowlton about outstanding incomplete items and made progress getting cost estimates for the remaining work. The City Engineer is on vacation now and unable to get through it all. The board would be voting on conditional approval—conditioned on Mr. Knowlton's approval. There would be a time limit. Ms. Sullivan said what she hears is that the applicant came to the department and was denied, so he went around you. I want to know why the department said no. This is an unusual situation. I would want good reasons to overrule the judgment of the department. Ms. McKnight said we talked it over and thought it would be fair for the board to decide. The department would be comfortable if approved with conditions. Yes,we initially denied the request,but we are comfortable with approval with certain conditions. Ms. Sullivan said you said no initially. Would you give the same answer if doing this again? Ms. McKnight said we'd would probably instead have the applicant go straight to the board. Mr. Puleo said he would like to have numbers with Mr. Knowlton's backing. The applicant has had a fair amount of time to complete this. Ms. Sides asked when this was last before the board. Ms. KcKnight said it was amended in 2006. Mr. Moustakis asked if you know how much it will cost,why not just let him do it? Ms. McKnight said there is a tentative closing date and I think that is what the time sensitivity is about. Mr. Ready said it would be fair to say that the department, following their review, decided to send it to the board without prejudice. Ms. McKnight confirmed this. Mr. Ready said this has been looked at administratively and denied without prejudice. The applicant could tell us why the work is incomplete. Ms. McKnight said Mr. Knowlton has a list of what needs to be completed. Mr. Tiro has • estimates, but Mr. Knowlton needs to approve each item and its estimate. Mr. Ready asked if Mr. Knowlton is comfortable with the total sum of money or is he concerned about the individual line items? Ms. McKnight said he needs to approve individual items and their associated details. Anthony Tiro, the applicant, said approximately 6 weeks ago I contacted Mr. Knowlton and informed him that I had put under agreement the 4`h and final house. I asked him if he could do a review of outstanding items because I might not be able to finish remaining work by the closing date of June 25. The buyer qualifies for an expiring tax credit. Mr. Knowlton went over the outstanding items with me and asked for numbers with quantities, and I provided all he would need. I added documentation to this with prices from those who would provide the work. The reason why some work is incomplete is because we wait to finish the road until after the final house is sold. I didn't know that I was required to do some of the work. I have already accomplished some of the items. Mr. Puleo asked which items he didn't know he had to do. Mr. Tiro said he didn't agree with all of them. For example, I simply had to demonstrate that certain things were there. Mr.Tiro read aloud from Mr. Knowlton's list of outstanding items. Mr. Puleo asked about the removal of boulders from the easement. Mr. Tiro said it has been completed. Ms. Sides said the scope of the work is much greater than just paving and a guardrail. What is the timeframe? Mr. Tiro said the completion date would be November 15. Ms. McKnight said money would come from escrow then if nothing is completed. Ms. Sullivan said that would be another year without • a road. Ms. Sides said there must be some priority to this. Three houses are already occupied? 2 J . Mr. Tiro responded affirmatively. Ms. Sides asked if the road is paved. Mr. Tiro again replied in the affirmative. Mr. George said you didn't know about some of this. Mr. Tiro said he thought some of the items were already satisfactory. It is all being done. Ms. Sullivan noted that some of this language is from 4 years ago and goes back to a 2006 decision. I am not sure how it could come as a shock. Ms. McKnight said Mr. Knowlton's language was for the approved plan. Ms. Sullivan said that what Mr. Knowlton asked for Tuesday was asked for in 2006. Maybe I'm not reading this right. Ms. Sides said the Mr. Knowlton may be determining things from the plan that were not in Mr. Tiro's memory or understanding. Mr. Tiro asked which document they are looking at. Ms. McKnight said it is a draft approval. The decision wouldn't have that language, but the plan would, and this could explain some discrepancies and misunderstandings. Mr. Ready said before we get too deeply into the vagaries of Mr. Knowlton's world, there are some outstanding items. The developer has met with the engineer and reviewed and come to agreement over the items, some of.which the developer is concluding. The developer is prepared to put down a sizeable piece of money to ensure work is done by Mr. Knowlton's standards by the date discussed. The purpose of the meeting is to put money on the table to ensure work gets done. Ms. Sullivan said the purpose of the meeting is to allow the closing date to happen in time. Mr. Kavanaugh asked which items will be completed before the closing date. Mr. Tiro said read through the list of items. He pointed out that Mr. Knowlton mistakenly though a city sewer was the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Puleo noted that the list stated that the stone doesn't comply. Mr.Tiro said Mr. Knowlton wants bigger stone. Mr. Kavanaugh asked when that will be completed. Mr: Tiro said it will be done before closing. He said that the berm,brick, and mortat issues are already done. The roadway issues can all be done as soon as • we resolve the guardrail issue. I am working with Mr. Knowlton on the location. Mr. Puleo asked about ledge removal in lot 3. Mr. Tiro said it has been priced. He described the condition as it applies to the plan. Mr. Puleo read road details from the plan and asked if there has been inspection during installation. Mr. Tito replied that there has been. Mr. Puleo asked if that is documented. Mr. Tiro said it is. Mr. Puleo read details from the plan regarding the easement. Ms. McKnight said the easement hasn't been accepted, so we should include that in the cost estimate. Mr. Tiro said Mr. Knowlton wants the easement to go with the new homeowners. Ms. McKnight said she thinks the language should cover it. Mr. Tiro said he would acquiesce to that. Mr. Tito identified the easement on the plan. Mr. Puleo asked for Mr. Kavanaugh's view on the language. Mr. Tiro described the plan to Mr. Kavanaugh. Mr. Kavanaugh said it has to be in the deed and the buyer has to accept it. The owner needs to know that they have perpetual responsibility. It is not a problem and will be binding if done properly. The applicant's attorney should give the deed to the department to verify it. Susan Howland, 3 Thomas Circle, submitted a letter to the board. Mr. Puleo asked if this is in front of her property. Ms. Howland said there is no easement and read aloud from her letter. She asked that the city condition the plan sono sale would happen until road work is completed. There has been discussion with the City Solicitor over the deed change. I was willing to deed this to the developer or the city with the understanding that Mr. Tiro would be responsible for getting this done and paying all associated costs. Mr. Tiro has yet to do this. He has had 7 years to address the property line issue. It does not seem right or fair for Mr. Tiro to be granted this • request. 3 O Ms. Sullivan asked why this hasn't happened. Mr. Tiro said he didn't know this existed before • 2006. Ms. Sullivan asked about the transfer of land. Mr. Tiro said it has to be initiated by the homeowner. Mr. Kavanaugh said this was covered last time. Your attorney needs to speak to her or her attorney and prepare an easement for her to sign. She said she wouldn't bear the expense and your attorney has to get the ball rolling. This is a minor item and it is easy, but land court is harder. Getting the easement from the neighbor is not the hard part. Mr. Tiro said he agrees with all of this but thought the homeowner had to initiate it. Ms. Sullivan said that Mr. Kavanaugh has told you that your attorney was to sort all this out. It appears that you have not progressed with that. Mr. Tito said he thought it had to go before the City Council to be accepted. Mr. Kavanaugh said it would go exactly the other way. You would build the road and then you or your attorney would talk to your councilor and ask the city to accept it for the purpose of a public way. Mr. Tiro asked what happens if the city doesn't accept it. Mr. Kavanaugh said they vote to accept it if they want it and they are taking it from the homeowner. You would be notified and she would lose ownership as it becomes a public way. Mr. Ready noted that Mr.Tiro is getting free legal advice. Mr. Tiro needs to consult with his attorney and follow guidelines from the last meeting. You should meet with neighbors and do this before coming back here. Mr. Puleo asked how much work is there to do in this small space. Mr. Tiro said it is very little. Ms. Sullivan said she won't grant permission as it stands now. Mr. Kavanaugh said the memo says the homeowner seeks to ultimately convey the land to Salem. It says that even though Mr. Tito agrees to pay for the process,it is subject to council approval. We are talking about conveying it directly to the city of Salem. Mr. Kavanaugh asked • what the disposition of the land would be if the city does not accept it as a road. Who is responsible for it? The homeowner and the developer do not want to be responsible for it. No one has filed anything so we don't know if they are willing to accept it or not. No one wants to be on the hook for a piece of land that hasn't been accepted by the city in the event of some future liability. This is still a sticking point. Mr. Moustakis asked who is responsible to move this along. Mr. Kavanaugh said the memo talks about the homeowner's desire to have no liability. With the easement, Mr. Tiro would improve the parcel,get it accepted, and then there would be a petition to get the city to take ownership and be liable for it. Mr. Tiro said he agrees that the owner has to initiate the process.. Mr. Puleo said the original decision states that the developer has to make a good faith effort to acquire the easement. Mr. Kavanaugh said the owner will grant it, but Mr. Tito won't accept it without the guarantee that it would be accepted. Long ago, a developer would create a corporation that would petition the city to accept the road. If the city refused, the corporation, not any individual,would be liable. Alexandria Pasquale, 194bomas Circle, expressed concern about the drainage basin's dimensions,which could be off by a foot. I have flooding problems and want to know what impact this will have on her residence. Mr. Puleo noted that Mr. Knowlton has a condition for a 1 foot berm. Ms. Sullivan asked if the numbers work out. Ms. Sides noted that the berm is in height, not width. Ms. Pasquale said there is not room for another foot. It would go into my property. Ms. Sullivan stated that with an extra foot in height,water will have trouble getting in. Mr. Ready said this is a clarification issue that needs to be addressed to the neighbor's. • satisfaction. 4 • David Mackey, 2 Sunset Rd., said he sees a lot of issues with the project. $25,000 is a questionable amount for completion of the road. The roadway is in a state of total disrepair. Mr. Tiro said the amount for the road work is $50,000. Ms. McKnight said this is subject the City Engineer's approval. The dollar amount will not be voted on tonight. It would be up to David Knowlton. Mr. Kavanaugh said that even with these numbers, the crux of the matter is the roadway. The only way you can widen it would be to accept the easement, improve the roadway, and you and the homeowner petition the city to accept it. There is no guarantee the city will accept it. Nothing we are discussing will solve this problem. Either we accept that the road is narrow or we insist that the applicant take the liability. Mr. Puleo asked if the road is 20 feet wide everywhere else. Mr. Tiro described the roadway on the plan. Ms. McKnight said the department's understanding is that it would remain 14 feet wide in that location if the easement doesn't happen. Richard Williams, 3 Thomas Circle, said he used to serve on this board. When we approved a plan,it was the plan we would abide by. He presented the plan to the board. Mr. Puleo confirmed that it is the same plan Mr. Tiro has. Mr. Williams stated that the plan shows a 20 foot roadway throughout. Mr. Puleo remarked that the language of the decision gives further clarification. Ms. Sides said she is not comfortable approving this. Ms. Sullivan said she is also uncomfortable approving this. Ms. Sides said there are too many unanswered issues. Mr. Tiro said he has answered everything in Mr. Knowlton's June 15 memo. Ms. Sides said she is not • comfortable with the phrase "in good faith." Mr. Tiro asked Mr. Kavanaugh for further details about the easement process. Ms. Sullivan said you must take leadership to solve the issue. Mr. Puleo said you should go through you councilor and see if he is willing to bring this before the council. It is an easy issue. Mr. Tiro asked Mr. Kavanaugh if he thinks the homeowner must start the process. Mr. Kavanaugh said your attorney has to speak with her. Mr. Ready said the issue before us is a matter of escrow, but I think a decision would be premature without a final walkthrough from the City Engineer. Mr. Ready said he would like to motion to continue the request pending input from the City Engineer, since we do not have enough information. Mr. Kavanaugh asked Ms. Howland if she would give the easement. Ms. Howland answered yes, as long as I don't bear the cost I am willing to grant the city the easement through him. Mr. Kavanaugh asked if she would be willing to execute a document if the council or the attorney came to her asking for the easement. Ms. Howland said yes, as long as it is guaranteed that it will happen, however it can be arranged legally. Mr. Kavanaugh said the homeowner is not willing to give the easement unless the road is widened. So Mr. Tiro must accept the easement and do the work, or the homeowner would have to give it to the city and Mr. Tiro would make improvements on behalf of the city. Mr. Ready said the issue before us is one of escrow. We are far ahead of this. I would motion to postpone the request pending input from the City Engineer. Give all parties a chance to resolve outstanding issues. Ms. Sullivan asked if we can table it. Mr. Puleo said if we don't have enough information,we are within our right to table it. • 5 Mr. Tiro said he has met with the engineer on numerous occasions. I put a price to each item . requested. I think it is unfair to put this burden on me. I have the legal opinion from my attorney. He says not to accept it. Ms. Sullivan says he is not listening. Ms. Sides said with what has come to light, she doesn't feel certain that Mr. Knowlton has adequately addressed this issues that the neighbors have raised. I need to know that the engineer has reviewed it and truly signed off on it. Mr. Tiro asked if an approval could be subject to Mr. Knowton signing off on it. Ms. Sullivan said you are asking us to rush through something because you have a deadline in a week. Mr. Tiro said he first made the request 6 weeks ago. Kathleen Sullivan,realtor, asked how long the easement process could take. Mr. Puleo said that with a councilor involved,it could be fast. Ms. Kathleen Sullivan said the house has been under agreement and the buyer wants to get the tax credit. Mr. Puleo said we have heard the discussion. Mr. Tiro asked if the plan requires him to pave 14 feet if the easement doesn't materialize. Mr. Puleo said he needs to make a good faith attempt. My understanding is that a councilor would get involved. If you exhaust that and the council said there isn't support for it and it looks like a difficult thing to do, that could be a good faith attempt. But we haven't gotten that far. I understand if you don't want the liability,but I think it needs to go through the city council process. Mr. Tiro asked why that is stopping the work that must be done. Mr. Puleo replied that it was part of the original decision. Mr. Tiro asked if you could put a dollar amount on that and have it put in escrow. Mr. Ready stated that we are meeting again soon. Ms. McKnight said this could be added to the agenda of our upcoming special meeting. Mr. Kavanaugh said this is the first time we are hearing that your lawyer said you shouldn't take on the liability. That should have been • addressed earlier. This could have been worked out. Mr. Puleo said we have a June 28 meeting following our joint hearing with the City Council. We could take this up then. You could see if your councilor would support it and we could be notified by then. Mr. Ready said that in the interest of the buyer interested in moving into our city,you will find that the board is open to new information, but we need that information and Mr. Knowlton's input. A motion was made by Tim Ready to continue the request at the June 28 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved 6-0. (Chuck Puleo, , Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed;John Moustakis was out of the room.). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue to July 15, 2010. Ms. McKnight submitted the applicant's letter to the board. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the July 15 meeting, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 7-0. (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim • Ready in favor, none opposed). 6 • Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. AppEcantrequests to continue to July 15, 2010. Ms. McKnight explained that the applicant was withdrawing the original filing and re-filing the special permit application. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to open the Public Hearing at the July 15 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved 6-0. (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed;Tim Ready was out of the room). Old/New Business Mr. Puleo stated that he intends to recuse himself from the upcoming joint hearing on the zoning amendment. Members discussed logistics of the hearing. Ms. Sullivan asked if a quorum is needed. Ms. McKnight said yes, and she expects to have a quorum even without Mr. Puleo's participation. Adjournment There being no further comments, a motion was made by Mark George to adjourn, seconded by • Helen Sides and approved 7-0. (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 7/15/2010 • 7 City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet +� n Board _Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail w)t y,&tic, Pr-S9ualk 1j7haw,a5C, I- ^^� S75r3(� 6usun --f�omz Cir.. Salem 919141 -' 2.6? Apwlandlo7 Aoo.com CCO�� Sra lei ^9 �k�-I /5r-aG`�G I owe ( rnS Z� —t_-lw,aS UyL -)p—q( —(o°?( %IL07[- 6�T-"Gl e�'Si=kms a-/ fif/�sr`I S �i6( x-07 si�� ciky, Page of `to CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD MAY NOTICE OF MEETING t it.F if You are&?vby mt#W that dx Salem Planning Board udl hold its regularly sdaa&levl rnetiT on Thursday,June 3, 2010 at 7.00 pm at City Hall Araxx,Room 313, 120 Washington/Street Charles M. Pik Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 5/20/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Public hearing:MAUREEN GOODRICH and BRIAN COHN for a waiver from th)frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the movement of the lot line between the properties located at 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET (Map 15, Lots 382 and 383). 3. Continuation of Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15,Lots 315 and 567). Attomey William Quigley. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4),Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment Thi") 11rjflv.,9 Ponied On �0�;fjcqp; s'y Hach !`pta � b°p�t�� d,g� �� p�. .g n.Hx✓x .,. ,-2 V s r 'tt?: 120�w'rS!imjroISS' .1_.:, SALt1., MASSACiI Sl.tt501970 '11ON' )73.6t1)'J 35 FAY 978,740.014 �� Nu'_ „E.diU•.Jf CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ._ � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMQERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYMV GOOMN DuNcruv,AI Q' 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DIRECCOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: May27, 2010 RE: Agenda-June 3, 2010 Please find the following in your packet: . ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from May 20, 2010 Planning Board meeting Notes on Agenda Items: Public hearing: MAUREEN GOODRICH and BRIAN COHN for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the movement of the lot line between the properties located at 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET (Map 15, Lots 382 and 383). This item was already heard by the Board on May 6; however,the notification was unfortunately not done properly, and so we need to hold the hearing again. I am enclosing a copy of the plan and application form for your review, but there are no changes since the Board approved it on May 6. this Waiver application was accompanied by an ANR plan, which does not need to be endorsed again. The application consists of a request to move the lot line between 58 and 60 Proctor Street so that#60 gains area and#58 loses area;the purpose is to allow Ms. Goodrich's parking area to legally be part of her property. The application was routed to Fire, Engineering, Building, Conservation and Health. All departments responded that they had no comments. Continuation of Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac • and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. David Knowlton completed his review of the project and is satisfied with the drainage plans and confirmed that the developer's engineer has responded to his concerns. He suggests one condition: 1 "All existing drain and sewer pipes,[that the project is)proposed to be connected to, shall be • inspected by the developer utilizing a closed circuit television camera to confirm they are of adequate condition to accept the proposed flows. Results of the inspection shall be provided to the City Engineer for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. The developer shall be responsible to address any defects identified." I also received a letter from abutter Suzanne Kao (from May 19),which I am enclosing. Her concerns are related to runoff/flooding onto her property, and what the notification process is prior to construction and utility shutoffs on the street. I have put her in touch with the Engineering department,which answers questions relating to utility interruptions. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. The applicant intends to show scaled renderings of the project, and will also begin the Engineering review. We will have our peer reviewer,Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering, attend to listen to the presentation (he will not be presenting a review yet). The developer's traffic engineer continues to work to address questions raised at the last meeting- they will not be attending this meeting. • Note for this meeting: a resident will be audio taping the Kennedy Development Group hearing. • 2 7,'\\ CITY OF SALEM . A PLANNING BOARD Decision Waiver from Frontage 58 and 60 Proctor Street A Public Hearing on this petition was held on, and closed on June 3, 2010 with the following Board Members present: Chair Charles Puleo,John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Mark George, Helen Sides, Tim Kavanaugh,Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready. Maureen Goodrich (58 Proctor Street) and Sharon N. Cohn and Brian Cohn (60 Proctor Street), request a waiver from frontage requirements from the Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow the property line between 58 and 60 Proctor Street to be moved, resulting in 57 feet of frontage for 60 Proctor Street instead of the required 100 feet. The Waiver from Frontage is granted for the property located at 60 Proctor Street, as shown on the plans titled, "Plan of Land, 58 & 60 Proctor Street, Salem, Property of Maureen F. Goodrich & Sharon N. Cohn & Brian Cohn," prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, dated January 20, 2010. • The Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor (Puleo, Moustakis Sides, Sullivan, Clarke, George, Ready, Kavanaugh, and Hanscom), and none opposed to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 60 Proctor Street. The a donearrt shill not take& until a C*y of the dai xm baring mtt!ruatwn of dx City Clerk that twenty (20) clads hize elapsed aryl no appeal has Ecru frle� or that if sucb appall hz been filed dint a hz bm7 disnosed or derue� is worded in the Esser Sauk Registry cfDa is and is indexed in the grantor irdex ureter the wnr tf the owner cf mord and noted on the ouwr 's ce?�to cf title The outer or applttaru sb ll pay the fee for rauAT or M7in8 1 be7tl mrtz y deet a copy of dm cleision is on file with the City Clerk and float a copy q'tbe Daawn and plara is on file with dee Plarvung Baird Charles M. Puleo, Chair `< ti 0 c, • :._., 00 D S\ .PAI. UCC.�i_� C .3 !11'��I' �',itg ' `<.fi !i,2C.�S I .t•; y ill l)IU"" `:r.i: CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2o19 JU', -a A u: IS Carr CL-,, June 8, 2010 Decision- 15 and 16 Scotia Street Form C- Definitive Subdivision and Waiver from Frontage On April 15, 2010 the Planning Board of the City of Salem (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Board" or"the Board") opened a public hearing regarding the application of BVS Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant" and/or"Owner") to allow construction of the proposed Subdivision and associated roadways and utilities. The subdivision contains two (2) residential lots. The hearing was continued to May 6, 2010,May 20,2010 and June 3, 2010. At the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on June 3, 2010 the public hearing was closed and the Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor(Chuck Puleo,Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready,John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan,Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides,and Mark George) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Form GDefinitive Subdivision and Waiver from Frontage,subject to the conditions below. 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the following: • a. The set of plans containing sheets 1 through 4,titled, "Definitive Plan- # 15 &# 16 Scotia Street, Salem,Mass.," prepared by Hayes Engineering, Inc., 603 Salem Street, Wakefield,MA 01880, dated March 16, 2010. b. "Sketch Plan in Salem,Mass.,Showing Proposed Screening on Lot 1," prepared by Hayes Engineering,Inc., 603 Salem Street,Wakefield,MA 01880, dated May27, 2010. 2. Endorsement of the Plans Following the statutory twenty(20) day appeal period,the Planning Board will endorse the original subdivision plans,subject to conditions of this decision, which shall be recorded at the South Essex Registry of Deeds. The applicant must submit the following for the Planning Board's approval prior to endorsement of the plans: 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. This decision shall be referenced on the original plans prior to the endorsement by the Planning Board; the decision shall be recorded with the plans at the South Essex Registry of Deeds. 3. 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 this • decision shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 4. Subdivision Regulations 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 * JEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEWCOM 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. • 5. Waivers In approving the Plans, the Board is hereby granting the following waivers of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations: a. Certified statement of encumbrances: applicant has instead submitted recorded copies of the quitclaim deeds. The Board waives this requirement. b. Elevations: Instead of referring to City datum, plans show elevations to refer to NGVD 29 which is the datum used by FEMA. The Board waives this requirement. c. Environmental Impact Statement: applicant requests no statement be required, since the site already underwent extensive remediation to remove asbestos contamination. The Board waives this requirement. d. Roadway diameter: applicant requests a curb-face to curb-face roadway diameter of 50' (instead of 90'),due to the small size of the project. The Board waives this requirement. e. Waiver from Frontage: Required frontage in the Residential One-Family Zoning District is 100 feet; the subdivision plan proposes 73.99 feet of frontage for each of the two lots. The Planning Board waives the required frontage in order to allow construction of the subdivision as proposed. In the judgment of the Board,the granting of the above waivers is in the public interest and consistent with the intent of the subdivision control law. 6. Transfer of Ownership • Within five (5) 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 temps, conditions, restrictions and/or requirements of this decision shall be binding on the Owner and its successors and/or assigns. 7. 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 part 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 rum with the land, and shall state that such ways and services shown on the approved plans shall be provided to serve any and all lou 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 2 The Owner shall either file a performance bond, a deposit of money or negotiable securities, or a tri-parry 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 bythe 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. The Owner may file a covenant to secure the construction of ways and services for the entire sub-division and said covenant maybe 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 b execution of a recordable instrument so statin b the Planning Board. Y g Y g 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. 8. Salem 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 prior to commencement of any work. 9. Office of the Building Commissioner All work shall comply with the requirements of the office of the Salem Building Commissioner as affected bythis decision. 10. Office of the City Engineer a. The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the CityEngineer. b. All existing drain and sewer pipes,that the development is proposed to be connected to, shall be inspected by the developer utilizing a closed circuit television camera to confirm they are of adequate condition to accept the proposed flows. Results of the inspection shall be provided to the City Engineer for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. The developer shall be responsible to address anydefects identified. c. Abutters shall be given 24 hours' notice of any shutdowns of their water and utility services, and/or interruptions to access to their homes, in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. d. Any water and/or sewer pipes, if disconnected during construction,are to be reconnected. • 11.Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department as affected by this decision. 3 12.Health Department All work shall comply with the general requirements of the Salem Health Department as affected by this decision. 13. Board of Health All requirements of the Board of Health shall be strictly adhered to, including the following conditions set forth in its decision of May 11, 2010: 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. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. d. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6,must be sent to the Health Agent. e. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. f. A radon remediation kit shall be installed and operational in each below grade dwelling unit. g. A radon test shall be conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit. • h. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved bythe CityEngineer. 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. 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 Wetlands 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. 14. Pre-Construction Conference • 4 Prior to the start of work on the approved subdivision, a pre-construction conference shall be • scheduled with the City Planner,the City Engineer(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. 15. Conduction 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 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 rn nimize 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 City of 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. 16. Blasting The applicant or argent shall distribute the flyers entitled, "Facts for Massachusetts Property Owners About Blasting" to all abutters within three hundred (300) feet of the blasting area. 17. Conduction Traffic a. With the exception of off-site improvements required as part of this decision, all construction will occur on site; no construction will occur or be staged within City right of ways. Any deviation from this shall be approved by the Department of Planning &Community Development prior to construction. b. A construction traffic management plan and schedule shall be submitted to the Department of Planning &Community Development for review and approval prior to the start of construction. • c. Any roadways,driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition by the Owner. 5 d. The Owner shall clean construction vehicles before they exit the construction site, and clean and sweep all streets affected by their construction truck traffic as • necessary. 18. Progress Reports Upon the request of the Planning Board, the owner shall submit reports of the progress of the subdivision's completion. 19. 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. 20. Utilities Any utility installation for housing lots shall be reviewed and approved by the CityEngineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All utilities shall be installed underground. 21. Special Conditions: a. Sloped granite curbing is to be installed around the cul-de-sac. b. Bituminous asphalt berming is to be installed along the street edge in order to divert stormwater flow away from the property at 14 Scotia Street and into the existing catch basin. This change is to be shown on a revised plan, to be approved by the City Engineer prior to endorsement of the plans. c. Screening trees will be extended along the property line of 23 Summit Street; such change is to be incorporated into the revised plans prior to final endorsement of the plans. The fence will be removed upon the request of the owner of 23 Summit Street, and with said owner's written* consent to remove the fence for the placement of the screening trees. A copy of this consent is to be provided to the Planning Department prior to planting. Proposed trees are warranted for twenty-four(24) months from the date of planting. 22. As-built Plans & Street Plans As-built plans and street 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 the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved bythe City Engineer, prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision. 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, as well as any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 23. 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. 6 • 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 beanng 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 pay the fee for recording or registering. Charles Puleo Chairman • 7 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Notice of Decisions At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,June 3, 2010 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: MAUREEN GOODRICH and BRIAN COHN Location: 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET(Map 15,Lots 382 and 383) Description: Request for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the movement of the lot line between the two properties (58 and 60 Proctor Street). Decision: Approved- Filed with the City Clerk June 8,2010 • Applicant: BVS CORPORATION Location: 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET(Map 15,Lots 315 and 567) Description: Request for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots. Decision: Approved- Filed with the City Clerk June 8, 2010 This nonw is being sero in aw plianx uah the Massadnrsetts General Lazes, Chapter 40A, Section 9 and doff not wire action by the recipiai Appeals, if arty, shall be nu&pwsuam to Chapter 40A, Smtion 17, and shall be filed uithin 20 dais from the date uhidr the decision zeas filed with the City Cderk. City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet � t Board _Planning Board Date 6 / / I o Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �� bk tea®' UiE L 7-34PA8 (.5;. A9o.,2��kil,aX, �a��l —6L�► -8 �, ' 9 - 4-� Z1 -S VfALGM F6 57 Y\ )7 9 17 4Co�7 ) Y h ct /c/�iJ �SD �CPan �� 7�alQSS,®Q��iIFY,nl.tdr,, / 6(f_c 64- 3 t o r+-s L-ne, R 28- '7 Yfl bc(� J ,,n n �O O Aja&,cl- IledcD/Qia INAAwlac- RG /-/N MA 761- 9f3-2-0y9) • Page of Z COiU,Ut PR4' City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail wGt/a�Q l� 1599 �a 3 C�Cc/4 i�ov3 'Tu Sh1000 `Ig( -581- 433 tmhbjup ooi.r0 oor) / �, 5^/ l=el��• , —L-4— �S ! 40w7lr �(7 l�//!l)el�S�Gty/i �Y<iyg78/- AA.-l S _2,4l 2k -98v( /o �rYx hxx_�yrl' • S r L Page Z of Z Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting June 3,2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, June 3, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Mark George, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Approval of Minutes The minutes of May 20, 2010 were reviewed. Ms. McKnight said she would revise the vote on the April 15 minutes to account for Mark George's abstention. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the minutes of May 20 with revision, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0. (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). • Public hearing: MAUREEN GOODRICH and BRIAN COHN for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the movement of the lot line between the properties located at 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET (Map 15, Lots 382 and 383). Ms. McKnight stated that this matter is again before the board because there was a defect in the previous public notice. Ms. Sullivan stated that this was thoroughly discussed before. Issue opened up for public comment There being no comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mark George and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the waiver, seconded by Nadine Sullivan and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. 1 William Quigley, attorney for the applicant, said that since the last meeting the applicant has met with neighbors and walked the property with them. The City Engineer has submitted comments to the board and we will comply with them. The neighbors asked for a planting scheme and we have presented that to the board. Ms. McKnight distributed the plantings plan to board members. Mr. Puleo asked if the plantings were discussed with neighbors. Mr. Quigley replied that it was discussed with them at the meeting onsite. Mr. Moustakis raised the issue of extending the stockade fence. Mr. Puleo noted that Mr. Olcott is concerned with grading. Mr. Quigley remarked that a future owner could change the landscaping and we can't be responsible for that. Mr. Puleo said we want to keep to what was agreed to at the site visit. Chris Sparages of Hayes Engineering, engineer for the applicant, said they proposed evergreen there because that is where the house is exposed. Larry Olcott, 23 Summit St., said he would prefer that the plantings continue by his property. Mr. Sparages said there is only so much the applicant can do. Mr. Olcott said the plan now is for it to come halfway onto his property line and stop. I am not going to be satisfied. Mr. Quigley said they would be happy to continue the plantings down to the driveway. Mr. Sparages said Mr. Sullivan has agreed to extend the plantings along Mr. Olcott's property line. Ms. Sullivan said there was an email about the concerns of Susan Kao, 14 Scotia St. Mr. Puleo noted that she is not here tonight. Ms. McKnight said the concerns fall under Engineering's jurisdiction. I asked Mr. Knowlton what the notification requirements are for utility work and incorporated that into the decision. Mr. Ready asked if the proposed fencing and plantings are acceptable to the neighbors. Mr. Quigley said it is his understanding that it is acceptable to the • bulk of neighbors. Mr. Ready asked Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St., if neighbors are in agreement. Mr. Ryan said the big issue was shielding the house. Mr. Clark said the condition should be to extend the screening only if Mr. Olcott gives permission to remove the fence. If he doesn't give permission, they don't have to extend the plantings. Mr. Olcott said he gives such permission. He asked who did the surveying. They don't seem to know where the property line is. Mr. Sparages said there was a full survey conducted by a professional engineer and the company president stamped and signed the plan. Ms. Sullivan said Ms. Kao asked about water in her basement and the curb plan. Ms. McKnight read aloud the related conditions. Mr. Puleo said her major concerns have been incorporated into the decision. Dorothea Cormier, 25 Summit St., asked if trees will be on the property line. Mr. Puleo said the trees will be well into the project property. Mr. Sparages said they are trying to save the existing tree line and fill in gaps with Evergreens. Ms. Cormier asked if they are to be spaced widely because they will grow in. Mr. Sparages said yes. Ms. Cormier asked what happens if they die. Mr. Puleo said the developer will be responsible for them for 2 years. Ms. McKnight said that must go into the decision because landscaping isn't normally part of a subdivision plan. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). is 2 Mr. Quigley said he wanted to confirm that all waivers are in the approval. Ms. McKnight said they are. Given the small size of the project, the department is supportive of the waivers. Ms. McKnight read aloud highlights of the draft decision. She noted that the final revision of the plan must be submitted before the Mylar can be signed. Mr. Puleo asked about the driveways. Mr. Sparages said they will remain as on the plan, but the buyer will have the option for less pavement. Mr. Puleo noted that the ZBA granted the requested variances. Ms. Sullivan asked if the environmental impact statement was all inclusive. Ms. McKnight said that in the view of the department, the waivers of some of the requirements are acceptable for such a small project. Mr. Puleo said they did get a final clean bill of health for the cleanup. Ms. McKnight said a condition is being added to ensure that the developer will reconnect any water and sewer lines they disrupt. Ms. Sullivan said she assumes this will be done with sensitivity to neighbors. Ms. Hanscom asked if 24 hour notice for utility work is normal. Ms. McKnight said Engineering prefers 2-3 days, but the formal policy is a minimum of 24 hours. The applicant has been in touch with Ms. Kao and we can hope their communication continues. Mr. Ready stated that in previous hearings there appears to be sensitivity between neighbors and developers and I hope that continues with the builders. Ms. Hanscom asked for clarification about rodent control. Mr. Puleo said the developer is responsible for it up to the property line. Ms. Hanscom asked what happens if rodents bypass the traps and get onto neighboring property. Ms. McKnight said if neighbors observed this, they should report it to the Board of Health. Ms. Hanscom said there should sometime be discussion about that. • Ms. McKnight stated that there should be a condition to warrantee the landscaping for 24 months. Mr. Clark said it should be a condition that screening will be extended along the 23 Summit St. property line if the owner gives permission to remove the fence. Mr. Kavanaugh said this needs to be in writing. Board members discussed the wording of the condition. Mr. Sparages said the condition is acceptable. Mr. Puleo asked if trees should be in the revised plan. Mr. Sparages said we can incorporate that. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan and the Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., attorney for the applicant, said there has been lots of feedback is since the BETA group's traffic presentation. Our consultant has been working on their 3 questions, comments, and suggestions, and we'll be back to address those. Tonight we will deal with civil engineering. You have a drainage report with drainage calcs. We will also show the architecture of the buildings. Austin Turner of Tetra Tech Rizzo presented slides. He displayed the existing conditions and the limits of the work area. He said about a 3rd of the property, approximately 12 acres, will be constructed upon. He displayed the parcel survey, proposed Lowe's site plan, and limits of the PUD. He stated that the Lowe's will have 153,000 sq. ft. and 178 parking spaces. Matt Smith, engineer, described the Wal-Mart site plan. Wal-Mart will be 152,000 sq. ft.—a 40,000 sq. ft. increase over the existing store. The site will be raised above its current elevation. The steep grade between Wal-Mart and the neighboring shopping center will be smoothed out. Wal-Mart will have 610 parking spaces. That number is lower than what Wal-Mart likes to have, but good enough for MEPA. There is no one-way traffic flow on the site. A sidewalk is planned along the frontage. Mr. Turner presented the plan for the city water tank. It will have a gated access road. We have worked with Salem's engineer and the city's consultant to be sure our tower design is consistent with the original design. We have the City Engineer's sign off. He displayed the plan for the Meineke expansion. We will add 2,600 sq. ft. to the existing 3,000 sq. ft. It will include additional storage area and another service bay. We are providing dedicated parking. There will be some limited grading work to make sure parking is ADA compliant. The sign will be moved slightly to accommodate the road widening. He displayed the plan for the camp. There will be a 9,900 sq. ft. building that consolidates two buildings. There will be a graded recreation field and 50 parking spaces. We will do earth work and they will do further improvements. . Mr. Turner said the applicant's team is meeting soon with Lynn Water and Sewer to be sure everyone is comfortable with the plan. Lowe's elevation is 169 ft., about 40 ft. higher than Highland Ave. This is to minimize the earthwork. The driveway is at about 124 feet and Wal- mart is about 10 feet higher than the existing store. The water tank is 25 feet higher than Lowe's, consistent with the previous design. The camp is about 3 feet higher than Lowe's. He showed the area capturing water and piping it to a storm water management system where it will be detained and slowly released into the wetlands system. The majority of the area drains there now and we have mimicked it, meeting Mass DEP and Salem standards. We are not increasing the flow or doing harm to the wetlands. Ms. Sullivan asked where the Lynn line is and Mr. Turner indentified it on the plan. Ms. Sullivan asked if the drainage is in Salem. Mr. Turner said it is all within Salem. Mr. George asked if there is a driveway just for Meineke, separate from the signal. Mr. Turner said they are keeping the right in right out and access to the signal. Mr. Clark asked about parking at Meineke. Mr. Turner replied that there are 3 existing spaces and 3 additional proposed. Mr. Smith said a large basin will handle Wal-Mart's roof runoff. The basin drains back to Highland and to the west. It is designed in accordance with DEP storm water standards. We will be reducing flow from the site. There is a thick drainage report. Mr. Puleo said he had assumed the parking lot would also drain into the basin. Mr. Smith said only the roof drains into the basin. Mr. Puleo remarked that the parking lot sometimes floods now. How will you address that as you double its size? Will drainage from the lot remain the same? Mr. Smith said it goes • 4 by pipe to the street. The Lowe's and the camp go into the other basin. Mr. George asked how . much of an increase will there be in impervious parking area? Mr. Smith said he will find out the answer. Ms. Sullivan asked what will be done on Highland Ave. to improve the water situation. Mr. Turner said they will send 4 acres of runoff from the Wal-Mart site to a basin. The existing drainage structures on Highland are not functioning well. We will put in new structures to remedy that. Mr. Smith said the development will reduce flow from the Wal-Mart site. The parking lot now is below grade so it floods. We will raise it. Mr. George asked how you will reduce flow with a bigger lot. Mr. Smith said they are removing flow from the building. Ms. Sullivan said she wants to be sure work on Highland Ave. will be adequate. Mr. Turner said discharge rates will be lower than the existing condition. Mr. Turner presented the Lowe's lighting plan. The poles will be 38 ft. tall and direct light inward and downward. The lighting level at the property line will be zero. When the store is closed, light will be reduced to only what is need for security. It will be an average of 6 lumens, which is standard. Mr. Smith said Wal-Mart will have similar lighting, with 42 ft. poles. Light will spill into the right of way, which is desired. Mr. Puleo asked if this is what they use at other Wal-Mart locations. Mr. Smith said probably, but poles are sometimes shorter at other locations. Mr. George asked how close Lowe's is to houses in Lynn. Mr. Turner said maybe 500 ft. Mr. George asked what the relative elevation is. Mr. Turner said an upcoming slide will address this. Ms. Sullivan said that lighting in the back of the building will most affect the houses. Mr. Turner showed utility plans. • Rob Jess, Lowe's Project Manager, said every other light in the rear of the building will be off during non-business hours. It will be the bare minimum for security. He showed architectural elevations for Lowe's. He described the multiple views and noted there will be lots of architectural relief across the form. We are adding a nice appearance to the left side facing the road. The building will be of varying heights with a peak of 49 ft. There will be white metal cornice treatments and some windows. Pilasters will project out. It will be two-tone beige with blue, along with white accents. The signs will be internally illuminated. Bob Everts of Cross River Architects presented photo simulations of the propose Wal-Mart. The signboard is from recycled materials. The facade is precast concrete, scored for detail. It will be a tan and cream color. The building will be 35 ft. at its highest point, stepping lower at the sides. There will be a canopy at the vestibules and blue lighted bollards. There will be a wide paved walkway in front of the building. The signage will be a maximum of 5 ft. in height, internally lit with LED. Wal-Mart has gone through a change in the last few years. It is no longer a gray box. It is a design that is comfortable in suburban environments with a consistent image across towns. Aisles are wider and shorter so you can see where you want to go. This is part of a new branding effort. Wal-Mart is also becoming more sustainable. The roof is white, reflecting heat and saving energy. With skylights, indoor lighting dims based on sunlight coming in. LED lights in refrigerated cases produced virtually no heat. Mr. Turner showed a cross section. We are lowering the Lowe's site 30 ft. Ms. Hanscom asked • if the space between the houses and Lowe's is all high and wooded. Mr. Turner replied 5 affirmatively. Ms. Hanscom asked what the distance is between the houses and Lowe's. Mr. 40Turner said it is 800 ft., 500 from the cul-de-sac. Mr. George asked what the relative elevation of the cul-de-sac is. Mr. Turner said it is about 35 ft. lower than the Lowe's floor. Mr. George asked the height of the building. Mr. Turner said it is 26 feet in the back. Ms. Sullivan asked if there is a slide to show a view of the site from the houses. Mr. Turner said there is not. Ms. Sullivan said she wants to know what the height means. I had trouble figuring that out with 10 Federal St., so we got a rendering. Mr. Turner said there is something like that in the next slides. Mr. Jess said this is hard to read because it is true scale. We can do a perspective for you. Mr. Ready asked if he would be able to see the cul-de-sac and homes if he stood atop the existing Wal-Mart. Mr. Turner said no. Mr. Ready asked if the homes will be able to see the new development. Mr. Turner said it is possible, but we are leaving a substantial amount of vegetation. He displayed a cross section. Ms. Sides asked if the natural rock face will remain. Mr. Turner answered affirmatively. Mr. Puleo asked what the distance will be between Lowe's and Highland Ave. Mr. Turner said it will be about 100 ft. Ms. Sides asked if it is all natural ledge. Mr. Turner said that is the intention. He displayed the relationship between Lowe's and Highland and described a 3-D rendering of Lowe's along Highland. Mr. George asked what the distance will be between the cul-de-sac and the building. Mr. Turner said 400 ft. from one cul- de-sac and 800 ft. from another. Mr. Clark asked if there has been a parking usage analysis. How many of the planned spaces will realistically be used at any given time? Mr. Jess said for Lowe's this is the minimum we want to go. Other stores have more. Mr. Smith said this ratio is less than we typically do. Peak time is Christmas when they make most of their money. Mr. Clark said this application is for a . PUD. I would love to see some kind of site layout that has the two stores sharing parking. There is massive blasting, traffic, and storm water issues. I would suggest that Salem is not a suburban environment. Salem is a city. This I would expect to see way out on Route 2. Mr. Turner said the topography is a limiting factor. Creating shared parking would require more blasting. Ms. Sides said she is impressed by Wal-Mart's sustainability efforts and would like to hear more about how Lowe's addresses sustainability. Mr. Jess said he would be happy to provide the list of elements from their LEED application. Mr. Moustakis asked if they will work with the City Engineer on Highland Ave. issues. Mr. Turner answered yes. Issue opened up for public comment Andrew Hall of the Lynn Water and Sewer Commission, 400 Parkland Ave., Lynn, said Lynn would like to review the drainage plan. All of it ultimately ends up in Lynn. Mr. Correnti said the development team would like to meet with Lynn Water and Sewer. William Trahant, Ward 2 Lynn City Councilor, 215 Verona St, Lynn, said drainage is an important problem for the Lynn side. There are many problems with flooding. The camp road will drain into Lynn Water and Sewer. We've been told it doesn't connect to the Lynn system, but the catch basins do tie into Lynn Water and Sewer. It will go down to the bridge and make it worse. The lighting will go into our neighborhoods with the higher poles. We want the Planning Board to have the applicant come to Lynn Water and Sewer for a public hearing. Mr. Puleo said . 6 the city's peer review engineer is here. Mr. Trahant said he wants the a developer to have public P hearing at Lynn Water and Sewer. Mr. Correnti said we have been waiting to meet with Lynn Water and Sewer, but we have not agreed to a public hearing. We have a public hearing here and if the councilor wants to make a request, he can make it through the board and I will talk to the client. Mr. Trahant said there are major drainage issues for Lynn. Mr. Ready said any effort to meet publicly with citizens of Lynn is premature. Mr. Correnti will meet with the Lynn Water and Sewer staff. Bill Ross, the city's peer review engineer, said the peer review includes runoff review and it is not limited to Salem. It even goes as far as Saugus. Mr. George asked Mr. Trahant why this forum is not an adequate opportunity to bring up concerns. Mr. Trahant said he does not have the knowledge. I am not an engineer. Come to a public hearing in Lynn and explain it to us. Mr. Clark stated that the developer has agreed to meet with Lynn Water and Sewer. Tonight's meeting is a public meeting that anyone can come to. I think the issue is covered. Plus I don't know what jurisdiction we have to force the developer to have a public meeting in another town. Mr. Correnti said we can take this one step at a time. Let's have the peer review and meet with Lynn Water and Sewer. But right now if you want a public hearing, there are not enough answers. We understand the concerns of Lynn. The peer review will include Lynn. Then neighbors will have this forum, and we can then talk about another forum. Mr. Trahant said we don't have a forum here. We don't feel that we are getting ourjust time. This is becoming a Lynn-Salem issue with the developer. This is going too fast. I would be respectful of Salem if this were in Lynn. • Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St., said she thinks Wal-Mart has made advances with sustainability but the jury is still out. I agree that this looks like two separate projects. This isn't Saugus, it is Salem. Salem is a historic city undergoing a downtown renaissance during a recession. That makes it important that we take great care with new projects on the edge of the city. I was involved in a review of an Ikea and they included many low-impact features. I know we can do better. The only way will be if the city stands up and says we will make it happen. I would hope " we would see changes as a result of public comments. What we are seeing tonight is not an appropriate plan. Dan Cahill, Lynn City Councilor-At-Large, 20 Belleaire Ave., Lynn, said there is a stream on the site. I haven't heard what will happen with it. There is no storm water management plan for the camp. I would like to know the plans for the stream and the impact of the development on it. Mr. Turner said it will be relocated. He identified it on a slide. We are working with the state. We plan to move it from the Lowe's site around to connect with the wetlands. We found through a survey how much water passes through it and designed a stream channel to handle that flow. It will be improved, better defined than the existing. It is dry most of the year. Mr. Puleo asked if anything drains to Spring Pond. Mr. Turner said a part of the site not included in the development might drain to the pond, but that is not part of the project. Mr. Puleo said much water goes to the Western Ave. catch basins and that is something the peer review can look at. Ellen Patterson, 37 Spring View Ave., Lynn, said the water comes down quite often. Today was a single lane to get past the camp into Lynn with all the water. There are not a lot of trees between the cul-de-sac and Lowe's. The camp will also be between them. Mr. Puleo said the 7 road will be slightly diverted. Ms. Patterson said I think things are closer than you'd think. I am concerned about truck noise. What will be the Fays Ave. improvements? How will it affect Lynn? Mr. Turner said they plan to replace the signal equipment and formalize a dedicated right turn lane from Western Ave. to Fays. Ave. It will be a more efficient signal detection system. A gentleman asked about the northbound lane turning left into Fays Ave. Mr. Correnti said these are the questions undergoing peer review. Our consultant is working on this. The study has been extended beyond Fays Ave. We will come back with this at another public hearing. Kathleen Nadeau, 81 Spring View Ave., Lynn, said there is drainage into Spring Pond. Mr. Turner said the project is putting no drainage into Spring Pond. Barry Neelly, 15 Lynde St., said he previously asked if they will comply with the responsible employment ordinance. Will the developer sign off on that? It was guaranteed that all construction workers would have health insurance. And you would hire 20% of the workforce from the community. Will the developer commit to that? We don't want to have all Maine and New Hampshire plates here while we are unemployed. Katerina Panagiotakis, 150 Ocean St., said the Lowe's architecture is actually horrid. The Salem reconnaissance report points out that this is poor design for an entrance corridor. The area is important because it abuts a watershed. I am nominating this for a most endangered program. It would be a historic tragedy to see the site ruined. I will submit the document to the board. This hearing is an appeal to build on wetlands and a Flood Hazard District. Is that the red line or the blue line [referring to the current slide]? What is the extent of the appeal? Mr. Correnti said neither line delineates the flood hazard district of the wetlands. There is a wetlands district and it will be at our next presentation. Ms. Panagiotakis asked what is the area this hearing is for. Mr. Correnti said the red line is the PUD, which is the boundary of the project. Ms. Panagiotakis asked if the permit will be for the entire property boundary. Mr. Correnti said no property boundary is being shown. Ms. Panagiotakis asked what the blue line is. Mr. Clark said that is the whole site. Mr. Correnti said the permit is not for the 90 acres. It is for the area in the red lines. That is the PUD delineation. We are asking for a special permit for only the red area. Ms. Panagiotakis said I want to be sure nothing is happening in the top part and we have a complete picture on the development. Will the increase in impervious area affect Salem's Green Communities Act status. Mr. Puleo said we will find out. Jean McAuley, 11 Western Ave., Lynn, said she does not understand what retention ponds are. I am concerned about them being near the camp. What steps will be taken to ensure their safety? What do you treat them with? How do you keep the water from breeding insects? Mr. Turner said a retention basin retains storm water and slowly releases it. It will be gated and fenced. The camp and its access road will also be fenced. The ponds are designed to drain to avoid standing water. The water is treated not chemically, but mechanically. Joe Duff, 226 Woodland Ave., Lynn, said the storm water will pick up grease and oil and perhaps also fertilizer sold at the new store. What will you do about that? Mr. Turner said the mechanical systems are made to handle the oil and the fertilizer will be sealed. Mr. Duff asked where the oil will go and Mr. Turner identified the system elements on the plan. 8 Leslie Courtemanche, 97 Fellsmere St., Lynn, asked how far the Lynn boundary is from the water system. Mr. Turner answered that it is 40-50 ft. Ms. Courtemanche said this seems Orwellian, to say you are minimizing impact and moving a natural stream. The presentation doesn't show the beauty of the life cycle you are destroying. Lowe's failed in Salem before. Mr. Puleo said it was Somerville Lumber. Ms. Courtemanche said to destroy the open space is an abomination. Not everyone shares my reverence for nature, but we must acknowledge that if we keep destroying nature like this, extinction will be a problem. It isn't right. I would implore you to reconsider. If you are environmentally concerned, this is total destruction of a wildlife area. I ask that you consider that. David Pelletier, 12 Crombie St., said we hear promises from officials, then plans change. Developers sometimes do damaging work and then fail to complete a project. Why not put a bond on it so that after trees are torn down you have some recourse? You have to protect yourself. Lowe's is not the most stable company now. What recourse do you have if they begin and change their mind? A bond should be put up should the situation change like it did in Peabody. We get flimflammed all the time and nothing ever happens. You have to put in some protection when you do this so you don't end up looking stupid. A bond is a simple thing to ask. You can't replace anything, but you get something back. Could you do that? You ask for bonds for all sorts of things. I just don't want you to look stupid. Donna Kennedy, 23 Westview Rd., Lynn, asked if there is a comparison for the tallest point of Lowe's in respect to the trees behind it. Are the trees lower than the roof. Mr. Turner said we don't have the answer right now. Ms. Kennedy asked if he could find out. Mr. Turner replied 7 affirmatively. Ms. Kennedy said she is concerned that Lowe's will be higher than the tree line. Mr. Turner said they will take direction from the board. Mr. Puleo said they can prepare something. Mr. Correnti said this is about the buffer and we can work on that. Norm Cole, 30 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said the other half of the GIS map shows water flowing to Lynn. At what point in the process will you call for a new hearing if you change the plans in response to the state? I think there will be changes from this group and other permitting processes. When do they have to withdraw and restart. Mr. Puleo said yes, if there are substantial changes, they may need to refile. Mr. Correnti said that is something we always watch during the process. We have to make a call to ensure the permits we get are for the project. If things change substantially, yes, that we are always cognizant of. Mr. Cole asked if the camp road is a secondary access road. Mr. Turner said it is not. Mr. Cole said leaves fall off the trees and they won't plant arbor vitae that will block view of their sign. Michael O'Neil of O'Neil Associates, 234 Park St., North Reading said he is working on one of the neighboring subdivisions and has been asked to speak for the developer. He stated that he is concerned about the buffer and drainage. Debra Smith Walsh, 16 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said she is concerned about water coming into our cellars. I had a finished basement 32 years ago, then eventually I had 5 feet of water. Each development causes more problems. You can't redirect this rainwater. We are not spending 9 enough time on serious drainage issues. The project is in Salem, but the most affected neighborhood is mine in Lynn. I hope Mr. Correnti will meet with Lynn Water and Sewer. Bob Proodian, 1Manning Rd., Lynn, said he is a taxpayer across the street from the project and asked about Wal-Mart's drainage. Mr. Smith said the roof will drain to a basin and the parking lot to Highland Ave. Mr. Proodian asked if the system on Highland is inadequate. Mr. Turner said it is full of dirt. Mr. Proodian said the system is small and can't handle the water all the way down to Salem Hospital. Where will water to the left of Lowe's flow? Mr. Turner said it will flow to the wetlands. Mr. Proodian said you will have a waterfall. Mr. Correnti said for the first time ever, 8 acres of storm water will be controlled. Right now it is a massive sheet flow onto Highland. There is a chance for improvement now from very difficult conditions that we have now. It is a chance to control and help mitigate the flow. We will get into a lot more specifics when we do peer review and meet with Lynn Water and Sewer. Yes, for the first time those 8 acres will be controlled. A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing to the June 17 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business Members discussed the logistics of a site visit to the site of the Kennedy Development Group proposal. Members discussed upcoming meeting schedules. Adjournment There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to adjourn, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 6/17/10 10 CITY OF SALEM ,. PLANNING BOARD 2910 MAY Il Al: ( 1 t II r NOTICE OF MEETING CITY [UI; You are hereby notOed tba the SalemPlar=rig Bard will hod its regularly sdxdulEd nmtirag on Thurs day,May 20, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Had Amax,Room 313, 120Was Strut dxrrles M. Puler, r Clazir I� Lu`SJ, MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 4/15/10 Planning Board meeting minutes,4/28/10 Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing minutes, 5/6/10 Planning Board meeting minutes. 2. Discussion/request to re-phase subdivision:Paul DiBiase-Request to change phasing of Osbome lulls/Strongwater subdivision. 3. Continuation of Public hearing:Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two(2) new house lots on the propertylocated at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15,Lots 315 and 567). Attorney • William Quigley. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing:Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC.for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit,and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Wahmrt store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 6. Old/New Business ■ Request of North River Canal LLC to extend Special Use Permit,Site Plan Review,and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit granted to property at 28 Goodhue Street for an additional six(6) months. 7. Adjournment tiA I� 2oty 571.11! ;, S_1.' M. 1'S ()I f)7() ' 1'1ft ti . 97&619.5681 t.'�.x ) 25.,-1�).1A= ) � diY 1 �L AI i.:1:,: V r Jf • \ PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING You are lxrehy notified that the Salem Planning Board u ll hold its regularly sdx&tk l nwting on Thursday,May 20, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall A muc,Rcom313, 120 W hmgton Stmt GJ arfes M. Pule Chair MEETING AGENDA *; 1. Approval of Minutes _ ➢ 4/15/10 Planning Board meeting minutes,4/28/10 Planning Board/City Council Joint Heanik minutes, 5/6/10 Planning Board meeting minutes. o 2. Discussion/request to re-phase subdivision:Paul DiBiase-Request to change phasing of Osborne Hills/Strongwater subdivision. 3. Continuation of Public hearing: Request of BUS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15,Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. . 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the propertylocated at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). AttomeyJoseph Correnti. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit,and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Walman store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. 6. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment ` 1 N O U}1 .SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING Ycu are l5emby natoed that the Salmi Planning Barni mill Wd its rEyJady sdxrbdal lMM7g on Thurs day,May 20, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Arm, Ram313, 120 W hugton stmt C aisle M. Ptdeq CYxtir REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 4/15/10 Planning Board meeting minutes,4/28/10 Planning Board/CityCouncil Joint Hearing minutes, 5/6/10 Planning Board meeting minutes. 2. Discussion/request to re-phase subdivision:Paul DiBiase- Request to change phasing of Osborne Hills/Strongwater subdivision. 3. Continuation of Public hearing:Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two(2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15,Lots 315 and 567). Attorney •, William Quigley. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing:Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit,and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462,and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store,Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue until June 3, 2010. 6. Old/New Business Request of North River Canal LLC to extend Special Use Pemrit,Site Plan Review,and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Pemrit granted to property at 28 Goodhue Street for an additional six(6) months. 7. Adjournment 7 lrt+ �, a 1 i'��jq tfnlp�"l9C"�' �'"t1!ytF<•�' Clad iC'� ;?j C it7. .'+ �_mf.=.: . City Hall � 914 �Y Y�i ��4� r��. ..�17 No, IlIq ply, �.. ��CiSnt Ii ,'L"1�,.1 01970 (>wA_. Al� i��coa99�`c�. �a CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS `z` DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND .�MfiVFDa,� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMI3rRLI3Y DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DIRHCCOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: May 13, 2010 RE: Agenda—May 20,2010 Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from April 15, 2010 and May 6, 2010 Planning Board meetings;Joint Hearing minutes from April 28, 2010 Notes on Agenda Items: Discussion/request to re-phase subdivision: Paul DiBiase—Request to change phasing of Osborne Hills/Strongwater subdivision. Mr. DiBiase's request includes dividing Phase 2 of the Osborne Hills subdivision into two sub- phases, 2A and 2B. 2A would include the installation of a temporary cul-de-sac (like the one that is currently in place now as the end of Phase 1) rather than the construction of entire through streets. After the Phase 2A temporary cul-de-sac is in place, the one installed for Phase 1 will be removed. The traffic light currently required for the end of Phase 2 would still be required before Phase 2A would be considered complete, as would the required sewer injection pump. The reason Mr. DiBiase gave me for this request is that he was not able to obtain financing for the entire phase. Continuation of Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 • SCOTIA STREET (Map 15,Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. The applicant appeared before the Board of Health on May 11. I have the following conditions from their approval letter: 1 1. 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 copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. 4. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. 5. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. 6. A radon remediation kit shall be installed and operational in each below grade dwelling unit. 7. A radon test shall be conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit. 8. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. 9. 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. 10. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. 11. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. 12. 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. 13. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 14. 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. 15. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. 16. 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. 17. The,drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito • Control and Wetlands Management District. 2 . 1. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. I am awaiting comments from Engineering, so I will need to forward them to you by email prior to the meeting as soon as I receive them. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. I received comments from Fire Prevention,which can be dealt with if the following conditions are placed in the decision: 1. Applicant is to submit a snow storage plan prior to commencement of construction. 2. Applicant is to submit written confirmation from his engineer that all turning radii in the parking lot comply with manufacturer's specifications for City of Salem fire apparatus, prior to commencement of construction. 3. Should the developer request additional outdoor dumpster space in the future, new plans are subject to approval by the City Planner. • I am awaiting comments from the City Engineer. I will need to email you his comments and conditions prior to the meeting. The applicant will appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 19 for relief from parking, width of the buffer area, and building height. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2,3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Wahnart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Cotrenti. A final copy of the initial peer review memo is included in your packet. Beta will not be attending this meeting,but will be available to continue the traffic discussion on June 3. The developer's engineers are also not planning on discussing traffic further at this meeting—they need time to respond to the peer review comments. I am also enclosing a new and slightly different form email (I have received 22 of this version so far). I also received five new unique letters. Paul and Diane Lewandowski, 16 Wyman Drive (Salem) have concerns about fire department access due to additional traffic. Daniel Nadeau of 75 Flint St. has concerns about traffic congestion, destruction of a wooded area, and lack of a need for a Lowe's. Aikaternu Panagiotakis of Lynn has submitted another letter, this one stating her concerns . about traffic congestion, historic value of the area, and increased pollution. John and Lauren Sherlock, 6 Ravenna Ave., are concerned about traffic, destruction of a green space,and negative economic impacts of the development (due to increased need for municipal services). Finally, 3 resident Jim Kearney writes that his only objection is the placement of the parking—he suggests • placing the parking areas in the back, as was done with the storage facility on Goodhue and Bridge Streets. • • 4 0 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 0 N ill Site Plan Review Decision May 24, 2010 w Site Plan Review and Special Permits under the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District On January 21, 2010, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan Review and Special Permits under the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) to allow an individual retail use of over 3,000 square feet in size, to allow an eating and drinking place within the building's atrium, and to allow fences over six (6) feet in height along the property line), at the request of High Rock Bridge Street, LLC for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305). The proposed project includes the construction of a new two- and four-story professional building with retail and municipal space(Senior Center) on the ground floor level, and • professional offices above with associated parking and landscaping. The Public Hearing was continued to February 4, 2010, February 18, 2010, March 4, 2010, March 18, 2010, and April 1, 2010. On April 1, 2010, the Planning Board opened a Public Hearing for a Special Permit under the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District. The public hearings for Site Plan Review, North River Canal Corridor Special Permits, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permits were all continued to April 15, 2010, May 6, 2010, and May 20, 2010, and were closed on May 20, 2010. In considering approval of the NRCC Special Permits, the Planning Board finds that the proposed project complies with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Master Plan, as follows: 1. Redevelops a key site in the NRCC, the former Sylvania site. 2. Supports the creation of an "Urban Village" and creates a"Gateway" at the intersection of Bridge and Boston Streets, as articulated in the Master Plan. . 3. Improves the sidewalks and pedestrian environment on the comer of Bridge and Boston Streets in front of the project site 4. Includes a"landmark"building at the southeast corner of Bridge and Boston Streets, with active ground floor uses, including a Senior Center and health fitness club, as recommended in the Master Plan) 5. Attracts uses that serve local markets and are complementary to existing businesses • 6. Provides sensitive transitions in scale toward the Federal Street neighborhood (while building heights and landscaped buffers are features of the,project that require zoning 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALEM.COM • relief, the elevation and configuration of the property are such that buffering and views are still appropriate) 7. Provides a landscaped buffer at the rear of the parcel. 8. Places new buildings close to the street and at the intersection of Boston and bridge Streets 9. Improves the edges of Bridge Street by through landscaping in addition to the placement of the building. In considering approval of the NRCC Site Plan Review, the Planning Board finds that the development meets the goals of the North River Canal Condor Plan, as stated in the Salem Zoning Ordinance, as follows: 1. Create appropriate development while preserving our historic neighborhood character The proposed project was unanimously recommended for approval by the Salem Design Review Board (DRB) on April 13, 2010. 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 of ground floor uses, buffer treatment, the treatment of the comer at Boston and Bridge Streets, the role of the originally proposed atrium, the relationship of various entrances to each other and the pedestrian circulation to and through the building. In a recommendation letter to the • Planning Board dated April 23, 2010, the DRB details how the applicant satisfactorily resolved these problems. 2. Address transportation issues for existing and new developments The developer has 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 Improves the sidewalks and pedestrian environment on the corner of Bridge and Boston Streets in front of the project site. The Planning Board considered the requested Special Permit under the NRCC Mixed Use District, Section 8.4.13 Transitional Overlay District: 4) Fences/boundary walls: The maximum height of fences and boundary walls adjacent to residentially zoned or used parcels may be increased to ten (10) feet with Special Permit approval from the Planning Board. The Board finds that the proposed fence heights are appropriate, since they are intended to provide additional buffering between the residential neighborhood and the project, in response to neighborhood concerns. The Planning Board also considered the requested Special Permit under the NRCC Mixed Use District district, Section 8.4.12, Retail Uses: 4) Except by Special Permit, each individual retail use shall not exceed three thousand (3,000) gross square feet in size. The Board finds that the • size is appropriate to the proposed retail use— a health club—which requires more square 2 • footage than many other retail uses, and also finds that the proposed use and its size would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. The original application requested a Special Permit under 8.4.5, specifically 6.2, Restaurants and other eating and drinking places of any size. However, in the course of the review, the plans evolved such that a permanent eating/drinking place was no longer part of the project. The applicant has been encouraged to consider food or beverage cart service on the premises and if desired, such plans should be submitted to the Building Inspector for review and approval or determination as to whether the plans need to be submitted to the Board for review. Lastly, The Planning Board received extensive testimony over several meetings on the topic of subsurface environmental conditions as presented by the applicants Licensed Site Professional. In considering approval of the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, the Planning Board found that the proposed project met the requirements of the Overlay District, as stated in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on May 20, 2010, the Planning Board, based on the information contained in the application and presented at the hearings,voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor(Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides and Mark George), none (0) opposed, to approve the Site Plan Review application, the North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District • Special Permits to allow an individual retail use of over 3,000 square feet in size and to allow fences over six (6) feet in height along the property line, and the Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plans Work shall conform to the following plans: a. "Gateway Center: A Multi-Use Building for the Salem Senior Center and Professional Offices, City of Salem Planning Board Final Submission," (6 sheets, unnumbered), dated May 4, 2010, prepared by Gundersen Associates Architects, Salem, MA; and b. "Proposed Gateway Center, 401 Bridge Street," Sheets CS (1), EX (2), DE (3), PL (4), GR (5), UT (6), PH (7), and DET-1 (8), date May 18, 2010, prepared by Hayes Engineering, Inc., Salem, MA. 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. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans. b. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. c. The landscaping plan, which was reviewed and recommended by the Design Review • Board, is approved by the Planning Board. 3 • 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. 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". h. All construction shall take place under the direction and supervision of a Licensed Site Professional in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. I. The applicant shall promptly notify the Board of Health of any environmental condition encountered during construction that may adversely impact the abutters to the site. 6. Design Review Board a. 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. b. Permission to make changes from the approved site plan and drawings must be requested by the Applicant in writing to the City Planner, who will reply in writing giving her approval or disapproval of the changes. No changes in the work are to be undertaken until such approval has been obtained. c. Details on exterior building lighting, street lighting, sidewalk treatment, rooftop/mechanical screening, signage, canopies, and clarifications on the landscaping plantings (including the proposed field grass by the Boston Street entrance and the caliper of the proposed evergreens) are to be submitted as part of the final construction drawings to the Design Review Board for review and recommendation to the City Planner for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. • 7. Conservation Commission 4 • 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. 8. Traffic Mitigation — Proposed plans and details of the mitigation measures below are to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer, City Electrician, City Planner, and the Traffic Division of the Salem Police Department. The developer will implement the following traffic mitigation measures prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: a. Boston Street at Bridge Street: ■ Signal timing adjustments to improve traffic flow; the Applicant's engineer is to consider timing to allow cars to go left onto Proctor Street. ■ Construct an exclusive right-tum lane on Boston Street for the northbound approach (providing three approach lanes to allow a through-left lane, through lane, and right-tum-only lane) ■ Pedestrian signals are to be installed at the intersection of Boston and Bridge Streets. Design and location are to be submitted by the applicant to the City Engineer, the Traffic Division of the Salem Police Department, City Electrician and City Planner for review and approval. b. Bridge Street at Flint Street ■ Signal timing adjustments to improve traffic flow • 9. Maintenance of Stormwater System Applicant is to submit an Operations and Management Plan for the stormwater system, including 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. 10. 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. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. d. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. e. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21 E report. f. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. g. 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. h. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. 5 • i. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. j. 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. k. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 1. 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. m. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. n. 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. o. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. p. Proposed food establishments must have their plans reviewed by the Health Agent prior to their build out. q. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 11. Fire Department • All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department, including the following conditions: a. The Applicant's engineer shall submit written confirmation that the turning radii on the site comply with all manufacturer's specifications of the Salem Fire Department's fire apparatus, prior to issuance of a building permit. b. Should dumpsters be required on the site (outside the building), the Applicant is to submit revised plans for approval by the City Planner. c. The Applicant is to submit a snow storage plan to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 13. Utilities Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 14. City Engineer a. The condition of the existing drainage sections to be connected to the site drainage will be confirmed by television inspection prior to construction, and the Applicant is to take appropriate measures based on these results, as approved by the City Engineer. 6 b. The roof drain shall discharge directly into the existing drainage system, with the final location to be agreed to by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. c. There will not be any infiltration of parking lot runoff on the site due to the site having contamination. 15. Exterior Elevations Elevations shall be in accordance with the approved plans. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. • 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. Puleo, Chairman 7 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD � N rr N cn Decision to Extend F Special Use Permit — North River Canal Corridor o Neighborhood Mixed Use District North River Canal, LLC 28 Goodhue Street May 25, 2010 North River Canal, LLC c/o Joseph C. Correnti, Esquire • Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: 28 Goodhue Street Extension of Special Use Permit On Thursday, April 6, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of North River Canal, LLC, 282 Bennington Street, Boston, MA for a Special Permit for Use in the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. A Decision dated April 13, 2006 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office, and such Decision is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 29342, Page 502 (the "Decision"). The Decision is valid for two years from the date of the Decision. The Decision was extended by the Board to October 13, 2008, then to April 13, 2009, and then to December 31, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the Board decided by a unanimous vote to approve the request of North River Canal, LLC, making the Decision valid through June 30, 2010. On May 20, 2010, the Board voted to approve a further request to extend the Decision through December 31, 2010. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALENT.COM • 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 funding to begin construction. I hereby certify that a copy of this Decision to Extend has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Decision to Extend shall not take effect until a copy of this Decision to Extend bearing the certification of the City Clerk is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is registered on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner of applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. Charles Puleo Chair • • 2 CITY OF SALEM ' PLANNING BOARD r, "{ N i O tV __ Ul Decision to Extend 77 Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard SpecialTerrit North River Canal, LLC 28 Goodhue Street May 25, 2010 North River Canal, LLC c/o Joseph C. Correnti, Esquire Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP • 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: 28 Goodhue Street Extension of Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit On Thursday, Febraury 15, 2007, the Planning Board of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of North River Canal, LLC, 282 Bennington Street, Boston, MA for Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit. A Decision dated February 20, 2007 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office, and such Decision is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 26646, Page 242 (the "Decision"). The Decision is valid for two years from the date of the Decision. The Decision was extended by the Board to October 13, 2008, then to April 13, 2009, and then to December 31, 20091 On November 19, 2009, the Board decided by a unanimous vote to approve the request of North River Canal, LLC, making the Decision valid through June 30, 2010. On May 20, 2010, the Board voted to approve a further request to extend the Decision through December 31, 2010. 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 funding to begin construction. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI.EM.COM I hereby certify that a copy of this Decision to Extend has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Decision to Extend shall not take effect until a copy of this Decision to Extend bearing the certification of the City Clerk is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is registered on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner of applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. A IAW.( Charles Puleo Chair • • � 2 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Notice of Decision At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,May 20, 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: High Rock Bridge Street,LLC Location: 401 Bridge Street (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Description: Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (to allow an individual retain use of over 3,000 square feet in size,to allow an eating and drinking place,and to allow fences over six (6) feet in height along the property line) Decision: Approved— Filed with the City Clerk May 25, 2010 This notice is hang seat in caTharx Frith the Massadnrsem Gerrral Laus, Chapter 40A, Sect=9 and does not inquire actor by the re<ipiert Appeals, if ark shall be nnde pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 dais from the date which dx dacision vas fila Wth the city Clerk. City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet IN, r�ci'r;v��za Board _Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail S 5 ; ivct 51 �1?k 9L\t� 7 aAlAv 914, gild l Ups �x irzeen, a46'a9w • Page of C� 3� CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD • 20.0 ,iU I I P 5: 0 2 Decision to Extend Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit North River Canal, LLC 28 Goodhue Street June 17, 2010 North River Canal, LLC c/o Joseph C. Correnti, Esquire Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street • Salem, MA 01970 Re: 28 Goodhue Street Extension of Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit On Thursday, February 15, 2007, the Planning Board of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of North River Canal, LLC, 282 Bennington Street, Boston, MA for Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit. A Decision dated February 20, 2007 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office, and such Decision is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 26646, Page 242 (the "Decision"). The Decision is valid for two years from the date of the Decision. The Decision was extended by the Board to October 13, 2008, then to April 13, 2009, and then to December 31, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the Board decided by a unanimous vote to approve the request of North River Canal, LLC, making the Decision valid through June 30, 2010. On May 20, 2010, the Board voted to approve a further request to extend the Decision through December 31, 2010. 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 funding to begin • construction. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSE'I"fS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM I hereby certify that a copy of this Decision to Extend has been filed with the City Clerk • and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Decision to Extend shall not take effect until a copy of this Decision to Extend bearing the certification of the City Clerk is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is registered on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner of applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. C -PL,/z24,k- Charles Puleo Chair • 2 Minutes 5/20/2010 • Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting May 20,2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Approval of Minutes The minutes of April 15, 2010 were reviewed. There being no comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of April 15, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). The minutes of the April 28, 2010 Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing were reviewed. • There being no comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of April 28, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Randy Clark, and Christine Sullivan abstaining). The minutes of May 6, 2010 were reviewed. There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the minutes of May 6, seconded by Mark George and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Discussion/request to re-phase subdivision: Paul DiBiase—Request to change phasing of Osborne Hills/Strongwater subdivision. Mr. Puleo asked if all board members are familiar with the location. Paul DiBase, representing the developer; said they are currently building the first phase off Marlborough Rd. Phase 2 will be 26 homes. I am here now to request approval to split phase 2 into 2 phases, 2a and 2b. This would allow us to continue with 13 more homes. There would be a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of 2a. There are 13 lots, but the temporary cul-de-sac would take up one of them, so there would be 12, not 13, homes. This does not in any way adjust infrastructure. Utilities would remain the same. Mr. Puleo asked how many lots are in 2b. Mr. Dibase said there are 13. Mr. Puleo asked if the existing cul-de-sac would remain. Mr. DiBase replied • affirmatively. He said we will have to return to get the lots released if the board sees fit. Mr. Puleo asked 1 about phase 1's paving. Mr. DiBase said it is at about 80%. I would like to propose that we put the final asphalt on phase 1 and 2 simultaneously for the sake of traffic. Ms. Sides asked to see where the existing• houses are. Mr. DiBase identified them on the plan. Ms. Hanscom asked if the existing homes are occupied. Mr. DiBase said they are occupied and the road is paved. Ms. Hanscom asked who plows it. Mr. DiBase said that until the city accepts the street, he is responsible for all maintenance except trash collection. Mr. George asked if this will have an impact on the bond. Mr. DiBase said the bond is for phase one. There is still a bonded list of outstanding items. We will work out a bond amount for the remaining work. Mr. George asked if this includes curbing. Mr. DiBase said it does not. It is important to build the houses to know where the curb cuts will be and not have to realign them. Mr. Puleo noted that a traffic light will be installed when the 20''house is built. Mr. Puleo asked what the timeline will be. Mr. DiBase said it is market driven and we have had a setback with the economy. One reason we are requesting this is financing. We hope to get this going as quickly as we can. Ms. Sullivan asked to confirm that the reason they are voting to change the timing is because the decision laid out that this has to be done in a certain time frame. Mr. Puleo said that is the case. Ms. Sullivan said the recession has a lot to do with this and this is a good development. Ms. McKnight said the department is supportive of the proposal. The installation of the temporary cul-de-sac changes the configuration so that if drainage becomes a concern, it should be addressed. That can go into the decision. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the request to re- phase the subdivision, seconded by Mark George and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and* Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. Brian Sullivan, owner of the property, said he presented to the board on April 15. He said the board was uncomfortable moving before Mr. Knowlton has submitted final comments. Since then we have met with neighbors and Councilor Ryan, and the board made a site visit. We also presented to the Board of Health last week. They have submitted comments. Yet we are still waiting for Mr. Knowlton's comments. I understand the board wanting to wait, but my understanding is that the presentation has been made, neighbors made comments, and I believe we have addressed their concerns. I believe that if Mr. Knowlton had made his comments and it were issue free, we would get approval. I can't help but wonder if there is a way to get this done. Mr. Puleo said we would still like to have the comments in front of us. Mr. Sullivan said that Mr. Knowlton revised the drainage plan himself. If I have to come to the next meeting, there is still a 20 day appeal process before I can start, which could hold me off until next spring. Mr. Moustakis said we could have a special meeting for this project. We have done that in the past and it only takes about 20 minutes. Ms. McKnight stated that Mr. Knowlton said he would prefer to finish his comments rather than recommend that the board approve the project with conditions. Mr. Clark asked if they can approve with the condition that there are no outstanding engineering issues and fall back if there are engineering comments. Ms. McKnight said we do approvals with conditions, but the conditions have to be specific. Ms. Hanscom sail* 2 that we should wait. Mr. George said we could move it along contingent upon successful review. Mr. Clark noted that Mr. Knowlton has already approved it in some form. Mr. Puleo said Mr. Knowlton may have done something in concept, but nothing final. Ms. McKnight remarked that Mr. Knowlton is usually very good about saying go ahead and approve with conditions, but he needs to be able to specify those conditions. Mr. Ready said that in view of Mr. Knowlton's concerns, I think we should give him as much time he needs to finish, and when he is done and conveys it to us, we should have a special meeting and approve it as soon as possible. We need to give him time, particularly since there are sensitive neighborhood issues with drainage. We should find a way to meet with a quorum when ready. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Robert Cormier, 25 Summit St., said he lives right next door to the project. We don't have objections to this project once drainage is straightened out. Our immediate neighbor, Mr. Olcott, really got an incredible amount of water in his yard in the last big storm—maybe a foot. He also had basement damage. We had water in our basement too. We have no objections,but we want to make sure drainage is done right. We are the ones most affected by this. We also request to have a buffer of trees between the new house and ours. It will be a win-win. It will buffer us from them and make the new house look more attractive to buyers. Mr. Ready asked how much water he had in the recent storm. Mr. Cormier said he had none, the sump pump worked. Mr. Ready asked if he had not already spoken with the developer and the City Councilor regarding the buffer. John Sullivan, co-owner of the property, said they addressed these issues during the meeting with the neighborhood. I think our project will solve their water problems. Mr. Puleo noted that there have been some minor changes. Mr. (Brian) Sullivan said they have been working to shrink the garages and put them on the side. Mr. Puleo said we want to be sure we get some • landscaping detail. Mr. George noted that the quicker this goes, the quicker the neighbors will get some relief. I would like to see what we can do to approve. Mr. (John) Sullivan said if this goes into September and we can't start, there will be serious rain problems for the neighbors. Jerry Ryan, Ward 4 Councilor, 4 Nichols St., said the development team has been receptive to the neighbors' concerns. The two big issues are drainage and screening, and I do think the engineer needs to sign off on this. I'd love to say go ahead and approve, but water is the big issue. Ms. Sullivan said she agrees that we should not sign off on an incomplete plan. I agree that we can't do it tonight given the seriousness of the drainage issues. I want Mr. Knowlton to know that this is urgent and we are willing to have a special meeting. Dorothea Cormier, 25 Summit St., said she would like to see a shrub and tree plan, since topography has been raised so much. You will be able to see right into our bedroom. I want to know what kind of trees will go in. Mr. Puleo said this can be a condition. Mr. Cormier asked if the concern's of the city's arborist had been addressed. He would be concerned with the type of trees. Mr. Ready said these are issues we have discussed before and.it is in everyone's interest to resolve this on your own so we don't spend a lot of time on it here. Mr. Puleo asked about required public notice for a special meeting. Ms. McKnight remarked that it needs to be posted several days in advance, so I would need to know soon whether we are having the meeting. Otherwise it would run into the next meeting. Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight to find out from Mr. Knowlton whether we can have that meeting. • 3 Ms. Sullivan asked if we usually have a landscaping plan. Mr. McKnight said not usually for a subdivision. Ms. Sullivan said she wanted to add that Mr. Knowlton is quite good and I am sure he has a lot going on. he could just understand, we at least need assurance that we can do it by the next meeting. 60 There bein�no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing at the June 3` meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St, Attorney for the applicant, said they concluded their presentation 2 hearings ago with the entire team present. We covered outstanding issues. You have received the DRB's recommendation. Final plans have been submitted to the board. Last night the ZBA unanimously granted variances for height, buffer zone, and parking. We hope to review final issues tonight and look at a decision. Mr. Puleo said the pedestrian crossings are the only issue he can think of. We don't know where they would be located, and this can be addressed as a condition. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Joan Zabkar, 6 Phelps St., asked if there was discussion of what happened at the Board of Health. Ms. McKnight said the Board was given a letter from the BOH specifying their conditions, which we entered into the draft Planning Board decision. Ms. Zabkar said an LSP came before you with information. You will not have the information from the DEP until June 9. The LSP was not at the first Board of Health meeting. When you have a Ph.D. nurse on the Board of Health, why does she turn to me and ask if there are going to be children on the site? We finally got the email that was sent to the Board of Health. It was read by Councilor Sosnowski. If you don't have a copy, I would like to provide you with it. I gave this information to them. Mr. Clark asked if the Board of Health conditions are in the draft decision. Ms. McKnight said they are. Ms. Zabkar said Ms. Donohue at the DEP said it was not included. Why can't we say what the reality is? Ms. Sides said this is hearsay. Ms. Zabkar said you are refusing documentation from me. I provided letters on two occasions. Mr. Puleo asked if in the case that the Board of Health held another meeting and changed its view, would that be incorporated? Ms. McKnight said not once a Planning Board decision had been issued, but the Board of Health has its own means of enforcement. We copy their conditions into our decision, but the Planning Board does not have authority over the Board of Health. Mr. Puleo said Ms. Zabkar's issues need to be taken up at the Board of Health. Ms. Hanscom said the Planning Board is here to approve the building. If the City Council says they want to put the Senior Center there, that is one thing. We are not approving a Senior Center. Ms. Zabkar said you are approving a building with an AUL prohibiting children. Ms. Hanscom said we have checked all these things and legally the government says we can do this. Ms. Zabkar said the board is participating in a fraudulent application. I am concerned about children. • 4 Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said he appreciates what the board and the staff has done. Lynn Duncan has taken all my calls. There has to be an environmental assessment because the loan program demands it. The assessment has 26 elements. This must be done before the loan is approved. Another issue is signs and the DRB. He read the site review requirements for signs. He said he believes the requirement is for the DRB to review the signs for the project. The DRB has not made a finding on signs and has asked that a planner make a determination when needed. Ms. McKnight said the DRB did communicate draft language regarding that issue recommending that it be subject to the department's final approval. Ms. Sides said her memory is that the DRB would be involved in sign review. Other members agreed that the design elements should go back to the DRB, and not just be subject to review by the city planner. Mr. Moustakis asked if Mr. Treadwell could eliminate issues that don't have to do with the planning board. Mr. Treadwell said this is part of site review, which is the board's responsibility. The DRB has left it with some conditions. Ms. McKnight said it was the DRB's recommendation that not every issue go back for their review but be reviewed by the City Planner. Mr. Treadwell said he thinks that should be challenged. The zoning ordinance said that if site plan review is required, all signs must be reviewed by the DRB, which makes recommendations to the planning board. Ms. Sides said she felt signage was something we felt we would see at the DRB. The reference to "as needed" was so we wouldn't review every minor detail. Mr. Treadwell said the ZBA was confused about zoning regarding an entrance corridor. Did the site plan go to the Conservation Commission? Ms. McKnight said a copy was given to the Conservation Agent, not the Conservation Commission. The agent passed on comments to the Planning Board on behalf of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Treadwell asked if there was need to revise the notice of intent. Ms. McKnight said that is unknown what filing the Conservation Commission will require. Mr. Treadwell said this is on filled tidelands, and anything within 250 ft. of the high water mark requires a Chapter 91 license. • Issues related to tidelands may require the site plan to be modified to reflect public interest related to filled tidelands. If this is true, then state action is required. The threshold for MEPA review is met with 370 parking spaces-more than the number of spaces at the Salem Commuter Rail station. There will most likely be an environmental review under state and federal law. The issue of hazardous and toxic materials would come up. Also, you were supposed to have considered floodplain issues. I trust that that has been done. The final decision has to be in accordance with the North River Corridor Plan. The zoning ordinance says parking of more than 12 cars must be screened. Also, with the buffer variance they concentrated on Federal St. There is no buffer with the St. James property. Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St, said in 1888 this land was underwater and filled. It is all on old maps. Once filled, the leather industry came. There was a street named Robinson Rd. there that isn't shown on maps. It was removed when Sylvania came. The Salem Fire hit the area. I think we should have an environmental impact study. Mr. Ready said, to go back to Ms. Zabkar's comment, that this board serves with pride and integrity. This board does not indulge in fraudulent behavior. To say otherwise is a serious accusation and slanderous. Should you have evidence of this charge, bring it forward. Otherwise it is an insult to us and the City of Salem. Ms. Zabkar asked if she can submit that information. Mr. Puleo said she may provide copies. Mr. Clark asked about the St. James buffer. Mr. Treadwell said zoning requires a 50 foot buffer. Mr. Puleo noted that there is screening there already. Mr. Treadwell said there has been no communication with St. James. Mr. Clark asked what the buffer is and if there has been discussion with the owner. Mr. Correnti • said the ZBA waived the buffer. Mr. Treadwell said he understands the ZBA approved the plan as 5 presented, but my concern now is with the Planning Board. You must make determination that this project conforms to the general plan and the neighborhood plan calls for a buffer. Since other property owners were able to consult with the developer, why wasn't the St. James owner? Ms. Sides said no one has come forward at our public meetings. Mr. Treadwell asked if people from St. James have contacted the Planning Board. Ms. McKnight said they have not, although they were notified as abutters. A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). The board reviewed the draft decision letter. Ms. Sullivan said in the original site plan approval there was a specific recommendation about fencing on Federal St. I should disclose that I live on Federal St. There was a condition for the type of fence. Mr. Correnti said one of the waivers we asked for from the board was for a 6 foot fence. Discussion with neighbors centered around 6 foot versus 8 foot fencing. The DRB made suggestions to neighbors. We are prepared to do 8 foot if that is what people want. We would like to have a uniform installation, but we do have the ability, if granted the waiver, to go up to 8 feet. We will work with the neighbors. Ms. McKnight read aloud from the draft decision letter. Ms. Sullivan noted that the letter affirms, regarding Mr. Treadwell's concern, that the plan meets the NRCC plan. Ms. McKnight read from the DRB recommendation and said that the Planning Board can require a more thorough review from the DRB if they wanted to, based on their earlier comments. Mr. Clark asked why we would require that if the DRB didn't require it. Ms. Sides said this is in a corridor and should have some review. Mr. Kavanaugh suggested some specific language. Ms. Sides said she thinks the DRB's vagueness was somewhat intentional. Ms. 40Sullivan said it is important to review signage. Ms. McKnight read the proposed language. Mr. Puleo remarked that we should defer to the engineer for location of pedestrian signals in the crosswalks. Mr. Clark asked if they have to go to the state with this. Peter Blaisdell, Engineer for the applicant, said it is only in the jurisdiction of the city. Mr. Clark said that all timing adjustments are approved by the city as well. Mr. Clark asked if special construction traffic needs to be addressed. Mr. Correnti said there will be a health and safety plan by the LSP and issues like dirt and trucks will be addressed. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Randy Clark to approve the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit and the Site Plan and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, seconded by Mark George and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed, John Moustakis abstaining). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460,462,and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue until June 3, 2010. • 6 A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the June 3rd meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business Request of North River Canal LLC to extend Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit granted to property at 28 Goodhue Street for an additional six (6) months. Mr. Correnti, attorney for the applicant, said the project is on a vacant site behind the storage building where there are remnants of a building demolished in 2005. A 44 unit multiuse building was permitted under new NRCC rules. Four units would be affordable. There would be 6000 sq. ft. of commercial space on the first floor. It meets parking requirements. We had many hearings and it was delayed waiting for the passage of the NRCC, but we got it approved and had lots of support. Then the recession jeopardized our funding. It would be an extreme hardship if we were to lose all our permits. They run to June 30 and we are requesting an extension until December 31. The ZBA unanimously extended the variances. Mr. Clark asked if the board voted unanimously to approve this. Mr. Ready answered affirmatively. Ms. Sullivan asked why not ask for a longer extension. Members discussed the project's location. Mr. George stated that he wasn't a part of the board 4 years ago. I don't feel that I am in any position to extend this because I don't have information. I think the view today on traffic is much different than it was 4 years ago. We need to be careful with cumulative impact. Mr. Correnti said nothing is going on there due to horrendous zoning. This this area will look burned out and demolished unless projects like this get in the ground. One of the conditions on this developer is $10,000 to study the intersection of Gove, Mason, and Goodhue. That has been identified as a dangerous spot. Mr. George said his concern is that a whole lot is going on in a half mile radius. I don't want to delay or turn people down, but we need to take a look at this whole section. Mr. Clark said he wasn't there for the previous approval, but he believes he has no right to go against the board's past vote. With a good economy, this would have already have been built. This was delayed due to the recession, and that is why they are facing a different traffic situation now. I think the department should conduct a traffic study and not put the onus on individual developers. Ms. Hanscom said we do need to pay attention to traffic. I am glad the courthouse will be done because it will allow us to see the traffic issues. Mr. Moustakis said zoning restrictions are a problem for the NRCC. All you are allowed to put there are multi-houses. Mr. Ready said he thinks it may be acceptable for those not there for the original approval to abstain from voting. I think we have a quorum of people who were there for that deliberation. This was an excellent project, and we considered traffic and approved it. It was delayed under economic circumstances. It is remarkable that they have hung in. Ms. McKnight if anyone wants to abstain that's fine, but no one is required to abstain because they weren't here when the project was first approved. Ms. Sullivan said we've had the worst recession since the depression. This is recession relief and we should do it. I would like to see a discussion about the area's traffic issues too. There is no way to avoid that, so it would be a healthy conversation to have. Mr. Puleo said Lynn Duncan has offered to do that. And there is still mitigation money from the Stop and Shop project to study and improve the area. The department needs to decide in which direction to go in spending it. Mr. Correnti said there was the same concern on Highland 7 Ave. 15 to 20 years ago. A result of a corridor study was a corridor fund, since no developer can change the roadway. � There being no further continents, a motion was made by Tim Ready to extend Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed, Helen Sides and Randy Clark abstaining). Adjournment There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to adjourn, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved with edits by the Planning Board 6/3/10 • 8 CITY OF SALEM 4 aty —.. NNfNG BOARD 2@10 h1FsY —S P 12. Ol NOTICE OF MEETING CITY You are he*,notified that the Salem Planning Bozrd O hdd its nagularly sdxdu1ed n2xting on Thursday,May 6, 2010 at 7:00 pm at C4HallAmec,Rcon313, 120 Wash on St t c6rfa M. Puleq gChairrrttn i REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Endorsement of plans and execution of covenant: SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC(land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE). AttomeyJohn R Kielty. 2. Request for approval of surety:PAUL DIBIASE, OSBORNE HILLS/STRONGWATER SUBDIVISION. Request to execute new tri-party agreement due to change in bank. Paul DiBiase. 3. Discussion and Vote:Recommendation to City Council on proposed Zoning Amendment to create a Waterfront Overlay District(Shetland Park). . 4. Form A Plan believed not to require approval and Public Hearing - Waiver from Frontage:MAUREEN GOODRICH,58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET. 5. Continuation of Public hearing:Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15,Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. Applicant has requested to continue to May 20, 2010. 6. Continuation of Public Hearing:Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the propertylocated at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 7. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit,and Wetlands and Flood Hazard OverlayDistrict Special Permit,for the propertylocated at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attome ose P ) Y,Th Correnti.P 8. Approval of Minutes i 4/15/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 9. Old/New Business Tillsi?l9$tC �k{I� Qsj ri Mass.*Official v11&31tfI ,,Xle Gut, Hall ��1 tit 10. Adjournment WA t`.. ,•,d c.._. �; 1 �... �..:-`r? 7 �. .a 1970 S \ CITY ��I SAL1M PL/'NNING BOARD y, n air 2010 APR 2q P 3: SS NOTICE OF MEETING 1'ou aie lxreby nat W Haat dx Salem Planning Band evil hold iu regilarlysdxrGiled iiamng on Thursday,May 6, 2010 at 7:00 pin at City Hall A nrxe,Ravn 313, 120 Washy on Snort Gxirles M. P11kq Chaimnn REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Endorsement of plans and execution of covenant: SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC(land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE). AttomeyJohn R Kielty. 2. Request for approval of surety: PAUL DIBIASE,OSBORNE HILLS/STRONGWATE R SUBDIVISION. Request to execute new tri-party agreement due to change in bank Paul DiBiase. 3. Discussion and Vote:Recommendation to City Council on proposed Zoning Amendment to create a Waterfront Overlay District (Shetland Park). 4. Waiver from Frontage and Form A Plan believed not to require approval: MAUREEN GOODRICH, 58 • and 60 PROCTOR STREET. 5. Continuation of Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15,Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. 6. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). AttomeyJoseph Correnti. 7. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit,and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. 8. Approval of Minutes t 4/15/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 9. Old/New Business 1, f ,Her 10. AdjournmentCisa/ rot , 5 fj11 s. ti., Il?. °dY i"2 0!! /a 1 x.3 5 \ CITY OF SALEM ftP, P AkNNING BOARD 701 Ann �� o NOTICE OF MEETING GI tY ( f r < Yat are hereby notified that the SalemPlarnring Board ud hard its regularly soa"alal nEeting on Thursday,May 6, 2010 at h00 pm at CityHad Anrxe,Roan313, 120 Wash Strtet QUrla M. Puleq Chairman MEETING AGENDA 1. Endorsement of plans and execution of covenant: SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC(land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE). Attorney John R Kielty. 2. Request for approval of surety:PAUL DIBIASE, OSBORNE HILLS/STRONGWATER SUBDIVISION. Request to execute new tri-party agreement due to change in bank. Paul DiBiase. 3. Waiver from Frontage and Form A Plan believed not to require approval: MAUREEN GOODRICH, 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET. 4. Continuation of Public hearing:Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and • Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15,Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit,and for Site Plan Review and Special Pemnits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the propertylocated at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 6. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. 7. Approval of Minutes 4/15/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 8. Old/New Business 'C _ f,; ?tr gg w iaGd�$wd Tilt 3i'1"q3'S �,�ie G'fr This lis ;•Oilct ;eci.. 4�-:t til"a� l.i ,✓/"riD�i1. 9. Adjournment t.., ♦• a.fy -oad`� 41 fi'3c1 ..pin-.°Y -� y�N '�c`RsuF;k • �,,, f: 1. . A .'Sl „ I''.X . .x. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS p DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND '�Girniu�lw�?, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KimRi,RL.LY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP UIREQ'OR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: April 29, 2010 RE: Agenda—May 6, 2010 Please find the following in your packet: • D Planner's Memo D Agenda D Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from April 15, 2010 Notes on Agenda Items: Final endorsement of subdivision plans: SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC (land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE). Attorney John R. Keilty. Attorney Keilty will be coming in with the required covenant and for final endorsement of the plans. There were no outstanding conditions to be met prior to endorsement, other than that the plan should reference the decision document. Request for approval of surety: PAUL DIBIASE, OSBORNE HILLS/STRONGWATER SUBDIVISION. Request to execute new tri-party agreement due to change in bank. Paul DiBiase. Mr. DiBiase is refinancing the property and so is asking the Board to endorse a new tri-party agreement. The previous bank financing the project was TD Bank; the new one will be Beverly Cooperative. There are no changes between the old and new tri-party agreement, other than that the new agreement will be for an amount reduced by the amount the Board voted to release last year,based on work that had been completed. • Discussion and Vote: Recommendation to City Council on proposed Zoning Amendment to create a Waterfront Overlay District (Shetland Park). Attorney William Quinn. 1 City Council voted at the joint hearing on 4/28/10 to refer the matter to the Planning Board. I will • send a link to the audio by email (it's about an hour) to those of you who were not at the joint hearing but would like to participate in the vote to recommend/not recommend passage to Council. One issue that was brought up at the meeting was the need to better define Research&Laboratory uses to avoid allowing by right any facilities that might be hazardous (those that use biological agents, for example). Attorney Quinn has agreed to provide new language for the Board to discuss and consider. Waiver from Frontage and Form A Plan believed not to require approval: MAUREEN GOODRICH, 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET. 58 and 60 Proctor St. are owned by the applicant,Maureen Goodrich, and her brother,Brian Cohn, respectively. Years ago, their father had installed a parking area that straddled the property line between the two, so that today,part of the parking area used by Ms. Goodrich of 58 Proctor St. is actually located on the property of Mr. Cohn of 60 Proctor St. The applicant wishes to move the lot line 12 to 13 feet south so that her lot (#58) gains 1109 square feet from #60 and would include her parking area. Both Ms. Goodrich and Mr. Cohn (who will be losing 1109 square feet) have signed the application. The requested frontage relief is for #60 (the lot would have 57.5 feet of frontage instead of the 69 feet it currently has; 100 feet is required). The Zoning Board of Appeals granted dimensional relief at its March 17, 2010 meeting for frontage/lot width,lot area and side yard setback. Continuation of Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive • Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. Lt. Griffin from Fire Prevention responded she is satisfied with the proximity of the nearest fire hydrant to the project, and she has no further concerns. The City Engineer is reviewing the plans, and while I won't have his comments in time to put them in your packets, he has said he will provide them before the meeting. I have asked him to specifically address the concerns that came up at the last meeting about flooding. The Board of Health expects to discuss the project at their May 11 meeting(which is still within the 45-day time frame Health has to respond), so I expect their comments for our May 20 meeting. Our site visit is scheduled for May 5 at 7 PM. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Final plans are included in your packet and have been re-routed to the departments for comments. As Attorney Correnti mentioned at the April 15 meeting, the Design Review Board voted to recommend approval of the project on April 13, 2010. Since then, they have submitted their recommendation letter. I am including a copy in your packets. The letter includes the suggestion • that the Planning Board have a condition in their approval to have the City Planner review and 2 A approve certain final design elements in final construction drawings, and consult with the DRB as needed. I also received comments from the Board of Health,which voted to approve the site plan at its April 13 meeting with the following conditions: 1. 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 copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. 4. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. 5. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. 6. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. • 7. 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. 8. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. 9. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. 10. 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. 11. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 12. 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. 13. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. 14. 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. 3 �t v d } 15. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. ; 16. Proposed food establishments must have their plans reviewed by the Health Agent prior to their build out. 17. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. We will be continuing with the traffic discussion at this meeting. The peer reviewers from Beta will be attending and will give an overview of their findings. I am including in your packets a copy of the Certificate issued by the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (Beta also has a copy of this). The sections the Board should pay most attention to are Traffic and Transportation (pages 6 and 11),Wetlands/Drainage (p. 10), and Construction Period Impacts (p. 13). Since our last meeting, I have received more letters from the public—copies are enclosed. We are in the process of finalizing New England Civil Engineering's contract to do the civil • engineering peer review. 4 PLAtiNINCJ BOARD �.. Form A — Decision 58 & 60 Proctor Street cflY c! on May 6, 2010, the Salem Planning Board voted 9-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, John MOUstakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Mark George in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: 1. Applicant: Maureen F. Goodrich & Sharon N. Cohn & Brian Cohn 2. Location: 58 & 60 Proctor Street, Salem, MA (Map 15, Lots 382 and 383) 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to move the property line between 58 and 60 Proctor Street south as shown on the plan, so that 58 Proctor Street will gain 1109 square feet for a total area of 4101 square feet, and 60 Proctor Street will lose 1109 square feet for a total area of 4918 square feet. • Both lots have frontage on Proctor Street. A Waiver from Frontage was also granted by the Planning Board on May 6, 2010 to allow 57 feet of frontage on 60 Proctor Street instead of the required 100. Sincerely, l-Y�-. fit. Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk __ I PLANSIL 1(J BOARD Decision Waiver from Frontage CITY CI.Ei.` i�,�L.- 1, hi;.SS A Public Hearing on this petition was held on, and closed on May 6, 2010 with the following Board Members present: Chair Charles Puleo, John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Mark George, Helen Sides, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready. . Maureen Goodrich (58 Proctor Street) and Sharon N. Cohn and Bnan Cohn (60 Proctor Street), request a waiver from frontage requirements from the Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow the property line between 58 and 60 Proctor Street to be moved, resulting in 57 feet of frontage for 60 Proctor Street instead of the required 100 feet. The Waiver from Frontage is granted for the property located at 60 Proctor Street, as shown on the plans titled, "Plan of Land, 58 & 60 Proctor Street, Salem, Property of Maureen F. Goodrich & Sharon N. Cohn & Bnan Cohn," prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, dated January 20, 2010. The Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor (Puleo, Moustakis Sides, Sullivan, Clarke, • George, Ready, Kavanaugh, and Hanscom), and none opposed to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 60 Proctor Street. The adorswerrt shall not take effect acorn a copy cf dy clamors baring wrtifuation of the City Clerk that menty (20) clerk lxree elapsed and w appeal has been filed, or that if su&appeal has Ixtoa filed"t it has been disrnnssel or denier; is recordel in the Esser South Registry cf De-&& and is indeeel in the grantor index aider the rwrre of tb (rum (f)ttord and notal on the owner's certificate of title. The outer or applicant shall pay the jee for raording or regstenng 1 hereby certify that a copy 9f this derision is m file ukh the City Glerk and d)at a copy of the Derision and plans is m file ceith the Planning Board Charles M. Puleo, Chair Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting • May 6. 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 6, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair,Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Request for approval of surety: PAUL DIBIASE, OSBORNE HILLS/STRONGWATER SUBDIVISION. Request to execute new tri-party agreement due to change in bank. Paul DiBiase. Mr. DiBiase said that his project is being refinanced and they are entering into a new triparty agreement with a new lender. The bond has also been reduced. Mr. Pulco asked if the department is in agreement. Ms. McKnight said it is. Mr. DiBiase submitted the executed triparty agreement documents to the board. Ms. Sullivan recused herself from the matter as a member of the Beverly Cooperative Bank Board of Directors. • There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the triparty agreement, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed, Christine Sullivan abstaining). Mr. Puleo stated that a motion is needed to released the original bond. A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom approve the release of the original bond, seconded by Mark George and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed, Christine Sullivan abstaining). Endorsement of plans and execution of covenant: SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC (land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE). Attorney John R. Kielty. Mr. Kielty said the covenant has been reviewed by Ms. McKnight and the City Solicitor. This will also be reviewed at an upcoming City Council Meeting. Mr. Puleo noted that text in the document refers to the possibility of the city accepting the street. Would' that void the covenant? Mr. Kielty said the city would have access to the bond and be able to step in and finish the work if necessary. There would be no mortgage on it and it could be foreclosed. • 1 There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Mark George to execute the covenant, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis,Nadine Hanscom, Mark • George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Form A Plan believed not to require approval and Public Hearing - Waiver from Frontage: MAUREEN GOODRICH, 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET. Ms. Goodrich said this was her father's property and he recently passed away. He had wanted the retaining wall to be the border between the properties. She showed on the plan where the lot line is moving. Mr. Puleo noted that the applicant received a frontage waiver from the ZBA. He asked if there are comments from the public. There were none. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by John Moustakis to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mark George and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). A motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the Form A as presented, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim'Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the frontage waiver, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen • Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. Applicant has requested to continue to May 20, 2010. A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the May 20 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., Attorney for the applicant, said there will be no presentation tonight, as they look toward a draft decision. Final plans were submitted, but not until late last week. The engineering review is ongoing. We are planning to go to the ZBA on May 19. We would like to continue on May 20, at which point we will have had an engineering review. Hopefully at that meeting • we will be able to report ZBA approval. 2 Mr. Moustakis asked when the project will start. Mr. Correnti said they are planning to start in the fall. • Mr. Moustakis said it could be a good time to correct the comer across the street. If this is a planning board, this is something we should plan for. Mr. Puleo said that the easement only runs the length of the Public Storage property and he is unsure if they can require this developer to do this. Mr. Moustakis said he does not want to require anyone to do this, and does not want it to be done at the developer's expense. Mr. George asked what the extent of the easement is. Ms. Duncan said we could talk about this for 30 minutes, but we don't have the plans here and it may be best to schedule this discussion for another meeting. There are problems with this, with the easement going right up to the building. We can bring information to the board, but we don't have that with us tonight. Ms. Sullivan said there should be a conversation about this, but right now we should motion to continue this public hearing. A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the May 20 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water • tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Mr. Correnti, Attorney for the applicant, said tonight they are there to listen to the peer review traffic consultant and will respond at a later date. Mr. Puleo said to the audience that the consultant has reviewed the traffic proposal and he will give his take and make recommendations. The applicant will probably not respond immediately. We hope to do this in 30 to 40 minutes, leaving time for audience comments. We would like to start with anyone who hasn't spoken before. Ms. Duncan distributed copies of the BETA Group's findings to the board and the audience. Ken Petraglia of the BETA Group, peer reviewer for the Planning Board, said that some comments have no impact on the study and they will identify those. And some comments the traffic engineer has already responded to. John Mirabito of the Beta Group read in detail through the comments. Mr. Clark noted that there are differences between the letter being read and the letter the board has. Mr. Petraglia summarized the comments. He said they recommend expanding the study area to include 4 additional intersections. This recommendation is based on the significant amount of traffic sent through these intersections from the development. We suggest providing ATR daily counts and this has been addressed. Sight distance should be evaluated at the Lions Dr. intersection. Clarify the north site driveway sight distance. Revise trip generation prediction for a.m. peak hours. Provide a basis for traffic generation between driveways and trip distribution. Explain why just one part of the analysis uses a simulation model. Identify the problem corrected by the Meineke improvements. Prohibit u-turns from Highland Ave. northbound. This has been addressed. We recommend prohibiting a u-turn on Highland Ave. southbound and this 3 has been addressed too. The applicant has provided information showing that the u-tum will work. Close the Meineke intersection or provide a stop sign. Provide a stop sign at Meineke Dr. going onto • the main site drive. Prohibit left turns from Camp Lions Dr. The applicant has complied with that one. Add stop signs at the north site driveway cross connection intersection. Mr. George asked what are the AM peak hours. Mr. Mirabito said it is usually between 7 and 9 a.m. Mr. George said school buses often back up the traffic. Mr. Mirabito said that is what we want daily ATR counts. Mr. Puleo asked which days are counted. Mr. Mirabito said it is Saturday and a midweek day. Mr. Puleo said it would be important to count a school day. Mr. Mirabito said the counts have already been done,just not provided initially. Mr. Moustakis asked if it would be possible to find out what traffic is from the Lynn line to Marlborough Road with and without this development. Mr. Petraglia said the increase is in the order of 7%. Mr. Mirabito said the data was presented to the board previously. Ms. Sullivan said she would like counts for both directions. Mr. Puleo asked what effect a turning trailer truck would have on traffic. Can you look at whether a deceleration lane that takes them out of traffic would help? Mr. George asked where the current deceleration lane starts. Mr. Puleo said it starts after the proposed roadway and there isn't much room. Ms. Hanscom asked what happens to people who need to turn left coming out of the camp when a left tum is prohibited? Do they turn in someone's driveway? This is a chance to deal with this. Mr. Puleo said most people wouldn't even take the chance to turn left. Mr. Clark said that maybe some mitigation could happen with the overall site layout. Ms. Hanscom said she wouldn't want to use the camp if everyday traffic is impossible. Mr. Puleo said it may be possible to connect the driveways. Mr. • Petraglia said it is a good point and they will work with the developer to look at shared driveway access. Ms. Sullivan remarked that they are drowning in details without looking at common sense and how this would work in reality. I think Ms. Hanscom's point is perfectly valid. What other similar points need to be made? I find this hard to translate into human issues. Mr. Puleo said that in the EIR report, there is no provision for a bus stop. The goal is to reduce emissions and trips to the site. I think there is a bus stop in that stretch. It could be difficult for a bus driver to pull over there to stop. We convinced the Pep Boys' developer to create a bus stop lane. Perhaps this developer could do something similar. Ms. Sides suggested that they do that on both sides. Mr. Clark said that maybe they could find bus counts. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said the board's packets did not include the February 19 MEPA document. It is inexcusable to not include that data. You heard at the last meeting that there would be an increase of 2400. But the MEPA letter showed it would be much more. It would have behooved you and your staff supporting you to provide this. Someone should be on top of this and the EMF data. This tells you a.m. peak time is 7 to 9. They also have midday and Saturday for a 2 hour period. The data is here. The EPA Secretary's letter is a good one. Mr. George asked if these numbers are 100%higher. Mr. Treadwell said that the letter indicates 5960 new average daily trips. I believe the applicant's figure is 2400 or 4200. Our Secretary of Environmental Affairs is using statistics that are in the report but the board was not made privy of. I would hope that when the applicant responds to the memo, it will be available to the public and the board, as well as the MEPA document. And I don't disagree with the • reviewer's proposals, but the secretary is saying he wants a number of things addressed. 4 Ms. Sullivan asked on what number the analysis is based. Is the analysis based on what the developer has given you or your own number? Mr. Mirabito said the numbers are the same. We check the • applicant's analysis, which is based on the ITE manual. Ms. Duncan asked for clarification on the inconsistency of the numbers. Mr. Mirabito said the numbers were the same except for Saturday. Ms. Duncan said the presentation was in error. Roger Ennis, 227 Verona St., Lynn, asked what the current parking number is compared to the total with the development. That would help me understand the increase in size. The traffic study seemed to pitch the project like it makes sense. And being a Lynn resident, it seems to me that the traffic will be directed into Lynn, with illegal u-turns and turning around in driveways. This is not attractive for Lynn residents and businesses. The study looks like a nice sunny day, but in winter conditions snow will narrow the roads. A lot of discussion has addressed Meineke, but I don't see it on the map. Mr. Mirabito identified it on the map. Mr. Puleo said he is looking for the parking numbers. Tony Salvo, Sumner Rd., said most of Salem is already experiencing gridlock. This development could be good or bad. It could be worse than no development at all when you consider all the factors. I don't find much fault with Wal-Mart. We already have a Home Depot, which Lowe's will compete with, lowering prices. So people will come from all over, and some will bypass Highland Ave. They will take many other routes. The focus here is too narrow. And there could be residential development, but you haven't mentioned that. It would require new schools,police, and a new fire station. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., said she would like to second Ms. Hanscom's concern about the lack of a left turn from the camp. Is there a fire lane? Mr. Puleo answered no. Ms. Goggin asked if • emergency vehicles can take the left turn. Mr. Mirabito said they can. Ms. Goggin said this is a bad point and people will make the turn anyway. David Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asked if the state has already approved curb cuts. Mr. Mirabito said they don't know. Mr. Clark reminded Mr. Goggin that the presenters tonight do not work for the developer— they are the city's peer reviewers. Mr. Goggin said we need width for a fire apparatus to get in. Mr. Ready noted that the Fire Department will review this. Steve Cronin, 21 Manning Rd., Lynn, said many roads have been overlooked. Eastern Ave. has not been mentioned. Mr. Puleo said that they are proposing to extend the study area into Lynn. John Sawyer, 5 Barnes Circle., asked if there is going to be a back door plan. Mr. Puleo said that the presenters tonight do not represent the applicant. We can address this when the applicant returns. Dan McIntire, 51 Fellsmere St., Lynn, said that traffic on the Lynn-Salem line will be more congested and pollution will increase. I recommend that the City of Salem do a study with Mass Highway. Mr. Puleo stated that the project proposes a total of 991 parking spaces. Austin Turner, Civil Engineer for the applicant, said the existing Wal-Mart has 317 spaces and Meineke has 3. The expanded Wal- Mart will have 611, Lowe's will have 378, the camp will have 50, and Meineke will have 6, for a total of 991. • 5 Ellen Patterson, 37 Spring View Dr., Lynn, said there is a bus stop with many people getting off and crossing the road. That will have to be considered. How many lanes is it? Mr. Mirabito said 6. Ms. • Paterson said she goes up and down here sometimes 5 times per day. I am often stuck in traffic. This is too much traffic. People will turn around on side streets and in driveways. Mr. Puleo said that he thinks if everyone is directed through the main site driveway, no one will have to make an illegal u-turn. I live off Highland Ave., and I sometimes have to avoid left turns. Mary Milton, Wyman St., said she stands to lose the most. There is no access to our street now. We have to go into Lynn and turn around to get into our street. We haven't had access going as far back as 1962. Now with the project, where will emergency vehicles go? Fire trucks will have to go through Buchanan Circle. Mr. Clark asked what the project will do in terms of access to her property. Ms. Milton replied that it will increase traffic. Mr. Clark said that in that case it is a matter of response time, not access. Ms. Milton said she is concerned about the guard rail. Mr. Puleo said that if the road does not exist, there would be no need for the guard rail. Ms. Milton said they are still in a volatile situation. Mr. Clark said she should work with her councilor on the access issue. Ms. Milton said they also lack water and sewer. Mr. Clark said that is not related to the project, but the traffic is. Dennis Colbert, 37 Clark St., said he would like to make sure that the traffic study considers the backup from Dunkin Donuts on Clark St. There is new housing proposed. The dangerous turn from Highland to Clark St. should be considered. Leslie Courtemanche, 97 Fellsmere St., said it is difficult to visualize all this. This plan will worsen traffic with more cars. The traffic is already horrendous. I have a lot of experience sitting in traffic from Fays Ave. to Eastern Ave. I am not sure how more lights will help. Flooding is a problem. With • less area to absorb water with the additional parking, water will be an issue. Mr. Puleo said the developers have not presented yet on engineering and drainage. Ms. Courtemanche said she is concerned with more traffic coming into Lynn when a left turn is prohibited. And I am worried about the magnitude of the Wal-Mart expansion. Why not add a second floor? Why must they take a pristine area to create parking? Dave Cass, 77 Summer St, said Salem should look to Lancaster, PA, which has been fighting Wal-Mart forever. How much traffic is enough? How much money do you need? It is all greed. They already have Wal-Mart and a Home Depot. You guys are railroading people in Lynn and Wal-Mart knows it. You should be like Lancaster, PA. Mr. Cass walked in the area between the board and the audience and displayed a handful of cash. Mr. Puleo warned him that he will suspend the meeting and have him removed. Dan Cahill, Lynn City Councilor, 20 Belleaire Ave., Lynn, thanked the board for asking questions. He asked the peer reviewers what the impact would be without their review. Mr. Petraglia said he doesn't know how to answer. Without us, someone else would come in. There are checks and balances for a development of this size. I do think they presented a credible traffic report. Mr. Ready said there has been considerable rhetoric regarding existing traffic difficulties in this area. Most people here are turning to the City of Salem and these developers for help. He asked Mr. Cahil what Lynn is doing to help with traffic here. Are there any plans on the table in Lynn to address longstanding issues here? Mr. Cahill said that he frankly wishes he had more of a legal arm to prevent • this project. Are you saying Lynn is not doing enough? Mr. Clark asked if there are any plans in Lynn 6 to help here? Mr. Cahill said that Buchanan Bridge narrows. A 4 lane highway wouldn't work and it will push problems into Lynn. We have one lane going into two. If you want to narrow it, we can share • the pain, but there is not much we can do here in Lynn. Debrah Smith Walsh, 16 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said Coolidge Rd. is not an intersection. There is queuing north and south down Fays Ave. We won't be able to get out of our street. I was also a Lynn Councilor years ago when Mass Highway came to Western Ave. and tried to mitigate issues there after one of my neighbors was killed. Right outside Buchanan Circle there are two bus stops. And elderly woman was hit there. The Mass Highway solution was to take it from 4 to 2 lanes so there would be enough sight coming out of Coolidge and Manning. People do take the illegal left turn coming out of the camp. The turnaround is at Buchanan Circle, and our Buchanan Rd. is constantly used as a turn around too. A gentleman from Young World Academy said he is concerned about the ENF study. The.board should look at an increase in traffic on Highland Ave. A lot of my customers come from Lynn, as might be the case for any business on Highland. If traffic increases to a choke point, businesses will suffer. Someone should take a good look at this. My customers often can't get onto Marlboro Rd. because traffic is too congested. If it hurts business, that means it affects revenue and our ability to live. Norm Cole, 30 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said we have neighbors who will not take a left toward Lynn. Where would a good u-turn spot be? Mr. Mirabito said he is not sure. Norm said the city has put no u- turn signals all over. There are police there too. How does someone head back to Lynn? Mr. Correnti said this could be answered next week. Norm said if you look at the traffic count, it is going from 7000 to 13,000 per day and 17,000 to 18,000 cars on weekends. • Tony Salvo, Summer Rd., said the board should consider the expansion of the transfer station. That will increase traffic with trucks coming in and out. We need to see the big picture before you decide. Katerina Panagiotakis, 90 Spring View Dr., Lynn, said she is concerned that the traffic numbers are based on recession traffic. I worry about what will happen when the recession ends and there is more traffic. How many square feet is the new Wal-Mart? Mr. Correnti said it is about 153,000 sq. ft. Ms. Panagiotakis stated that a study projects 10,000 cars per day for a Super Wal-Mart. There are too many numbers out there. What is the real number? I think there are a lot of hidden numbers that are not being expressed. I have read horror stories about other Wal-Marts. Ms. McKnight noted that the department has received letters regarding this project and she asked if the Board would like to hear them now, or if they want them in the next meeting's packet. Board members preferred receiving copies in the next packet. Ms. Sullivan said she thinks someone should address the study the audience member mentioned. A motion was made by Helen Sides to continue the Public Hearing at the May 20 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis,Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Discussion and Vote: Recommendation to City Council on proposed Zoning Amendment to create a Waterfront Overlay District (Shetland Park). • 7 Ms. Duncan stated that this is not a public hearing. A public hearing was held with the city council. This is a proposed zoning amendment for a Waterfront Industrial Overlay District. The purpose of this • is to make Shetland Park more competitive with Cummings Center, allowing by right what is basically there already. The proposal does not include hotel or residential. In response to Mark George's question, there is a provision that requires all dust and fumes to be confined to the premises. The Planning Board will make a recommendation to the council. Mr. Clark asked whether pharmacology companies would be allowed in with the restrictions on hazardous uses. Ms. Duncan answered in the affirmative. Ms. Sullivan asked where part 3 comes from. Ms. Duncan said it is basically drawn from the Cambridge ordinance, which the petitioner researched. Ms. Sullivan asked if the word"affectively" is a typo. Ms. Duncan answered yes, and they would correct it. Mr. Puleo said state involvement would trip the city if the city needed more regulations for reviewing a potentially dangerous business. Ms. Hanscom asked how could we know something isn't going to lead to an explosion like the one that occurred in Danversport. Would that facility have been considered dangerous by what we have here? Ms. Duncan said this site is industrially zoned, so some of these types of uses are now allowed. Additionally, any uses with possible safety threats would come under review by the Fire Department. Mr. Puleo said anything new would get scrutiny from the Fire Department. Ms. Duncan said the Fire Department reviews everything even if it is by right. Ms. Sullivan noted that you are still having to point out that nothing dangerous should be there. Mr. George said it makes clear our intention. There are already federal and state regulations. Mr. Puleo added that it is also incumbent on the landlord to ensure that tenants don't harm the property. Mr. George thanked the petitioner for adding the amendment. He said that the petitioner is working in a competitive market and industrial zoning is restrictive. I think we should say to the council that we • support this for helping them compete. Mr. Ready remarked that no one spoke in opposition of the change at the joint hearing, and numerous people spoke in favor. Mr. Moustakis said he is in favor of the zoning change. But what if the developer wants to go in a new direction? Do they need whole new zoning? Ms. Duncan said Planned Unit Development or a zoning change could address future needs. Mr. Moustakis said he is just hoping they are not locked in. Ms. Sullivan said she supports the change even though she can't vote since she didn't attend the joint public hearing. Mr. Puleo said she can vote. Ms. Duncan said she has no problem with everyone voting. If it is unanimous, I don't think it is a problem. A motion was made by Randy Clark to recommend that the City Council approve the zoning amendment, seconded by Mark George and approved 8-0 (Chuck Pulco, John Moustakis, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed, Nadine Hanscom abstaining). Old/new businesses None Adjournment • 8 A motion was made by Randy Clark to adjourn, seconded by Mark George and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk 9 City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet fh e�srn �� Board _Planning Board Date 5� / 6 / w Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Av r Gid `�Gl l sre,e, a (�b/l7 C—/v/y/S 227 rP-rDl'z'2 S7 �� /�r> 79/5�3(o8b`S y f'A 7 - 311 kfladja J � 2 7�D-Yy�y �C(�n o9D��i�4�e✓.Hi' Lyn. �e17- Yl f,-iod;7 i J�fav/�nGl av dr_ �� <<En ,Act [1'�✓ 7F/-a'S�-/ 9 � • 3 � �� rte) g:rG-�6 �7 �rUQ 36 F&9 77�-144 169' rwQ 5IYAAk?I s� e /r' �U �a o h� W k5Y/--7z/ &4,,d r' "1 ellr r c sew ? .)-I r T R094e>` fROOP1441 IMA.v�YINC- RD 781-9S3-zo49 >> w i C� to :t `(o-?-/I !I L% rvs _S,4en Vol a-) C®'dGv.Ao Page of ��L0�67Tg9-0 City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Planning Board Date Name / Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 1 t (a Page of 1:1_ANNIN( > BOARD CITY OF SALEM NOTICE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 28, 2010 6:30 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Salem will conduct a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA, in accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purpose of amending the City of Salem Zoning Ordnance by adding a new section to Section 8, Waterfront Industrial Overlay District (WIOD). The purpose is to promote economic health and stability of the City of • Salem by encouraging commercial and industrial development and investment in the waterfront area known as Shetland properties, parcel No. 0448 on Assessor Map 34, which will generate employment and tax revenue. The complete text of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Charles M. Puleo Chair This "0jjC#' po-N 1 0Il "offirizi BOCA 113 2010 rCi. City Hai( Z)alam, mass. �n APR � � �°+I1�. at ' it'.55�^ 4 �' With Com, . Salem Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing Minutes of Meeting 04/28/2010 A Joint Public Hearing of the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council for the purpose of discussing a proposed Zoning Ordinance to create a Waterfront Industrial Overlay District (WIOD)was held on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were City Councilors Robert McCarthy, Thomas Furey, Joan Lovely, Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Jean Pelletier, Jerry Ryan, John Ronan, and Joseph O'Keefe, and Planning Board members Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Mark George, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh.. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk, and Tom Devine, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent from the City Council: Steven Pinto and Paul Prevey. Absent from the Planning Board: Randy Clark,Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Christine Sullivan. Public Hearing: In accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purpose of amending the City of Salem Zoning Ordnance, a new section is proposed to be added to section 8, Waterfront Industrial Overlay District (WIOD). The purpose is to promote economic health and stability of the City of Salem by encouraging commercial and industrial development and investment in the waterfront area known as Shetland Properties, parcel No. • 0448 on Assessor Map 34, which will generate employment and tax revenue. Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting, introducing members of the Planning Board and Lynn Duncan and Danielle McKnight of Planning and Community Development. He introduced Thomas Kent, Vice President of Real Estate for Shetland Properties, and William Quinn, Attorney representing Shetland Properties. Mr. Quinn said that he hopes people will agree that Shetland has been a good user of commercial and industrial property in Salem for many years. The site has a history and we have been engaged in a long improvement project. But like everyone else in this economy, Shetland Park has suffered. It is currently less than 60% occupied. Eight to nine years ago we lost Sears Credit with its 120,000 sq. ft. The park is comfortable at over 80% occupancy. We are the second largest tax payer in Salem and the owners are proud of it and wand to see what can be done to continue to thrive in Salem. We decided that we were at a competitive disadvantage to modern facilities like Cummings Center. Primarily we are concerned that the need for special permitting is a barrier to attracting certain tenants. Some of our current tenants would need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals if they were coming into the park today. Examples include the storage facility and adult daycare. If they wanted to expand, that would also require action at the ZBA. Imagine how it appears to someone seeking space when they are told they need to go before the ZBA and that it could take some time. Mr. Quinn said that they have a large facility with security, tons of parking, and successful management. We need the ability to have more flexibility to take in tenants. Our proposed solution is an overlay district that would make certain uses allowed that are not allowed today. 1 All of these already exist in the park, but would require a special permit to expand or if they were • new. I think we would want some of these uses in the park rather than in other places in Salem. All of these uses would still be subject existing rules, boards, and permitting. We are not talking about new development, but rather using existing space. He reviewed proposed uses and said that we are looking to have permission for these uses as a matter of right. He displayed a table comparing the status of uses in Shetland Park versus Cummings Center in Beverly. He said he thinks what they are trying to do is be viable and keep tenancy up. Why an overlay district? The thinking is that rather than create a new district, we would just say that all industrial uses are governed by the existing bylaw, except as affected by the overlay. We have worked to reach out to the community, elected officials, and planning staff. We expect to go before the planning board. Mr. Quinn stated that the main concern has been that there would be housing. We are not seeking that and none of this proposal would allow residential. There will not be a hotel. The other concern we heard is to make sure we don't have anything dangerous on the site. The proposal prohibits hazardous uses and we are willing to fashion additional language to deal with specific noxious or hazardous uses. We will take comments tonight and speak more with the Planning Board. There will be changes by the time we return here. We are here to learn what concerns people have, starting a process that should take a couple months. Ms. Duncan said the petitioner did work closely with the Planning Department. I am comfortable with what is proposed. We thought that outdoor recreation would have an impact on abutting residential properties, for example, and they took that out. I think this is a way to • encourage economic development without a negative impact on abutters. It is great from a planning perspective to use and reuse existing buildings that are partially vacant rather than build on greenfields. It is a key element of a sustainable community. Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from the City Council. Mr. Sosnowski, referring to the table comparing allowed uses in Beverly versus Salem, asked why sale and storage of building supplies is not included in the proposal. Mr. Quinn said he does not know the answer, and that maybe it should be in the proposal. Ms. Duncan said she is not completely sure, but she thinks there was concern that it would be an outdoor use which could impact neighbors. Mr. O'Keefe said this would be a beautiful place for a hotel on the water. It is an excellent idea and it has my full support. Mr. Pelletier asked if the existing adult daycare and education uses had to receive a special permit. Mr. McCarthy said they became violations when zoning was recodifred. Mr. Pelletier said he is concerned about the education use, with a charter school already present. My concern is with the city budget and the effect another charter school could have. Mr. Furey said one of Salem's best qualities is how it is resourceful and renews itself. This is a chance for the city to renew and reinvent itself. I would like to see a hotel. Mr. Quinn said the • owner has weighed many options, and is not now interested in a hotel. We would have to come back here if a hotel turns out to be a good idea that the market can support. 2 • Mr. Ronan said the uses have much in common—a club, yacht club, marina, and restaurant with alcohol. It seems that you are getting a marina, and I am not taking a position on that now. If that is the intention, where would it go? Mr. Kent said there is currently a Manna and the original 1980 plan was for an expanded marina. We have talked to the city about a walkway. Mr. Quinn said waterfront development goes through many regulatory hurdles. Mr. Ronan said he often walks along that wall and there is no path there. It is probably Salem's best view. With a marina, it would be nice to continue the walkway. Mr. Sosnowski asked what would be the extent of the overlay district. Mr. Quinn said it is only what is on the map. Mr. Kent said the other two lots could not be built on anyway. Ms. Lovely asked if there is retail there now and whether that is what they want. I think the marina is a good idea, and the waterfront site should be used as best it can. I like the restaurant idea as well. Cummings Center is mixed use and includes restaurants. Mr. Quinn said that the existing district allows neighborhood retail, but large stores and supermarkets are not allowed. Mr. Kent said any retail would support park tenants, as there is already great retail and there are great restaurants at Pickering Wharf. Ms. Lovely said this creates a great opportunity. Cummings Center has had an amazing transformation. Ms. Duncan said she wanted to clarify regarding educational uses. I agree with Mr. Pelletier about the charter school, but that is an exempt educational use. The proposal doesn't make is any easier or harder for a charter school to open. A non-exempt educational use could be • something like a dance school. Charter schools are exempt by state statute. Mr. Pelletier asked whether a new charter school would need a special permit. Ms. Duncan said no, it is exempt under state law. Mr. Pelletier said he thinks the city should give this place a boost. I agree with most of it, but I think we should dig a little deeper. I have other concerns. Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from the Planning Board. Mr. George said he understands industrial zoning has certain constrictions. I don't have any problem with most of this change, but I am concerned with R and D. I am not sure what language we could put it to prohibit hazardous uses related to that. Mr. Quinn said they will work with planners to see what makes sense to address this concern. Mr. George said there may be state and federal permitting that covers this anyway. Mr. Ready said he thinks the comparison with Cummings Center is a poor one. Shetland Park has a magnificent waterfront view which is largely underutilized. I am inclined to see uses broadened. Our long-time historic and maritime uses can be focused and brought to bear. Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from members of the public in favor of the proposal. A gentleman from the Palmer Cove Yacht Club said he has received assurances from Mr. Quinn that this proposal will not damage their yacht club. Shetland Park is a very good neighbor. They • are very clean and professional. We are in full support. 3 w Shirley Walker, 51 Lafayette St., said she once owned a condo at Marina Bay in Quincy and it . was a terrific waterfront space. I park in the South Harbor Garage. I see people park all the way down Congress St. The buildings are very active. The welfare and registry offices are terrific. I fully support this. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said the petitioner made a presentation to the neighborhood association alliance and it was appreciated. I would hope that there could be some historical signs. Cummings Center has a pond and walkways, and a walkway along our water has been mentioned. The Beverly ordinance allows outdoor, but walled, storage. They also have some screening requirements to prevent adverse lighting and glare. Our ordinance already does have very extensive rules for research uses,but I think it could be updated. We already have two overlays, but not one that could be considered spot zoning. I think uses could be expanded, not only here, but in all industrial zones. Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., said she supports the proposal and she is happy that this may help with the city's budget. Mr. McCarthy opened the meeting to comments from members of the public in opposition to the proposal. No members of the public spoke in opposition. Mr. O'Keefe asked about the storage of building supplies. Mr. Quinn said that has been removed from the proposal but inadvertently left on the document. Mr. O'Keefe said he is glad it was removed. • Mr. George asked if there is any public access now. Mr. Kent answered no. Mr. George asked if it would be hazardous or heavy handed to ask for it. Mr. Kent said that logistically, it is not practical for the public to be on the property. We are willing to talk to the city about a harbor walk. But if you build there, you are under Chapter 91 regulations. We are open minded to public access,but it isn't practical now. Mr. George asked if it would be more practical to have public access on only part of the site. Mr. Kent said someone suggested a walkway on piers, but that won't happen anytime soon. Mr. Treadwell asked whether there was a condition for public access in past approvals. Mr. Kent said not that he is aware of. Mr. Treadwell asked if the council would like to see that researched. Mr. Kent said they would find out. Mr. McCarthy said Shetland Park is in his ward. I have the two largest taxpayers in the city in my ward. The petitioner approached me early on. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Kent have been very cooperative. Issues raised tonight have been addressed early on. We took things out before they were mentioned here. They reached out to The Point neighborhood group. Outdoor uses were a concern and they have addressed them. I truly believe the petitioner will work with everyone to make sure all are happy. I would like to publicly state that I appreciate their work and hope we will support them at the end of the process. A motion was made by Michael Sosnowski to close the Joint Public Hearing and was approved 9-0 (Robert McCarthy, Thomas Furey, Joan Lovely, Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Jean Pelletier, Jerry Ryan, John Ronan, and Joseph O'Keefe in favor, none opposed). 4 A motion was made by Michael Sosnowski to move the issue to the Planning Board and was approved 9-0 (Robert McCarthy, Thomas Furey, Joan Lovely, Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Jean Pelletier, Jerry Ryan, John Ronan, and Joseph O'Keefe in favor, none opposed). A motion was made by Michael Sosnowski to adjourn and was approved 9-0 (Robert McCarthy, Thomas Furey, Joan Lovely, Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Jean Pelletier, Jerry Ryan, John Ronan, and Joseph O'Keefe in favor, none opposed). Meeting Adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk • 5 SamE-'I_. JAN t, J BOARD 201.3 APR23 A 3: 55 CIT'f NOTICE OF SITE VISIT YOU are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a site visit on May 5, 2010 at 7 PM for the following project: BVS CORPORATION's application for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Chctrls M. Ptk • 0mimun t �t� �� ?��. �'tt••.C." 9 } wii �a�('dvflii u1i 21:'1t1� +:��..8 `�u 8,� MMI h, agars. or, APR 2 3 CITY OF .`ALENI PLANNING BOARD w NOTICE OF MEETINGco u' w Ya(aie l"eby notoed that the Salem Planning Baird wll bald its regularly sd,ffffbded meting on Tbnrsday, April 15, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex,Room313, 120 Wa birgton sneet Charles M. Pzdeq Chairnun REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 4/1/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Request to extend final action: MAUREEN GOODRICH, Plan believed not to require approval, 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET. 3. Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. G. Old/New Business 7. Adjournment �il.a I�DIfCp p® tad on °pfticlal Bulletin Doar(p V all .5ai m, Mass. on { J'3a' 0'n r1 [ cc 4k 13 �fD '0 4A 4 + ! l,�,l�1,1.. 'rda �h Q11* 4 an cONDITT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • \"\sry DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRiscoLL MAYOR LYNN GoonnN DuNcAN,AIQ' 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: April 7,2010 RE: Agenda- April 15, 2010 Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from April 1, 2010 Notes on Agenda Items: Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. The applicant received dimensional relief from the Board of Appeals in September 2009 in order to create two house lots on this property. The decision is included in your packet and explains the recent history of the property. Originally,the proposal had been for four single-family house lots, but after neighbors expressed concern that the density was too high,the project was reduced to two lots. Another abutter concern was drainage,so as a condition of approval,the ZBA required the applicant to submit a drainage plan to the City Engineer,which he did. A copy of this is included in your packet. A two-lot subdivision has fewer street improvement requirements than larger subdivisions (in accordance with the Subdivision Control policy,which is in your packet) - they only require • maintaining "existing conditions" on the rest of the roadway. The applicant is not proposing granite curbing, street trees, sidewalks,or grass trips. Bituminous curbing is proposed around the cul-de- sac, but not along the sides of the roadway leading up to it- this is perhaps an issue for discussion, 1 though this may be for drainage purposes. The City Engineer will be commenting on this during the • review of the application. The applicant is also requesting several waivers from subdivision requirements, as detailed in his cover letter. Given the small size of the project and the conditions that already exist on Scotia Street, the Planning Department would support most of these requests for waivers. In particular, the request to waive an environmental impact statement also seems reasonable,since an extensive environmental remediation was completed several years ago on this property. The property had been contaminated with asbestos due to a previous owner imp roperlydemolishing a structure on the site and burying the material. The current owner has cleaned up the site. The applicant is requesting a Waiver from Frontage because the Rl zone requires 100 feet of frontage, and the proposed lots would have only 82.96 feet (lot 1) and 84.20 feet (lot 2). The application has been routed to Building, Engineering, Health, Conservation and Fire Prevention. Comments received so far are as follows: ➢ The Building Inspector commented that all conditions of the Board of Appeals decision should remain in effect, and also that the cul-de-sac would be better constructed with granite curbing, since bituminous curbing is easily destroyed in a circular road by snow plows. ➢ The Conservation Agent responded that this project is outside the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction, but strongly encourages the applicant to install pavers as opposed to concrete for the driveways in order to allow more stormwater to be absorbed into the • ground. She also advises taking any recommendations the City Engineer may have about stormwater management, including the two proposed drainage swales along the driveways, and what overflow option might be available if they become inundated during storms. She also commented that responsibility for maintenance of the Cultec roof recharge systems and the proposed catch basins should be clarified. She recommends deep sump catch basins to help improve water quality. ➢ The Health Department intends to bring the applicant in for review at their May 11 meeting, and expects to have comments after that. ➢ The City Engineer has not yet responded, but I expect comments from him regarding the drainage plan submitted and whether it will be sufficient. I have not yet heard from Fire Prevention. The departments have until April 30 to submit comments,except Health,which has until May 15. Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 440, 460, 462,and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Conenti. As Attorney Correnti mentioned at the last meeting,his intent is to focus on traffic at this meeting. • I have received a number of letters about the project. Daniel O'Neill,Executive Director of the Lynn Water&Sewer Commission,submitted a letter advising that any water,sewerage or 2 stormwater connections from the development to Lynn's system would require his agency's . permission; however,no connections are proposed. We received a letter from resident Valentina Burbank fust opposing the project because she believed it to be located in Salem Woods, but once that was clarified,she still had concerns about the project, including traffic, loss of open space, and duplication of type of retail the proposed stores would provide. Other letters were received from residents concerned about impacts to the wetlands, removal of wooded areas,traffic,the water quality of Spring Pond (near the proposed Lowe's), and general objections to big box retail (and Wal-Mart in particular). These are allincluded in your packet. I have also included one copy each of three form emails I have received (approximately 550 as of 4/7/10 - many from Lynn and Salem but others from around the country- these were generated through a blog) encouraging the City to enforce the Public Lands Preservation Act by preventing this project. For clarification, none of the land on which the development is proposed is subject to the Act,which is intended to protect public lands set aside for natural resource value. Three of the four parcels (including Camp Lion) are privately owned; the fourth parcel, owned by the City of Salem,was not "taken or acquired for public natural resource purposes" under Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Massachusetts,which is the criteria for land subject to the Act.. I received a phone call from Mayor Kennedy's office in Lynn inquiring about future Planning Board meetings and letting me know that her office continues to receive many calls from Lynn residents about the project. • Beta Group is now under contract to do a peer review of the developer's traffic study, and we are in the process of getting New England Civil Engineering under contract for the civil engineering peer review. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. As Attorney Correnti mentioned at the last meeting,Frank Vetere of GZA will be at this meeting to answer any remaining environmental questions. The project will also have been before the Design Review Board again on 4/13/10, and so Arty Correnti will be able to update the Board on its progress with the DRB. We are still working on pulling together information on how the Senior Center parking space number was calculated and hope to have that for the meeting. • 3 • Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting April 15, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Approval of Minutes The minutes of April 1, 2010 were reviewed. There being no comments, a motion was made by Mark George to approve the minutes of April 1, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan , Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). • Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley. Chris Sparages of Hayes Engineering, Engineer for the applicant, said that they received a variance last year to create lots in this configuration with these setbacks. Frontage is a little less than the required 100 ft. We will make improvements to Scotia St. to support the needed utilities and extend the sewer line to the end of the street. City Engineer David Knowlton asked us to check the water line for pressure and fire flow. We did, and the results were favorable. We prepared a drainage mitigation study. Existing conditions are bare and unvegetated. We removed contaminants. Or proposal includes an increase in impervious area and a cul-de-sac. Roof structures will be tied into an underground infiltration system. We conducted test holes and results show favorable soils for the infiltration system. Our calculations show reduction in both peak flow and total volume of runoff. By adding lawn area, we reduce runoff. Mr. Puleo asked if driveways will be tied into the system. Mr. Sparages said they are proposing a treatment Swale as shown in the construction detail. Water will be treated before leaving the site. Mr. Puleo asked if the water will drain into the street. Mr. Sparages answered yes. Mr. Puleo asked if there are catch basins. Mr. Sparages identified them on the plan. Mr. Sparages said that they submitted the plan to Mr. Knowlton and provided responses to his concerns. Mr. Puleo asked who will maintain the road. Mr. Sparages said it will be the city. Mr. Puleo said • they are waiting for comments from several departments. 1 • Mr. George asked about the asbestos removed from the site. John Sullivan, said all the asbestos was removed and this was documented. Lead was removed too. Mr. George asked where the slope leads. Mr. Sparages showed the flow on the plan and noted that water flows in three or four directions. Mr. George asked if the house footprints will be the crown from which water flows. Mr. Sparages noted their spot shots and showed flow on the plan. He said new landscaping will reduce peak flow and total runoff. Mr. George asked how close abutters are to the rear of the site and whether there will be an increase in runoff on that border. Mr. Sparages said there will be a reduction, including in total runoff, which is unusual. If we had more than four lots, it would require additional stone water management. We did it for this one because of the neighbors' concerns at the ZBA and from Mr. Knowlton. Originally, four houses were planned for this site, but the client saw problems with density and drainage. This plan with two houses has 28% less impervious area than the plan with four houses. Mr. Puleo asked if the curbing will be granite. Mr. Sparages said they propose an asphalt berm. The existing pavement edge has no berm, so this is one of the waivers we asked for. We are asking to have applied to us the guidelines for a two lot subdivision with no possibility of expansion. Ms. Hanscom asked how far the new houses will be from rear abutters. Mr. Sparages said they will be 13.5 and 15.5 feet. Ms. Sullivan noted for the record that the building inspector recommends granite curbing because bituminous is easily destroyed by a snow plow— not to mention it looks better. i Issue Opened Up for Public Comment • Larry Olcott, 23 Summit St., said he is a direct abutter and everything he heard about drainage doesn't mean anything for us. They brought in loads of fill and the site is now eight feet higher than us. I have pictures of our floods. I put a pump in my back yard. Itis a complete goldfish bowl and I have a house full of mold. Water runs directly toward three houses on Summit St. I also have a letter from the party at 25 Summit St. Ms. Hanscom asked to see the letter and photos, and Mr. Olcott submitted them to the board. Mr. Puleo asked if what has been done so far is the final grade. Mr. Sparages said it is not final. We balance grading to equally distribute storm water. Mr. Puleo asked what elevation Mr. Olcott's property is. Mr. Sparages said it is lower than the project site. Mr. Ready asked if Mr. Olcott has had any dialog with the developers. Mr. Olcott replied that he has not. I have called and emailed my councilor with no response. I don't know how to get a hold of the developers. Ms. Hanscom asked which storm he photographed. Mr. Olcott said it was the most recent. Ms. Hanscom asked if it has always flooded like this. Mr. Olcott said that since excavation, water now comes directly towards him. I've had $3,000 worth of damage. Ms. Sullivan suggested that for the sake of time, Mr. Olcott could talk to the developer and get back to the board. William Quigley, Attorney for the applicant, said this is the interim condition and forthcoming improvements will help. Mr. Sullivan said asbestos was removed about a year ago and a hole had to be filled for safety purposes. Mr. Ready said he encourages Mr. Olcott to discuss this • with the developers and we will revisit it at the next meeting. Ms. McKnight summarized the 2 letter from 25 Summit St. They report flood problems and are concerned about drainage. They recommend evergreen trees be built as a barrier. Brett Coughlin, 29 Summit St., noted that the board saw pictures of his walkway. Susan Kao, 14 Scotia St., said she heard Mr. Sparages say there is no catch basin but she sees two of them on the plan. I am concerned about runoff if there are no catch basins. Mr. Sparages said the symbols she saw are not for catch basins. Ms. Kao said she is concerned about how the grade of the new houses will send runoff into the street. It will go into my driveway and into my basement. We don't have water issues now, but this could change that. Without catch basins, I am very concerned. And what about access to my home during utility work? I will soon have a new child, so I will need more feedback on what happens when. And will there be a gas line? Mr. Sparages said there are no plans for gas and he is not even sure if it is available. Ms. Kao asked about the grade in the runoff study. Mr. Sparages said a treatment swale will catch runoff so it doesn't hit your street. Ms. Kao said there is nothing to prevent water from getting to her house. Mr. Sparages said the completed pavement will honor existing gutter lines to prevent that. We will work closely with city departments, and we can provide information to Ms. Kao for full communication. Jerry Ryan, Ward 4 Councilor, said he apologizes for missing Mr. Olcott's call. I suggest a meeting with neighbors. Drainage will be a huge issue. The slope toward the neighbors is a concern. I hope the project will fix these water problems. Developers and neighbors can exchange contact information and plan a meeting. Mr. Puleo said they will have to continue this • and have a site visit. He suggested a dialog with neighbors. Mr. Ready said it appears that there are legitimate neighbor concerns that haven't been discussed. I encourage all of you to work through your councilor and have that discussion. The developer seems inclined to work with the neighbors. Hopefully some of these issues will dissipate with dialog and we can progress with more serious issues. Ms. Hanscom asked about the inspector's recommendation for granite. Are you willing to use it if the board recommends it? Mr. Sparages said they would entertain that. Ms. Hanscom asked about brick pavers versus asphalt. Mr. Sparages said they haven't discussed that at all. Ms. Duncan said this is under the purview of the City Engineer, and we need his comments. I think he will echo the Building Inspector on granite. Mr. Sullivan said there will be some cobblestone in the driveways and it will help with water. Mr. Quigley asked what other issues should be addressed during the next two weeks. Mr. Puleo asked for progress on road markings, and to resolve issues of Mr. Olcott's fence and mold so when we return we can continue to work in goodwill between developers and neighbors. Ms. Sullivan said she would like to see them look at catch basins and driveway water. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the May 6 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis,Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, • Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). 3 Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. . for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Ms. Duncan spoke about the board and the department's process for reviewing traffic proposals. The city has hired traffic consultants Ken Petraglia and John Mirabito of the Beta Group. They are here tonight to listen to the presentation and hear questions and comments from the board and the public. The developer will present the traffic plan as submitted, and the engineers, on behalf of the city and the Planning Board, will review it. They will look at the plan's assumptions, estimated traffic generation and proposed mitigation. They will submit a memo with their initial findings and the developer will respond to that. The process should take a couple meetings. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., Attorney for the applicant, discussed the previous meeting's project overview. He said that traffic will be tonight's subject. We have also filed with the state. We want to show what has been done to date and hear what, if anything, the board has questions on and respond accordingly. Jason Plourde, Traffic Engineer for the applicant, said that the team has met with MASSDOT to see what is going on in this corridor. They asked us to look at the southern signals on Highland • Ave. We.also determined,the relevant time periods. We looked at weekdays, 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., and Saturday 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. He displayed an aerial image of the study locations and close-ups of existing conditions. Ms. Sullivan asked if they looked at mid-afternoon, which is the busiest time in Salem. Mr. Plourde said they put down measurement tubes and found that mid-afternoon has lots of traffic, but not as much as weekday evenings. We also looked at accident data and found that all the intersections have a lower than average accident rate. We looked at sight distances and they exceed requirements. We found that traffic has actually decreased from 1997 to 2004. Mr. George asked him to confirm that he said it had decreased. Mr. Plourde confirmed that he indeed said it had decreased, based on MASSDOT data. We don't think it will continue like that, so we overestimated with a 1% annual growth rate over a five year period. We also added traffic associated with other local developments. Mr. Plourde said that today there is less traffic than standards would predict. This could be the location, with competing opportunities to the north. Mr. Puleo asked if they have actual counts of the current traffic. Mr. Plourde answered yes, based on 2008 data. We had to decide how to look at this. We used the higher estimates of shopping centers. Standards say that pass-by trips can only be 25%. That is a car already on the road that would pass the site anyway but visits the site. The other type is completely new trips. Based on our study, pass-by trips are higher than the state allows us to use. This means the new trips are lower than we estimate, as our study exaggerates new trips. • 4 • Mr. George asked if there is a clear relationship between building size and increase in traffic. Mr. Plourde answered yes. Mr. George asked what the ratio is. Mr. Plourde said he does not know the answer. Mr. George said that if there is such a relationship, we can do some simple math and predict the increase. Mr. Plourde said it is different with multiple uses. If we only expand Wal-Mart, you could do that. Mr. George said that with the Meineke expansion, if the traffic is X now, it will be X plus some factor of X later. Mr. Plourde said one of the improvements will be a connection to allow people to get to Meineke from Wal-Mart or Lowe's without using Highland Ave. Mr. Plourde said that on a daily basis you have a car that enters and exits the site, so that one car is two trips. There will be an increase in new traffic of about 4400 new trips, which translates into 2235 new cars, or about an 8% increase. If we could use the higher pass-by rate and lower generators for individual uses, that would be 1020 new cars, or a 3.7% increase. But we don't use that. We evaluate peak hour impact. We are held to a standard, but I want to be clear about that standard. Mr. Puleo asked how the state arrived at the standard. Mr. Plourde said he has heard many stories on that. He was told that a room full of officials said 25% sounds good. You have different types of retail development, and they took this as a general rule of thumb. Mr. Puleo asked if traffic counts are behind the standard. Mr. Plourde said ITE is based on actual data. Mr. George asked if it is use specific. Mr. Plourde said it is. We did a study using existing facilities and ITE was able to use that in their most recent eddition. We did that because Lowe's stores were new and generated more traffic than they do now. Mr. Puleo asked when the 8`h edition was published. Mr. Plourde said it was published in 2008. • Mr. Moustakis asked how many cars come from Marlborough Rd. to the Lynn line each day. Mr. Plourde said they their study does not go as far as Marlborough Rd. Mr. Moustakis asked why they hadn't gone that far, since it is where the traffic will be. Mr. Plourde said he knows based on the study that it will be roughly 100 cars per hour in each direction. Mr. George asked if the new light will be coordinated with other lights. We have big backups at peak hours. I am wondering if traffic can be moved all the way through the area. Mr. Correnti suggested they continue with the presentation, as some of the answers are in the next slide. Mr. Plourde displayed the site plan and noted the water tower and the improvements to the camp. Today we have the northern driveway where the signal is. We will close the existing signal driveway and move it to where the southern driveway is now. Based on feedback from neighbors, we will modify the northern driveway to get truck drivers to use it. We will provide a left turn lane and the possibility for u-tums. At the northern driveway we will add a second left turn lane, which will require less green time. Mr. George asked how many northbound lanes this will leave. Mr. Plourde answered two. We know the merge area is difficult and lacks signage. We will straighten it out to allow the two lanes to continue through and we will add signage. There will be a way to turn left on Highland Ave. coming out of Meineke. Mr. Plourde displayed a diagram of Fays Ave. We found problems with signal equipment. We propose to restripe the southbound approach to allow right turning cars to get out of Western Ave. so they have their own lane to tum right. We propose to upgrade all signal equipment at the intersection. It won't fix everything, but it will mitigate more than the impact. Mr. Clark asked what level of service change there will be. Mr. Plourde said Fays Ave. is now level E or 5 • better, and this will bring it to C and no worse than D. Ms.Sullivan noted that the project depends on moving lights and doing construction on a state road. What assurances will you have that the state will let you to that work? Mr. Plourde said that these are still the beginning steps. We submitted the traffic study with the Expanded Environmental Notification Form. Now we file the Environmental Impact Report. But ultimately, when we get to MEPA. We continue with the construction documents and access permits. It won't happen tomorrow. This is a private development and the developer foots the bill for these improvements. Mr. Correnti said they have no assurances. The state only assures us that they will review all carefully. Mr. Duncan noted that Irving Oil on Highland Ave. went smoothly and quickly and the developer got approval for a new turn lane. Mr. e r k G o ge asked if it is theoretically possible that we could end up with a better situation without backups? Mr. Plourde said that based on the traffic study, they were able to show that improvements will make operations better than the no build scenario, but not better than the existing conditions. With the totality of improvements, we are mitigating our impact. Mr. Correnti explained the locations of the Lynn streets. Mr. Ready asked to see the plan again. He remarked that the planned configuration is similar to the entrance to the North Shore Shopping Center on Route 114. Traffic moves well there. Mr. Plourde said he does not know the traffic volumes there. Mr. George said he sees the similarity. I think if we can coordinate the lights, there would be a lot of mitigation. Mr. Ready said there was success with the DOT and Irving Oil, as well as with Home Depot. Also, a rep from • MASSDOT said that the real problem on Highland stretches all the way to the Saugus rotary. At the shopping center entrance on Route 114, there is often a large police detail during high traffic times. Mr. Ready stated that there is often a traffic jam in mid-afternoon leading in and out of Salem, and a lot is based on school bus traffic with its frequent stops. The road widening may improve that. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, said they need to be attuned to what is happening at the nearby shopping center. There is a new eye doctor with elderly customers. It seems dangerous to me with trucks and the elderly. Presently that driveway is not active. They now walk down the hill to Wal-Mart. I am just concerned for them. John Sawyer, 5 Barnes Circle, said they are not happy. We do lots of walking. Cars come through at 40 MPH, and there is some drag racing. Motorcycles are at full blast in the summer. The sidewalks are inadequate. Riding a bike here is life threatening. This is a poor proposal in general. Streets are inadequate for what is there now. People are in a rush to get to their destination to make money in our bad economy. It is a very tricky area and I think this is overstepping it. This hurts the woods. It is a heck of a piece of land. People living in the area will not be happy. Construction will be disruptive with blasting and noise. And Salem's Home Depot is not doing well. I don't know why the Lowe's is coming. • William Trahant, Ward 2 Councilor, Lynn, said the area is bad now. Let's face it, there will be more traffic. You have to address the streets where you can't get out now. I think the Fays Ave. 6 • signal works now and the signals are synced. This will still be in gridlock. The design of the road is terrible and there will be some bad accidents. I disagree with the data showing fewer accidents. Aikaterini Panagiotakis, 90 Spring View Drive, Lynn, said with Lowe's on the hill, there will be an increase in general traffic noise in the morning. By blasting and clearing the earth, it will expose the pond to the road noise. Also, there is a duck crossing at the bridge, and I have stopped several times to let them pass. Jeanne McAuley, 11 Western Ave., Lynn, said he does not think there has been a traffic decrease. It has increased. Will the camp be relocated? Mr. Plourde replied that the access will remain at the same location, but it will change inside the site. Ms. McAuley said this will not work. The merger into Lynn has no breakdown lane. I fear getting into an accident. It now takes me five minutes to get out of my driveway. Sidewalks are inadequate for pedestrian traffic and I can't imagine an improvement. Sandra McMaham, 2 Madeline Ave., said she agrees that the traffic is deplorable. There is no easy way out of Salem. Between 2 and 6 it is impossible to get anywhere. And the transfer station will be bad too. Traffic has increased tenfold. Tom Demarkis said he is one of the co-owners of the abutting subdivision. We have sold only 4 of our 16 lots. Did you do site distance measurements for Belleaire Ave. and Buchannan Circle? • Mr. Plourde said we did the measurements only for the intersections we are responsible for. Mr. Demarkis said those intersections have very short site distances. We have had some fun with numbers. 4470 trips gets condensed to 2200 cars. If you go by twice, it is one car but two trips. He noted that Mr. Plourde said it will be an 8.1%weekday increase but doesn't mention Saturdays, or if it is spread throughout the day or more pronounced during rush hour. The project is irresponsible on many levels. It is good for Salem,but the city has a responsibility to the abutting neighborhood. The board should require a traffic signal at Bellaeire, Buchannan, and 107. I don't agree that this is similar to the 114 example. You are often suck there through 3 or 4 light cycles. Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street#2, commended the traffic engineer for making it look like there would be a traffic improvement. We heard the same for the courthouse and traffic has worsened before it has even opened. Low-impact development should be considered. No one answered my previous question regarding the amount of impervious surface. What size is this Lowe's? Mr. Plourde said it will be roughly 103,000 square feet. Ms. Whitney said that would be classified as extra large. I am concerned about a large, big box store hurting downtown businesses. I don't think this project on the edge of the city will help downtown. Deborah Smith Walsh, 16 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said she has been a resident here for 32 years. None of this was here when I bought my home. We now can't get out of our street. We have to ease out and pray someone will stop. I believe your study was done in a room and not on the road. I believe Western Ave. in Lynn has been left out. Lowe's will be visible from my • neighborhood. I am concerned about traffic merging and general traffic circulation. I hope the 7 • city's traffic consultants will do a good study. Ms. Duncan said that the consultants do not conduct a new study, but only review what has been done. Norm Cole, 30 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said the presentation sounds good and could even fix the problem. Has anyone read the Expanded Environmental Form? Did you see how many new daily trips are expected? 6000. 18000 daily trips. The state has said these guys need to do more to mitigate traffic. It sounds good, but it is not good for Salem or Lynn. With the transfer station there may be hundreds of trucks coming through per day and that needs to be considered. These are two megastores that don't belong on a one lane highway. A motion was made by Randy Clark to continue the Public Hearing at the May 6 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis,Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Request to extend final action: MAUREEN GOODRICH Plan believed not to require approval, q q PP , 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET. Ms. McKnight said that the developer requests to start on May 6. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to extend final action to the May 6 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John • Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., Attorney for the applicant, said that they have been busy. The architect will show revised plans incorporating several changes as a result ofthe DRB process. The DRB is giving a positive recommendation to the Planning Board. We would like to think the design of the building is now situated. We also received a positive recommendation from the Board of Health. Harry Gunderson of Gundersen Associates, Architect for the applicant, noted the changes to the ground floor, the Boston St. entrance, and the corner at Boston and Bridge Streets. He showed the ground floor plan. The atrium was eliminated and the lobby at the east end enlarged. We changed the Boston St. entrance to confront the parking lot. In the pass through, formerly the atrium, we moved the elevators. We modified the Boston St. entrance to be more of a street entrance. Ms. Sullivan asked Mr. Gundersen to point out all the entrances. Mr. Gundersen identified them on the plan. He then displayed the design of the corner of Boston and Bridge • Streets, noting that the DRB spent a lot of time on this. We ran through many designs and found 8 this to be the most appropriate. The DRB was concerned with what happens over time and leaving open the possibility for a corner entrance, as we would all like to see. Ms. Sullivan stated that she thinks this is a wonderfully handsome building. It is probably the best looking I have seen here in a long time. Ms. Hanscom said it looks great. Mr. Pulco asked if they must come back for review if they want modifications. Ms. Gundersen said they would have to go back to the DRB with details, such as for the canopy, windows, and exterior lighting, since these are not finalized. Mr. Correnti said that the DRB was, however, very clear that they don't want to hold the process up, so these will be post-approval items, which is typical of the way the DRB works. Mr. Clark asked if there will be security cameras on the site. David Switcher of High Rock said that there will without hesitation be security cameras, inside and out, and primarily in common areas. Condo owners will be responsible for their interiors, but common areas and the parking lot will have cameras—all tied into the security desk. Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight about the memo regarding how the Senior Center's parking requirements were determined. Referring to the memo, she said that industry standards were considered, and this falls near the minimum of those standards. Nearby centers were considered. Mr. Clark said that this is a community life center, not exactly a senior center, so those comparisons are not apples to apples. Ms. Duncan said that whatever we call it, it will include seniors and other activitieshi i and this s true of some of the other facilities. Ms. Sullivan remarked • that this will not be a standalone senior center. Ms. Duncan said that the developer has walked through the requirements for the other uses at the previous meeting, so her understanding is that we know how many spaces are needed for those uses. We were asked how the number of spaces for the Senior Center was reached. Ms. Sullivan said they left the other spaces out of the conversation because they have zoning requirements. The point is that many of us think there are just too many spaces, and seniors want some form of open space. The buffer could be larger without all this parking. Ms. Duncan noted that Peabody's center has 250 spaces and has had to twice remove some green space for additional parking. There is opportunity for shared parking. Ms. Sides said they have never suggested eliminating 80 spaces, but rather wondered if there was some place to get some breathing room. Ms. Sullivan said this is helpful because we really didn't know where the 80 came from. Ms. Hanscom asked how many total spaces there will be. Mr. Correnti said there will be 374. Ms. Hanscom said the big issue is that seniors want outdoor space. Why can't we take a few spaces from the rear of the lot for recreation space. We are not talking 20 spaces, but maybe 5. Mr. Clark said that perhaps the developer could work with the community outside the planning board to resolve this. Mr. Correnti said that they need a variance for parking. Doctors won't come without immediate and sufficient parking. We have heard several times before from this board and the DRB about the 7 spaces that could be eliminated. I think that is a different conversation and we could talk about that. A bocce court isn't green space. You would have to make sure the city takes care of it outside of the couple months per year it is used. There is also the question of where you put it. We don't think that would resolve everything. It would be a • difficult solution for what will not be a very useful space. Ms, Sides said this brings us back to the quantity of pavement. A little more green space on that corner would be good. 9 • Mr. Sweetser said he does not want to go down a slippery slope if those 7 spaces grow into something entirely different. Mr. Gundersen indentified the spaces in question on the plan. Mr. Sweetser said he would like to know what the issues are and what the board wants so he can know in what context he is deciding. He said he is willing to consider this. Ms. Duncan said she wanted to review remaining steps in the process. The City Engineer is waiting for a substantially final plan for review, which one can expect now that this has been approved by the DRB. We hope to have the City Engineer's review for the next meeting. Ms. Hanscom asked how thick the buffer is before removing the 7 spaces. Mr. Correnti said it is 23 feet at its narrowest. Ms. Hanscom asked where they must go for a variance if they remove the 7 spaces. Mr. Correnti said they are going to the ZBA either way. We haven't filed there yet without our final plan. Ms. Sides noted that the ground cover would expand. Mr. Clark said a 50 foot buffer is required since it is in the NRCC. Ms. Duncan remarked that that is one of the required variances. Mr. Clark said that removal of the spaces would bring the project closer to the buffer requirement. Ms. Duncan said it increases the size of the parking variance,but reduces the buffer variance. Mr. Kavanaugh asked if the idea of additional space for seniors is off the table. Ms. Sides said this creates more at-grade, accessible space that could be used. It might be a place to sit under trees. Ms. Sullivan said that the new lobby entrance allows for some tables and chairs. Mr. • Kavanaugh said we need to know now if the city is going to ask for additional space. Ms. Duncan said the city is very happy with the plan. As suggested at meetings, there is outdoor seating for seniors. Mr. Sweetser said this proposal was selected knowing it doesn't have the open space that some wanted. We are kind of twisting this a little to create something. One concern we have is that the vegetation not be too tall to cause line of sight problems. And we never promised a bocce court. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Robert McCarthy, Ward I Councilor, asked what the increase of office space is with the elimination of the atrium. Will it affect the variance request? The topic was brought up about a security guard in the lobby. Parks and Recreation meetings can go late into the night and I can't see a security guard waiting for us. We might need an exclusive entrance so people can flow freely without going through the lobby. Mr. Gundersen said there is about 2000 square feet additional office space. When we removed the atrium, we reduced the building's length and created some outdoor space. Mr. McCarthy asked if the parking numbers affect the increase in square feet. Mr. Gundersen said they are still in the process of making the final calculations. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said he appreciates the board's efforts with the buffer. He read the zoning definition of the buffer and its requirements. He said the 50 foot requirement was based on a consensus. It should be landscaped to shield residential from nonresidential uses. The 10 • purpose is not usable space, but for landscaped space. He read from January 27`h DRB minutes,_ where concerns about the buffer were raised. Joan Zabkar, 6 Phelps St., said there is a limitation on the AUL for disturbing soil 2-4 feet below the surface. Frank Vetere, LSP for the project, said the AUL refers to post-construction. We can't build a building without disturbing the land. Ms. Zabkar read from the AUL. Mr. Vetere said going back to the risk assessment, we took account of construction activity, and she is referring to long term, permanent uses. Ms. Zabkar said she seems to understand that going below 2 feet, you are disturbing the land. Mr. Vetere said the building needs to be built. There will have to be reasonable construction activities going into the ground. Ms. Zabkar said the Board has copies of her document. She said she asked in private conversation if the vapor barrier will be maintained. Mr. Vetere said the barrier consists of impervious membrane with a concrete floor on top of it, and piping that vents to the roof. It is a passive system that doesn't require maintenance. Ms. Zabcar read from the AUL regarding maintenance of passive ventilation and said that an EPA official said it is important that the system be maintained. Mr. Vetere said past technology involved active systems with a fan, but now you don't want that because it adds to the AUL and what you have to maintain. We try to have no operational maintenance. These systems are thought to be superior. Ms. Zabkar said she wants to submit a letter from an official saying you must put in maintenance. I am concerned about protecting children from dangerous hydrocarbons. You are telling me that if you put in a state of the art system there are no regulations about maintenance? Mr. Puleo said they are saying that this is accepted practice. Mr. Clark said Mr. Vetere is a licensed LSP and he is giving his opinion. Ms. • Zabkar said repeated requests for information have been ignored and that is going into the record and to HUD. Your number one duty is the health and safety of residents. Is there anyone on board who wants information from higher level officials? We want a clear picture of what is happening here and what are the real issues. Mr. Vetere said there is a guidance document from the EPA for such systems and ours meets its requirements. Mr. Ready said he wants to respond to the statement that the board is not concerned about health and safety. That is an unfair criticism. We rely heavily upon the Board of Health and the Conservation Board who do reviews for us. We trust them. Ms. Zabkar said they were not told about the Board of Health meeting. Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, said there has been talk of a letter from Pat Donohue and I haven't see that. We have to rely on this expert. I understand Ms. Zabkar's case, but she has had the opportunity to present the letter. Ms. Zabkar said she will give anyone any letter they want. Jim Moskavis said this is a good developer with a history in Salem and the city and the boards have worked hard. This developer has done nothing but acquiesce to everything the boards have asked for and we should move on. Mr. Correnti said there is nothing else to present unless there are further questions. There will be comments from the City Engineer. Could we look toward a draft decision if you are so inclined? Mr. Puleo asked if there is anything left for wetlands issues. Mr. Correnti said there is not. Ms. • Sullivan asked if they must go to the ZBA before this board can finish. Mr. Correnti said they do not. Normally that is the process, but nothing says we have to do that. Ms. Sullivan asked if the 11 draft decision is needed for the variance. Ms. Duncan said no, any route can be taken through the boards. Ms. Sullivan asked if the site plan includes the number of spaces. Mr. Correnti said they can show a revised final plan. If you put that into a draft decision, we can lock it in with the ZBA. Ms. Sides thanked him for putting it in this order because it makes sense to complete with the Planning Board before the ZBA. Mr. Clark suggested putting this at the front of the next meeting. Ms. McKnight said that would make sense. A motion was made by Randy Clark to continue the Public Hearing at the May 6 meeting, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business None Adjournment A motion was made by Randy Clark to adjourn, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). • Meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk i 12 NNUIT TAT 1co, City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Board Date / 1 / Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail PaT L -D -1 Sr- 7 $O ,. nn l Pol a�� arrca57 .�et —mss i '/A/ICLl YooGy/9�/�i:�/4nN K 220+6 t1vOj- r /liov t �r7 �s� 316 pry/ ��so/r�-ems � So50(' M Dow Q l��s�rrxk ��,.x5� �1 ✓fb `�°3-v39C — � a .76 �� R7 �-7tiq-ba% f45hI �� T� hNj�CC _v�� L�j r �cJ Sh' I. sy Leder c. `�-p 1.Y,l eAj (2ep- FCN�I.o� � S A�"f��l-� L-7 -720--Q5 -7r> Lj SG2h�uJ� �9U 14 SC()Tm J/' q7,g S`lS S3a7 Sj/.aO JubfJwe� Q GIgVZ � ONPI 60L,' Ko iy)v ,') moi) 56 0 — O/t!oZ L( s r c.-7, r,) ttSIn4 t knx a ffode/rte e Page—L of 2- City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Board Date y Nam/ a LLMailing Address Phone # E-mail }) L! Aa,la.S1ryq�l��'l�iiRj cod d / dt1 fie_ cv o�gaZ Rj9ff ' Pk660MA I MAny))VGRD � YNya1A 781-953-Zb� B L CJr �' �lar� �� Ilsru�eS� c ��h 7871 /', / �� 7tel-S1�iS'- ifO30 & i .Jc003 e no �,i ATIJp 377 eeipeat :nGl' Page of 2, � y ; P A i , L/ NNrr \ T(' BOARD J NOTICE OF MEETING Yat we horby noriliai dirt the Salem Planning Bcani udl held its )EVilarly sd.1ffbd&nwir#M Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 7:00 pm at QyHafiAmxx, Room313, 120 W, &Vcn, opt daada M. p1deq Gbairrmn MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes > 3/4/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit,and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new,expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (\Lp 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attomeyjoseph Correnti. 4. Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC 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, 244,245, 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/NewBusiness 6. Adjournment �4iiwttrq,ro�, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS T DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ��fP12Nill4��C?" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIM6ERLEY DRISCOLL 1 NIAYOK 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOOMN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECrOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: March 25, 2010 RE: Agenda - April 1,2010 Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. At the hearing it is the applicant's intention to provide an overview of this complex project within 45 minutes. The remainder of the time allocated to this project could be set aside for public comments and questions, with the Planning Board holding its questions for a future hearing in order to enable the public to speak As I mentioned to you in my email,the full-sized plans are too large to be mailed, so I am enclosing the smaller version. The larger set will be available at the meeting (or beforehand, if you want to pick them up). The materials in your packet include the small site plans, an application for Business Park Development/Site Plan Review,the Project Narrative, an Environmental Impact Statement, a drainage report, and a traffic study(we are currently in the process of getting Beta Group under contract to peer-review the traffic study- David Knowlton, City Engineer,will review the civil engineering). 1 MEPA- The applicant was required to submit an Environmental Notification Form )ENF under ( • the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), so the project will be undergoing an extensive review at the state level in addition to the Planning Board review. The MEPA review was triggered because of the proposed relocation of a stream(alteration of 500 feet or more of inland bank), creation of 10 or more acres of impervious area, the generation of 3,000 or more new Average Daily Trips (ADT) to a single location, and construction of 1,000 or more new parking spaces at a single location. In hopes being allowed to file a single Environmental Impact Report (EIR) rather than a two-step process (filing both a draft and final EIR), they submitted an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF). However, Secretary Bowles denied this request, so they are currently working on the draft EIR. I have a copyof the EENF on file in the Planning Department if Board members or the public wish to see it. Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit- Also included in the packet is a WFH Special Permit application. The regulations relating to this district are on page 51 of the zoning ordinance - Section 8.1. The reason this project is believed to trigger this Special Permit is the proximity of wetlands to the proposed development. The wetlands map the zoning ordinance refers to are older and not as precise as our current wetlands maps, so the developer's engineer is looking at the issue more closely- we may discover that the wetlands as delineated on this map are far enough away from the development that the permit is not triggered, and if that is the case,that application will be withdrawn. Assuming the WFH special permit is required,the following criteria will need to be met: 1. The proposal use will crnrg ly in all respects to the uses and prou'sions of the unden'ying district in zehio�the land is located 2. There are adequate corzrtnience aid safety c f zebi dar and palatrian irowirent within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and p rpert)4 parti lady in the ewrt cfflooding cf the lots) or4acent lots) causal by either ozerspdl from wnterbodis or high runoff. 3. Utilities, including gas, &ct iclty fuel, water and seteage daspnsal, shall be located and constructed so as to prnteet against breaking leaking shortamatirg grounding or igniting or arg other damge due to floArg 4. The cunplatize effect of the proposed deceloprrent or use, when combined zuih all other eeisting and anticipated decelprent and uses, w/1 not obstruct or dizert flood floret'substantially rediae natural floodwater storage rapacity in the local drainage area;cl6my zaluable habitat for wildlife, imludirzg fishene or sbel phenes;adwisely affect groundwater resaoas or in o we stomn ater runoff wlaity so that water levels on other land are substantially raised or the danger from flailing in aerse d 5. The proposal development or use shall not intrude the storage of salt; cherrrzrah,petrureum pmlucts or other cortamnnating substantia or discharge of arypcllutirg liquids or materrals into strean's, brooks or wetlands. (7he polluting effects of substances m the wetlands aye to be gszugsd by the "Rules and Regulations for the E stablishnra 9'Minnrr urn Water Quality Standards and for the Protection of the Quality and Value of Water Resourta"e f the Comram ealth qfMassadbusear.j 6. The floor lends of areas to be oaupned by heamn heug as lining or work spaces shall be four(4) • feet or cone aboze the seasonal high water table 2 7. If the baserreru floor lezel is below the seasonal high acuter table and affords the passibility c f h gran • oazcpancy at sc e fatw date,altx4 not originally intendec� adequate pennrter drainageand fcuasdatwn shall be installed to withstand the effect ofpressure and seepage Furnace and utilities are to beprotetted f vm the effects cf leacbing 8. If the lot is to be senerl by an mlot septic s3,sL-N the kadring arra designed for use, as yell as a rBau,d aura for future expansion or tctal future use, shall beplarted aeith dirreraiarzs on the site Alar; and the loading areas shall not be constructed a ere the seasonal high tauter table is less than four(4)feet below the bottom of the leaching arras. Resident comments - I have received two phone calls from abutters. The first lives out of state but owns 455 Highland Ave. (an auto body shop), and because he is unlikely to be able to attend Board meetings, he asked me to pass along his concern to the Board about increased stormwater runoff onto his property and the possibility of erosion. The second, Lou Shkliew, is an abutter in Lynn (14 Scranton Way, a small subdivision near Camp Lion). He is concerned about the proximity of the Lowe's store, especially the parking lot, from his house. These are the only two calls I have received, though a few Lynn residents have contacted Attorney Correnti's office directly via the office of State Representative Robert Fennell. Atty Correnti has told me these residents would like to meet with the developers prior to the meeting on April 1,which he is attempting to coordinate. Department comments - the application has been routed to Building, Health, Fire, Conservation and Engineering. So far none have responded,though the project will need to go before the Conservation Commission. • Land swan - In response to the question raised at the last meeting, CityCouncil has approved the land swap, so if the project goes forward, the land will be exchanged. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. As Attorney Correnti mentioned at the last meeting,the topics he anticipates addressing are building design, footprint, landscaping, and parking lot layout and requirements. Since our last meeting,the project has been before the Design Review Board again (on 3/23/10). Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit- The WFH Special Permit application that did not come in with the original application package has been submitted and is in your packet. While we may not have time to get into an in-depth discussion of it at this meeting, I did want to review the requirements for this permit so that you can be prepared for it. As I noted above, the regulations relating to this district are on page 51 of the zoning ordinance - Section 8.1. Briefly,the reason the project triggers this Special Permit is because a portion of the property is within the A Zone (the hundred-year flood plain). The flood hazard district is determined by FEMA maps, and so the problems with older maps associated with the wetlands permit (see above) are not an issue. Any construction proposed in the A zone requires the following requirements to be met: 3 1. The proposed use uill amply in all nz pects to the uses and proziswrts c f the underlying distna in • uhidz the land is located 2. Them are adequate conzera&u and safety c f ubiadar and pedestrian m7wmv within the site and in relation to adfaaent strsets and property particularly in the euv offlooding of the lot(s) or adlaccrrt lot(s) caused by euher ozerspill from vate�'rzrlis or high naz f 3. Utilities, including bas, el mmty,fuel, water and sewage disposal, shall be located and amsmKte d so as to protect against break irrg leak ing shorturcuitirg grounding or igratirrg or any other damage due to 4. The cunundatize effect o f the proposed dezdopmv or use, uben combined wth all other ex zsting and anticipated dezeloprtm and uses, Bill not obstruct or dizert float flow substantially reduce natural flo duster storage aapacity in the local drainage area;destroy w1uable Imbitat far zPi zfe, v7duding fisheries or sbdl�hew, adzersely affect puinduater resam-a or increase stonrruater n=ffw1ocity so that zeater lezels on other land are substantially raised or the danger fmm flooding incmcued 5. The floor of the basenem or, if n%4 the lozrest floor qfnewconstnation a,substantial mprozerrerzt of stnrctuns for residemial uses shall be at or aboze the 100-dear float lewd. 6. The floor o f dx baseman or, if norr, the Imes t floor o f neza construction or substantial inyprozemm of stnrctures for nonnesiderrtiad uses shall be at or aboze theerre hundred}ear floral lezel or the struaw-es shall be flo4rvefed to that lewd in awpliance wth the applicable requimrrents Gf the Massadmetts State Building Cade Floalprogfirg nwwts shall ensure that the stne my is vatemght and that structural • corn nts haze the capability o f resisting hJdrnswtic and hydra m me loads and the effects c f buoyancy Resident Comments - I received a resident letter, submitted by Dr.Miltiades Vorgeas, expressing concerns about contamination on the property and how it may relate to the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have enclosed a copy in your packet. I have also enclosed a hard copy of the document sent to me by resident Joan Zabkar several weeks ago,which I held off on sending you because the project was not discussed at the last two meetings (I did pass along the link by email at the time she sent it to me). I have also enclosed, for your information, a copy of the decision letter issued on the previous project that was proposed on this site. Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC 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, 244,245, 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 have enclosed a copy of the Form C subdivision application, the Wetlands/Flood Hazard Special Permit application, the Operation and Management Plan, and the stormwater management report. • I've also included the environmental impact statement, but without the hydrologic/hydraulic analysis since this is a longer document that has not been revised since the first filing (I asked the Board 4 r about this last month and no one wanted a new copy). I did include a copy in Randy's and Mark's packets, since they did not receive it the first time. The newly filed application has been routed to Fire, Health, Engineering, Conservation and Building. Lt. Griffin (Fire) responded that she had no new comments since the project was re-filed (her one comment about the location of a fire hydrant was resolved in the previous filing). Carey Duques, Conservation Agent, concurs with the proposal, noting that comments from the previous filing were resolved in the newly filed plans. David Greenbaum (Acting Health Agent) told me to use the decision/conditions the Board of Health provided from the old filing, since they are not planning to ask the applicant in again. I am enclosing.these. I don't expect any further comments from Engineering, since David Knowlton completed the review himself, and all of his comments from the earlier project have been incorporated into the new plans. • 5 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting • April 1, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were Chuck Puleo, Chair, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair. Approval of Minutes The minutes of March 18, 2010 were reviewed. There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the minutes of March 18, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement • retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Mr. Puleo addressed the public before opening the public hearing. He said that the hearing will be limited to one hour and the board will defer comments in order to give the public a chance to comment. He asked people to be courteous. The city tries to close meetings by 10 p.m., and the hearing will be continued to future meetings, so there will be sufficient time for everyone's input. In response to some emails the Board received, he said that the project it not related to Salem Woods, which is protected from development. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., attorney for the applicant, said that tonight they will present a general PowerPoint overview and details will be forthcoming in future meetings. The plan for tonight is to take questions and comments after the overview. The project's five elements include the new and expanded Wal-Mart, a new Lowe's, a small expansion to the Meineke Muffler shop, the city water tower, and the camp site improvements. Mr. Correnti said the project has been in the works for some time with support of the city. The City Council has amended zoning to allow business park development in this Planned Unit Development (PUD) application. The was also a memorandum of understanding regarding their land swap with the city. An approximately four acre city parcel would be swapped for a site in the rear so the project can go forward and the city can build its water tower in an appropriate location. The Council was also supportive of the Lowe's TIF application. The project is big but • 1 will have some positive impacts. It will bring jobs and revenue to the city when those things are in shortsupply. After tonight's overview, we want to cover traffic at the next meeting. We believe that will be a full night presentation. We will show you that traffic improvements don't . stop at the Lynn line. Civil engineering, architecture, landscaping, and drainage will be covered in subsequent meetings. Lastly, our team has met with neighbors from Lynn. Rob Jess, Lowe's Project Manager, said that Lowe's is excited to come to this location. They are cautious with their plans and have rejected other sites, but are keeping this one. He said he will be here throughout the process and can answer questions about Lowe's. Karen Westfield, Manager of the existing Wal-Mart, said she has been with the company 15 years and is excited about the possibility of expansion. She said the prospect of expansion is one of the reasons she chose this location. Austin Turner, Civil Engineer of Tetra Tech Rizzo, presented a PowerPoint overview of the project. He said that they are only using about a third of the property, some of which is already developed. He displayed a map indicating property lines. He showed a wetlands map and stated that they intend to work with the city on mitigation and impact issues. He then showed a site plan depicting the extent of the PUD. The proposed Lowe's will be 150,063 square feet with 378 parking spaces. The existing Wal-Mart will be demolished and replaced with a larger store at 152,192 square feet with 611 spaces. They will relocate a traffic signal and change the traffic configuration for more efficient circulation. They are working with the camp to identify what it wants for improvements, such as an increase in square footage and more modem facilities, with 50 parking spaces, a relocated pool, and a pickup and drop off area. They have been spending time with the Mayor, City Engineer and a consultant on design. The engineering staff signed off • on the water storage tank. The very small Meineke expansion includes an additional service bay and a storage component. Landscaping will include 1600 new plantings. The goal is to minimize the footprint and maintain the vegetation buffer. Mr. Turner said that offsite improvements include relocating an outdated traffic signal. He stated that they are accommodating the concerns of condominium owners about access points for truck traffic by accommodating it in access points. The city's new water tank will have a gated, dedicated drive, accessible from the project's driveway. He displayed a map depicting the land swap with the city. The current city parcel will be incorporated into the project, and the city will receive a parcel that is for all intents and purposes identical. The Meineke improvements include better access to the intersection, allowing for a left turn upon exiting, which is not currently possible. With the road improvements, their sign will have to be moved. He presented a map displaying proposed changes and improvements to Camp Lion. Mr. Turner showed elevations of the proposed Lowe's and Wal-Mart. He then displayed 3-D renderings and a grading/elevation map. Lowe's will be higher than Highland Ave. to minimize disturbance to the land. The new Wal-Mart will be slightly higher than the existing store. The city water tank is at the same elevation as the previous proposal. He presented maps of proposed drainage areas and storm water management areas. He noted that presently all storm water . drains to Highland Ave. and that they will be providing some offsite drainage. He then displayed a map of the site's proposed lighting, stating that lights will dim when stores are closed to • 2 provide only the minimum light needed for security. Lighting will be zero at property boundaries. He presented a map of proposed utilities. • Mr. Correnti said he knows this is a lot of information at once, but he hopes the overview is helpful. Mr. Puleo said there is another access road on the site and asked whether it is active. Mr. Turner said they plan to maintain the connection to the shopping center next door and the dirt path belongs to the camp. Mr. Puleo asked it is serves a purpose. Mr. Turner replied that it doesn't, but they have to maintain the connection to the camp. Mr. Puleo said there will be half an hour for general questions and comments. Issue opened up for public comment. Kathryn Byrne, 3 Lions Lane, Lynn, said she knows the access lane isn't being used, but it is the fire department's only access to brush fires. Mr. Austin stated that the road will be maintained. Ms. Byrne said that there are many elderly traversing this area and they might not be accustomed to the new traffic flow. She said her concern is that it should be user friendly. Mr. Turner said they are working to make it smoother. Denis Colbert, 37 Clark St., said there is a city sewage pump station that he thinks is overcapacity. Mr. Turner said they are working with the City Engineer to address that. Mr. Puleo said they were aware during a previous project that it was at capacity. Katerina Panagiotakis, 90 Spring View Drive, Lynn, asked if the developer is working with • Peabody to address wetlands issues. Mr. Correnti said the project does not abut the wetlands in Peabody. Gregory Demarcus, trustee at the abutting Apple Hill subdivision, said the project sounds like a disaster for his subdivision. We put$22 million into infrastructure for the 16 lot site, and now this monstrosity will be behind us. The goal to keep the high elevation is disturbing. He said he is concerned about noise, appearance, and traffic, and asked what will be done to buffer the Lynn boundary so people's property will not lose value. Mr. Turner noted that other Lynn residents have raised similar concerns. The purpose of the elevation is to minimize the footprint and make for the most efficient earthwork. The new water tower location is further from the Lynn boundary. Mr. Demarcus asked if Wal-Mart will consider doing something to enhance the buffer near the subdivision. Mr. Correnti said that they are aware of those lots and they will look at the relationship between the project and those lots. There is a buffer now that they will maintain, and they will have more answers on that. Mr. Puleo asked if the camp's driveway is being relocated. Mr. Turner said they are maintaining the intersection, but pulling a bend back to accommodate the project. Mr. Puleo asked if they have the elevation of the nearby Lynn lots. Mr. Turner answered yes,their survey goes a couple hundred feet past the Lynn line. • 3 Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., asked what the status is of the environmental impact report. Mr. Turner said they filed a MEPA application in December and have since received comments from • state agencies and the team is working to address those. Mr. Treadwell said state agencies will be making a site visit and that the public is welcome. Mr. Turner said there has already been one MEPA visit. Mr. Treadwell asked if there will be another. Mr. Turner said he believes so. Mr. Treadwell asked about the geographic extent of the project, noting that the PUD requires a plan for the entire property. He asked if there will be a plan for the upper one or two thirds of the site. Mr. Correnti said there won't be because that is not the project site and they do not own or control it. Camp Lion will maintain ownership of the 50 plus acres behind the site. We show it to demonstrate the relationship. Mr. Treadwell asked whether the board will see what is planned for the remainder of the site. Mr. Correnti said that is not their parcel. Ms. Sides said she doesn't understand the difference between the areas. With a map displayed, Mr. Correnti said that Camp Lion owns the bulk of the yellow site, and they have a small portion under agreement. Mr. Clark asked what the extent of the PUD is, and Mr. Turner displayed a map depicting it and noted that it coincides with the zoning boundary. Mr. Treadwell asked what is in which zoning district. Mr. Correnti said the PUD is outlined on the map in red and everything outside that is not the project. Mr. Treadwell asked if anything he has heard about conservation easements up there is not well founded. Mr. Correnti said they have not gotten to those details yet in their presentation. Leslie Cartemanche, 97 Fellsmere St., Lynn, said the overview seems like a presentation of a done deal and she is concerned that there are no pictures of what they are impacting, such as the environment. It is a sensitive area and I have it well documented that there are threatened . species there and vernal pools. The only traffic improvement on Highland Ave. southbound would be to not have this project. I am opposed to the project for its traffic and other impacts. MaryWhitney,Whitne , 356 Essex Street#2, asked how much impervious surface is on the site now and how much will be there upon completion of the project. Mr. Turner said he is unsure, but knows it can be found in public documents. Ms. Whitney asked if they will work to minimize impervious surface, with it being a large project on a natural site. Mr. Turner said they are working with MEPA to review alternate playouts, and if there are opportunities for low-impact design, they will look it that. Ms. Whitney asked what the store hours will be. Mr. Correnti said the hours will be per ordinance, which dictates that it would have to close by 11 p. in. Dan Cahill, 20 Belleaire Ave., Lynn, Councilor at Large, thanked the project team for coming to Lynn. He said he is disappointed with Salem, because unlike the Wal-Mart and Lowe's, the city is not a profit-seeking corporation. I understand why they want the economic impact of the project, and it is tucked away in the corner of the city where Salem will experience less adverse impact. We don't like how it is being built right next to us. This will impact property taxes that provide for the neediest people. I am also concerned about people leaving Lynn to spend money at these stores. Cooperation is critical. We will be here throughout the process. I hate this project—no offense to those running it. • 4 William Trahant, 215 Verona St, Lynn, Ward Two Councilor, said he has met with Mr. Correnti and his team. He said it was a nice presentation, but he wishes it had come sooner. Flooding is a • concern and this will bring more water. I am also concerned about traffic, with current conditions as poor as they are. Steve Walsh, State Representative from Lynn, said he works often with Salem, and loves the city. Mr. Correnti has been accessible and professional and is a good man, but that doesn't make this a good project. More than half of the land being developed has to be cleared or blasted near one of our nicest neighborhoods. I object to having this on the city line, and I question the economic payoff for the city. I hope the developer comes back to address mitigation. We want to know the impact on the regional economy. Wal-Mart and Meineke could grow on their current footprints. Lowe's doesn't care about neighbors or regional economic development. A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing on April 15, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Mr. Correnti, attorney for the applicant, said they want to open the hearing for the Wetlands and • Flood Hazard Special Permit. We will talk about progress with the DRB, which reviews this because it is in the North River Canal Corridor. We have made some substantial changes to the plan. We do not yet have a final recommendation from the DRB. There is another DRB meeting on April 13,just prior to the next Planning Board meeting. We are hopeful that process will be completed, but we will be back here either way. We will show you changes to the building and to the overall site. We have been talking to the DRB about trying to improve the buffer. Peter Blaisdell, Registered Engineer of Hayes Engineering, presented the site plans. He noted that of the seven buildings on the site prior to 1995, only one, an auto shop, stands today. He displayed the flood plain boundaries and said there has been no base flood study to give a target elevation, but they do have a 10 elevation downstream. About half the site is in Zone A, a flood zone, but we are convinced that the line is no longer accurate after the Bridge St. reconstruction. We have evidence to support that this area no longer floods. He noted that he has visited the site during high tide following very high levels of rainfall and saw no flooding at the site. All we have seen is surcharged water coming from a sewer in front of Public Storage. I also looked today and it was bare. Despite clogging, catch basins are still running great. He distributed photographs of the site from today during high tide to the board. He noted that in their improvements, Peabody will be providing some backflow prevention gates to prevent water getting onto Bridge St. Mr. Puleo asked if they are maintaining what is required despite their belief that the map is wrong. Mr. Blaisdell said yes, they are taking a conservative approach. Mr. George asked if • 5 they are looking at proposed new maps. Mr. Blaisdell said he spoke with FEMA and the city of Salem about a year ago, and he doesn't know if Salem has requested a change or will get a new maps. Mr. George asked if they have seen any new maps. Mr. Blaisdell said no, and that • officials said they were not asking for change. Mr. Blaisdell said the applicants were concerned to avoid impacts on neighbors. With permission, they did a topological survey of the neighbors' properties. He said that none of the project's runoff reaches any of the Federal St. properties. He displayed an erosion control plan. We are proposing to surround the site with fencing with construction exits. A rim of hay bales will be around the edge. The existing building will come down. Most of the existing drainage system will be abandoned. We will keep an existing wall to intercept water in order to not change its displacement. The existing system will be about nine feet below the grade of the building. There will be tracking pads, a little depression with fresh stone, to pick up dirt and sedimentation from truck tires and keep it out of catch basins. Mr. Puleo asked if they are bringing in material with the change of grade. Mr. Blaisdell said yes, in some areas. Mr. Correnti said for the interest of time, they will stop here and come back to it. Mr. Puleo asked the board if there are questions about this, and there were none. Mr. Puleo asked when they will file with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Correnti said it will be April or May. Harry Gundersen of Gundersen Associates, Project Architect, said there have been three DRB meetings. There has been discussion about the location of the building entrance and some concern from the DRB and Planning Board about outdoor space. There has also been discussion of landscaping and buffer. He displayed the former ground floor layout. The DRB was concerned about emphasizing a minor entry location with the atrium. We eliminated the atrium • and enlarged the other entrance. We relocated the health club's entrance to be along the Boston St. sidewalk. We moved the left half of the building to the right, allowing some outdoor space. So there is a new Boston St. entrance and the main entrance at the other end. We are able to keep the main entrance toward the center of the site and make it obvious where the main entrance is. Ms. Hanscom asked if the hallway replacing the atrium offers access to the several parts of the building. Mr. Gundersen answered that it does provide access to the Senior Center and the gym, and to the upper floors with stairs and an elevator. Ms. Sullivan asked why someone would enter the health club on Boston St. when they are parked in the lot. Mr. Gundersen replied that it wasn't moved very far. Mr. Gundersen displayed the proposed outdoor space plan. He noted that there was concern about the loss of space with the elimination of the atrium. The Senior Center space will open onto the main lobby, which is 50 by 45 feet with a security desk and outdoor seating. The landscaped patio is adjacent to the lobby and there is quite a wide sidewalk. The DRB feels that the sidewalk is wide enough for tables and chairs. He showed a revised sketch of the new entry. There is a modified canopy fitting with the style of the entrance. Ms. Hanscom asked how deep the canopy is. Mr. Gundersen said it hasn't been determined, but will probably be in the 3-10 foot range. Mr. Clark asked if they have lost the covered drop off area and Mr. Gundersen said that it is gone. • 6 Mr. Gundersen said the DRB has spent lots of time on landscaping. It is generally through that • the buffer between the project site and the Federal St. neighbors should be densely planted. The neighbors will have input into the height of the fence. The DRB thinks that eight feet might be too tall,but we will do it if the neighbors want it. Our planning takes into account the presence of large trees on the abutters' property. We propose a dense fence of evergreens and some Eastern Red Cedar by the retaining wall. There will also be some Arborvitae since they are controllable. For accent plantings, we propose Red Maple, Kousa Dogwood, and Shadblow Serviceberry. Ms. Sullivan asked if the width of the buffer is the same. Mr. Gundersen answered yes. Ms. Sullivan asked on what basis the parking number is determined, since much else is determined by this and we haven't heard an explanation yet. She asked if this is going to come some time. Mr. Correnti said he will address this shortly. Mr. Gundersen said one deciduous tree will be planted. The parking lot landscaping will include Laceback Elm in one strip, and Honey Locust and River Birch in the other sections. All street trees will be Callery Pear. This was changed to be continuous at the request of the DRB. Ground cover is unchanged. At the next DRB meeting we will address the corner of Boston and Bridge Streets. We will provide a rendering of the health club lobby. Mr. Puleo asked where people will enter. Mr. Gundersen said everyone will enter through the lobby or at the new middle entrance. When you eliminate the atrium, the second floor runs continuously through the whole building, so we put an elevator at the Boston St. entrance. Mr. Puleo said this could split people entering. Mr. Gundersen said he thinks only people heading to the upper floor offices will use the middle entrance. Mr. Clark said he does not agree that few • will use the middle corridor. Mr. Correnti addressed parking. He said we have to make some assumptions. Nobody builds spec buildings and this isn't a spec building. Developers are willing to go forward knowing the Senior Center will be here and they are betting that they will be able to fill the rest of the building. He says this is the only developer willing to do that. It is hard to predict future uses in the building. The Senior Center has the requirement for 80 spaces. We know we will have retail on the corner and there is a formula in the ordinance for retail. Based on square footage, that retail will require 96 spaces. The rest is office and there are two zoning categories for that. We would have to know how much space will be each category. We expect a mixture of both. We plug this in and we come up with a requirement of about 400 spaces. Our plan calls for 374 spaces, so we have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a relief of 20-30 spaces. I can't tell my client to get more relief based on the assumption that it will be all one use because the building could be filled in a way that is different than what we assume. We want to make sure that the building ends up with proper permits. Ms. Sullivan says she respects that analysis, but she still would like to know the basis of the Senior Center number. She knows this is not Mr. Correnti's problem, but there is a whole set of decisions based on a this number and she doesn't know how they got there. Mr. Correnti said the existing center has 20 spaces, and they looked at other centers. The real analysis is that the center has all the spaces it needs. In the evening, if there is a function, there will be 200 plus 7 spaces available. While 80 was the number in the RFP and Purchase and Sales agreement, some are pleased that there is more than needed if there is an event after business hours. Mr. Sullivan said she is just asking to find out where the number comes from,.because if it is • wrong, we have a chance to expand the buffer or extend the sidewalk. We will kick ourselves when it is built and spaces are empty. Somebody must know where the number comes from. Is there an average number of spaces for Senior Centers? Mr. Clark said he agrees with her. Mr. Correnti said that that it is the number in the RFP and that this question might be answered by the City. Mr. Ready said we shouldn't be putting this extra burden on this developer. Ms. McKnight says the Planning department can find out. Joan Lovely, 14 Story St., City Councilor, said other sites were ruled out for lack of parking. There will be city departments and AARP that need parking. Employees alone won't take up that many spaces. I was on the public opinion committee that had hearings and sent out surveys. Parking came back resoundingly as a priority. We have reports on this that are available. Maybe 80 spaces is too many, but it is in the Purchase and Sale agreement. I would like to see some of that parking instead be a bocce court and an atrium. Ms. Sides said she believes the new entry will serve the role that the atrium did, with sunlight and foot traffic making it an'active and vibrant space. Ms. Lovely said the city is the anchor tenant and that the project wouldn't happen without the city. Seniors want outdoor space, and the mayor's idea for the roof garden is a good one, but I understand it would be a huge expense and ok to give up. But we should seek some outdoor space, even at the expense of parking. Ms. Sullivan said she knows there are reasons for the parking requirements for the other uses and she isn't going to try to change the law. But the 80 spaces for the Senior Center could be a • flexible area where we could find outdoor space. Ms.Sullivan said she doesn't want to kick herself for not having this conversation. Ms. Hanscom asked if they need to have this many spaces to build this building. Could you lose 20 spaces? Mr. Correnti said they have to meet the legal requirements or get a variance. Practically speaking, doctors offices require a certain amount of parking and they are very particular about it. We have to offer them enough parking regardless of zoning, or they won't come. We have to keep in mind the tenants we will be seeking. Some say a variance is a variance, and we could ask for relief for more than 20 spaces. But then we lose the ability to attract tenants. Ms. Hanscom suggested that outdoor space could be in the back of the site. Ms. Sullivan said it wouldn't be practical right now with the ocean of parking. Ms. Hanscom said doctors don't care about spaces in the far end of the site. Mr. Clark noted that in theory outdoor space would be better in the back of the site, isolated and surrounded by trees. Issue opened up for public comment. Doctor Miltiades Vorgeas, 33 Pickman Road, said his primary concern is for the mental and physical health of seniors. He brought a copy of an EPA directive telling buyers to beware of contaminated properties. He is are concerned because he says they eliminated St. Joseph's • 8 because of traffic and this site has more traffic lights than that one. Consequently there are noxious, contaminating gases there. He contacted someone in Maryland who will check the air toxicity in the area. It could cost $3,000. Nothing has been done in this congested area. Our • other concern is the pipes and tanks underground. If the developer wanted to take a complete look, he would need an electromagnetic device. There are other methods to go even deeper. I understand the developer did some monitoring, but you will not be able to find the methane gas in the area. I personally went through one of these buildings years ago. I saw piles of broken glass that they would take to the middle college area and put there in a mound. A lot of it seeped into the ground. If you canoe through the marshland, you will smell the methane. If the developer ever did his job and looked at it completely, he would have to hire someone from Virginia for$1,000 per hour. Approximately 137 pollutants can be in this area. What will we do about the health concerns? The building is nice, but the area is not conducive for seniors. It is not a senior center according to some organizations. To be a senior center it would have to be a separate building. Now the city is buying a condo with local and HUD money. To deal with the area properly, full remediation is required. Mr. Puleo said that this would be best handled by HUD, because there is an environmental review as part of their process. Mr. Vorgeas said that he is concerned that this is not the best location for a senior center. Mr. Clarke said these issues are not the purview of the Planning Board. Mr. Ready said he wants to be sure to mention that the official record of this meeting is being maintained by the city of Salem. . Joan Zabkar, 6 Phelps St., said that she expects to have a dialog with Frank Vetere. Will I have that opportunity without having to submit questions? Mr. Correnti said Mr. Vetere can be made available at the next meeting to answer questions. Ms. Zabkar said that would be the dialog. Mr. Puleo said it will be limited by time. Ms. Zabkar said she was repeatedly assured that she will have the dialog. Mr. Puleo said it won't be an all night discussion. Ms. Zabkar said she would have questions, he will answer, and we will have the dialog. She asked what the time limit would be. Mr. Puleo said it will be something reasonable, maybe five minutes. Patrick Deiulis, 6 Seemore St., said that people who support these projects don't break doors down to come to meetings. I think the majority feels it is abenefit to the city. The site has been vacant too long and I credit the developers for this. All these conversations have taken place multiple times in difference forums. I hope the board will focus on the project. I hope for a speedy approval. A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing on April 15, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC 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, 245, and 274) into • 9 fifteen (15) single-family house lots, the construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes, and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane. John Keilty, 40 Lowell St., Peabody, attorney for the applicant, stated that the developer has a . purchase and sales agreement with three parties. We seek a special permit for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit and a definitive subdivision. This is a reapplication of a past application for a 15 lot subdivision with two on Fort Ave, three on Szetela Lane, and the remaining ten on Shallop Lane. We have approval for our storm water system as well as approval from the Board of Health. There has been an engineering review. All the plans incorporate department recommendations and input from neighbors. My client responded to an RFP for sale of city land. We are expecting an AUL. We have dug out hot spots and removed hazardous waste. Mr. client will provide a cap system. We have an agreement to provide a parking area which will be subject to zoning. The purchase and sales agreement limits the lot to employee parking. Neighbors have concerns about storage on the lot. Mr. Keilty showed the board locations of the capping. There will be a limit which prohibits people from eating vegetables grown on the site. Other than all this, it will be similar to any other subdivision. The road will be a public way, but we will be responsible for snow removal and storm water management. Mr. Puleo asked if there will be vertical curbing around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Keilty answered yes. Mr. Puleo asked about the fence. Christopher Mello of Eastern Land Survey said there had been discussion with neighbors. Mr. Puleo asked if the neighbors agreed to a type of fence. Mr. Mello said only the height of the fence was settled. Ms. McKnight said a condition could determine the fence material and it could be based on agreement with abutters. Mr. George asked whether an existing driveway is being eliminated. Mr. Keilty said it will • become paved parking. Mr. George asked what this project will mean for puddling on Szetela Lane. Mr. Mello said there is an existing catch basin and the problem is probably further from this site. The draining along the frontage is good. We will fix broken pavement as part of our work. Mr. George said the drains there have never been cleaned. Mr. Mello said they will clean them if needed. He said they are providing an outlet for Housing Authority drainage at the City Engineer's request, as well as a tide gate. Mr. Ready asked what the condition of the site is today after the heavy rain. Mr. Mello said he hasn't seen the site during the storms. Mr. Ready asked Ward 1 Councilor Robert McCarthy if there is flooding at the site. Mr. McCarthy said there is some, but he thinks it can be addressed when they make the curb cuts. Mr. Keilty said there are puddles where hot spots were removed. Those will be graded out. Mr. Ready said the storm water management plan should deal with this. Mr. Mello stated that the plan will take all the water and lead it through a new tide gate. Ms. Sullivan asked what the houses will look like. Mr. Keilty distributed renderings to the Board. Ms. Sullivan asked if their siding will be hardy plank rather than vinyl. Mr. Keilty said not necessarily. Ms. Hanscom asked where the retaining wall with the fence is. Mr. Mello identified it on the plan. Ms. Hanscom asked why this type of fence is needed. Mr. Mello said it is needed to bring the earth up. The fence is on request of neighbors. We need to block access from the parking lot to the houses. The other fence will be vinyl chainlink. Ms. Hancom asked • 10 is there is a picture of the fence. Mr. George asked if there is an alternative to chainlink. Mr. Mello said the neighbors want to see through it. Ms. Sullivan asked if the wall could be higher. • Mr. Mello said they want to prevent people from falling off it. Mr. George asked if there is access from Ford Ave. to the houses, and Mr. Keilty answered yes. Mr. McCarthy remarked that he is concerned that the road will be a liability for the city. The Association will take care of snow and other issues, but if it breaks down, it falls on the city. If there is a water or sewer break, or the street needs to be cut through, what is the city's liability? What liability does the city have when we cut through the street? Where does our responsibility end? The buyer is responsible for the contamination, but the cap is on the city. Ms. McKnight said it is City Council's decision whether to accept the street as a public way. The board doesn't have anything to do with this decision. The board is giving approval for construction of the street and utilities, and so far this has been with the understanding that it will be requested to be an accepted street. Mr. McCarthy said he has no problem with the city picking up trash, but he doesn't want the liability that comes with a capped site. Mr. Keilty said that if the street has to be opened, the city's only duty is to put it back the way it was found. If the city fixes a sewer, it doesn't demean the cap, since you put the cap back. Mr. Puleo said the concern seems to be about city employees handling material under the street. Mr. Keilty said that perhaps the City Solicitor could look into this. Mr. McCarthy asked if every previous condition will be adhered to. Mr. Puleo answered yes. Mr. McCarthy said he doesn't like the fence. Mr. Puleo noted that it will be addressed with • neighbors. Ms. McKnight said there are some conditions that were discussed during the previous filing that are no longer relevant because they have been resolved and incorporated into this second filing. Mr. Keilty said the fence issue remains and they are working with neighbors. Mr. Ready said that when they began there was input from the neighborhood, but he is very impressed that no one is here. Is it because everything has been addressed? Mr. McCarthy said he had to explain to neighbors what refiling is, and told them that all agreements will be adhered to. It is difficult because no one likes change. We are at the point where we need to move forward if all conditions are adhered to. At-large Councillor Steven Pinto said it has been four years since the RFP was issued. It is not perfect, but it will be good to see closure. Sometimes it takes that much time. Mr. McCarthy said we have gone through a process, and not everyone is happy, but he thinks they have something that will hopefully work. I applaud that they are sticking with the project. My trepidation is more with where this is located and what is underneath. I am concerned with future liability for the city. Mr. Keilty said the street could be completely private. Mr. Puleo asked where the AUL is stated. I know it is on the deed, but I want to be sure. Mr. Keilty said it is on the deed and the purchase and sales agreement. is 11 Ms. McKnight said that if the street is private, it could change the issue of the water meters. Originally when it was going to be private, the Engineering Department said they would not • meter every home. Mr. George suggested that a condition should require individual meters. Ms. McKnight read aloud a comment received from resident Helen Twardowsky, 9 English Street, expressing opposition to the project due to its density. Ms. KcKnight read aloud revisions in the draft decision letter and members discusses its final details. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan, with standard and special conditions, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business None Adjournment A motion was made by Tim Ready to adjourn, seconded by Mark George and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). • Meeting adjourned at 10:56 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 4/15/10 • 12 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD • N 0 April 5, 2010 Decision - The Residences at Shallop Landing > Form C- Definitive Subdivision and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit w Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership LLC c/o 40 Lowell Street Peabody, MA 01960 Re: The Residences at Shallop Landing Subdivision On April 1, 2010 the Planning Board of the City of Salem(hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Buard" or `the Board") opened a public hearing regarding the application of Shallop Landing at Collins Cove LLC(hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant" and/or"Owner") to allow construction of The Residences at Shallop Landing Subdivision and associated roadways and utilities. The subdivision contains fifteen (15) residential lots. At the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on April 1, 2010 the public hearing was closed and the • Board voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Puleo,Kavanaugh, Hanscom, Sullivan, Ready, Sides, Clarke and George) and none (0) opposed, to approve the Form C Definitive Subdivision and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, subject to the conditions below. Approval is given with the understanding that the developer will not request acceptance as a public way from City Council and that the street referred to as "Shallop Lane" on the plans will remain an unaccepted way. 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the set of plans containing sheets 1 through 5, titled, "Definitive Subdivision Plan - the Residences at Shallop Landing, Salem, Massachusetts," prepared by Eastern Land Survey, 104 Lowell Street,Peabody,MA, dated October 9, 2009 and revised January 28, 2010. 2. Endorsement of the Plans Following the statutory twenty(20) day appeal period, the Planning Board will endorse the Urigival subdivision plans, subject to conditions of this decision, which shall be recorded at the South Essex Registry of Deeds. The applicant must submit the following for the Planning Board's approval prior to endorsement of the plans: 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. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 0 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI,F.M.COM c. This decision shall be referenced on the original plans prior to the endorsement by the Planning Board; the decision shall be recorded with the plans at the Southern • Essex Registry of Deeds. 3. 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 this decision shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 4. 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. 5. Waivers In approving the Plans, the Board is hereby granting the following waivers of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations: a. .Width of sidewalks: 5'sidewalks are required; the applicant has proposed 4'sidewalks. The Board waives this requirement. b. Planting strips: 3-5'grass planting strips are required; the applicant has proposed osed that no strips be installed. The Planning Board waives this requirement. C. Street trees; 3n'"" caliper trees are P,required, lanced 30' on center. Theapplicant is 9 proposing 3 '/z" caliper trees planted between approximately40'and 100'apart fora total • of 7 trees. The Planning Board waives this requirement. In the judgment of the Board, the granting of the above waivers is in the public interest and consistent with the intent of the subdivision control law. 6. Transfer of Ownership Within five (5) days of transfer of ownership of the subdivision, the Owner shall notify the Board to 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. 7. 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 2 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 maybe 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 seeurities, ur a tri-party agreement in an amount determined by the Board to be sufficient to cover the cost of all or anyone 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. The Owner may file a covenant to secure the construction of ways and services for the entire sub-division 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. 8. Homeowner's Association a. Draft Home Owners Association or Home Owner's Trust Documents shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development, for reasonable review as to form and content prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the proposed dwellings. These documents shall include the following responsibilities: i. Ownership and/or maintenance of the storm water management system; ii. Ownership and/or maintenance of any walls located in the subdivision that are not situated on the lots in the subdivision. iii. Responsibility for snow removal on the proposed new road referred to as "Shallop Lane" on the submitted plans. iv. Responsibility for maintaining the street and all related infrastructure. v. Responsibility for maintaining fencing. b. The City of Salem reserves the right to enforce the responsibilities and requirements of the Homeowner's Association documents. • 9. Salem Conservation Commission 3 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 prior to commencement of any work 10. Street Trees The species of street tree is to be determined by the Gtys Director of Public Services. 11. Lighting a. The Owner shall coordinate with the electric company and the City Electrician regarding the installation of street lighting within the Subdivision. b. The street lighting shall be the responsibility of the Owner until such time as the Guy accepts the streets. c. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner and the City Electrician for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed dwelling units. 12.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. 13.Office of the City Engineer The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer • 14.Fire Department All work shall complywith the requirements of the Salem Fire Department as affected bythis decision. 15.Health Department All work shall comply with the general requirements of the Salem Health Department as affected by this decision. 16. Board of Health All requirements of the Board of Health shall be strictly adhered to, including the following conditions set forth in its decision of January 12, 2010: 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. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report mast be sent to the Health • Agent. 4 d. The developer will give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E Report. • e. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. f. A radon remediation kit shall be installed and operational in each below grade dwelling unit where appropriate. g. A radon test shall be conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit. h. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved bythe CiryEngineer. i. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area construction,demolition and/or blasting and shall send a co of the prior to co copy P > g exterminator's invoice to the Health Agent. j. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. 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 Wetlands 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. 17. Activity and Use Limitation A copy of the Activity and Use Limitation (for a residential end use) on the property is to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds with each of the deeds associated with the new homes, and • referred to in the Purchase and Sales agreements. 5 18.Pre-Cons true tion Conference Prior to the start of work on the approved subdivision, a pre-construction conference shall be scheduled with the Cry Planner, the Guy Engineer (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. 19. Construction Practices All construction shall be tamed 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 Blastin 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 hnuted 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. The applicant shall abide by any and all applicable 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. 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. 20. Blasting The applicant or argent shall distribute the flyers entitled, "Facts for Massachusetts Property Owners About Blasting" to all abutters within three hundred (300) feet of the blasting area. 21. Construction Traffic a. With the exception of off-site improvements required as part of this decision, all . construction will occur on site; no construction will occur or be staged within City 6 right of ways. Any deviation from this shall be approved by the Department of Planning &Community Development prior to construction. • b. A construction traffic management plan and schedule shall be submitted to the Department of Planning &Community Development for review and approval prior to the start of construction. c. Any roadways, driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition by the Owner. d. The Owner shall clean construction vehicles before they exit the construction site, and clean and sweep all streets affected by their construction truck traffic as necessary. 22. Progress Reports Upon the request of the Planning Board, the owner shall submit reports of the progress of the subdivision's completion. 23. 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. 24. Utilities Any utility installation for housing lots shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All utilities shall be installed underground. • 25. Special Conditions a. All fencing shall be done as per the plan submitted,except fencing adjacent to the abutting Page properties;these shall be six (6) feet high and of a material to be determined in agreement with the Pages. This agreement shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Board prior to construction of the fencing. b. Individual water meters shall be installed for each of the 15 houses. 26. As-built Plans & Street Plans As-built plans and street 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 the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the Citys use and approved b theCi Engineer, prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of PP by City g Occupancy for the subdivision. 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, as well as any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. • 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 cured within fourteen (14) days, or waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on the 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 pay the fee for recording or registering. 11'&� Charles Pulleo Chairman • • 8 wP4wT, o X4,6 0 City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Board Date 1/IName cc Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Como_es%rteT �,v —71(.S--(1 g" Com 1 /JeY)�is Calbej 37 �Cuh� Sf � Ph �J�B-7YS-5�G �wco�b �Cohl�s�.h�} �Te, �—Cr�e� e �tu 3G Feff �rt S ��ew q78- 7 �fda8� CA C&-,) . w�� h� �k�-S�g QS Ka�enna n o �: GIO 1/7- VIL-gal a1ars 04rKa�Pn�,;cd rn� Anr VeS51b 22z FalrS Aw nve- ynh 7��-�Q3 x913 des,s 3w e_yw-y r 9.ca �nr-� � dlv 724dAsr ?X �6% JAS H( u• 20 1�tLLL-A, 2LrAuLf L4A(, ✓} (y/�-z�3 - 3t ) 7 AfuAl 35� '��U5�-- �Io. 2 ( (0� Fwd V. 5.& 2��- nKy-�g69 Lear �r �K' 1WU1�� fI - LY✓l�' X178 01: o?AU 71<rn Vey ZOr. ,�� mewls G �eee9� �� 9?g � y�jGYa a, w��r nes Cr^^ Page of 2 lLpNl7tPq� City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet 3 cly;uset Board _Planning Board Date / I / 10 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ori -),p `moi 1y 2i( Q`1 q 9 - 371 'J- 0 Page 2 of Z— C TY OFSA.LEINI l' PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING tr C.11 y C! Ii, I ;ASS Ycie am h-tehynuoiddutthe Salem Planning Board udlhold its nydadysdydi"n"m Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 7:00 pm at CityHaIlArffoc, Room313, 120 WashirgonSbw t� 9ja,.-14*K CIM718 M Pideq Cbainrun MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes > 3/4/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Request for release of surety bond: ANGELO MEIMETEAS requesting bond release for the Subdivision at the end of CLOVERDALE AVENUE (Map 8, Lots 269, 280 and Map 9, Lot 122). 3. Request for insignificant change: Goodman Networks,on behalf of Clearwire (for the property located at 217-219 Essex Street (Assessor's Map 35, Lot 251). Applicant requests to change the location • of the previously permitted wireless equipment from one location on the rooftop of 217-219 Essex Street to another location on the same building. Heather M. Carlisle, Esq. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior.Center). Attomeyjoseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue to April 1, 2010. 5. Public Heating: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Pernuit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue to April 1, 2010. 6. Old/New Business 7, Adjournment Aw. /I c5t0/0 1.0 v14 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Q,. o' tisk. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND GMiNF ,r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M MBERIJZY 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: March 11, 2010 RE: Agenda—March 18, 2010 Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: Request for release of surety bond: ANGELO MEIMETEAS requesting bond release for the Subdivision at the end of CLOVERDALE AVENUE (Map 8,Lots 269,280 and Map 9, Lot 122). The subdivision work is not yet complete. However,Mr. Meimeteas has requested release of the $175,000 surety bond being held because in addition to the bond, the City is holding$25,000 cash for this project. I have asked David Knowlton whether the $25,000 would be sufficient if the City needed to complete the project, and he has told me it would be. A copy of his estimate for the remaining work is enclosed. The remaining work is as follows: completion of the paving of Cloverdale Ave.,installation of trees,backfilling and loaming/seeding behind all curbing, and repaving of the roadways affected by trenching and other construction,including Greenlawn Avenue. Request for insignificant change: Goodman Networks, on behalf of Clearwire (for the property located at 217-219 Essex Street (Assessor's Map 35, Lot 251). Applicant requests to change the location of the previously permitted wireless equipment from one location on the rooftop of 217-219 Essex Street to another location on the same building. Heather M. • Carlisle, Esq. Goodman Networks received a Special Permit for this equipment in September 2009. They would like to change the location on the same building. Photographs of the new location will be presented at the meeting—because this is a request for an insignificant change, I did not ask Ms. Carlisle to 1 submit copies for all Board members. If the Board decides this change is not insignificant,we will • have Goodman submit a full application. Because two Board members will not be present on March 18,Attorney Correnti has requested to continue both the Gateway Center project and LoweslMdmart to ApnY 1. • 2 ,��ti�oraprryyo City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet h f n {qS q �r �,rt Fr Board _Planning Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail f h, ak Ain tip d ply J • Page of CITY OF SALEM, MASSAC HUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIAI UERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHusETrs 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,ACCP DIRECTOR � ry March 29, 2010 ` o r, o —r Heather M. Carlisle, Esq. Goodman Networks v 30 Main Street - Ashland, MA 01721 - w Re: 217-219 Essex St. Dear Ms. Carlisle: On March 18, 2010, the Salem Planning Board met to discuss your request for an insignificant change to the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit dated September 24, 2009 for 217- 218 Essex St.. The request involved moving the location of three of the four originally approved backhaul antennas to other locations on the roof, eliminating the fourth backhaul antenna, and replacing three existing antennas with three new WiMax antennas. The proposal also includes new cables and other ancillary equipment. Revisions are shown on the plans titled "Roof Plan," last dated 02/12/10, prepared by Robert J. Lara, and submitted photo renderings. The Board voted 7-0 (Puleo, Hanscom, Kavanaugh, Ready, Sullivan, Sides and Clarke in favor, none opposed) to deem the proposed changes insignificant and to allow such changes. Yours truly, %�� Danielle McKnight CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • Minutes 3/18/2010 • Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting March 18, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were Chuck Puleo, Chair, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair, and Mark George. Approval of Minutes The minutes of March 4, 2010 were reviewed. There being no comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the minutes of March 4, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 • BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue to April 1,2010. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., attorney for the applicant, requested to continue to the April 1st meeting. He said that good progress is being made with the Design Review Board(DRB) and that the project will be before the DRB again before the next Planning Board meeting. At that point there will be a good sense of where the project stands even if it isn't not complete before the DRB. He would like to use the time to do that and return here with the changes. Dan Fulton, 182 Federal St. #2, asked if time will be limited at the April 1 meeting for the public to speak. He asked if Mr. Correnti could tell him what topics they will be able to speak about. Ms. Sullivan answered that public input time will be available but limited given the tight schedule on April 1. Mr. Correnti said suggested that for the Lowe's development on the same night, there be an initial uninterrupted presentation—they could do that in 45 minutes with limited detail. Following meetings would cover subtopics in detail. He would sacrifice time on the developer's end to let the public speak. He does not want to have people show up and be told they can't speak. For High Rock, an hour would be sufficient, and they can keep their presentation to 30 to 40 minutes and leave time for people to speak. Mr. Fulton said that the public needs to know what topics they will be limited to. Mr. Correnti said he anticipates covering building design, footprint, landscaping, and parking lot layout. He said he doesn't • 1 want to be on the record saying the public can't talk about anything else. They are not anticipating an environmental discussion—they can revisit that if necessary at a future meeting. Ms. Sullivan asked why they don't dedicate a single night only to Lowe's. Ms. McKnight said it is • difficult to find one night the works for everyone, given that special meetings cannot be scheduled opposite Council meetings, on second and fourth Thursdays. Ms. Sullivan said that if there is big turnout for the April ls`meeting, we will have to think about how to be sure people feel that they are heard. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing to April 1, 2010, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved 7-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Members discussed a possible change of location for the April 1" meeting. Ms. McKnight remarked that it may be an issue that it has already been advertised for this location. Mr. Correnti said he wants to be sure that proper notice is given. He said that perhaps it should be published in the paper, and someone should be here that night to tell people where they need to go. Ms. Sullivan said she is concerned that people may have to overflow into the hall. Ms. Hanscom noted that there are other big projects on the agenda for the same meeting. Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 440, 460,462,and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4),Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipa water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue to April 1, 2010. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., attorney for the applicant, said it is important, procedurally, to submit the letter requesting the continuance and open the public hearing. He asked on behalf of the developer to continue at the April Is' meeting. Mr. Puleo noted that he has the letter. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing on April 1st, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 7-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Request for release of surety bond: ANGELO MEIMETEAS requesting bond release for the Subdivision at the end of CLOVERDALE AVENUE (Map 8, Lots 269, 280 and Map 9, Lot 122). Mr. Puleo noted photographs showing remaining work and shared them with the Board. Ms. Hanscom asked the Board had required Mr. Meimeteas to be finished. Mr. Puleo answered June Is'. Mr. Puleo asked the applicant if a contractor is lined up. Angelo Meimeteas, 30 Colverdale Ave., applicant, answered that a contractor is lined up. Ms. McKnight said that it this would only be for release of the surety bond, and not for the cash the city is holding. Mr. Puleo added the amount of cash the city is holding is $25,000. • 2 There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to release the surety bond, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved 7-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen • Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Request for insignificant change: Goodman Networks, on behalf of Clearwire (for the property located at 217-219 Essex Street (Assessor's Map 35,Lot 251). Applicant requests to change the location of the previously permitted wireless equipment from one location on the rooftop of 217- 219 Essex Street to another location on the same building. Heather M. Carlisle, Esq. Healther M. Carlisle, attorney for the applicant, said that after the previous approval, engineers found a line of sight issue that would prevent the technology from working. She displayed images of the proposed change and described the new locations of the equipment. She said that the equipment will be painted to match the building. Ms. McKnight said that she didn't ask for a full submittal because she wanted the board's opinion on whether the change is significant. Ms. Sullivan said that if it is insignificant, she doesn't want to set a precedent of voting for insignificant changes. Mr. Clark noted that they will be voting to decide if the change is significant, and if it is insignificant, send it back to the department. Ms. Sullivan said we need to clean up our process for reviewing Wireless Special Permits. Ms. McKnight said that she agrees, though currently there are no guidelines for who may approve Wireless Special Permit insignificant changes, and that is why they have brought this to the Board. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to approve the change of location as an insignificant change, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 7-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine • Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business Ms. McKnight noted previous discussion about the board's role regarding development throughout the city. She said that some of the issues brought up at previous meetings will be addresses in the upcoming training module they are trying to schedule. Discussion of the training module's date ensued. Members then discussed the upcoming meeting schedule. Ms. Puleo asked about the disposition of city land involved in the Kennedy development. Ms. McKnight said that she will look at its status and the implications for the board. Ms. Sullivan noted her continuing question about how High Rock arrived at its parking figure. Ms. McKnight said that they are awaiting figures on the total parking breakdown from the developer, including how many of the total spaces will be designated for the Senior Center. Ms. Hanscom asked about how to deal with questions from the public that do not directly relate to the topics being discussed. The Board briefly discussed ways in which to keep the discussions focused. Adjournment • 3 A motion was made by Tim Ready to adjourn, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 7-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). . Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 4/1/10 • • 4 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2010 FEB 25 P 5: 3b NOTICE OF MEETING i 11 l'ou arr herelg nottjied that the Salem Planning Board will Gold its reguldi+ll� �eduleibn eftartg''o`n t1 Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 7.•00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 ll/ rl_p Kington Shret Charles M. Puleo, Chairman REVISED MEETING AGENDA L Approval of Minutes ➢ 2/18/10 Planning Board meeting minutes;amendment to 2/4/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval under Subdivision Control— 134 and 142 BRIDGE STREET (Map 35,Lots 599 and 45). Brian Boches. 3. Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC 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, 245, 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. Applicant requests to continue to April 1,2010. 4. Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue to March 18, 2010. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment 41, i✓`�t6!0. n 003- rcr �' .jf, + ° 94;ti C`1?, i . "a. ZnFB B5. o�G1U j1' "`d14103 120 WAS)11\G MN Srke,nlr, SAHN, AMASS ACHIsSITIS 01970 I)wo:.973.619.5635 FAX 973.740.0404 \ W%V.SALIM.COM CIrry OFSALEM PLANNING BOARD 2010 FL'8 25 P 3: 31 1-1i_L 1f CITY CLE--1.I F: C A%LE NOTICE OF MEETING ; - -;' L; " i Yaiare hereby rzYoed that the Salem Plawng Board will hold its reptladys6orbiledirredrgon Thursday,March 4, 2010 at 7:00 pm at C4HafiAmxx, Room313, 120 WasbingronStreet a-j-"I/47K aanfa M. PI&O, 06imun MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes > 2/18/10 Planning Board meeting minutes; amendment to 2/4/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Fonn A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval under Subdivision Control- 134 and 142 BRIDGE STREET(Map 35, Lots 599 and 45). Brian Boches. 3. Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC 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, 245, 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. Applicant requests to continue to April 1, 2010. 4. Public Heating: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 5. Old/NewBusiness 6. Adjournment qoard� -wlo em 7 a, S.. 1A S' 1 ""i CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS P , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ti:!Mrrvr Wr i KIMUERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECTOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: February 24,2010 RE: Agenda—March 4,2010 Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo • ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: L Approval of Minutes I've included the 2/18/10 Planning Board meeting minutes, plus page 6 of the 2/4/10 meeting minutes. We heard from resident Joan Sweeney that a comment attributed to her was in fact made by Joan Zabkar, so we would need to vote to approve this change. 2. Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval under Subdivision Control— 134 and 142 BRIDGE STREET (Map 35,Lots 599 and 45). Brian Boches. The plan shows the alteration of the lot line between 134 and 142 Bridge St. Land from 134 will be conveyed to 142. Neither property's frontage will change, and no new zoning problems are presented. 3. Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC 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 235,236,243,244,245, 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. Applicant requests to continue to April 1, 2010. 1 With only six members present at the March 4 meeting,Attorney Keilty prefers to wait to open this re-filed application. 4. Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue to March 18, 2010. With with only six members at the March 4 meeting,Attorney Correnti prefers to continue to March 18. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment • • 2 T CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD . - 6Lf Y CI- i S..LEI P S FORM A - DECISION 134 and 142 Bridge Street March 5, 2010 Re: Form A- Plan Believed Not to Require Approval, 134 and 142 Bridge Street The Salem Planning Board voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed on March 4, 2010 to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" of the following plan: Application of: Brian Boches, Trustee Basland Development Corp. Location: 134 (Map 35, Lot 45) and 142 (Map 35, Lot 602) Bridge Street, • Salem,MA Project Description: An approximately 2565 square foot portion of 134 Bridge Street (previously 11,760 square feet) is to be conveyed to 142 Bridge Street, previously a 2808 square foot lot, to form two newly configured lots. 134 Bridge Street will be 9195 square feet in area, and 142 Bridge Street will be 5373 square feet in area. The new lot lines are shown on the approved Form A plan titled "Plan of Land, 134 & 142 Bridge Street,Salem,Massachusetts, Owner/Applicant Brian Boches," prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc., and dated September 15, 2009. Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM Minutes 03/04/2010 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting March 4, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Kavanaugh, Mark George, Helen Sides, and Christine Sullivan. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis, Vice Chair,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready, and Randy Clark. Approval of Minutes The amended minutes of February 4, 2010 were reviewed. There being no comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the amended minutes of February 4, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo,Tim Kavanaugh, Mark George, Helen Sides, and Christine Sullivan in favor, none opposed). The minutes of February 18 2010 were reviewed. Ms. Sullivan requestedrthat the Enterprise Center be referred to by its name in the 2"d full paragraph on page 5 and that wording be clarified in the 3`d full paragraph on page six. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Helen Sides to approve the minutes of February 18 • with changes, seconded by Mark George and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo,Tim Kavanaugh, Mark George, Helen Sides and Christine Sullivan in favor, none o e opposed). Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval under Subdivision Control— 134 and 142 BRIDGE STREET (Map 35, Lots 599 and 45). Brian Boches. Mt. Boches identified the proposed changes on the plan. Mr. Puleo and Mx. George asked for clarification. Mr. Boches said that he tore down a condemned house and adjusted the borders to better accommodate parking. He noted that he has already received a variance for a new 2-family and Mx. Puleo added that the variance is noted on the plan. Mx. George remarked that the proposed plan is a better configuration than what is there now. Ms. McKnight stated that the department recommends approval because the plan creates no new zoning issues, and the frontage is not changing. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the plan, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo,Tim Kavanaugh,Mark George, Helen Sides, and Christine Sullivan in favor, none opposed). Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC 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, 245, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots, the 1 construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes, and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane. Applicant requests to continue to April 1, 2010. Mr. Puleo noted for anyone present interested in this application that the applicant has requested to continue. Ms. McKnight noted that the public hearing has yet to be opened. Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Applicant requests to continue to March 18, 2010. Mr. Puleo noted the letter in which the applicant has requested to continue at the April 1"meeting. Ms. McKnight read the letter aloud. Mr. George brought up the traffic problems in the part of the city in which the site is located; a general discussion about traffic ensued. Tim Kavanaugh noted that while he had comments to make, the Board needed to bring the discussion back to the request to continue and to vote. A motion was made by Mr. Kavanaugh to approve the request to continue the Public Hearing to the April Vt meeting, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo,Tim Kavanaugh, Mark George, Helen Sides, and Christine Sullivan in favor,none opposed). The Board went on to discuss traffic issues in the downtown, scheduling a possible board training session, and possible alternative locations for some upcoming projects that may attract many members of the public. Old/New Business • None Adjournment A motion was made by Mark George to adjourn, seconded by Christine.Sullivan and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo,Tim Kavanaugh, Mark George, Helen Sides, and Christine Sullivan in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 3/18/10 2 CITY OF SALEM ' PT ANNING BOARD L 701Q FFR I I NOTICE OFMEETING CITY _lti "t - i 'ss You aye hereby mtySed Lbat the SakmPla=rgBoard ud hold its regularly sdx&dedmeting on Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 7:00 pm atCity Ha11Amxx,Room313, 120 ashiVonSm?et Charly M.Puleo, Chairrmn REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 2/4/10 Planning Board meeting 2. 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 anew street off Highland Avenue, and the construction of eleven (11) single-family homes. 3. Request to withdraw without prejudice: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. 4. Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. D. Old/NewBusiness ra. Adjournment p MIA 4 � .- -S ' 197' I'li(N 978.6i).56ti5 FAxj-!X74'0'04:)" r ? CITY OF SALEM PLA�� v�� OAA RD M r I'7 NOTICE OF MEETING w You are hereby notifiedthat the Salem Planning Board udl bold itv regularly ,sdxJuW nrenr�"n Thu yi'''sday, February 18, 2010 at 7:00 pm at CityHall Armax,Room313, 120_�W� y�ksh1rVon Strcet Clurla M. Puleo, Cbamr tm MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 2/4/10 Planning Board meeting 2. 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. 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-familyhouse lots, the construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes, and the construction a newstreet off of Szetela Lane. 4. Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 5. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment µ p4�ojle'4 �@M!'✓/f"�� 6 1 S 2•S.F LLQ ' _, Jh .�., s_ ... 1 sb5ji � L �.,_SS �1970 i( \_ >,J. ,>>.�� 'F.F ,,; .0 L tk'LL v,..J J..;i NDI CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT K[MBERLi,y DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET * SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR TELE:978-619-5685 FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: February 10, 2010 RE: Agenda— February 18, 2010 Please find the following in your packet: > Planner's Memo > Agenda > Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: Continuation of Public Hearing: Request 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. Revised plans for this project are enclosed. As Scott Patrowicz demonstrated the last time he appeared before the Board Oanuary 21), the drainage plans have changed significantly in order to reduce stormwater runoff. 1 met with Scott Patrowicz and Bill Ross, the peer reviewer, last week to discuss outstanding items. Bill presented these issues to Dave Knowlton,who proposes the following resolutions: 1. The Ravenna Ave. sewer pump station may be deficient. The applicant is aware that there are potential capacity issues there, and he may be responsible for some mitigation. I don't yet have recommendation on this from Dave, but I will by our meeting. 2. Bill Ross raised questions about the responsibility for the drainage components/buried BMPs. While the applicant now intends to petition Council for acceptance of the road as a Ispublic way, the homeowners' association should continue to be responsible for the BMPs, whether on or off the public roadway. A condition should be placed in the decision to this effect. • 3. New isolation valves may be required on either side of the main water line connections on Highland Ave. Dave has suggested the following condition: "The City will exercise the water gates in Highland Ave. in the vicinity of the proposed connection to the subdivision. If they do not operate effectively, new gates may be required at the location of the proposed connection, to provide emergency shut-off of the system and ensure the subdivision may still receive water if a portion of the City's system gets shut down. Developer is to install the new gates on either side of the proposed tie-in,if requested by the City Engineer." Unless the applicant requests and the Board agrees to an extension, the Board needs to vote on this project at the February 18 meeting (February 27 is the 135-day mark from the date the application was submitted). 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 Keilty is requesting to withdraw the application because the Board has two new members since the project's filing, and John will be away through March. This means there are only 6 members eligible to vote. Five votes are needed to pass the subdivision application, but the Wetlands and Flood Hazard special permit would requite a unanimous 6 votes. He has resubmit the application in order to have eight voting Board members available. Because the petition will need to be advertised again, the new hearing will open on March 4. • Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. I am enclosing the draft minutes from the 1/27/10 DRB meeting for your information. The minutes from the project's presentation begin on page 2 , and the discussion following the presentation begins on page 6. The suggestion of looking into changing Goodhue St. from a one- to a two-way street came up at the January 21 and February 4 meetings as a means of alleviating traffic congestion. During the review of the Riverview project in 2009,we had asked Beta, our traffic peer reviewer, to evaluate this possibility, and they recommended against it. I am enclosing the memo they prepared for us. At this meeting,Attorney Correnti expects to continue the traffic discussion and address some of the concerns that have come up regarding the building itself(orientation,layout, etc.). For upcoming meetings, I expect the following: March 4: Open and close the Shallop Landing project, continue reviewing the Gateway Center • 2 it March 18: Open the Lowes/Walmart project on Highland Ave., continue reviewing the Gateway Center • • 3 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting February 18, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, recording Clerk. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair. Approval of Minutes The minutes of February 4, 2010 were reviewed. There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the minutes of February 4, seconded by Mark George and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready 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. George Atkins, Attorney for the Applicant, said that they are engaged in an engineering peer review process. He said the site has a very steep incline that involves problems with collecting and disposing of water. He stated that they would be happy to answer any questions resulting from the peer review and that there are some unresolved issues. The plans would be revised prior to board members signing a final plan. He also noted that original plans showed street trees 100 feet apart while the requirement is for them to be every 30 feet. He stated that they will make that revision to the plan. He said that the applicant is requesting no waivers for the subdivision. They have talked to neighbors to the north and east about landscaping. The neighbor to the north's property is close to the subdivision's entry. The applicant is proposing a landscaping easement to guarantee that a buffer exists in perpetuity. There will also be small areas of landscaping along Highland Ave., but these will depend on what soil exists and what it can support. Bill Ross, 13 North Pine Street, Peer Reviewer for the applicant, said he wanted to highlight the results of his review. He referred to meetings with Danielle McKnight and the City Engineer, as well as prepared letters. He said there is drainage in a southwest direction toward Highland Ave. and he wanted to see expansion of a catchment area. Initially, pervious and impervious areas were too blended and they accounted for a smaller catchment area. The new proposal has Best Management Practices (BMPs) in all driveways to collect runoff. The previous design had basins in the roadway, but these have been moved into easements. Although first proposed to be the city's easements, the City Engineer said he preferred it to be the responsibility of a homeowners' association (HOA), which is what the new plan proposes. Another issue is the drainage toward Highland Ave. and Clark St. He said that structures could prevent slippage and lihe recommends a condition to require verification of certain excavation issues. He added that small devices 1 are not easily noticeable in the plan, but the site's water quality depends on them. Field verification of all these elements should be a condition. He said that the City Engineer determined that the existing pump station should be maintained by the HOA. The applicant has agreed to replaces some valves. The water- sewage separation does not meet DEP guidelines and the applicant will revise the plan to meet the guideline. The pipe size will be improved. Catch basins should have trash hoods and a sewage cleanout is recommended. Mr. Puleo asked how the city should ensure that the HOA maintains all of this. Mr. Ross said that without maintenance there will be more runoff. He recommended inspections twice per year, and said they could be required as a condition. Mr. Puleo asked if the HOA will be responsible for plowing. Mr. Ross answered yes and added that the HOA will be responsible for it even if the city accepts the street. Ms. Hanscom asked if the HOA could ever give up maintenance. Mr. Atkins said that the HOA can never change the conditions of the Planning Board's decision, nor can it prevent the city from enforcing them. Ms. Hanscom asked if the city has a legal right to enforce the HOA's required maintenance based on the board's decision. Mr. Atkins said that this is the case and that the more common problem is with individuals who don't want to participate, and this is an internal problem for the HOA, which it works out by itself. In the meantime, he said, the city has the power to enforce the decision. Mr. Ross said that other cities have had bonds for such conditions. Mr. Atkins noted that the alternative would be for the city to maintain the drainage system. Ms. Hansom added that the bond is not something in the current draft decision, but it may be something to think about. Mr. Atkins stated that bonds are more typically used to ensure the completion of roadways, and this normally is temporary. Mr. Clark asked if this has been done and whether they would be setting a precedent. Mr. Atkins said no, to his knowledge this has not been • done. Ms. McKnight said that it must go into the HOA document that homeowners maintain the system. Mr. Atkins said that would include the storm water system and even reach beyond it. Mr. Ross said it would include sidewalks, common property, and a drainage easement. Ms. McKnight read aloud the specific wording of the relevant part of the draft decision and noted that it covers the city even if it doesn't accept the street. Mr. Atkins said that the enforcement mechanism is not a light mechanism. The city regularly goes forward to enforce zoning issues. Ms. Sides asked who inspects the work during construction. Mr. Ross said it would be the building inspector. Mr. Atkins said the city appoints a clerk of the works, who is paid by the developer. Upon Ms. Sullivan's request, Ms. McKnight distributed the draft decision to the board members. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment There being no public comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Ms. McKnight remarked that Ms. Sides, Mr. George, and Randy Clark are not eligible to vote. She began to read highlighted elements of the draft decision. Mr. George suggest that they put in a provision that the • applicant notify them that they are in compliance for storm water maintenance so that they actively notify 2 the city, not the other way around. Ms. Duncan said that it would go through the City Engineer. Ms. • McKnight added the change to the draft decision. Mr. Puleo asked about blasting. Ms. Sullivan noted that page 6 covers blasting. She said the blasting ordinance must be followed. Mr. Puleo said that there must be 72 hours notice for neighbors. Ms. Sullivan said that a pre-blast survey is required for nearby homes. She added that neighbors should know their rights and recommended that the city put the blasting ordinance online for everyone affected to see. Ms. Duncan said that anyone concerned can contact the Fire Department. Mr. Puleo noted that the draft decision requires the applicant to distribute a flyer to neighbors within 300 feet. Mr. Atkins said that these are standard provisions, except for the additional items. These are expensive and complicated additions for an 11-lot subdivision. He said is he surprised that no one asked what a BMP is, and noted that it stands for Best Management Practices. Mr. Kavanaugh asked whether the city will have the right to sue individuals who are in default of the HOA obligations in the event of an emergency in which the city must do work. Mr. Atkins said that the HOA is the entity the city would deal with, but every owner is required to be a member. Mr. Kavanaugh said that he would like to be able to sue an individual who hasn't done the right thing. Mr. Atkins replied that the individual member is only responsible for dues. Mr. Kavanaugh said that the HOA should say that individuals are responsible to the city and that the city can sue individuals who fail to meet their responsibilities. Mr. Atkins said the he objects because buyers and their attorneys would dislike such a provision. Homeowners, he said, are not directly responsible for maintenance, but only for dues. He said he doesn't know if he could put such a provision into the HOA and worried that it would seriously impact sales. Mr. George asked what entity would be held responsible for such things. Mr. Atkins answered that • the HOA is made up of individual owners in the subdivision. You can't sue individuals for failure of the HOA. Building inspectors can go to court and get funds or reach the insurance agency. Mr. Puleo asked if HOAs normally have insurance. Mr. Atkins answered no. Mr. George said that the structure of the HOA is fuzzy. Mr. Atkins said that this is not a new concept. A document at the Registry of Deeds requires membership in an HOA, dues to be paid, and maintenance to occur. It is similar to what happens if a homeowner doesn't pay taxes. Perhaps if the HOA does nothing and owners don't pay, the city could take liens against their property, but he has never seen this done. The city, however, certainly can enforce this one. Mr. Kavanaugh said he is asking because this is a complex storm water management system. He said he wants to know if there is something he can do to make it easy for the city to enforce it without unduly making sales difficult. Mr. Atkins said that right now the site is vacant with water sheeting off into the street and this project will be a major improvement. He suggested that they do not put too much of a responsibility on the developer. Mr. Clark said that he thinks the requirements the board is placing are certainly enough, with two letters per year to the City Engineer. Ms. Sides asked Ms. McKnight to read the part of the draft decision related to notification and stated that they should be clear that it will be twice per year. Ms. McKnight read part Ta.1. of the draft decision aloud. Mr. Clark said it might be best to be clear that the notification happen within 15 days of maintenance. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the draft decision, • seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, 3 Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, Mark George, Randy Clark, and Helen Sides not voting, none • opposed). 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. Ms. McKnight stated that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the application without prejudice. There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept a withdrawal of the application without prejudice, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 6-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Ms. Duncan spoke about the senior center process and gave some history. She said a Senior Center Committee came up with recommendations and the Planning Department reviewed proposals. Doug • Bollen, head of the Parks and Recreation Services department, was involved and he is invited to talk with the Planning Board about Senior Center programming. The committee recommended 19,000 to 25,000 square feet for the senior center portion of the space, and 160 to 215 parking spaces. They determined that parking is very important. There needs to be a balance between parking and landscaping. The site was identified along with two other sites. Preferences included possibility for future expansion, transportation, outdoor recreation, and ocean view. When the sites were reviewed, this site met all the criteria except outdoor recreation and ocean view. The city selected the site knowing this. Ms. Sullivan asked how my people go to the current senior center. Joan Lovely, Councilor at Large, 14 Story St., said that we want to attract younger seniors, more so than we do at the current Senior Center. We project many more people to come to the new facility. She noted that she brought some documentation. She said it turned out to be best to build on this site with a private developer and she voted in favor of that. She also looked at the importance of outdoor space and the mayor noted in the past that it is an important point. She said it is not just a first floor space, but it should absolutely include some kind of outdoor space—a rooftop garden or something else. Parking was very important. We sent out 14,000 surveys about transportation and we had focus groups. Parking was identified for drawing younger seniors. She said that the mayor wanted dedicated parking spaces. It might matter for knowing which part of the lot the city is responsible for plowing. She said there should be some type of outdoor space beyond just tables and chairs. Ms. Duncan said that programming is not relevant to the Planning Board; this is a site plan review. The mayor is certainly not interested in the cost of a rooftop garden, requiring the roof to bear the weight and the 4 elevator to go up another floor. We don't have additional funding for that and the provision of outdoor . recreation space is not the responsibility of the Planning Board. Ms. Hanscom asked about the city's responsibility for plowing and landscaping. Ms. Duncan that that the city is buying a condominium in the building for the senior center, so those things will be outlined in an agreement. She added that the Planning Board is not responsible for ensuring that the city gets what it wants from the property. Ms. Sullivan asked how the committee arrived at the number of needed parking spaces. Ms. Lovely said that they had committees, including a Site Search Committee, determine the size and number of spaces needed. Ms. Sullivan asked on what basis did they project uses and parking needs. Ms. Lovely said that it was based on the St. Joseph's model. Ms. Duncan said that we can make sure Doug Bollen answers this when he comes in. Ms. Sullivan noted that the Enterprise Center has more office space and fewer parking spaces and it works fine. She said she wants to know if our parking requirement is sensible. If not, it opens up possibilities. Mr. Puleo said that Mr. Correnti may be able to address this. Ms. Duncan said that the RFP included this parking requirement. She said she will ask about this and come back with more information. Bi II Bergeron of Hayes Engineering, Engineer for the applicant, said that he had looked at a memorandum that mentions problems with making Goodhue St:: 2-way, as discussed at the last meeting. There were questions about the Riverview project at Flint and Mason Streets. He said it is beyond their scope, but noted that there were recommendations for a flashing beacon and that Tremont St. needs an extra lane for southbound traffic that is exclusive for left turns to improve traffic. Ms. Sullivan said that her question was how many additional cars will get to Mason and Flint Streets during • rush hour. Mr. Bergeron said that it would be 8 cars in the morning and 8 in the evening going to it, and coming from, it would be 22 in the morning and 18 in the afternoon. These are additional cars from this project. Riverview provides a Commercial St. and Flint St. link. Ms. Sullivan said that Riverview never expected the link for years. Mr. Bergeron addressed the status of the Bridge St. improvement project, from Washington St. to Flint St. He said a state memorandum indicated that the project hasn't yet gone beyond the original 25% submittal. He read the memo aloud. He said the project will come online in 2013 or 2014. This includes the re-signaling of Flint and Bridge Streets. The other design project down the line, with no plans yet submitted, is the reconstruction of Bridge St. from the Peabody line, set to begin in 2014. Those two projects are on the perimeter of our site. Our mitigation work should fit in with this. We reviewed the corridor and the recommendations from it. He said the right-turn-only lane from Bridge St. to Goodhue St. seems unnecessary because they found so few cars making that turn. Mr. George asked if this includes the existing traffic flow without consideration of the new garage, courthouse, and Salem Suede project. Mr. Bergeron stated that they didn't include the Salem Suede site because much is unknown and depends on the overall plan for the whole area. Mr. George said that he thinks the impact of any one of the projects will be substantial. If we don't address it now, we will have to address it in the future. We might need to come up with a vision, or we will get gridlock. Mr. Bergeron said that he thinks their piece of the puzzle fits well with other projects. Mr. George said that he doesn't think we should burdenjust this project, but we should widen out scope. Mr. Clark said that we could look at a more robust corridor study. Ms. Duncan said that the point is well made, but she doesn't know where the funding would come from. Most of the court activity is already here and there will only be a slight increase in the intensity of use, and there were traffic improvements made. Mr. Clark said he is concerned • about all these disconnected projects without connecting the dots. Mr. George said that for this particular 5 project, the changes are a straightforward improvement. There may be other issues in the neighborhood that should be discussed, but they should not burden this project. We just need to put it all out there. Mr. Bergeron said that the corridor study has multiple alternatives, so it is hard to project a burden on this area. Ms. Sullivan said that she understands that a 2-way Goodhue St. might not be good, but the Flint- Mason intersection is terrible. She said she would like to know what should be done on Goodhue St. because that is a scary place. Mr. Bergeron said that when you add a new signal phase, it makes everything run slower at a lower level of service. Ms. Sullivan said that she would like Mr. Bergeron to drive these streets during rush hour and see what it is like. She said she understands the Goodhue St. problem but just doesn't know what to do. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Bergeron to review how traveling down Boston St. toward Peabody would work. Mr. Bergeron said there will be a straight lane, a lane to go straight or left, and an exclusive right-turn lane. This allows more capacity for straight and left. It also helps Pope St., which is easily blocked with the cue at this intersection. It will still be a low level of service, but this will be an improvement. We are scraping land off our site to create a lane. Mr. Puleo asked if it would be timed for people to go left onto Proctor St. Mr. Bergeron said that he is not sure. Mr. Puleo noted that cars wishing to make the turn now have to wait for a break in traffic. Mr. Bergeron said that he believes that when the light is green, it allows for left and straight. He said he will have to look at final design plans. Mr. Puleo asked if this will go through Mass Highway. Mr. Bergeron replied that it will not; the city will have control. Ms. Sullivan asked where the storage building is and whether the corner of it was set aside for turning. Ms. Duncan said that a Planning Board decision before our time created an easement, but it comes right up • against the building and doesn't go the whole length of the street. We would look at that for 2-way traffic on Goodhue St. She said that she doesn't think that to date they have identified a need to build that. Mr. Clark noted that it only makes sense if they were to make Goodhue St. 2-way. Mr. Bergeron said that it would be a benefit if it became a signalized phase. Mr. George asked for estimates for egress flow for Bridge versus Goodhue Streets. Mr. Bergeron said a majority from the site will take a left and go up Boston St. Thirty percent will turn right on Proctor St., and 45% will turn left. Mr. George asked whether the additional lane on Boston St. will end at this intersection. Mr. Bergeron answered that it does end. Mr. George asked what percentage flow he estimates. Mr. Bergeron said that traffic is diverted from the intersection, with 45% coming out and making a left onto Bridge St., and 15% making a right turn. Mr. Clark asked why a car would go to the north side to Boston St. when there is an alternative. Mr. Bergeron said that it depends were the car is parked, with the projections assuming that people will take the exit closer to where they are parked. Mr. Clark said that he thinks people will go where there is no queue. He said he thinks that the percentage coming out of the Boston St. side will be more than projected. Ms. Sullivan asked what percentage of these visitors don't live in Salem. She said she is not sure how to gauge it all. Mr. Bergeron said it is difficult to assign, so they assumed what seems logical. Mr. George asked if the easement at the storage facility would allow the city to widen the road. Mr. Puleo answered yes, that the city has the ability to do that without it being a taking. Mr. George said that they can look at that without burdening this project. This is a good opportunity to take a broader view. Ms. Duncan said that if it is a question of whether there is something to gain by using the easement, we can ask the traffic • engineer about it. Mr. Clark asked how far rip the property line the easement goes and suggested that they don't burden the applicant with more work. 6 Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said there should be reconsideration of this portion of the corridor. He said we should be looking at all these projects and put some money into a traffic analysis for this area. Mr. George said this project shouldn't be delayed for this. Mr. Treadwell said he wants the board to recognize the problem—that this project and others will burden an already overburdened system. He said the master plan recommends a pedestrian signal at this intersection, and with the elderly coming to the new senior center, this is a good recommendation. He said the extension of Commercial St. is essential. Flint as 1-way didn't work, but it could work coupled with Goodhue. And a connecting road from Goodhue to Boston could help drivers avoid the intersection. Mr. Treadwell asked Mr. Bergeron what the ADT [Average Daily Traffic] is. Mr Bergeron said, to answer Mr. Treadwell's first question, the pedestrian signal is part of the planned improvements to the intersection. Mr. Treadwell asked if there will be permitting from Mass Highway. Mr. Bergeron said none is required and stated the ADT: 4322 for peak hours. Mr. Treadwell said that the new courthouse garage will have a capacity for several hundred additional cars, but not in regular rush hour patterns. He said he thinks the garage and Bridge St. improvements will bring more traffic without Mass Highway improving Washington to Flint, and it will be difficult to get all the traffic moving. He said he appreciates that the board is looking into this thoroughly. Mr. George said that we have before us a plan for a piece of area that we are talking about. When looking at their proposal, since there is no master plan, we shouldn't make this project the recipient of all our issues. But we should make sure this piece does fit into a broader scheme. I don't.know how to address these issues but to raise them. Mr. Treadwell noted that there will be buildings vacated when the new court building opens, and they will eventually be filled. • Joyce Wallace, 172 Federal St., thanked the board for looking into traffic issues and for being forward looking. She said she thinks no one was talking to one another for different projects. Jerry Ryan, City Councilor, 4 Nichols St., said that he knows the project would spur changes. He asked if a left turn from Boston to Proctor would cause a problem against traffic coming from Peabody. Mr. Bergeron said that the Bridge and Boston Streets project to Peabody would widen it. But once you go beyond the intersection, it will become one lane. Mr. Ryan said that an alternative would be better. Mr. Bergeron said that there are not enough left turns onto Proctor St. to warrant the alternative. Mr. Ryan said he does not want to see two lanes merge into one. Mr. Bergeron said that the second phase will widen the street. Mr. Ryan said there was an idea in the past to set up a traffic commission so all these changes could be looked at together. There would be the question of who has power to make changes. Traffic will only get worse as more projects come in. Someone should put all this together. Mr. Clark said that he feels Salem is urban enough that there should be something like that (perhaps a commission) to deal with traffic and parking. Jonathan Hayes, 38 Essex St., asked if the city has a traffic engineer to evaluate this. Ms. Duncan answered no, but said that for significant issues the Planning Board can require peer review for a project by a traffic engineer. We haven't required that in this case yet. Mr. Hayes said he would like to see more evaluation of traffic counts. There are many illegal lefts being taken and traffic here is a problem. He said he would feel better if someone independent looked at it. Mr. Bergeron said that the Boston St. exit's island physically obstructs certain turns from happening. Joan Zabkar, said she is recording this meeting. She said something she said before did not make it into the minutes from the last meeting and commented on the HUD application. Mr. Puleo said that we are • discussing traffic today. Ms. Zabkar said that she was told we have a right to make responses to an AUL 7 and that she wants all three AULs included. We had several questions about that in 2009, and HUD . requires that you study traffic, crime and pollution. Mr. Clark asked what this has to do with HUD. Ms. Duncan said the Planning Board does not deal with HUD. Ms. Zabkar said that HUD wants to know how impacted citizens feel about a project; I assume we should be able to give input when you review a changed AUL. Mr. Clark said that he thinks what Ms. Zabkar is saying is valid, but not in relation to the Planning Board. I don't see how HUD is our concern. Ms. Zabkar said she wants to ask all her questions and correct misrepresentations. All this comes back to Pat Donohue and her email, which is why the AUL was done. She didn't know kids would be at the site. I want to reserve the right of Support Our Seniors (SOS) to eventually give input. Mr. Puleo stated that she had the opportunity do comment at the last meeting, when this issue was discussed. Ms. Zabkar remarked that Mr. Vetere said we could have a dialog. We hadn't reviewed new material by the last meeting. Mr. Correnti said that now is the public hearing. We are here now and will be back. I don't want people saying they are reserving their right to ask questions. We will answer now or when we are back. Ms. Zabkar said that an enviromnental assessment is required when CDBG is in play and seniors are involved. Ms. Duncan noted that they are doing an environmental review because federal money is involved. Ms. Zabkar said that Pat Donohue thinks a city of this size needs an environmental department. Ms. Zabkar said that traffic has an environmental impact through pollution, with diesel trucks waiting for lights to change. I don't think it was envisioned that seniors would be on a site like this. Mr. Puleo said the board didn't make that decision. This is a site plan 'review and we are dealing with traffic now. Ms. Zabkar said that traffic causes pollution. Mr, Puleo said that anything on the road has to pass an emissions inspections. Paul Prevey, Ward 6 City Councilor, 26 Tremont St., said he is concerned about traffic on Flint and Goodhue Streets and that he shares Ms. Sullivan's concern about Flint St. He said there is a unique opportunity to come up with a plan to deal with the area's traffic. We should look at options for the easement. Sometime we need to string these projects together or we will have gridlock. I think the impact of all these projects will be tremendous and projections for individual projects are madness. I appreciate the comments the board has made. Does the board have a say as to where pedestrian lights go? People risk their lives crossing there. I have almost hit people. It is dangerous and the project will create more pedestrian traffic. Ms. Bergeron said the pedestrian lights will be designed by a private firm and reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Prevey asked if it comes back to the.board after the engineer's approval. Mr. Bergeron answered no. Mr. Clark asked if there is a pedestrian light there now, and Mr. Prevey answered no. Mr. Clark said it would be part of the plan. Ms. Duncan said the City Engineer would give final approval, and the Planning Board could make crosswalks and signals part of the approval. Dan Fulton, 182 Federal St. #2, asked what will happen to the bus stop at the proposed exit. Mr. Bergeron said they are talking about bringing it onto the site. Mr. Clark suggested they start that discussion soon. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Correnti if there are any other traffic comments. Mr. Correnti said they will stay as long as necessary to discuss traffic. Ms. Sullivan asked if it would be appropriate to ask a traffic engineer if it would make a difference with Flint St. 1-way coming and Goodhue St. 1-way going. Is there no logical thing that we can do to make a difference that can be looked into? Mr. Correnti said he thought it had been looked at by Beta. Ms. Duncan corrected that that it has not been looked at. They recommended that parking be removed from Flint St. and to keep it 2-way. Riverview had conditions for 12 spaces to be reserved for parking for Flint St. residents. I can't say whether they looked at further changes, but they did . recommend 2-way traffic. Ms. Sullivan said no one has looked into the relationship between Goodhue and Flint Streets. Ms. Duncan said there is a question of whether an engineer could look at that. Mr. Correnti 8 said the easement on Goodhue is within their purview, but Mason St. is beyond what we have looked at and would require a new study. Ms. Sullivan asked if Flint St. can be 1-way coming down. Ms. Duncan said it looks like this is something the city needed to look at. She pointed out that the Planning Board has taken the NRCC recommendations seriously, and there is a Riverview easement and a piece of property between this area and Commercial St. But we don't want to pave over vegetation that doesn't have to be paved before the street could actually be built. Ms. Sullivan said that she thinks this is urgent. Mr. George said that he thinks they need to be site specific. We don't want to get too far afield. I agree that there are issues, but I don't think this is the forum for them. Mr. Ready said the they have a responsibility to the applicant to review site specific issues. Ms. Sullivan said that she is just linking two projects we are involved in and would like someone to take a look. Mr. Ready said that Mr. Correnti has come back every time to listen to us talk about issues beyond the scope of his project. At some point we need to address issues for which he comes before us. Ms. Sides asked what will come next. Ms. Zabkar asked if she can reserve traffic pollution review until she has a chance to review it. Mr. Treadwell said that the Planning Department will have an environmental review for traffic pollution. Mr. Ready suggested that they have covered traffic in detail and to a full extent. Many comments are now anecdotal. Somewhere we draw a conclusion that the professional presentation is acceptable or not. Mr. Puleo said that they have not addressed engineering and asked if there is time for it. Ms. Duncan said that the City Engineer is in the process of reviewing the plan and the board may want to bring up issues for the engineer to look at. Mr. Puleo said he is concerned with drainage, and noted that they required Walgreens to build something on their property to address it. Ms. Duncan said she will make sure the engineer addresses that. • Mr. Correnti said they have filed a wetlands and flood district application for the project that will be addressed at the next meeting. We are not sure if we need it, but we are filing it. This has been advertised in the paper. That is when we would like to come back and address issues of civil engineering. We can talk more about it on March 4`h. Mr. Vetere will be here for environmental issues. We can then circle back and talk about environmental issues and the AUL. We have been to the Design Review Board (DRB). They took some public comments and members noted their concerns. There has yet to be a lot of fine point detail. We expect to get into depth with the DRB at the next meeting about design, site layout, etc. If the board has other specific issues we should prepare to address, we would be happy to do that. Mr. Puleo asked when they will file for a parking variance. Mr. Correnti said they apply for parking, buffer and height variances probably by March 17. Ms. Sides asked that parking and the buffer should be the issue of the next meeting. Mr. Correnti said they will get feedback on why there is so much parking. Ms. Sides said there are reasons that can be analyzed again and some things are critical to how the site plan is laid out. Mr. Correnti said they would be glad to address this. Ms. Duncan said that parking and the buffer should be topics at the March 4`h meeting, and Doug Bollen could perhaps talk about parking and programming. Ms. McKnight asked which of the board members would not be present at that meeting. Mr. Clark and Mr. Ready indicated they will be absent. Mr. Clark said that he thinks there is more parking than needed. The methodology behind the analysis has to be checked so we can see if the number is real. Ms. Sullivan said she wants to know exactly where the number came from because it is very large. 9 There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing to the March 4 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business None Adjournment A motion was made by Randy Clark to adjourn, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 3/4/10 • 10 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email o F I��F��,€en�Sr #�Sa (9W n d SS 12.0 Wc,&1, T7? 7(1 ) a qq6 FOw , G p78 r� G QSd Page I of I CITY OFSAI-J"M PLANNING BOARD • 701tJ F€( �q A 11. 29 February 19, 2010CIi Y Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership LLC c/o John R Keilty, Esq. 40 Lowell Street Peabody, MA 01960 Re: The Residences at Shallop Landing Subdivision Form C- Definitive Subdivision and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit At its meeting on February 18, 2010, the Planning Board of the City of Salem discussed your request to withdraw the above mentioned applications without prejudice. The following Board members were present: Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Nadine Hanscom, Tim Kavanaugh, Chuck Puleo, Helen Sides, Randy Clarke, and Mark George. The Board voted 6-0 (Sullivan, Ready, Hanscom,Kavanaugh,Puleo and Sides) to grant the request (Clarke and George were not present at all meetings and were ineligible to vote). Yours truly, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk q �: i. p 4 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD FED 22 A q: 01 February 22,2010 CITY (,..._,, ',. ._. Decision - 405-419 Highland Avenue Form C- Definitive Subdivision Paul Ferragamo 405-419 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Re: 405-419 Highland Avenue Subdivision On November 5, 2009,the Planning Board of the City of Salem(hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Board" or"the Board") opened a public hearing regarding the application of Paul Ferragamo (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant" and/or"Owner") to allow the subdivision of the property at 405-419 Highland Avenue (Map 3, Lots 74, 75 and 76) and associated roadways and utilities. The subdivision contains eleven (11) residential lots. At the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on February 18, 2010 the public hearing was closed with the following Board members in attendance: Nadine Hanscom Tim Ready, Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan,Randy Clarke,Mark George and Helen Sides. Board voted by a vote of • five (5) in favor(Hanscom,Ready, Puleo, Kavanaugh and Sullivan) and none (0) opposed (George, Clarke and Sides were not present at all meetings and were ineligible to vote), to approve the Form GDefinitive Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the set of plans containing sheets 1 through 8, titled, "Definitive Subdivision Plan for a site at# 405-427 Highland Avenue,Salem,Mass.," prepared by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering, 14 Brown Street, Salem,MA 01970, dated October 13, 2009 and last revised November 16, 2009. 2. Endorsement of the Plans Following the statutory twenty(20) day appeal period, the Planning Board will endorse the original subdivision plans, subject to conditions of this decision, which shall be recorded at the South Essex Registry of Deeds. The applicant must submit the following for the Planning Board's approval prior to endorsement of the plans: 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. This decision shall be referenced on the original plans prior to the endorsement by • the Planning Board; the decision shall be recorded with the plans at the South Essex Registry of Deeds. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAA: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM • 3. 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 this decision shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 4. 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. 5. Transfer of Ownership Within five (5) 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. 6. 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 sure is to be requested, the Planning Board may, at its discretion require deposits to be surety q g Y> 9 P 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 part 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-parry agreement in an amount detemuned by the Board to be sufficient to cover the cost of all or anyone 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 Guy 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. • The Owner may file a covenant to secure the construction of ways and services for the entire sub-division and said covenant maybe partially released for phases of the sub- 2 division by bond, surety or tri-pang 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. 7. Homeowner's Association a. A Draft Home Owners Association or Home Owner's Trust Documents shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development, for reasonable review as to form and content prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the proposed dwellings. These documents shall include the following responsibilities: i. Ownership and/or maintenance of the storm water management system, including all stormwater management BMPs, whether in a public or private way. The Homeowner's Association is to notify the City Engineer within thirty(30) days of each of the required bi-annual maintenance/cleanings of the stormwater management system. Each maintenance is to occur at least five (5) months apart. ii. Ownership and/or maintenance of any walls or gates located in the • subdivision that are not situated on the lots in the sub-division; iii. Responsibility for snow removal on the proposed new road on the submitted plans until such time as the street is accepted as a public way by City Council. b. The City of Salem reserves the right to enforce the responsibilities and requirements of the Homeowner's Association documents. 8. Salem Conservation Commission a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission. 9. StreetTrees Prior to endorsement of the plans, revised plans will be submitted showing street trees that are 3 'h" caliper, planted 30'on center, as required by the City of Salem Subdivision Regulations. The species of street tree is to be determined by the City's Director of Public Services. 10. Lighting a. The Owner shall coordinate with the electric company and the City Electrician regarding the installation of street lighting within the Subdivision. b. The street lighting shall be the responsibility of the Owner until such time as the City accepts the streets. c. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner and the City Electrician for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building pemuts for the • proposed dwelling units. 3 11. Water and Sewer a. The project is subject to reasonable mitigation recommended by the City Engineer • relative to the capacity of the Ravenna Avenue sewer pump station to service the proposed homes. b. The applicant is to provide field verification (subject to approval by the City Engineer) that no virgin or over-blasted bedrock exists within two (2) feet of any proposed infiltration BWs, prior to endorsement of the plans. c. Applicant is to submit additional information (subject to approval by the City Engineer) on the proposed driveway drain inlet and berm or raised sidewalk to be installed across driveways to ensure infiltration system will work as intended, prior to endorsement of the plans. d. Applicant is to provide field verification that the proposed infiltration BMPs are constructed as designed,prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. e. Applicant is to provide field verification that the proposed 3-foot minimum limits of "over blasting" are constructed as designed prior to backfill. f. Construction of"on-lot" BMPs in accordance with design intent are to be verified prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. g. The City will exercise the water gates in Highland Avenue, in the vicinity of the proposed connection to the subdivision. If they do not operate effectively, new gates may be required at the location of the proposed connection,to provide effective emergency shut-off of the system and ensure the subdivision maystill receive water if a portion of the City's system is shut down. The developer is to install the new gates on either side of the proposed tie-in,if requested by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. • h. Applicant is to submit revised plans and associated profiles that meet the requirements of Section 9.8 of the MasSDEP guidelines relative to sanitary sewer and drinking water separation,subject to approval by the City Engineer,prior to endorsement of the plans. i. Applicant is to revise the plans to show detention basin discharge piping (not discharge orifice) be increased in size to more closely match the 12-inch diameter of the piping entering the basin and the proposed route be revised to include straight reaches and/or cleanout structures. Revisions are subject to approval by the City Engineer and are to be done prior to endorsement of the plans. J. Applicant is to revise plan detail to show the addition of cleanout on the common sewer forcemain and the addition of trash hoods on the leaching basin manhole discharge pipes, subject to approval by the Cary Engineer, prior to endorsement of the plans. 12.Office of the Building Commissioner All work shall comply with the requirements of the office of the Salem Building Commissioner as affected bythis decision. 13.Office of the City Engineer The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer 14.Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department as affected by this • decision. 4 15.Health Department • All work shall comply with the general requirements of the Salem Health Department as affected by this decision. 16. Board of Health All requirements of the Board of Health shall be strictly adhered to, including the following conditions set forth in its decision of January 12, 2010: 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) A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. d) A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP,Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. e) A radon remediation kit shall be installed and operational in each below grade dwelling unit. • f) A radon test shall be conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit. g) The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved bythe CityEngineer. h) 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. i) The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. J) The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. k) 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. 1) The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. m) 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. 5 n) The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. • o) 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. p) The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. q) The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 17.Pre-Cons truc tion Conference Prior to the start of work on the approved subdivision, a pre-construction conference shall be scheduled with the CityPlanner, the CityEngineer(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. 18. 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 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. The applicant shall abide by any and all applicable 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. 6 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. 19. Blasting The applicant or agent shall distribute the flyers titled, "Facts for Massachusetts Property Owners About Blasting to all abutters within three hundred (300) feet of the blasting area. 20. Construction Traffic a. With the exception of off-site improvements required as part of this decision, all construction will occur on site; no construction will occur or be staged within City right of ways. Any deviation from this shall be approved by the Department of Planning &Community Development prior to construction. b. A construction traffic management plan and schedule shall be submitted to the Department of Planning &Community Development for review and approval prior to the start of construction. c. Any roadways,driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition by the Owner. d. The Owner shall clean construction vehicles before they exit the construction site, and clean and sweep all streets affected by their construction truck traffic as necessary. • 21.Progress Reports Upon the request of the Planning Board,the owner shall submit reports of the progress of the subdivision's completion. 22. 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 necessarybythe CityPlanner. 23. Utilities Any utilityinstallation for housing lots shall be reviewed and approved bythe CityEngineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All utilities shall be installed underground. 24. As-built Plans & Street Acceptance Plans As_built plans and Street Acceptance Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Servicesrior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision P P Y 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. 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 7 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. 25. Violations Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, the violation of such condition is cured within fourteen 14 da or waived b a majority unless ( ) days, y 1 ty vote of the Planning Board. 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 pay the fee for recording or registering. Charles M. Puleo Chair • 8 �o CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD6V Notice of Decisions At a regular meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday, February 18,2010 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: Paul Ferragamo Location: 4051119 Highland Avenue (Map 3,Lots 74, 75, and 76) Description: Form C Subdivision—Project includes a new road to serve eleven (11) new single-family house lots. Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk February 22,2010 Applicant Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership LLC • Location: Land between Fort Avenue and Szetela Lane (Map 41,Lots 235, 236, 243, 244, 245 and 274). Description: Form C Subdivision and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit— project includes a new road to serve fifteen (15) single family house lots. Decision: Withdrawn without prejudice—Filed with the City Clerk February 19, 2010 This notice is being sent in compliance witb the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 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. PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING co Ym am 1x4y wy%rl dut doe Salem Pbmwg Band uill Wd as nydady sdi""mtwrgovi Thursflay, February 4, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Amex,Ro=313, 120 Washi- orr$tnxt W em CIM&M. Pik (Imirmin REVISED MEETING AGENDA L Approval of Minutes �w 12117109 and 1/21/09 Planning Board meeting 2. 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 requested to continue to 2118110. 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 anew street off of Szetela Lane. 4. Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 3. Old/New Business 6.. Adjoumment "16 0 1.11 CITY CSI, SALEM ; • X 'rr PLANNING BOARD2010 JAN 28 P I: 30 CITY CLrii!K ,j NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby not fig that the SalemPlanmrg Board twill held its nVi&qyscbe&iW nwang on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall AmEe,Room 313, 120 W hr%ton Stmt CYazrla M. Puler, (Imirnun MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 12/17/09 and 1/21/09 Planning Board meeting 2. 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. 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. 4. Public Hearing:Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment f {� t4 {t[1� Riot}1]Ri"X" 'A�x.id. ww, . • J1,9-70 1I 5.019 685 Fvx ruNll/T vgtM1; .'"A9,QIe CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 DIRt3Ci'OR ' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: January 28, 2010 RE: Agenda—February 4. 2010 Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo • ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items Minutes from 12/17/09 were included in your packets for 1/7/10,which we canceled. The 1/21/10 minutes are enclosed. Notes on Agenda Items: Continuation of Public Hearing: Request 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. Scott Patrowicz and Bill Ross, the peer reviewer, are meeting next week to finalize Bill's recommended changes. Because the plans will not be ready in time for me to send them in your packets (and therefore we would not be ready for a vote),Attorney Atkins prefers to simply come in on February 18,when all issues should be resolved, and the Board will have had adequate time to review the revised plans. In the meantime, I am including in your packet a memo from Bill summarizing the issues he has asked the applicant to address and the response so far. Unless the applicant requests and the Board agrees to an extension, the Board needs to vote on this project at the February 18 meeting (February 27 is the 135-day mark from the date the application . was submitted). 1 I 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. Like the Highland Ave. subdivision, the Board will need to vote on this project (unless an extension is requested and granted) on or before the February 18 meeting (February 27 is also 135 days from the date this application was submitted). Dave Knowlton, City Engineer, received a third submission from Jim McDowell today. The plans are included in your packet. Dave will still need time to review the plans and confirm whether they are satisfactory; I hope to have a memo from him by our meeting on 2/4. We do not yet have information from Pat Donohue of DEP,but our department has been in contact with the Department, and as soon as I have any additional information from her, I will forward it to you. Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. A Design Review Board hearing was opened on this project on January 27, 2010. I have received a • letter to the DRB, copying members of the Planning Board, from a resident— the letter is enclosed in your packet. Our Conservation Agent, Carey Duques, has provided comments on the project. The applicant must file with the Conservation Commission. Carey's comments are summarized below: Stormwater— ■ The proposed deep sump hooded catch basins will help reduce the sediment and debris entering the stormwater system; the stormceptors will also reduce total suspended solids. • Additional explanation of the need for a catch basin in the rear of a property on Federal Street would be helpful ■ Explanation of the proposed swale along the rear of the property in the southeastern corner of the site would be helpful. • Stormwater from the swale and catch basin from the southeastern corner of the site don't go through the stormceptor—why not? ■ Justification for not increasing drainage pipes along Bridge St. should also be explained. • Per existing Order of Conditions for the site, the Con Com will be looking for one-way valves to be installed on all outlet pipes that discharge into the North River that do not already have one. Low Impact Development Practices— ■ Pervious pavers should be installed where possible in the parking lot. • ■ Planted traffic islands should be designed to collect stormwater. 2 LID measures would be helpful in the Flood Zone A portion of the property (front of the site). Given potential contaminants, barriers may be needed. Wheel Wash Pad— • Given site contaminants, details of the wheel wash pad to be used during construction should be provided, as well as a description of proper disposal of material post-construction and handling of stormwater during construction (stormwater pollution prevention plan). Long-term operations and maintenance— ■ The Con Com will be looking to the property owner for long-term O&M of the stormwater system. Annual reports stating if and when catch basins and the stormceptor was cleaned shall be submitted to the Con Com and Should also be kept on site. Once the applicant comes before the Con Com, the existing Order of Conditions will be reviewed and possibly revised. The relevant portion of the Order of Conditions issued for the project previously proposed for this site is included in your packet • • 3 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting • February 4, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Charles Puleo, Chair, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and T.F. Ready. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair, and Timothy Kavanaugh. Approval of Minutes The minutes of December 17, 2009 were reviewed. There being no comments,a motion was made by Nadine Sullivan to approve the minutes of December 17, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 7-0(Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom,Mark George,Randy Clark, Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan, and T.F. Ready in favor,none opposed). The minutes of January 21,2010 were reviewed. There being no comments,a motion was made by Nadine Sullivan to approve the minutes of January 21, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 7-0(Charles Puleo, • Nadine Hanscom, Mark George,Randy Clark, Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan, and T.F. Ready 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. Charles Puleo said that the applicant has requested to continue at the next Planning Board meeting, scheduled for February 18, 2010. There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the February 18 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and T.F. Ready in favor, none opposed). 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 • 1 construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes,and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane. John Keilty, attorney for the applicant, referred to a letter from City Engineer, David Knowlton, stating that he believes the letter brings closure to outstanding engineering issues. Mr. Keilty said that the letter states that each of the changes the applicant has made are satisfactory. He said that DEP questions are still outstanding, and a letter from Pat Donohue of the DEP addresses the DEP's process. Mr. Keilty noted that there are not enough board members to vote on a request for a special permit, but there is a quorum to vote on the definitive subdivision. He said they would like to address outstanding issues to bring closure to them. Lynn Duncan said she did not expect a vote at this meeting, but would like to read aloud the letter from Ms. Donohue and comment on it. Ms. Duncan read the letter aloud. She noted concerns from board members and residents regarding the site's cleanup and stated that she had wanted to understand the DEP process herself. She noted that the DEP is looking at what is there so they can be prepared to review an Activity and Use Limitation(AUL) amendment and remediation plan. She said that the DEP has received calls from residents and the planning department and that the department is in communication with Ms. Donohue. Mr. Puleo opened the meeting to questions from board members. Ms. Sides asked whether the document the board has is adequate. Ms. Duncan said the fact sheets DEP provided were very technical and detailed and she requested the letter because she wanted something concise that we can more easily understand. Mr. Puleo asked when the DEP will review this. • Mr. Keilty said that first the applicant has to buy the land. Then they apply to the DEP with Michael Geisser, LSP. Mr. Puleo asked if the DEP could decide that the remediation isn't sufficient, and Mr. Keilty replied that they could and that a DEP audit could determine whether it is appropriate or not before starting any construction. Ms. Sullivan asked whether, in a level 1 AUL audit, the applicant will have to remediate if the DEP finds a problem and Mr. Keilty said that that is the case. Ms. Sullivan asked if additional submittals will be required prior to a change to residential use that shows there is no significant risk before start of construction. Mr. Keilty replied affirmatively. Ms. Sullivan expressed concern over whether the DEP will actually visit the site. Ms. Duncan noted that it is unknown whether they have come to see it, but she knows that they review the submission. Ms. Sullivan said she is concerned about the safety of future residents and worried that the DEP hasn't been to the site in years. Mr. Clark said that we take the LSP at his word. Ms. Sullivan noted that the LSP is licensed by the state and he can lose his license of his work is not dependable. Mr. Ready noted that this is on the DEP's radar screen and that correspondence with the neighborhood has heightened attention to the situation. He stated his confidence in the LSP's recommendation, which is subject to audit and which the board will ultimately approve or reject. • 2 Ms. Hanscom asked whether there is an apples to apples report discussing another similar • site. Mr. Keilty answered that there is not, but they are seeking one through Mr. Geisser. Ms. Hanscom asked for a clarification of whether the DEP visits the site for a level 1 review. Mr. Keilty stated that that the DEP will only look at Mr. Geisser's work, and with him they have indentified contaminated spots and excavated them. Next they will work to bring it to an acceptable standard. Ms. Hanscom noted that she wants an apples to apples report because contaminated sites remain there so long without being checked. Mr. Keily remarked that they can do a retest for contaminates in the level 2 review and file it in the report with their plans. Ms. Hanscom said she does not understand why an apples to apples report would be difficult to find. ' Ms. Duncan notes that the department accepted the view of Mr. Geisser when he was the city's LSP and she doesn't know how he could hide information. Other brownfield sites have come before the board and gone through the same DEP process. Ms. Hanscom said that she would like to see a report with ten single family homes on contaminated land and that this is different than large condominiums on concrete. Mr. Clark stated that he is satisfied with the LSP program and thinks that the board is in no position to question the LSP program. Ms. Sullivan asked what the difference would be between single family homes and large buildings, such as residence halls. Ms. Hanscom said that residents of residence halls come and go, while people live for 30 years in a single family home. • Mr. Puleo asked whether Mr. Keilty wanted to have the city engineer review some of the changes, and Mr. Keilty agreed. Christopher Mello of Eastern Land Survey reviewed Mr. Knowlton's comments. He said tide gate concerns were addressed and that the concern regarding the bulkhead would be addressed by the engineer. He said they have provided a 4 inch inlet to bring draining into the new system, which is lower than the abutting Salem Housing Authority property, so it accepts drainage. He said details have been provided for the catch basin and the oil and grease separator. They have agreed to address concerns about the electric facility on the old rail bed. He said that they have provided detail as requested of the double gate valve. He said they have also addressed the concern of the carrying load of the houses, clarifying that the shallow retaining walls have nothing to do with the load of the house. Ms. Sides asked about the question of a fence atop the wall and whether there would be adequate distance for maintaining the space. Mr. Mello replied that he recalled the idea of putting down stone as opposed to grass which requires maintenance. Mr. George noted that there is flooding in the corner by the site. Mr. Puleo asked whether all of the roof drains are tied into the drainage system, and Mr. Mello said that they are, and the new system will manage all the site's water and some of the abutters'. He noted also that the request for a detail of the vertical granite curb came late and they agreed to address it. He noted that in a revision of the plan, they connect existing catch basins to a new manhole and 24-inch drain, • 3 and that they have agreed to provide a shop drawing. Mr. George asked if any of the water from impervious surfaces will burden Szetela Lane, and Mr. Mello said that none of it will. Mr. Mello noted that there is an infiltration system for lots 14 and 15 on Fort Ave, and they • are the only two with recharge. Mr. Puleo asked if these lots have caps, and Mr. Mello said that he believes the entire site, all with the same AUL, will be capped. Mr. Puleo asked who will be responsible for the drainage system. Mr. Mello replied that it will be the responsibility of the homeowners' association. Mr. Puleo inquired about the stability of a house built on filled land. Mr. Mello said that it is a building permit issue, where a building inspector makes a decision at each excavation. Mr. Puleo asked about the concrete as a cap atop contaminated soil and Mr. Mello said there is solid fill reinforcing the cap. Mr. Keilty added that no snow fence is needed for clean fill. Mr. Mello said that this is all sealed once underground work is completed. Mr. Ready asked Ms. Duncan if she thinks Mr. Knowlton is satisfied with the changes, and Ms. Duncan answered that yes, the revised plans address everything and we have flagged the granite curb, and details for the retaining wall and the floodgate. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Francis Page, 28 Webb Street, voiced concern about storage and debris on the site. Mr. Keilty said there is an agreement with a neighbor over whether they take an easement on the area in question, and that uses would have to be compliant with zoning. Ms. Page added that odorous things are kept there in the summer. • City Councilor Robert McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue, raised the question of whether the neighbor at 1 Essex Street had been promised relief regarding the fence. Mr. Mello said he had met with the Mahoneys to discuss the fence and retaining wall against their property, and the developer agreed to change the fence to a 4-foot height on the westerly said of the parking lot and he had sent them a copy of the change. Mr. Puleo asked if Ms. Mahoney has expressed her satisfaction with the change and Mr. Mello said that he has not heard back from her yet. Teasie Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, asked how many new homes will have pumps in their cellars and whether that will be addressed. Mr. Puleo said that he thinks they have shown that all drainage will go into the new drainage system and not into the ground. Ms. Goggin asked where the melting snow will go, and Mr. Puleo said that it will melt into the drainage system. Mr. Keilty stated that the homeowner's association will be responsible for snow management, removing it or storing is as appropriate. Nancy Riley, 24 Webb Street, noted the area's high water table. Mr. Keilty said that their tests have taken that into account. Mr. Puleo asked how the grade of the slabs will compare to what is there now. Mr. Mello said the grade will be much higher than other houses and the proposed road grade. There will be no basements and therefore no pumps. • 4 Mr. McCarthy asked if the added height from a change in grade will be deducted from the allowable height, since the topography has been artificially raised. Mr. Mello said that • zoning height is based on grade prior to construction. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hancsom to continue the Public Hearing at the February 18 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim. Ready in favor, none opposed). Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Joseph Correnti, attorney for the applicant, said that they had met with the Design Review Board since the last Planning Board meeting for the ongoing review. Frank Vetere, of GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., presented a PowerPoint presentation addressing environmental considerations. He explained that the Licensed Site Professional (LSP)has the role of indentifying contamination, determining work needed for remediation, and ensuring that work complies with Massachusetts law as well as the health, safety, welfare and environment. He said that LSPs are licensed by the state, and their work, which is subject to DEP audit, applies to all but the most serious sites. He stated that the • Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) categorizes sites by accessibility and frequency and intensity of use. Groundwater is characterized by drinking water, indoor air and surface air quality. He noted that assessment takes into account that no one in Salem drinks groundwater, so a site is not required to have drinkable groundwater. He stated that it must be established that a site has no significant risk and a residential site has higher standards than a commercial site. The AUL is filed with the Registry of Deeds and tells future owners which uses are acceptable. He said that future changes in use could need more remediation or risk assessment. Eighty-six sites with an AUL were listed exist in Salem as of last year. AULs are common in old industrial cities like Salem and there are three around this site in question. Mr. Vetere said that the site has been industrial since at least 1890. A light bulb factory was established in 1916. It passed through various ownerships and ceased operations in the early 1990s. Oils tanks and contaminated soils were removed in the early 1990s and studies in 1995 and 1996 found contaminated water and soil. Studies in 1997 tested for metals. Mr. Puleo asked when the building was removed. Mr. Vetere said that he thinks it was removed when the tanks were removed. Mr. Vetere said that his company issued a Response Action Outcome (RAO) with an AUL in .1999, with a risk assessment based on industrial use. It was revised and audited in 2002 and the DEP found no issues with the revision. This was for a drug store and office building being proposed at the time. He said that risk assessment looks as risk to workers and • 5 trespassers, including children. Skin contact, inhalation and ingestion are considered. The assessment assumed there would be no pavement. The inside building assessment is based on the amount of time different users would be inside. Since no vapor barrier is assumed, • inhalation is considered. An AUL can permit commercial and industrial uses if a vapor barrier and sub-slab vent system are installed and a specified contaminated zone remains inaccessible. Construction below groundwater requires a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and soil management plan to protect workers and neighbors. Mr. Vetere stated that the 2009 AUL revision allowed usage as a community life center/senior center, required soil at 2-5 feet to remain inaccessible under fill and pavement, and prohibited residential use and school or day care with a full school day. Construction safeguards ensure that all excavation is done under a HASP overseen by a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and all soils are hauled under a material management plan. Ms. Hanscom thanked Mr. Vetere for his presentation, stating that it answered her questions about the process. Ms. Sides said she appreciated the clarity of the presentation. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Joan Zabkar stated that they are just now getting a chance to look at this and there should be another meeting since this material has not been made public. She said Ms. Donahue of DEP was unaware of this until this morning. She asked whether they should bring up their concerns now or at a future meeting after they identify issues. Mr. Correnti said that they will take all comments and will be there to do the same at future • meetings. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Correnti if he was ready to answer questions. Ms. Hanscom suggested that Ms. Zabkar could submit questions to be answered at the next meeting. Ms. Zabkar replied that she would prefer to have a live dialog. Ms. Hanscom remarked that with written questions, the applicant could provide detailed, researched answers. Ms. Zabkar said they need time to review this and list questions. Ms. Hanscom said that questions can be submitted to Staff Planner Danielle McKnight. Mr. Ready asked Ms. Zabkar if she is a member of an organization. Ms. Zabkar replied that she is representing Support Our Seniors (SOS). She asked other members in the audience to raise their hands to indicate that she represented them. Several people raised their hands. Mr. Ready suggested SOS could speak privately with the applicant. Ms. Zabkar said that would be unacceptable. Mr. Correnti also expressed disapproval, stating that they want to do this through a public forum. He said they will address questions from the public and come back as many times as necessary. Ms. Zabkar said Ms. Donohue wants more time because of new technical issues. Ms. Zabkar said she is concerned about the issue of passive versus active air filtration, noting that a vapor barrier broke at a nearby Walgreens. She also said that the senior center violates HUD rules by not being presented accurately at a public forum, as tonight it was referred to as a senior center and community life center, when before only as a senior center. She raised concern over data from tests for industrial use being applied to the assessment for a different use. • 6 Mr. Vetere stated that all data is taken into account for a risk assessment. Usage might indicate what to test for, but the data is the data. • Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, said that the document sent to the DEP is stamped 12/18. He asked about a discrepancy between extent of the DEP site and the parcel boundaries. Mr. Vetere said that the DEP defines a site as a contaminated area, and this can be part of a property or it can cross property lines. Mr. Treadwell noted that HUD's review differs from the DEP, with 36 impact items. He said tonight's review does not deal with such things as flooring and historic value. Mr. Vetere responded that the health, safety and welfare part of the review does cover such things. Alexis Ogno, 182 Federal Street, said that as an abutter with children, she has safety concerns. She asked if the plan to mitigate effect on abutters will be made public and what the threshold of acceptable risk is. Mr. Vetere answer that the DEP publishes the thresholds and that the plan to protect abutters is a construction document that is more a manual for construction than a public document. Ms. Ogno asked if neighbors will be able to know what is supposed to be happening at the site. Mr. Correnti said they will make those documents available and make sure the abutters get all the information they need. Mr. Puleo added that the board can incorporate that into a decision. Ms. Zabkar said she sent a letter to the board and some research to Ms. Donohue. She added that she is concerned about remnants from industrial uses. She doesn't know how the applicant's representatives could miss some of the history she uncovered. She said there had been leather processing at the site. She requested a full audit in the area shown on a 1911 • map to ensure the area is thoroughly checked. She said Ms. Donohue has maps, pictures and information. Ms. Zabkar then presented an image to Mr. Vetere, asking him about a bump in the land. Mr. Vetere said that he could not begin to speculate. Dan Foultan, 182 Federal Street, asked if any studies had been conducted on the risk to pregnant women. Mr. Vetere said that there is health research behind the DEP risk assessment that considers toxicity, concentration and exposure. He said the EPA takes this into account, looking at dermal, inhalation and fetal risk. Ms. Goggin asked whether the site will have a Certified Industrial Hygienist(CIH). Mr. Vetere said there will not always be one there,but a CIH will review the work. He added that measures to protect workers in effect protect neighbors, because the workers are closer to the risk than the neighbors are. Ms. Goggin said she is concerned about what will be disturbed deep down by pile driving and asked if the city will send out notices to neighbors of the risks. Ms. Duncan said that the city does notify abutters of what is going on, but not for their safety, which is already ensured. She said it is just a matter of wanting abutters to be informed. Ms. Ogno asked if there is a way to notify abutters if an unforeseen risk comes up. Mr. Vetere said they stop work if they find an unforeseen risk. At that point a whole other report has to be produced and submitted to the DEP. And the DEP considers such a submission public notice. Mr. Correnti added that the Board of Health will be interested in this and there 7 will be provisions on monitoring. He said that there has to be a mechanism to let the city and abutters know. Mr. Vetere said that in the HASP, they can set it up so that neighbors are notified if a threshold is reached. • William Bergeron of Hayes Engineering presented the results of a traffic study. Showing a map of the area, he said the main focus was on the Bridge and Boston Streets intersection with counts done in October. Mr. Clark asked if multiple counts were done, and Mr. Bergeron said that they were. Ms. Sullivan asked whether a 3:00 p.m. count was done, and Mr. Bergeron answered that one was not done for that time. Ms. Sullivan said that the 3:00 p.m. hour is peak traffic in Salem. Mr. Bergeron said they also did the same counts for the Flint Street and Bridge Street intersection. They projected traffic to 2014 using historic Mass Highway data, assuming a 1% compounding annual increase. He noted that a review of accident records indicates that both intersections have fewer accidents than similar intersections in the state. He said they looked at access points to the site and conducted speed studies. They found that site distances are more than double what is required. The design incorporates exclusive left and right lanes and provides a very good level of service to the site. Mr. Clark asked if there is a graphic displaying this, and Mr. Bergeron answered that there is. He stated that the project will obviously generate some traffic and he presented projected counts for a.m. and p.m., entering and exiting the site. He said that about 30% of the traffic will come from Boston Street, 30% back and forth on the opposite end of the intersection, and 25% down Bridge Street. He presented a table showing a level of service analysis showing traffic changes for build versus no build, with and without mitigation. He stated that the Boston Street section required more improvement and that a change in the right turn lane configuration will • improve the level of service. Mr. George said he is concerned about the potential gridlock produced by this plan. Mr. Bergeron said that gridlock is managed partly by having very few turns from Boston Street to Goodhue Street. Mr. George asked about egress from the site. Mr. Bergeron said that in their traffic analysis, traffic cleared through in each cycle even though there was some queuing. Mr. George said the new lane is obviously a benefit, but he is concerned about drivers having to break through two lanes of traffic to turn left onto Proctor Street. Mr. Bergeron said that their analysis shows that drivers wishing to go left onto Proctor would choose the exit that does not require crossing the lanes of traffic. Ms. Sides said that the cars coming down Pope Street to turn left are taking their lives into their own hands. Mr. Bergeron said that the new lane will help to alleviate this. Ms. Sullivan said that the 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. hour is a serious concern because school traffic creates a dense traffic jam that can be worse than the morning rush hour. She said she is very serious about this and it should be looked at. She asked if a left turn will be prohibited, as it is coming from Walgreens. Mr. Bergeron said a left turn will be prohibited. He added that the proposed uses tend to produce off-peak traffic. Mr. George asked if cars on Bridge Street will be able to leave the site going left or right. Mr. Bergeron said there are • 8 two traffic lanes on this stretch that has a low traffic count. Ms. Sides noted that the location could be a good influence on Bridge Street where people often speed. • Mr. Puleo asked why not only have an entrance from Bridge Street. Mr. Bergeron said that the proposed configuration helps drivers avoid the intersection. Mr. Clark asked what the length is of the added lane and whether it will be reviewed by Mass Highway standards. Mr. Bergeron said it is approximately 53 feet now, and they would be adding another 14 foot lane. He also said yes, it would be reviewed by Mass Highway. Mr. Clark asked if there is an island at the Bridge Street access point and what the level of service will be in that driveway. Mr. Bergeron said there will be no island there and the level of service will be C. Mr. Clark asked how many total parking spaces are planned. Mr. Bergeron said there will be 374. Mr. Clark noted that there could be more spaces than cars entering. Mr. Correnti remarked that they have to get a variance because they are below what is required by 20 to 30 spaces, depending on the uses of the upper floors. Mr. Clark asked how many handicapped spaces there will be. Mr. Correnti answered that there will be 22, an increase from the earlier number of 14. Mr. Clark asked if some of the spaces should be dedicated to Council on Aging and MBTA Ride vans. Mr. Correnti said that the porte cochere can accept two vans loading and unloading people simultaneously. Ms. Sullivan asked whether the total projected increase in traffic is 3% over five years. Mr. Bergeron stated that it is total, not per year. Ms. Sullivan asked how much this will add. Mr. Bergeron said it will add 1% compounding, over and above, each year. Ms. Duncan said that the 1% increase is without considering this project. Ms. Sullivan asked how many cars will . be going to Flint Street. Mr. Bergeron said it will be 24. Mr. Sullivan asked about the consequences of the project on the intersection and noted that no one knows where cars go after Flint Street. She said there has been a big effort to make sure cars from the Salem Suede development do not go up Mason Street. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Bergeron if they could look at the intersection of Federal and Flint Streets. Ms. Sullivan said she wanted to know how many cars will go from Flint Street to Mason Street. She said it is a difficult intersection and she wants to know how the development will affect it. Mr. Correnti said they can find out for the next meeting. Mr. Clark asked if there are other planned projects in the street network that should be included in this analysis. Ms. Duncan said that this ties in with Salem Suede and a project on Goodhue Street. Mr. Bergeron said to bear in mind their opportunity for mitigation because of their unique position. Mr. Clark said he wanted to see cooperation to avoid bad levels of service. Michael Sosnowski, City Councilor, 17 Collins Street, said that he has been addressing this with another councilor. He said Public Storage planned a lane that was never delivered and something is coming, but he doesn't know what it is. He said this needs to be addressed. Mr. Bergeron said they did look at Goodhue Street. He said if you make it two way, you reduce the cycle length and add traffic to the intersection. Every new phase changes the cycle. 9 Mr. Clark said that maybe Mr. Bergeron could put this on paper. Mr. Bergeron said it could be part of a bigger study. Ms. Duncan said that she would get a copy of the relevant memo to the councilors and Planning Board members. • There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing at the February 18 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Old/New Business None Adjournment A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed). Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tom Devine Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 2/18/10; again with corrections on 3/4/10 • 10 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board P(O�n 4 Date Name n Mailing Address Phone # Email Sf, _ �7? 2us�s��s�s 97&r;2cfS�3`1"(`s V�f015C&1( ., 73i -z4� -2,000 "�_/z -4/0 Cain/� 'ale s3i 7w/ ) � t u�7a� i�'2 FF-"of_,?aL ST yI Sg 30 �n� HA2 EcN�cP �o� . �C( Page ( of CITY 0FS A L E 1\1 IANQ -' BOARD PLANNINCT ZU1U JAN 12 A 8: NOTICE OF MEETING You am hwby mtyW dut d;e Salem Pkvvvg Bami udl/.?dj its ny4rdy sdwb�Imtuf on Th'u"rsyday! January 21, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Aym,Ram 313, 120 WasliVonStnet CIAT/1Z M. Pik Ormnmm MEETING AGENDA I Approval of Minutes > 1/7/09 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 construction a new street off of Szetela Lane to serve a new subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land into 15 single-family house lots between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 41,Lots 235,236,243,244,246, and 274). Artomeyjohn R.Keilty. 3. Public Heating: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at 401 • BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15,Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attomeyjoseph Correnti. 4. Continuation of 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 309) (Salem Heights Apartments). 3. Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility(WCF) Special Permit for the property located at 320 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32,Lot 216) (Park Towers apartment budding). 6. Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- I and 5 Florence Street (Map 34 Lots 273 and 102). Bearnyj.Fisheries Ltd. and Anthonyj. Picariello represented by Attorney George Atkins. 7. Continuation of Public Heating: Request 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. & Old/New Business 9. Adjouniment t' �,t2F A ifj I Q. "sca choUV &A 23.4i 01 ri • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date I /l/1_ Name Mailing Address Phone # Email S AM P 011ZI R � 6f77ASe �r 8P@22 `` &4tcirGT /�Iel zr Sys 3�/ 2 ' Z?j -&y-3 L16p g1.4 ahA 4095 Sm�'�" l.,�ee'S�z4 l � lA ��j�ec✓,,rjcQ �.,✓ 33i u�fol �� Sc�-f�6��p�v�s�� Thomas V j r 8 Zee S tr e t 01970-2422 ()78 74,P 2593 i i4�� EI 7—`f92- 6 7 �/ 2 b 2 y VSSS Fuuv,.j FF-r�F �sT -77 2YY-,0Y � � L aA yn 114-A )q5' Page_L of 9 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board o Qr Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email 71 T t i b I. S 7 ii Jn pcvT. o rereL Sam 9 7,f 2565-,�w/7V hdv Ar') . bbij,M4aov 2-,�_j1=- (NI I Plik MI c 3)a0bg, h KAtd,Vw� -AI oA2L • ,D >a%rc d75, 620,le Ir. 7., q00 /jewrON,tvtq (6'17)GG3 497f � ss�� e, 6 + � 3q �3 lclov Page of Z �cc�hUlTgq . CITY OF SALEM MASSAQiCTSETTS � , ' ' s4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND a / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KLUimRLEY DRI$COLL MAYOR Lm,N Goonrzn DIJNCAN,AIQ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 D1REC1'OR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: January 14, 2010 RE: Agenda -January 21, 2010 Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items Minutes from 12/17/09 were included in your packets for the last meeting, which we canceled. 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, City Engineer, has received a second submission from Jim McDowell,the project's engineer. Dave is currently reviewing the submission to ensure all his criteria from the last review have been met. He will be preparing a written recommendation for the Board, and also will attend our meeting on the 21". I don't yet have updated copies of the engineering plans from the applicant for Board members. I discussed the water metering issue that came up at the last meeting with Dave Knowlton. The reason he had preferred one master meter for the entire development was because the proposed • street, Shallop Lane,was originally intended to be a private way. With the entire development being private property, the water department would not have read meters at individual homes, but would have instead read the single meter, which was to be placed at the property line (the homeowners 1 • association could then have sub-metered individual homes if it chose). However, now that Shallop Lane is being proposed for acceptance as a public way, each house will need to have its own meter. The Board of Health discussed and approved this project at its meeting on January 12. The conditions from the Board of Health decision are: 1. 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 copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. 4. The developer will give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E Report. 5. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP,Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. 6. A radon remediation kit shall be installed and operational in each below grade dwelling unit where appropriate. • 7. A radon test shall be conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit. 8. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved bythe City Engineer. 9. 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. 10. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. it. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. 12. 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. 13. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 14. 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. 15. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. 2 • 16. 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. 17. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. 18. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. The proposed project includes a new 136,000 square foot professional office building with space on the ground floor for retail and municipal space. A health club is proposed for the 16,300 square feet of retail space on the first floor, and another 20,000 square feet of municipal space on the first floor would house the new Salem Senior Center. The building is two stories on one side and four stories on the other, with an atrium joining the two. The applicant plans to place a small food court or cafe in the atrium. 374 parking spaces are proposed. As the site plan narrative submitted with the application explains, two lots are to be combined (44 Boston St. and 401 Bridge St.) in order to • complete the 5.1 acre site. The applicant will be submitting a Form A (ANR) plan in order to join the two lots, but under separate cover. The application materials you are receiving include application forms for Site Plan Review and for NRCC special permits (required because they are proposing a single retail use of more than 3,000 square feet in size, fences over 6 feet tall along the property line closest to Federal Street, and a food use in the atrium). Also included is a site plan review narrative, an environmental impact statement, a drainage analysis, site plans - including engineering plans - both full size and 11x17, and a traffic study. Attorney Correnti has already agreed to a peer review of the traffic study, and I am currently working to obtain a quote from Beta, the firm we have under contract to perform traffic peer review. The application will be coming before the Board of Appeals for relief from maximum height requirements (for the portion of the building that is proposed to be four stories), number of parking spaces, and minimum buffer area between part of the parking area and the residential properties on Federal Street. I expect to receive an application for the February ZBA meeting,which will be on 2110. The project will also be going before the Conservation Commission and the Design Review Board. The application materials have been routed to Fire, Health, Engineering, Conservation and Building. So far I have no comments from the departments to share. • 3 Continuation of 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) (Salem Heights Apartments). The applicant has submitted revised plans and photos showing the changes in the placement of the equipment. The only piece of equipment now proposed to extend above the top of the penthouse is the GPS antenna - all other backhaul antennas and equipment are now below this line. The equipment is also now shown to be painted to match the brick penthouse. Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility(WCF) Special Permit for the property located at 320 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32, Lot 216) (Park Towers apartment building). The addition of 3 panel antennas and 1 backhaul antenna is proposed on the rooftop of the Park Towers apartment building,where other wireless equipment already exists. The new equipment is proposed inside an existing stealth "chimney." 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. This application was submitted previously, but was withdrawn because of questions about ownership, which have now been resolved. The plan shows the addition of Parcel 1 to 1 Florence St.,which already has more than the required • 100 feet of frontage on Florence St. The plan also shows the addition of Parcel 2 to 5 Florence St., which currently has only 60 feet of frontage and would gain an additional 20 feet. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request 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. I do not have any additional materials for this project, but Scott Patrowicz has told me the engineering peer review is going well,and if it is not yet complete bythe meeting on 1/21, he would at least like to give the Board a brief update. The Board of health reviewed and approved the subdivision at its January 12 meeting. The conditions of their decision are as follows: 1. 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 copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. 4 . 4. A copy of the Demolition'Notice sent to the DEP,Form BWPAC6, must be sent to the Health Agent. 5. A radon remediation kit shall be installed and operational in each below grade dwelling unit. 6. A radon test shall be conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit. 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 construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's invoice to 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. • 13. 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. 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 developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. • 5 :C v CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 11110 IVA 95 A ln: 41 Wireless Special Permit Decision r�IE H, k ;4 P CITY Cl[�tli. Sx,LE, -1„ ;5 S, For The Petition of Goodman Networks For The Property Located At 12 Pope Street A Public Hearing on this petition was opened on December 17, 2009, and continued to January 21, 2010. The following Planning Board members were present at the close of the hearing: Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis,Nadine Hanscom, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, Randy Clark, Helen Sides and Mark George. 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 6.6, Wireless Communication Facilities, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the installation of 3 panel antennas and 5 backhaul antennas located at 12 Pope 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 January 21, 2010, the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a vote of seven (7) in favor(Puleo, Moustakis, Hanscom,Kavanaugh, Ready, Sides, and Sullivan), and none (0) opposed, to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the location stated above, in accordance with the application(dated October 30, 2009) and site plan ' last dated December 21, 2009, titled"MA-BOS7165-1 Salem Heights Apartments, 12 Pope Street, Salem, MA 01970" (Sheets T-1, GN-1, GN-2, C-1, A-1, A-2, A-3, S-1, S-2, S-3, E-1, E-2, and E-3) and prepared by EBI Consulting, submitted and now part of the file. 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 s WWW.SALEM.COM T CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD . - O10 JAN 9c; A o• [n Wireless Special Permit Decision For The Petition of Goodman Networks F For The Property Located At 320 Lafayette Street A Public Hearing on this petition was held on January 21, 2010. The following Planning Board members were present: Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, Randy Clark, Helen Sides and Mark George. 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 6.6, Wireless Communication Facilities, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the installation of 3 panel antennas and 1 backhaul antenna enclosed in a new stealth closure located at 320 Lafayette 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 January 21, 2010, the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a vote of seven (7) in favor(Puleo, Moustakis, Hanscom, Kavanaugh, Ready, Clark and George), • and two (2) opposed (Sides and Sullivan), to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the location stated above, in accordance with the application (dated November 20, 2009) and site plan last dated November 30, 2009, titled "MA-BOS7155-b Park Towers, 320 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA 01970" (Sheets T-1, C-1, A-1, A-2, and A-3) and prepared by EBI Consulting, submitted and now part of the file. The Special Permit was approved with the following conditions: 1. The stealth tower shall be painted white rather than constructed with the proposed brick finish; 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. /01 f &/ km Charles Puleo, Chainnan 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI,EM.COM CITY OF SALEM ' PLANNING BOARD Zulu J44 25 A S. 59 FILE - CITY CLEM,, S„irLEPH, MASS. FORM A - DECISION 1 and 5 Florence Avenue January-25,2010 Re: Form A- Plan Believed Not to Require Approval, l and 5 Florence Street The Salem Planning Board voted on January 21,2010 to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" of the following plan: Application of: Benny J. Fisheries Limited and Anthony J. Picariello Location: 1 and 5 Florence Street, Salem,MA • Project Description: Parcel 1 (1217 square feet),shown on the approved Form A plan(no address or lot number exists - parcel was previously part of paper street Porter St),is to be conveyed to Anthony J.Picariello and combined with 1 Florence Street (Map 34, Lot 273) (13,711 square feet) to ' form a single 14,928 square foot contiguous parcel. Parcel 2 (1068 square feet), shown on the approved Form A plan (no address or lot number exists - parcel was previously part of paper street Porter St.),is to be conveyed to Benny-J. Fisheries Limited and combined with 5 Florence Street (Map 34, Lot 102) (4441 square feet) to form a single 5509 square foot contiguous parcel. viv&-t-� ft,�/tit Charles M. Puleo Chairman Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 s TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting • January 21, 2010 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, January 21, 2010 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, Mark George, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present:_Lynn Duncan, Director, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner Chuck Puleo opened the meeting by introducing two new Planning Board members- Mark George and Randy Clarke. Approval of Minutes The review of the December 17th meeting minutes were postponed until the February 4th meeting. 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 construction a new street off of Szetela Lane to serve a new subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land into 15 single-family house lots between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE,Salem, MA(Assessors Map 41, Lots 235, 236,243,244, 246,and 274). Attorney John R. Keilty. • Attorney John (Jack) Keilty, representing Shallop Landing, recapped some information previously presented. He said they met with the Conservation Commission and received an Order of Conditions. Attorney Keilty said he noticed at the site visit that some Board members were concerned with the type of cap to be used and wanted more information. He handed out a drawing of a cross section of cap. Attorney Keilty said they received a memo from City Engineer Dave Knowlton,who reviewed the site engineering, with requests for changes to the plans, and that they are able to meet these requests. Michael Geiser,Alliance Environmental Group,talked about the cap and said that they have two infiltrators on lots 14 and 15. He referred to Nadine Hanscom's question at the last meeting about other sites where this type of cap has been used, and said he spoke to Pat Donahue at the DEP who said there are some single-family homes with this type of cap. He said in Salem near the Witchcraft Heights Elementary School (WHES)there is land that has this type of cap with an AUL on the property, and two elementary schools with these caps, all which have DEP approval. Mark George asked which schools use the berm and cap, Mike Geiser said WHES and Carlton. Attorney Keilty added that it has been used on residential properties as well. Chuck Puleo asked what happens when the material gets saturated. Mike Geiser said the contaminated area has very granular soil and the water table is 8 ft. With testing it appears that the material on site is not coming off into the ground water because the groundwater is showing to be clean. He doesn't see any issue where that would be changed. John Moustakis asked if there are sites like this one with same cap, sites that have more than one home on them. Nadine Hanscom said she would like an "apples to apples' comparison-site(s)with same contamination,same cap and similar buildings them. Jack Keilty said you can et through the membrane material so the proposed the snow fence as another barrier. • g g YP P Christine Sullivan mentioned that Salem State College has a building that is on a slab like these will be. Mike Geiser said he didn't think the college used a permeable membrane and that you would want the 1 rainwater to go through. He said the snow fence is preferred because it's tough, cheap and easy to see if anyone were to try to dig. Lynn Duncan, Director, wanted to make sure everyone at the meeting understands the language. The • cap is the clean fill being proposed; the orange barrier is not a cap. Lynn said originally the AUL(Activity & Limitation Use limitation cap type)was done for the city, so the requirements were for the city to meet for the current use.Attorney Keilty agreed and said they want a revised AUL so it can be used residentially. Lynn Duncan said the planning department looked into what Nadine is looking for. They contacted a licensed site professional who the city has under contract and who was familiar with this approach, and while he couldn't give specific examples, said it has been used in other locations. Nadine Hanscom said that if the cap is approved by a government,there has to be something that states this, with today's technology, it must be recorded somewhere. Michael Geiser explained that there is no way to search the DEP database by the AUL. He said when he spoke with Pat Donahue he told her that there are questions from the City about use of these barriers. Pat said this type of cap on a residential site is not as common as other sites, more commercial sites have them, but that they exist. He said the reason they are more often found on commercial property is because these properties historically had other commercial uses on them,which tend to pollute. The commonwealth has pegged this as a risk reduction program using rules and guidelines. Nadine Hanscom said she would still like to see a comparison at the next meeting. John Moustakis asked if it is possible to get a letter from the DEP saying that this process is ok. Michael Geiser said he does have an email from Pat saying that this cap/barrier process they are proposing is okay and will supply a copy. Tim Ready said ultimately they will have to meet the requirements of the BOH, DEP and Planning Board and if that's not satisfactory, then what other assurances could they ask for? He feels the presentation has been made by an expert and it has seemed to satisfy the DEP. Attorney Keilty has no objection to providing a copy of the email, and he will ask Miss Donahue to put it on letterhead. He • also said he will try to find an "apples to apples" comparison as Nadine requested. David Knowlton, City Engineer, says he has reviewed the resubmitted plans and storm water plans. He prepared a memo that he forwarded to Attorney Keilty and Planning Board members. Some comments on the memo have been addressed and Attorney Keilty said they will incorporate those addressed items for the next meeting. Dave Knowlton said he will have time to review the drawings with those same items. Tim Ready added that Attorney Keilty said that they can meet most of the requirements. Dave Knowlton said he is comfortable with the engineering aspect and is convinced the applicant will be able to make the necessary changes. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Teasie Riley Goggin, 3 Wisteria Street, asked if this project will have a certified industrial hygienist on board. She thought OSHA required that if you're working with chemicals.Attorney Keilty said no, that one would not be required for this site. Councillor Robert McCarthy asked about the drain that drain that is tied into the ones already at that site. What else ties into it or drains into it? Should they increase the pipe size? Dave Knowlton said they didn't include that drainage system up to Lee Fort Terrace on the original plan, however it has been included/incorporated in the resubmittal as well as the tide gate. Councillor McCarthy will get a copy of the resubmitted drawings. John Givelia,who was previously a member of the Council on Aging Board, said that Attorney Keilty • mentioned that the soil was removed. Michael Geiser agreed and said this happened in approximately the year 2001/2002. John said he knows that they removed so many cubic yards of soil and left the rest. 2 His concern is on those lots there is a lot of heavy metal contamination and there was not a lot of soil taken, and it was not removed from all of the lots. He says that to the best of his knowledge, not much • has been done to that site. Councillor Michael Sosnowski said current soil conditions were tested down to the water table,which is clean and he understands they will be put down snow fence,then a barrier and cap. He asked if after it's capped,would the contaminants percolate up. Michael Geiser said the contaminates are heavy metals fixed to the soil and that they are not going to move or float;they're not like oil, it's essentially dirty dirt and it would sink to the bottom. Councilor Robert McCarthy asked to see a map of the site. He wondered how the lots have been tweaked to fit them in the perimeters. Attorney Keilty said they moved some houses back further, changed the size of some of the houses and took some area of the lots to make the street a bit wider. On average,the lots are almost bigger because they redid the geometry of the street and houses. There is a difference of frontages. Councillor McCarthy said he has looked at this project a long time and his area of concern is the houses on Webb Street, along the back. He says it's the edge of the old railroad easement,which is now a walkway,which was like a buffer. Is there a way of moving the wall back so that it's not on the other property? Attorney Keilty said they did that,they pulled the wall back which resulted in the ability to put in storm water man holes on the property that will collect from Webb Street properties and go underground. They stepped the wall back about 4-5 feet. Amity Vandoren, 1 Essex Street, adjacent to the parking lot area, said at one time there was a 6-10 ft area of buffer and wanted to know what size that buffer now is. Attorney Keilty said now it's 3 feet,the wall starts approximately at the back of house and showed it to her on the plans. Chuck Puleo pointed out that Helen Sides had previously asked about the size of the fence. Amity said initially the wall and • fence had been set 6-10 feet off her property but now the wall starts at their property, near the back door,and it impacts her yard and property. Attorney Keilty said they have never moved the parking lot from the original presentation and the fence is the same. Amity said they previously offered to give them 8-10 ft. and is disappointed that is not the case now. Attorney Keilty says this is not the case;the plan before the Planning Board has always had the wall in this location. Tim Ready commented that the Board doesn't know what agreement is being referred to, but if the parties can bring in any formal documentation to support their claims (about the location of the fencing);they should bring it to the board. Ruth Page, 28 Webb Street, said they want a 6 foot fence on top of the 3 foot wall at their property. Chuck Puleo said there will be some engineering changes for the next meeting.Attorney Keilty said they will contact the DEP and get Pat's comments on letterhead as well as get a fair comparison to other similarly remediated properties. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the public hearing at the February 4th meeting, seconded by John Moustakis and approved (7-0). In favor-Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh (Mark George and Randy Clarke abstaining). Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District,for the property located at • 401 BRIDGE STREET(Map 25, Lot 74)and 44 BOSTON STREET(Map 15, Lot 305)(proposed Gateway Center,including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 3 Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing High Rock Bridge Street, LLC, said they are pleased to bring this project to the Planning Board. This is the former Sylvania site, on which they are proposing a mixed use building which will house the senior center, professional offices, a fitness • center/health club and an atrium. He wants to give an overview tonight, and they will do traffic analysis for the next meeting. He introduced David Masse and David Sweetser,one of the principals of the proposed development. David Sweetser said about 15 month ago,they engaged the City for their plans for this intersection and since then they have met with the public,the Mayor's office and constituents. They have tried to be as responsive as they can and have had a positive relationship with the City,Mayor Driscoll and staff. They are trying to find a balance between what's economical and what's best for the City and seniors. He thanked the board for their time tonight. Attorney Correnti said they have filed and are asking for a site plan review, and because of NRCC they will be going to the DRB. He said they are asking for 3 permits:one for retail use over 3,000 sq ft(for fitness center); one for height of fence; and one for eating and drinking places within the building. They are proposing an atrium in the middle of the building with a small food-court type of feel.They will be going to the Board of Appeals asking for a variance for number of parking spaces even though this has 374 proposed parking spaces and for a variance for height of building. Currently they are allowed 4 stories, 50 ft.,they have 4 stories, 57 feet. They will meet with the Conservation Commission and received an Order of Conditions,they will go back to see if they need to file a new Notice of Intent. There is a buffer zone from the canal. Lynn Duncan, Director, said that this is a very important plan to the city and thanked everyone for great turnout. Attorney Correnti said they have had great support from the City and the City Council. Architect Harry Gunderson, 20 Second Street, Salem, said he has been involved with this project for 5-6 years. Used a PowerPoint presentation to show and explain the proposed project. He showed an aerial view of the lots. There will be two entrances, one off of Bridge Street and one off of Boston Street. There are 374 parking spaces, 22 of those are handicap accessible because they anticipate the senior center will require them;they are also located closer to the senior center than the offices and fitness • center. There is also a possible medical use on the upper floor. There will be a landscape buffer along the back side, 136,000 gross sq ft. On the Boston Street end,the building will be 2 stories and then it will be 3 stories in the middle and then 4 stories at the other end. The entrance to the offices upstairs will be at the end of the building off of Bridge Street, next to the service area. The office space will be 91,OOOsq ft. Surrounding the building outside will be a very wide sidewalk about 10-12 feet wide. On the South side of the building(in the back)there will be a covered walkway the entire length of the building.There will be a Porte cochere so that patrons can drop someone off out of the elements. The Boston Street entrance will be right turn in, right out. The landscape buffer in the back will be varying widths. There is a 12 ft high retaining wall in back. For landscaping,currently at the back of the site there are mature large trees. The plantings along the fence will be mountain laurel which is a flowering tree; the trees lining the sidewalk will be callery pear;the trees in the island will be honey locust; and the other trees will be creeping juniper. In between that will be grass, and in the lot there will be permeable stone pavers. Harry Gunderson continued to explain that the entire property is 880'ft long. The NRCC zoning calls for putting the building along street because it builds a streetscape along Bridge Street, and there was also an expectation from everyone to build on the corner. Since it didn't seem right to park at one end of the parking lot and walk to building at the other end,the end of the building closest to the parking area has the entrance to the upper floors,which is the end that has 4 stories.The first floor of the building will house the Senior Center,which will be in the majority of that floor,the health club is at the corner of that floor and the atrium will be in the middle. There will be three ways to get into the senior center- through the atrium,through the front door and directly into senior center. They are currently in • discussion with senior center staff about how it will lay out.There will be a separate entrance into the health club. On the second floor there will be professional offices on both sides of the atrium and there will be the second level of atrium in the middle with a bridge to connect the two sides. The third floor 4 �I will be all professional offices with the main entry at the east end. There will be mechanical equipment on the roof of the atrium. By doing that,they will be limiting what is on the fourth floor of the building. • Harry Gunderson explained the elevations and showed photos of the proposed building from different views. He said there will be a glass canopy at the atrium. The south side of the building faces Federal Street. Near the office entrance there will be a glass curtain wall at the East end of the building,you could see it if you were standing on Flint Street and looking at the building. There will panel systems but he is not sure if they will be concrete or metal. He showed another view as if entering from Boston Street. Then the view from the parking lot(east end) loo,king towards the building, it will be primarily a brick building, precast headers and sills and a sunscreen on the roof at fourth floor. Peter Blaisdell, Hayes Engineering,Salem St.,Wakefield, explained the civil engineering aspect of the plan. He said the ground floor will be 45,400 sq ft, the second floor will be 41,800 sq ft and the third floor will be 26,600 sq ft. The site gets a bit higher towards the church.There are a lot of existing utilities on this site from when Sylvania was on site. Also,this site is part of the 100 year flood plan and they are concerned with the neighbors'yards.They tried to identify some existing drain problems. As part of the demolition and erosion control plan the existing building will be taken down,certain drainage will be removed,and some pavement will be removed. To keep the site from eroding they are proposing a silt fence barrier around the site,they will put hay bales near the drainage system,will use tracking pads and have a 25 ft wide apron of crushed stone for any vehicles going into the lot. Peter Blaisdell said for parking and layout of the plan they tried to get as many parking spaces as possible. There are two driveway entrances and the one off of Bridge Street will be 2 lanes in. There will be speed bumps in the parking lots as well. There is a conceptual land donation for a right turn lane which will be explained further down the road. There will be a large walkway around entire building. • Peter Blaisdell said for the grading plan all runoff from the pavement is directed to deep sump catch basins and there will be a stormceptor unit and these will remove solids. The grades from Federal Street go towards the North River not toward Federal Street;there will be catch basins to catch the runoff. As for the utility plan, one of neighbors has a depression in their yard, their idea is to put a catch basin in their yard and direct it towards this proposed property. For weep holes they put a crushed stone trench with PVC pipe underneath. There is an existing drainage system that they will utilize. The large precast concrete unit will have about 81% removal ability, state standards is 80% removal.They will have discussions with ConComm about this unit.The building will be serviced by sanitary sewer line.They haven't selected lights for the final plan yet,for safety purposes,they will have 1 ft candle lighting designed to provide light without spilling over onto the neighbors' property.There will be typical sloped granite curbing. Attorney Correnti mentioned that they have a 50 ft buffer from the residential line, so they will need a variance for that as well. He said there is an AUL on this site; they will address how they will handle environmental issues at a future meeting. Christine Sullivan said there was a decision in November 2006 and she noted that at that time there was an agreement of height of fences with the Federal Street neighbors and then she read the approval that the Planning Board gave. Also, during the traffic presentation, she wants to discuss a deceleration lane,which had also been discussed for the previous proposal for this site in 2006. Issue Opened Up for Public Comment Councilor Michael Sosnowski said that they were previously promised a traffic lane by the church and • there was a possibility of making Goodhue Street a two way. He said it is an good time for the Planning Board to take advantage of those things that were promised. He also pointed out that Peabody is working on their flood issues and Salem is in phase 3. He wants to make sure that any increase of water/impact from this is taken into account. 5 Stan Poirier, 8 Cottage Street, said that looking at the site plan, it looks like there is a lot of hot top and a flat roof which means there would be a lot of water that will run off and asked what they will have for • this. Peter Blaisdell said that is a good point and for that they will have a good amount of impervious area and a lot of landscaping. He said the pipe sizes are such so that they won't send more water to streets, everything that comes on to the site now goes to the street. He said they're trying to clean it and treat it. He said the stormcepters slow the runoff a bit. Nancy Reilly, 24 Webb Street asked if the fitness center and food court would be opened to the public. Or would the food court be more like a hospital cafeteria for renters of the building? Attorney Correnti said the fitness center would be a membership type of club, opened to the public and it will also seek to do joint programming with the senior center; and the senior Center staff thinks it's a benefit.As for the food court, ideally it would be opened to public, but it would be open only during the building hours. Councillor Joan Lovely,who was a member of the site plan committee for the senior center, said a lot of discussion for this site had focused on having an outside activity space for the seniors. This site doesn't show anything like that and she asked if it could be discussed. She suggested a rooftop garden to address this.Attorney Correnti agreed that there isn't any outside activity space;they did have the atrium and the fitness center,which provided some recreation and open areas. He added that they also incorporated wide sidewalks and they could have benches there. Councillor Lovely reiterated that a lot of discussion involved having seniors being able to enjoy the outside,that the Mayor had once suggested a rooftop garden. Over the next few meetings perhaps there could be some discussion on this issue. Jim Treadwell, previously on the NRCC Committee,wants to make sure this complies with the NRCC plan. He feels the parking is excessive and takes up useable outdoor space. Depending on the buffer, • maybe they can eliminate some parking spaces and put a bocce court or something. A woman echoed the sentiment of having a rooftop garden. She was a little disappointed at there not being any details to the building that shows the history of Salem. Attorney Correnti said that they will be showing the details of the building at future meetings. Lynn Duncan added that the DRB meeting is next Wednesday where they will be reviewing the details of the building. David Goggin,3 Wisteria Street, commented that Sylvania's plant didn't make it because of all the water problems they had,water was getting into the building and they had slab construction. He feels the water situation is going to get worse at that site. Mr. Gorman asked if they are going to allocate senior parking.Attorney Correnti said they can talk about peak hours at next meeting and parking. They won't be allocating senior parking;they assume that seniors coming in through the atrium will park outside of that area. Teasie Riley Goggin, 3 Wisteria Street, asked that since federal funds are being used for the senior center,would they be doing an environmental review. Lynn Duncan said that they will be doing an environmental review and they have submitted a 786. Ms.Goggin also asked about pile driving and how many they think they will need, as she thinks they will be digging up some contaminants. Martin Imm, 174 Federal Street,says that in general,the plan is just super, but suggested that this . should be a landmark building on the corner and have some more remarkable type of facade. He questioned why there are so many parking spaces and thinks a bocce court (or something similar)would be nicer. 6 Sandy Power, 18 Loring Avenue, said she's looking forward to using the building. She asked if the • sidewalk in the back of the building could be widened to add some tables and also asked how"green" the building is. Peter Blaisdell said they are trying to achieve LEED standards in some aspects of the construction,though the certification itself was expensive. Sandy Power commented on the landscaping. She doesn't think callery pear is a good choice—they are overdone and not a good shade tree—and would like to see more of a variety of trees. She asked how extensive the permeable paving is. Harry Gunderson said they would be present in the islands and not in the parking areas. Pat Donahue, 12 Dearborn Lane,who was member of NRCC zoning committee,would like to see the buffer zone honored and possibly use an open area for seniors and have a rooftop garden. She suggested looking at Shaughnessy Hospital;they have a really nice rooftop garden. Along with Sandy, Pat also thinks a pear tree isn't good and suggested a dogwood tree. Councillor Joan Lovely added that during the meetings for the senior center,they also discussed a "green" building and LEED certifications. Danielle McKnight read a letter from resident John Adelman, 27 Charter Street. In his letter he asked for a projection of the number of seniors in Salem. He asked if there would be any integration with North Shore Elder Services and wondered if there would be a discount for the seniors in the fitness center. He also asked how contamination would be dealt with. There being no further comments,a motion was made by John Moustakis to continue the public hearing at the February 4`h meeting,seconded by Tim Ready and approved (9-0). In favor-Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready,Tim Kavanaugh, Mark George and Randy Clarke. • Continuation of 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)(Salem Heights Apartments). Heather Carlisle, representing Goodman Networks, returned to tonight's meeting with an update. At the last meeting,there was a discrepancy in the drawings of what is currently located at the site and what would be at the site.She said every antenna will be painted to match and the safety railing is now shown on the drawings. Helen Sides said the drawing looked better. The antenna that is show in the drawing will remain there as it has nothing to do with what they're doing. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready approve the special permit, 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. Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility(WCF) Special Permit for the property located at 320 LAFAYETTE STREET(Map 32,Lot 216)(Park Towers apartment building). Patty Masterson, representing Goodman Networks, said they are here tonight because they want to install 3 panel antennas and 1 backhaul antenna. One this site,T-mobile has an existing stealth chimney so they will make theirs to match.The proposed wireless communication facility will be on the southeast • side of building. Helen Sides commented that the stealth (brick)chimney currently on the building, and the one proposed to be added is totally strange. Patty Masterson said those materials used for the chimney can be changed to be tailored to whatever the Board would like. Helen Sides thinks it should be more integrated into the building, maybe attached to the side of the building without the chimney 7 surrounding the antennas. Patty Masterson said it needs to be in the open, so that the antennas can send signals without interference. Helen Sides suggested that sometimes what you're trying to hide looks better than what you're using to hide it. She said she would like to know what it would look like if • it were to be mounted on the side of the building without a chimney. Patty Masterson explained that the chimney will be 10 ft high by 3 J4 ft wide and 5 ft deep. The three antennas are 42 inches each and the backhaul antenna is 29 inches. The existing chimney on the building is about 18 ft from the penthouse; their proposed chimney would be about 10 ft from the penthouse. Randy Clarke suggested that the chimney be painted white and that the Board conditionally approve this. Helen Sides would like to see an alternative to the mounting of the antennas and chimney. A motion was made by Randy Clarke to approve the Special Permit with conditions and for the chimney to be painted white. Tim Ready reiterated that the issue with this is that the Board would conditionally approve a white chimney; however Helen Sides would like to see an alternative design. Christine Sullivan would like the DRB to give the Planning Board some standards for these things. Tim Ready said that it seems they have established a precedent with other similar companies while Helen Sides pointed out that the other Goodman Networks representative came back with another option that was much better. There being no further comments,a motion was made by Randy Clarke to approve the petition, seconded by Nadine and approved (7-2). In favor-Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clarke,Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. Opposed-Christine Sullivan and Helen Sides. 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. Attorney George Atkins, representing both property owners, said the derelict fee statute applies—the owners on either side of the paper street would like to add portions of the way to their properties. He said there is already frontage on both properties. Councillor Jerry Ryan suggested that if they don't know who owns the parcel, he's not sure they should do this in case the city owns it. Attorney Atkins reiterated that the abutters on either side own the way to the middle. Danielle McKnight said the City Solicitor recommended endorsement of this plan because it meets other requirements of an ANR. She said during her talk with the City Solicitor and the ownership issues came up, she said he felt comfortable that there are no ownership issues. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the petition, seconded by Nadine and approved (9-0). In favor-Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides,Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. Continuation of Public Hearing:Request 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. • Attorney Atkins summarized some previous meeting information. Since the last meeting, the peer reviewer asked to expand and include further in calculations, and a summary from peer reviewer was submitted to Danielle late this afternoon. Attorney Atkins would like to keep this on the agenda for the 8 I. next meeting. One thing they are working on is for the city to accept the street and manage the maintenance of it. Chuck Puleo asked if the City Engineer feels the grading proposals are acceptable. Attorney Atkins said they made changes at the city engineer's requests: There are additional catch basins added to each lot; a catchment system at bottom of driveways; and drainage added to the back of Barnes Circle.Attorney Atkins said that Harry Gunderson has been talking to the neighbors about the plans. Some neighbors want the fencing to continue. The screening along Highland Avenue may be a problem and the ledge may be a problem with planting.Attorney Atkins said they have met with the Board of Health who approved the plan with conditions. There being no further comments,a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the public hearing to February 4th, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved (7-0). In favor-Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom,Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides,Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. Old/New Business There was some discussion as to the length of the Planning Board meetings. Since there are some large proposed projects, some meetings may be very long. Members discussed the option of special meetings for some projects. Danielle McKnight informed Board members that Stacey Dupuis was leaving her post as Clerk and that this was her last meeting. Adjournment • There being no further issues to come before the Board, a motion was made to adjourn by John Moustakis, seconded by Tim Ready and approved (9-0). In favor-Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clarke,Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides,Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Stacey Dupuis Planning Board Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 2/4/10 • 9 CITY OFS.'ALHM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION You are lx*mtoedtfuttl)eSalm PlainTBainin"so6e.4,eledfor Thurs day,January 7, 2010 at TOO pm at City Hall A rmex,Room 313, 120 Wasll*On Stray h-'s Earn cana�ed cbie to a la& cfaWmb it,7u. 77)e Ox-lwrV?9 on tbearria, SUlcp LaahTat Cbqits Cow(Form CSul&wz4, udl be animled tojamury 21, 2010. cl"7l5 M. Pik Chumun cr > 9p PQ '77 Xi/1 L !* 1 wo • e CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2a10 A a su C11YIr , NOTICE OF MEETING You are lxreby nott*that dx Salem Plamurg Board¢¢ill hold its nVdan{ sd)"i ed mamrg on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 7:00 pm at C4Ha#Awee,Rmm313, 120 ashington Strut O7U710 M. Puleo, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 1212110 and 12/16/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Request for approval of new Tri-Party Agreement and release of current Tri-Party Agreement for Strongwater Crossing (aka. Osborne Hills) Subdivision-Paul DiBiase 3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Pennit,for the property located at 440, 460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Waln-art store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new • municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1),Salem MA. Attomey Joseph Correnti. 5. Old/New Business 6. Adjournment This nofte posted o l "Official Bulletin Board" elty Hall _ Salem, Mass. on Qcembcr, 21, 2-4/0"A M 5 of Mt:A. .. h ohw 39 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 e TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND � KIMRERLEY DRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOOMN DUNCAN,AIC' DIRECPOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: December 23, 2010 RE: Agenda-January 6, 2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 12/2/10 and 12/16/10 Notes on Agenda Items: A note about the 12/2/10 minutes: I made some minor additions to the draft minutes, with those edits highlighted. Also, we are now attaching decisions to the end of the minutes,which I had forgotten to do for 12/2/10. These revised minutes have decisions from 12/2/10 attached. Request for approval of new Tri-Party Agreement and release of current Tri-Party Agreement for Strongwater Crossing (a.k.a. Osborne Hills) Subdivision- Paul DiBiase Mr. DiBiase is in the process of refinancing the subdivision. He would like to release the previous lender,Beverly Cooperative Bank, from the Tri-Party Agreement,and execute a new agreement with anew bank, Enterprise Bank. I am enclosing a copy of the document releasing Beverly Cooperative, and the new Tri-Party Agreement with Enterprise. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, • expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 1 • Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. We expect that the applicant will be reviewing and discussing proposed traffic mitigation. We will have Beta in attendance. I am enclosing in your packets three items the applicant provided since the last meeting: 1) a sketch plans showing one proposed part of traffic mitigation: a two-way left-turn lane along Highland Ave. from the Camp Lion drive (to be closed) through the Bellaire and Buchanan Circle intersections; 2) representative retaining wall photos; 3) detail about the proposed sound barrier and representative photos. • • 2 MEETING MINUTES 1/6/11 •regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,January 6,2011 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Randy Clarke,Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present:Lynn Duncan,Director,Department of Planning and CommunityDevelopment,Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:09 pm. Helen Sides leaving at approx 8:30pm and she will listen to the meeting tape. Approval of Minutes 12/2/10 and 12/16/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 12/2/10 meeting minutes: The minutes from the December 2,2010 meeting were reviewed. Noted by Christine Sullivan to check spelling on resident's last name, "Nealy" No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke motioned to approve,seconded by Helen Sides. Approved 9-0 12/16/10 meeting minutes: The minutes from the December 16,2010 meeting were reviewed. No comments or corrections were made bythe Planning Board members. Nadine Hanscom motioned to approve,seconded by Mark George. Approved 9-0 Request for approval of new Tri-Party Agreement and release of current Tri-Party Agreement for Strongwater Crossing (a.k.a. Osborne Hills) Subdivision-Paul DiBiase Applicant requested to present at a later date. No vote required. continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store,Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit forthe property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. Atty Joseph Correnti,63 Federal Street,representing Kennedy Development Group gave an overview of what was to be discussed at the meeting. He stated that everything the group would present is in response to questions from the Board,Peer Reviewers and the City, and they will discuss what has been done up until this meeting,with a particular focus on the traffic. He submitted petitions to the Board in support of the project which included a set of petitions signed at Wal-Mart with several hundred signatures of people from Salem,Lynn, and surrounding communities;and he also presented the results of the Lowe's mailer asking if the recipient of the mailer supported or did not suppon the project. He stated that a couple of hundred supported the project,which is about 20-1 in support of project. The Group will also present a brief PowerPoint to show some examples of sound barriers,which will be like the one slated for the area between the back of Lowe's and the Lynn line,and addresses previous questions about a man-made wall and what that will look like. Additionally,the Group will also address questions from neighbors about the impacts of the loading dock and delivery hours. Jason Plourde will then present the traffic updates and will also discuss the results of their meetings between the city,the developers and DOT. Arty Correnti also spoke of comments from abutters about drainage,particularly about pipe that comes down from the Buchanan Circle area. lie specifically addressed the question as to if they were going to deal with it as part of the development. He stated that a comprehensive drainage plan has been put in place. He noted that this will be discussed next week in regards to the •ontinued discussion with the city and administration. He stated that he wanted the Board to know that this is still on the radar of the Group as they feel that it is fixable,and the Board will hear more about it next week I Austin Turner,TertaTechRizzo, 1 Grant St,Framingham,MA, began the slide presentation addressing the questions the Board had asked about retaining wall. He explained that theyput together a couple of photos of what the retaining wall could look like to give a better idea of how it will look with the materials that are available. He noted that these pictures are not necessarily the final product,but are just to give an idea of what is available. He stated that the brochure shows the materials which includes recycled tires,which helps significantly with sound. Mr.Puleo asked if he knew the height of the wall. Mr. Turner said he could not be sure,but guessed it was about 28 feet. Mr. George asked for clarification if this is just about Lowes's,not Wal-Mart. Mr.Turner stated yes. Mr.Puleo asked about the lifespan of the product. Mr.Turner said they could get more information about that. Mr. George asked if these are similar to the materials seen on Route 128;Mr. Turner said he was unsure what was used on 128. Christine Sullivan asked what the view will be if she lives in the neighborhood. Mr.Turner stated that they will not see a plain wall,but will see glimpses of it through the trees. Mr.Puleo asked about colors,and directed the question to Helen Sides. Ms.Sides stated that she would normally think of a dark color,but if it's close to the building,she would think that it should be the same color of the building. Mr.Turner stated that because of the distance of the building from the road it will look like it blends in. Tun Ready suggested that the designs up for consideration could be presented to the neighbors,and Randy Clarke agreed. Lynn Duncan,Director of Planning,recommended that when the public is invited to comment tonight,that we explicitly ask that question of the neighbors here. Matt Smith,Bobler Engineering,showed the existing loading dock on a map,which is on Tanglewood Lane. He explained that on the graphic it is currently over 600 feet from the nearest condo,and upon the development will be over 500 feet from the nearest condo. He noted that they are not proposing a wall because after development they will still be 60 feet above the neighborhood. He stated that the deliverytimes will remain consistent with what the times are currently. Mr. George asked about the difference between the current footprint to what is proposed. Mr.Smith said it will be 50 percent difference but the growth will not change the deliveries dramatically each day,for example. Mr. George asked if the trucks have been moved around to the back of the building to disturb fewer of the neighbors. Mr.Smith stated yes,and he doesn't think there will be an appreciable difference between the sound today and in the future. John Moustakis asked how many deliveries come from Wal-Mart factories. Mr.Smith stated that the bulk of the materials come in on the factory trucks. Ms. Sullivan asked if the wlocation of the loading dock was designed in this manner in order for there to be less noise. Mr. Smith said yes. Mr. Ioustakis stated that Salem has a noise ordinance,so if they are creating more noise,they will have to do something about it. Mr.Puleo clarified where the truck turnaround will be. Nadine Hanscom asked if the parking lot will continue to be seen as clearly from Hghland Avenue with the new plantings. Mr. Smith stated that the trees will be seen first. Ms.Hanscom stated that when she goes bythe Wal-Mart lot now,it's filthy. She also stated that other companies on Highland Avenue do not keep the trash controlled on their lots,and she wants it to be noted that this is a corridor that they are trying to beautify. Ms. Duncan recommended addressing those concerns with the Board of Health. Jason Plourde, Greenman Pedersen,stated that he will discuss the mitigation of the traffic issues previously discussed. He noted that they are continuing in the MEPA process, and have numerous steps to go after completing the local approval process;also there are different issues that have been addressed over the course of this project. Additionally,he stated that different evaluations have been done along the Route 107 corridor. He said he will discuss the different improvements, including changing the driveways to accommodate the new traffic patterns and adding U turn lanes,which will benefit neighbors and customers of the Meineke. Mr.Plourde stated that they are still proposing to close the current curb cut for Camp Lion,and have them come through the property. The other improvement is the signal at the Fays Avenue and Western Avenue location. Mr. George asked if they have looked at opening the lanes to two lanes in each direction in that area. Mr. Plourde stated that this is something that they have been looking at and in discussions with officials they learned that there was a serious accident that caused them to close the lanes to slow down traffic. He commented that the problem with slowing it down is that it is a continuous flow of traffic. Mr.Plourde stated that they have looked at putting in a traffic signal,which was presented to DOT,who said there wasn't enough traffic to warrant a signal. Then they proposed the four lane highway again, which raised the question of speed. They asked what would be acceptable to MassDOT and they devised a two-way left turn lane,which will allow vehicles for safe turning into traffic. Mr. George asked if this would be like Route 114 in Peabody, and Mr.Plourde said yes,but this will have more curb cuts because there would be more commercial developments. Then Mr. George asked Mr.Plourde's opinion of what would make this situation better. Mr.Plourde said that his recommendation was the two-wayleft tum lane. Mr. George asked how it was received byNlassDOT. Mr.Plourde stated that it was received orably. He stated that the City of Salem invited them and MassDOT to a meeting to further discuss this. Mr.Clarke asked �v there was information on the level of service from each road. Mr.Plourde stated that it was submitted in September. Mr. 2 Clarke asked if he knew off-hand how the level of service changed. Mr.Plourde stated that in some cases it improved bytwo levels of service;and he also stated that if a driver still isn't comfortable with that option,they can go up to the new traffic Oignal for the U-turn. Mr. Clarke said he thought this was a fantastic development. Mr. Plourde then reviewed their discussions with the MBTA They are still in the process of discussing the locations of the bus shelters. One alternative is moving the existing bus stops by moving the southbound stop further north,near the signal and moving the northbound bus shelter further to the south. Also,the MBTA recommended that the crosswalks be moved closer to the site. Mr. George asked if these bus stops would be in the lane of traffic or could they be cut in. Mr.Plourde said that they are looking into it,though noted that there is not a lot of room to work with. Mr. George asked about a possible bus stop on the site. Mr. Plourde described potential problems with having a stop on the site because of maneuvering difficulties and interactions between can and buses. Mr.Plourde stated that they are still in discussions with the MBTA,so nothing is finalized. Mr. George asked if a pedestrian bridge is being considered. Mr.Plourde said that they are not in favor of this. Mr. George states that he is looking for a way to be safe but not create back-ups. Mr.Plourde agreed with that goal,but stated that it's difficult with all of the different"streams of traffic. Mr.Plourde then discussed the traffic volumes and tuming movements on Swampscott Road,Marlborough Road,and Highland Avenue and stated the developer is committed to doing an engineering corridor studyto review this and recommend improvements. Ms.Duncan clarified that the"corridor study" was more what she would call conceptual design alternatives and selection of a preferred alternative,an action-based plan to move forward,studying what could be done in the right of way,whether takings could be made to implement an alternative plan. This would be a Mass DOT project,and she hopes that if a feasible alternative is identified,that MassDOT would pick that up. She also said she doesn't see the developer as contributing to the project,but actually funding it. Ms. Sullivan asked what happened with the timing of the lights on Hghland Ave. Ms.Duncan stated that it's ongoing and the signals were re-timed which is continuing to be monitored. She noted that for this project,there is not a lot they can do with the monitoring. Mr.Plourde concurred stating that this is part of the regular maintenance program,but it not going to fix this issue;the study that they will be funding will be able to tell the state what needs to be done to fix Htghland Avenue. Mr. Clarke asked if based on what Ms.Duncan and the proponent just said in terms of the study,this can be a condition of 0proval. Ms.Duncan responded stating that the staff would be recommending this to the Planning Board as a condition of pproval,if the Board wished to approve the project with conditions. Ken Petraglia,Beta Group,states that they are pretty much in agreement with what has been presented. The timing of the lights is just not going to do it,it's going to take something else. The engineering study of the corridor will hopefully tell them what to do here. They asked the state if something is found would the state fix it and they said yes. Mr.Ready asked if Mr. Petraglia could comment on how this study will affect Lynn. Mr.Petraglia said that if they were ever to improve that area,it would help everybody. He thinks what will help the people of Lynn will be the three-lane recommendation with signal upgrades. He concluded stating that they need the engineering look to improve the whole corridor. Issue is oPk r, up for pub1zc mrrorertt Dan McIm e 51 Falmouth Street L said the center lane proposed should be the last alternative because it would }'r" > Y�� P P encourage high speeds. Wiliam Trahant Jr,Lynn City Councillor asked Mr.Plourde about the changes in the traffic signals. Mr.Plourde described the updates to the signals. Mr.Trahant asked what kind of improvements could be expected in terms of new technology versus old technology. Mr.Plourde described how the new technology would be improved and how this would process the veh cles more effectively. Judy Kennedy,23 Buchanan Circle,Mayor of Lynn,stated that Mr.McIntyre is absolutely right regarding his concerns about speeding. She described several accidents due to speeding in that area. She asked if they could get the state to reconsider looking at this. Mayor Kennedy stated that her neighborhood has only one egress out to Western Avenue and due to this,she has had to wait for multiple minutes to make a left tum onto Western Avenue. She recommends that the state do a field study 4f the traffic in her neighborhood,and recommends on-demand lights. Mr.Puleo stated that this is an opportunity to contact estate and get involved with the study. Mr. George asked if she would like the status quo with traffic lights and she said yes. t . George stated that there are two issues: 1 is behavior and 2 is traffic flows. She stated that that can be said,but she 3 stressed the concerns about the traffic and the dangers. Ms.Hanscom asked the developers if Lynn doesn't want to widen the Woad, and Salem does,how will they work with that. Mr. Correnti stated that it is a state road,and anything they put forth to assHighway is just a suggestion. He said that they are going through the entire MEPA process, and everyone can weigh in on that;the developers are confined to what DOT approves. Mr.Ready states that he and the Board hears her very clearly about the speeding on the road,but asked if it is a law enforcement issue. Mayor Kennedy stated that it is law enforcement, but more so a safety issue. It is a hazardous state road as it is. Mr.Ready asked if there are other ways of reaching a solution on this. Mayor Kennedy said that this is more than something to be examined by computer models. (Helm Side left the nwwN at 8:30 p.m) Mr.Moustakis asked Councilor Trahant how many meetings they have had w/DOT about this issue. Mr.Trahant said that they have had some results. Mr.Moustakis stated that it's up to Lynn to get together with the state to deal with it on their side. Mr. George stated that they have expanded the study area to accommodate the needs of the people of Lynn. Norm Cole, 30 Coolidge Road,Lynn thinks that they have improved the timing of the lights,but the real issue the increase in volume. He recommends not approving this and there won't be a problem. He asked if there are any sidewalks that go into the site if someone takes the bus. Mr. Turner responded that they have proposed extending the sidewalk. Mr. Cole said that the.study won't fix anything,it's the volume,and he doesn't think it is worth it for the project to continue. He said that it's not just about highest use,it's about highest and best use;and at some point someone has to say that it just can't hold the additional traffic. Pat Liberti, 3 Lyons Lane,Lynn,thanks the Group for addressing the loading dock issue. Her concern is that the existing vegetation is going to be disturbed.Mr. Correnti pointed out the limits of their proposed work and stated that vegetation would not be touched beyond that.. Her other concern is about the T stop that the lights change too quickly for people to get across Highland Avenue. She recommended looking at the northbound side. Mr.Puleo said that this is what they are looking at. She said that other than those concerns that she is in support of the project. Wam Brennan, 31 Park St,Lynn,said that he thinks the three lane recommendation is a good idea or, as suggested by Mayor Kennedy,to add a light. He is in support for this and thinks it would be good for both cities. PP Tom Demakis, owner of Apple Hill Subdivision,agrees that the project is too big for the area. He stated that in terms of the sound barrier issue,that for 5 - 7 months out of the year they will see a wall. He thinks what they should include in this project is an arborvitae-topped berm. He agrees that everyone has been open to the concerns of this project. He thinks that to spend l/10 of 1% to add the berm should be done to protect his subdivision. Rob Jess,representing Lowe's,stated that he can't create a berm because of the land structure. Mr.Demakis stated that he is looking for a berm in addition to the sound barrier. His engineer believes that it is possible to place arborvitae in this location. He doesn't know why the cooperation stopped between his engineer and the Group. Mr. Correnti stated that they will commit to continue to look at it if he makes his engineer available. Mr. Clarke asked if there is a potential to plant other trees like evergreens in the area. Mr.Jess said that it is a possibility,but from his experience trees are not successful unless they are on the fringe. Mr. Correnti said that they will look at it. Leslie Courtemanche,Lynn,asked if it is feasible to scale the building down, and keep existing evergreens. She then asked how many flyers went out to Lowes neighbors,and how many were returned,and how many were for the project and against the project. She stated that people who received them thought that they were a farce,does not think they should be given weight. Mr. Correnti stated that in Salem(within a 'h mile residential circumference around the site) 152 were returned, and 150 in support,2 opposed. In Lynn,60 returned were in support, 10 were opposed. Mr.Puleo asked the Group to respond to the scaling of the store. Mr.Jess stated that this is the smallest store they build. Ms. Courtemanche asked if there could be a second floor to disturb less area. Mr.Jess said it's an operational design based on how customers are expecting to shop and it's not feasible outside an inner city setting. Mr. George stated that if you live close to commercially-zoned land,this is what happens. Mr. Cole responded that this was not initially zoned commercially,and has only been zoned this way for only two years. Ms.Duncan stated that Salem did not re-zone the land;they did a text amendment to the zoning that allows for Planned Use Development- but the same uses are allowed as before. 4 Calvin Anderson, 12 Concord Street,Lynn,says it's very clear this is the wrong place to put this. Kathleen Nadeau, 84 Springview Road in Lynn asked how they will handle the traffic during construction. Mr.Correnti stated that they will have,through the NEPA process, a construction plan for Route 107,through MassLLghway,MEPA,and the Cities of Lynn and Salem,and the state would not allow 107 to be obstructed. Rick Kehoe, 12 Lindor Road,North Reading,states that he is in the building trades and does not understand where all of the new cars are going to come from-the same people going to Lowe's are already going to Home Depot. He recommends that Lynn put in a huge speed bump. Mark Bannister,25 Lee St,Salem,thanks the developer for coming in and addressing the traffic issues. He also stated that if the developer didn't come to develop this project there would still be these problems. Mr.Moustakis asked if there will be blasting. Mr. Correnti stated that there would be,and Mr.Moustakis recommended that he review the City guidelines on blasting. Richard Randall,4 Ridgeway Court,Lynn,recommended that information about changes occurring in the area through the project be sent to the neighbors. He feels that the project is in the wrong place when there are commercial spaces in Salem doing nothing. and this is an area that has a history of traffic problems Katerina Panagiotakis, 300 Ocean Avenue,Lynn,wants to bring to attention the Strongwater Brook project, also known as the DiBiase site. She noted that the site has two registered Native American historical sites there and based on her findings,she found that there are 4 historically significant sites on this proposed site. Mr. Correnti stated that this is all part of the state review process and he is not familiar with the other project referenced. He said that the state review is ongoing,and comments can always be taken by the state on this. Mr.Ready clarified that this is an ongoing process and that there are \ things being discussed that are outside of this Board's jurisdiction. W.Duncan stated that there will be a continued public hearing on 1/13111. Mr. Correnti stated that he has no further presentation to make. Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing for January 13th,2011,seconded by Nadine Hanscom All approved 8-0. Referenced documents available in hard copy at the Department of Planning and Community Development: • PowerPoint Presentation:Proposed Lowe's,Meineke and Wahnart Expansions, City of Salem Water Storage Tank, and Future Camp Fire Improvements,Kennedy Development Group,Inc.,Attomey Joseph Correnti. No date. Old/New Business None. Adjournment Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Christine Sullivan. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:15 pm Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 1/13/11 5 C . CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD tri •; r_ _ ._ NOTICE OF MEETING You,ne he eby rVtfiinl dxat the Salem PlawnT Baird zrill Ixdd its tEgtlmly sdxditlal natmg on Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 7:00 pm at CityHall Am?�x,Room313,��1n2n0 W^ ashi%tonStrtet L.G��-tJ- �-w.Qu-�.07•t?L �i clMdes M. Puiea, Clxtir MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 12/2/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460,462,and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2,3 and 4),Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GR UP,INC for a Wetlands . and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 H, HLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1),Salem MA. Attomey Joseph Correnti. 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment CityNa11 t�a'♦ 3.0V?/-jam� I cembcr zcia 4iW'i> 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSErrs 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALEM.COM / CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS � 1 fs ,hy t Yt �? DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND .nF�r�IP,vF lin��i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KiNoERLEY DRiscou. MAYOR LYNN GOOMN DwcJw,AIQ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DiRECI OR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: December 9, 2010 RE: Agenda- December 16,2010 meeting Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 12/2/10 Notes on Agenda Items: Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. q for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. The applicant will be reviewing and discussing proposed traffic mitigation. In addition,they are working to provide additional material to address questions that the Board had raised regarding landscaping, which mayor may not be ready for this meeting. • Other issues may be raised at the public hearing. 1 MEETINGMINUTES 12/16/10 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,December 16,2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313,Third wor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Randy Clarke,Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present:Lynn Duncan,Director,Department of Planning and Community Development,Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:13 pm. Approval of Minutes 12/2/10 Planning Board meeting minutes Postponed until the next meeting. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462,and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store,Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC.for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit forthe property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. ttorneyJoseph Correnti,63 Federal Street,representing Kennedy Development Group, said the applicant would continue cussing landscaping and improvements for the site,in terms of buffering plans and a traffic update. The Group has been meeting with the city and state over the last month on different issues related to the project. Additionally,they had an initial meeting with the MBTA and the Transportation Management Association(TMA) to discuss physical improvements to Highland Avenue;and they will continue to meet as this is a work in progress under DOT jurisdiction and is contingent upon MEPA review. Austin Turner,TertaTechRizzo, 1 Grant St,Framingham,MA discusses screening and landscaping in a PowerPoint presentation (hereby incorporated as pan of these minutes). One issue that he will present, on a slide shown previously, demonstrates how the project relates to other areas outside of the project limits. The project is approximately 31 acres, and thesunounding areas studied include over 60 acres. The plan includes maintaining existing vegetation as much as possible. Landscaping: Mr.Turner described the fust slide which shows what customers will see when entering property,which includes changes made after the initial proposal. Matt Smith from Bohler Engineering representing Wal-Man will explain that further. Mr. Smith described the October Glory trees to be added along frontage of Wal-Man which includes 1100 shrubs proposed;and along the non-ADA entrances they added 6 trees. He says the project plan went from 53 trees to 72 trees proposed,along the frontage and the side of the building which will do a lot to improve the streetscape. Mr. Turner continued his presentation regarding the buffer and he described the added sound barrier,which is a 15 feet visual and sound screening wall.. This will cut off the view angles from the neighborhood to the rear and will enhance the natural buffer. Mr.Turner passed out a wall sample as well as a brochure of the product presented, and explained that this will complement the building's color scheme. Rob Jess,from Lowe's,stated that they looked at a sample of other types of walls and have had success with this product in other store projects. He explained that this will create a visually aesthetic wall with low maintenance. Mr.Jess stated that the walls are an average 12 feet,but are planning this one to be 15 feet in order to take the needs of the neighbors into consideration. Helen Sides asked if there are any pictures of other examples of installations of the wall. Mr.Jess responded that they can provide this. Ms.Sides then asked where will signage at the entrance of the building will be located. lWTurner stated that they are thinking of one of two locations: in the front at median, or at comer. Nadine Hanscom asked at is behind the screening wall on the Lynn side. Mr. Turner stated that it is going to be a slope with grass. Ms.Hanscom then;asked about the difference in the height between the barrier wall and wall of Lowe's. Mr.Jess stated that it is approximately 22 feet and the wall does have a slope to it. Ms.Hanscom asked if they will be putting in new trees on the back and around to the front of the Wal-Man,and if so how large will they be. Mr. Smith stated that each tree will be a 2.5 - 3" caliper and 10 to 12 feet in height. Ms.Hanscom then asked how tall the trees will be when fully grown. Mr. Smith responded that they will grow to be about 40 feet height. Mark George asked how high the brick in comparison to the foundation of the building is. Mr. Turner stated that it would be 15 feet and the building is about 28 feet. Mr. George then ked how that compares height-wise in relation to the sub-division in Lynn. Mr.Turner stated it would be about 30 feet wer, and noted that Belleaire Avenue goes up and described a slide demonstrating the grading difference between 130 feet in elevation to 169 feet in elevation. Mr. George asked if there will be deciduous trees separating the project on Grapevine Circle. Mr.Turner responded in the affirmative. Mr.Puleo asked for clarification on where the trees and/or low shrubbery will be located,specifically where the parking lot will be located and asked if they are planning on putting in a berm Mr. Turner stated no,the shrubs will be planted on top of the retaining wall. Mr.Puleo asked if cars will be seen in the parking lot from Highland Avenue. Mr.Turner stated that it will be a sharp angle up to see the tops of cars in parking lot. Mr.Puleo asked if the road ends at Wal-Mart entrance,to which Mr. Turner responded,yes. Mr.Puleo stated that there was a question about the sidewalk being on Highland Avenue and asked if they are proposing a sidewalk up to the northern entrance. Mr. Turner said yes. Ms. Sides noted that there is a distinction between the ledge at the entrance slope, and asked if that is manufactured,to which Mr. Turner stated that it is manufactured. Ms. Sides asked if they had shown the Board an example of that yet and Mr.Turner stated that they haven't chosen the specific product. Ms. Sides recommended that they select the material carefully. Traffic:Jason Plourde,from Greenman Peterson,gave an update on the traffic study,and described how they are looking at different types of improvements along the corridor. He stated that the study area has been expanded. He has attended different meetings with local and state officials to come up with other improvements,including how conducive it would be to have a bus go on site. He stated that the NOTA would not be receptive to having a bus on-site due to issues with the southbound busses as well as pedestrians and other vehicles. Specifically,the problem with having a bus stop on the site is due,to one of the entrances being only southbound. Another meeting they attended has been with Transportation Management Association and they discussed trying to reduce single-occupation vehicles. One of the ideas discussed was for improved transit. It was noted that Wal-Mart sells items that would be conducive for customers riding the bus,but at Lowe's that is not the case. Additionally,they are thinking about ideas encouraging carpooling for employees. Mr.Puleo asked what he would propose to do for the northbound bus stop. Mr.Plourde stated that they are considering a crosswalk at the north eg with the goal of trying to limit people crossing Highland Avenue without a signal. Mr.Puleo asked if there is any proposal widen the intersection. Mr.Plourde stated that they are in the process of finding alternatives;they had only the fust meeting with the META,with plans to continue the dialogue. Randy Clarke asked about preferential parking for hybrids,and also recommended taking into account customers who take the RIDE. Mr.Plourde responded stating that special parking is going to be developed with the local TMA. Mr.Puleo asked where the bus stop will be located and further,if someone has a carriage,what does one do with the carriage to get to the bus stop. Mr.Plourde responded that it is definitely something they can look into, as it is still a work in progress. Mr.Puleo recommended that he think about giving people the right places to leave their carriage. Ms. Hanscom concurred with Mr.Puleo and added that Wal-Man and Lowe's can be ahead of the game if they straighten out these issues beforehand. Mr.Puleo also recommended having a garbage can at the bus stop that gets emptied and maintained regularly. Tim Ready asked if they are discussing appropriate bus shelters for patrons in their conversations with the MBTA. Mr.Plourde said yes. Mr. Ready noted that carts end up being used as seating if people are waiting a long time for a bus. Christine Sullivan asked if this is it for the transportation discussion.Mr.Puleo responded that this,is just an update. Ms. Sullivan said that she was sure there were people in the audience that expected that there would be a discussion about the lights. Mr. Correnti stated that they will have at least one more meeting with DOT before they report back to the Board, additionally,when they have a meeting with MEPA and DOT the Board will be informed of it Ms.Sides commented that she is concerned about the 15 foot wall. Mr. Correnti responded stating that other recommendations have been sketchy at best,but what is being recommended is really going to be hidden as well as well-placed and not very visible from Highland Avenue. Mr.Jess stated that the purpose of the wall is to buffer sound, and the wall is really needed to do that. He added that landscaping will help the sound too;however,berms aren't feasible due to the slope of the.ground. That wall is intended to shield sound from truck deliveries at all times and that wall complies with the Board of Health requirements as well as keeping the neighbors happy. He emphasized that they really want to be a good neighbor. Ms. Sides requested that if possible they would like to see a picture that shows something similar to what that stone wall will look like on the slope. Mr.Puleo asked Ms. Sides if she agrees with the color of the wall as presented. Ms.Sides said that she did notagree with the color as shown and recommended that it should look more like a natural landscape. Mr.Puleo asked about �livery times. Mr.Jess responded that it would be based on store volume. He gave an example of where the store is open pically until 10 pm and they cannot have a delivery at 6 pm because they have found that it leads to conflicts with customers. They schedule the deliveries later to minimize disruptions to customers with minimal impact to the customers and neighbors. Mr.Puleo asked if they use open trucks as well as closed trucks and the route the trucks will take. Mr.Jess responded that they use both types of trucks and the trucks will come in same way they go out along the barrier wall. He also noted that the wall is planned to be 15 feet,which is higher than what is typically done before. Mr.Puleo asked why this wall is planned to be higher. Mr.Jess stated that they are being responsive to the subdivision. Mr.George asked if this is typical to some of the walls that can be seen from Route 128. Mr.Jess responded stating that it's similar to some of the walls and he would bring &me pictures of other examples. Issue ope up for public mnywn Tom Demakis,trustee of Apple HE subdivision,Lynn,feels that it speaks volumes that the Group is not conducting a new balloon test. It should be acknowledged that the subdivision is going to be seen from Lowe's. He appreciates Mr.Jess' concern for the sound,but if someone is looking out from the subdivision,they are going to see the walls. These walls will be intruding on a residential area. He suggested a berm in addition to a sound barrier and stated that if that's not possible then the project should not be built. According to zoning laws,they have to protect the welfare,health and privacy of the abutters, and as presented,this project cannot adhere to those requirements. He states that the approval of this project is legally flawed. He•has hired his own engineer and has tried to have input into the project. Despite his efforts,he has had no contact with the engineers for Lowe's and Wal-Man in the last 3 months. Dan McIntyre, 51 Falmouth St,Lynn, asked if they have an answer on the traffic. Jason Herbavini, Lynn,thinks it would be a great project for city. Pat Liberti,Lynn, asked if trucks would be going through the site after 1 1prrL She states that they have a problem with sound travelling at night when Highland Avenue traffic slows down. Mr. Smith stated that the trucks don't typically deliver late at night. Mr.Puleo asked the engineers to explain how deliveries are coming into site. Mr. Smith explained in detail the route that they are taking in and out of site. Ms.Liberti stated that she is concerned that this will be moving further into the site which is abutting the condos. Mr. Smith stated that the loading facility is in rear right corner of site. Ms. Sides asked Ms. Liherti if she can hear the trucks now. Ms.Liberti said that for the most part she cannot,but she is concerned that it will get worse as it gets closer to the condos. Mr.Smith stated that it is comforting to hear that she can't hear the trucks today because Wof much is going to change. Ms. Hanscom asked Mr. Smith to point out where the loading dock is presently located at the al-Man facility and Mr. Smith pointed it out. Ms.Hanscom asked him to clarify if it's moving closer. Mr. Smith stated that the way it's moving,it's going perpendicular so what abutters are hearing now is what they will hear in the future. Mr.Clarke further clarified that while the turn is closer,the vehicles are moving further away. Mr.Puleo asked Ms. Liber which street she,is,concerned about.Ms.Liber stated that she is concerned with Tanglewood. Mr. Clarke asked if there can be a reading done. Mr. Smith stated that they can get more information. Debra Smith Wall, 16 Coolidge Road,stated that she walked the site and asked what kinds of deliveries are being made. She feelsthat they have to be concerned because that is going to be a new issue. It was a shock to her how close to people's properties it is. In regards to transportation,she states that she hasn't heard anything. Lynn Duncan,Director of Planning, stated that Ken Petraglia and John Mirabito from Beta Group,the city's traffic peer reviewers,are here to listen. They have been to several meetings to talk about traffic issues where a number of big changes have been done. A lot of the mitigation has not been talked about yet,but the traffic engineers have been involved extensively to this date. She thanked Ms.Wall for her,comments but wants her to understand that there is no "bow" around the traffic plan yet. Tun Fandell,North Shore Building Trades Council,is in support of the project. In relation to the drainage,the proponents of the project have gone to great lengths to mitigate issues. They gave examples and stated that the engineers have been very receptive to the recommendations. He feels it is evident that they are trying to be a good neighbor and he would like to see theProject move forward. Norm Cole,30 Coolidge Road,Lynn asked for someone to calculate the impact on the transfer station since he has not seen it and would like a definitive answer on how many-trucks. He then inquired about the ENF,which states that the whole parcel is listed as 91 acres; and asked if the Kennedy Group is buying additional acres. Mr. Correnti stated that they are presenting about the project they are doing. Mr. Cole then asked if there is potential for development on that site. Mr. Correnti responded stating that the land belongs to Camp Lion and they can't speak to it. Oe slie Courtemanche,Lynn,feels that the work that has gone into this is astounding and maybe that just goes to show that this isn't a good idea. She believes this is the wrong spot for this project. Vinny Smith, 11 Northfield Road,Peabody stated that he lives near Route 128 and can't hear much of the traffic. The proximity of this project to the neighborhood is closer than the proximity of his neighborhood to Route 128 and he doesn't think the noise will be an issue.. *aterina Panagiotakis, Ocean St,Lynn,states that she is concerned with the 15 foot proposed wall because she thinks this will make the sound problem worse. She asked if the proponent is planning on blasting, and said she is concerned about impacts from blasting. Mr. Turner stated that they will be lowering area to 25-30 feet,at the deepest cuts. They have completed the consultation with city engineering department. Mr. Smith stated that the ledge removal on left side of the store,which is steep ledge slope,will need to be blasted. The walls are about 40 feet in height and they need to get it down to a comparable grade. Kathleen Nadeau,81 Spring View Drive,Lynn,asked if anyone knew how many more trucks there will be. Mr.Smith stated that he didn't know the exact number,but there are 1 or 2 eighteen-wheelers in a daytypically and he noted that it's a daily occurrence. Mr.Jess stated that for Lowe's there are 3-4 tractor trailers throughout the day,on average,but could fluctuate, based on the volume of the store. Ms. Nadeau said that it doesn't seem like a lot for a store of that size. She then asked how long they are idling in the loading area. Mr.Puleo said that federal laws state that they can idle for up to five minutes. Kathy Savio,Lynn,asked if this project happens and they come across natural springs,how are they going to be redirected. She has found other sites where natural runoff was redirected to stormwater areas, and created backup. Paul Lynch,representing the trades,expressed his gratitude to the Kennedy Group on how they accommodated the town of Salem and Lynn residents on various aspects of projects. Feels like we are spimring our wheels,we should button this up and pass this. Tiffany White,Sheila's Way,Lynn,asked about turnaround time for ambulances if there's only one way in and out. Mr. Clarke stated that the fire department can provide that information. Nadine Hanscom made a motion to continue the public hearing to January 6th,2011,John Moustakis seconded. All approved 0 0. ld/New Business Mr.Ready stated that he would like to remind the Chair and the public for a moment of silence for James Ayoube Jr.,a son of Salem,who is returning from the war in Afghanistan to be buried. Adjournment Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting,Helen Sides seconded. All approved 9-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:45 pm Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk A City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board1�� j Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email kl9!}IcEl nll�i_;A9A - 8I SPa� v1DR ,zy 77 r.-ItJ,y `TJR. 7b 523 ti u Srtiio(dn V�9a�a Dann 7s� •5�-8433 �c�hitn�alRaa.eon� � �,r Sat (�"� �i'1Y -745", 16kk<) Q°nei �^'` Cil'S s��- t d /l,c...-�.4.a c.,r n.� 701 to �t (o '► �v • Page__of Z City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board �OCL4 Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email �R HQ4,041G a-)G cf/Are1,1�,1s7 �_y A X-1�z Ydarr7 S%�✓C 634c)/)F7 L'/.✓r✓,AVI 711-g4Z-D3L� s! ✓26/2 I`lctG�l�s�.Gyy� 11A,c%a,7 5MV/ A l 1 hdyX 01,7g- Sb a 41k f ? -� S=SI?� / YI/te cU4,-/ LQNV 0 IO Sl/ SQL Qc� ��.YY1 -' SYh,n.- )} 6j(/ Oqxullay fg)✓q,1,7v't r kk ` K c 44 }, Fe Ven k7 e4 Coni < Page 2 of '� :eo CITY OF SALEM Nov 2 9 2010 DEPT. OF PLANNING 8 PLANNING BOARD COMMUNITYDF;'ELOPMENT 7010N� l2� P 1: 2b , NOTICE OF MEETING You am hemby r tyW that the Sak7nP1arnTBaz7d trill hold its rtgularly sol teluleel m trg on Thursday, December 2, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Ha11Amex,Rcom313, 120 Washington Stmrt Glades M. Puleq Clazir MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 11/4/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC.for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460,462,and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2,3 and 4),Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Wahnart store,expanded Meineke store,Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. • 3. Continuation of Public Hearing:Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC.for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard OverlayDistrict Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. Attomeyjoseph Correnti. 4. Old/New Business • Endorsement of 20 Maple St. Form A Plan (previously approved ANR) • Request to extend Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for 28 Goodhue St. -Attomey Joseph Correnti ■ Request for insignificant change: T Mobile requesting to replace 8 foot fence on property with a new 6 foot fence -Eric Kuklinski 5. Adjournment p*�p�,eo �gp'�ac p. C w -�`.-,� a `9 twnt.ry vae ,{p'yeo '4YA49 6Y6�b8N� �d/w i "�, �.i'iP &E ! :a._:aa City Hall pp +� �T atln o, FRFs f Y✓C/YL FJP( 0Q, D/0 23A A S of 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM (�Q CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMMRLEY DRiSGOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOON7N DVNcnN,AIC' Dixecloa TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX: 978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: November 24, 2010 RE: Agenda- December 2, 2010 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda • ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 11/4/10 Notes on Agenda Items: Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. At this meeting,the applicant's engineers will be responding to Bill Ross's peer review(his memo was included in your packet for 11/18/10). Bill Ross will beat the meeting to answer any questions. He and the project's engineers met on November 24 to work through outstanding issues, and Bill reported that they have made a great deal of progress toward addressing his concerns. I do not yet have a memo detailing the resolution of issues, but I will send it when I receive it. • Other issues maybe discussed. 1 Old/New Business: • Endorsement of 20 Maple St. Form A Plan(previously approved ANR) Christos LirantonaEs had this plan endorsed at the 11/4/10 meeting; however, there was an error in the spelling of his name on his original plan. The plan should also have listed his daughter,who is now the owner. The surveyor has corrected these errors, and Mr. Lirantonakis has requested that the Board endorse the corrected plan (the plan itself has not changed). Request to extend Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for 28 Goodhue St. Attorney Correnti has submitted a letter requesting to extend the above mentioned permits through June 30, 2011. Request for insignificant change: T Mobile requesting to replace 8 foot fence on property with a new 6 foot fence - Eric Kuklinski At the request of the property owner, T Mobile is requesting to replace the existing 8 foot fence with a 6 foot fence. While the 8 foot fence was pan of the approved plans, only a 6 foot fence is actually allowed by zoning. • 2 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD ZQ19 PrV I t" A ��• 17 Decision to Extend Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit North River Canal, LLC 28 Goodhue Street December 14, 2010 North River Canal, LLC c/o Joseph C. Correnti, Esquire Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: 28 Goodhue Street Extension of Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit On Thursday, February 15, 2007, the Planning Board of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of North River Canal, LLC, 282 Bennington Street, Boston, MA for Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit. A Decision dated February 20, 2007 was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office, and such Decision is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 26646, Page 242 (the "Decision"). The Decision is valid for two years from the date of the Decision. The Decision was extended by the Board to October 13, 2008, then to April 13, 2009, and then to December 3l, 2009. On November 19, 2009, the Board decided by a unanimous vote to approve the request of North River Canal, LLC, making the Decision valid through June 30, 2010. On May 20, 2010, the Board voted to approve a further request to extend the Decision through December 31, 2010. On December 2, 2010, the Board voted to approve a further request to extend the Decision through June 30, 2011 by a vote of 9- 0 (Puleo, MOUstakis, Hanscom, Clarke, Kavanaugh, George, Ready, Sullivan and Sides in • favor, none opposed). 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHU91iTTs 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM 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 funding to begin construction. I hereby certify that a copy of this Decision to Extend has been tiled with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Decision to Extend shall not take eftect until a copy of this Decision to Extend bearing the certification of the City Clerk is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is registered on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner of applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. Charles PUleO Chair 2 • City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board na &DOJO Date 12 / -2- Name Mailing Address Phone # Email Pn� lo1ic �} k5b 06ear? 4)7Rrass,'6alza �er ci [ oc�3� '�� F/ LDGo✓+ 41 L�uH 7f/- .2VK-aYa7 DS-0 c-lee4ic, (f �f✓t� �97n,�k2 2S LN -s 79-999-459 2. r��vP,Ila S,JPcJ,iJC>>o� q)(? Srgs3 6r ? Sc/-7, " 11 dfrr�, � 13� HCl drr e�y �J 'T?91-23,3 GMAC l7 Q V rat, L o c tz V�T a , ZL S uw� n.A Ly?�n SCo {�J�I '� � SOlchyv✓�w Yr �ys�q 78/ 5�3—z�'�7 Page�of 3 • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Plann ,nm goj Date 12- / z / l o Name Mailing Addre s Phone # Email �" l U to Cfl 7H Sl��nr, 7FSl ''S'YZ-ag�rJ �/}Y.Z�y@Ao/ .cam,-� ly f�nh�KFw �}�L z4 FEZgis RD t_-rw�- 1-516-Z4,0 F&-) / PL ` SEhhI �C S> -/?/ -�;8?27`5.) a/En Le13L4.--(:,3men add2jL t �vL YrYI G Ck L)112n Page of 3 • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Pi ;r_4 6ar4 Date 2 /_1 Name Mailing Address Phone # Email �)CV N (vcc 5'1 l ✓vd A 7 V—S 5 9 —/40 0&6/ Page of MEETING MINUTES 12/2/10 regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,December 2,2010 at 7:00 p.m.in Room 313,Third loor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Randy Clarke,Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready,and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present:Lynn Duncan,Director,Department of Planning and Community Development,Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:15 pm Approval of Minutes The minutes from the November 4,2010 meeting were reviewed. Mark George noted that he abstained from voting on the second part of the motion for 14 Rear Fort Avenue. No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke motioned to approve,seconded by Nadine Hanscom. Approved 9-0. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460,462,and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new, expanded Walm art store,expanded Meineke store,Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and ,,,,Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot ), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. Joseph Correnti,64 Federal Street,representing Kennedy Development Group,gave an overview of where they are in the process.They are continuing to work on traffic improvements in front of the store and beyond;as well as working together with Beta and DOT. They continue to look at how improvements impact and fit with the community's needs and requirements.Tonight's presentation will address drainage calculations by their engineer,Austin Turner,and address comments previously made. Bill Ross, New England Civil Engineering, a peer reviewer for the city,says he is not involved in the project design,but is a professional engineer whom the city retained to review and inquire about the project. He noted that the applicant has revised design plans based on his questions and concerns. He discussed what they are required to do for stormwater,with a focus on quality,quantity, and runoff issues. This was the focus of his review but he is looking at other issues as well. He is charged with making sure that this is a viable project,and that they are improving current conditions and meeting standards. Austin Turner,Tetra Tech Rizzo, 1 Grant St,Framingham gave a detailed explanation of how the project has met each standard (PowerPoint presentation is available in hard copy for review at the Department of Planning and Community Development and is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes). Standard 1. Mr.Turner said that no point of discharges of untreated stormwater to resource areas and proposed. Quality controls include street sweeping and Stormwater Quality Structures. Mr.Turner described sediment forebays. Standard 2. Mr.Turner said that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates and further, there is a decrease in runoff at all study points. Chuck Puleo asked if they show the percentage rate of reduction. Mr.Turner stated that they do not. Randy Clarke asked if the peer reviewer agrees with the applicant's assessment. Mr.Ross said yes. Nadine Hanscom noted that she went to site the day after heavy rains and the site was a mess. She is uncomfortable with the fact that the development may make it worse since she thinks the numbers • can't show the actual impact. Mr.Ross responded about what they were doing to address these problems where the existing pipes were concerned,which required them to add notes to the plans that they promise to clean and inspect 1 all drain pipes and catch basins in front of the site on Highland Ave and the affected areas. Ms. Hanscom requested that this should clearlybe stated as art of the conditions of approval. She asked why the drainage problems can't be P PP Y g repaired at the onset of the project. Mr.Turner said that they can't fully identify the problem until the pipe is opene• up but they have agreed to take appropriate action. Ms. Hanscom asked if the state and/or city will be involved. Lynn Duncan,Director of Planning, stated that a Clerk of the Works would be included in determining the conditions. Mr. Puleo recommended that the Planning Board stay in constant contact with Clerk. Ms. Hanscom again stressed her concerns that drainage issues need to be addressed up front. Ms. Duncan stated that this would be done by the Clerk of the Works. Christine Sullivan asked for clarification on the timing of the traffic lights and asked if we know what's not working properly. Mr.Turner stated that they do not know until work is begun. John Moustakis asked if they can have the state look at it before-hand and take pictures to determine what is not working. Mr.Turner stated that there are a lot of eyes on this and they will not doing anything that is not approved. Mark George asked what happens when this is opened up and the entire sub-structure is defective. Mr.Turner stated that he does not want to speculate what is under there until Mass Highway looks at it. Mr. Puleo asked what happens after water leaves highway, and did Mr. Ross looked at path of where water goes after it leaves Highland Ave. Mr. Ross stated that he sees no reason why it should have problem,whether it be due to a lack of maintenance or a collapsed pipe. Mr. Clarke asked if the state will be regional in its approach. Mr. Ross responded that this is beyond what is required of a developer. If the Applicant wants to defer to MassHighway,he requested that city shouldn't wait on this and ask them to do this now. Ms. Sullivan asked if they have done modifications to the original stormwater drainage plan. Mr.Turner stated yes, they added 60 plus acres to make sure there is no impact downstream. Ms. Sullivan asked hypothetically if she is living in the neighborhoods beyond the hill,will she have no further impact than what she has now. Mr. Turner stated, no, they will put in very elaborate stormwater controls. Mr. George stated that the maintenance of well-designed controls is important and that it is securely in place. Mr. Ross noted that in the initial design of the retention pond (forebay), they did not include an adequate ramp. When he expressed his concern, the firm responded and made it available. Ms. Duncan recommended that the Planning Board to request to continue to monitor the progress. Mr. Ross stated that completed logs could be required. Mr. Clarke asked to clarify who the report is sent to. Ms. Duncan responded that it would be sent to the Planning Board. Mr. George stated that gives a sense of comfort that it will be taken care of today and in the future. Mr.Ross pointed out that a similar system has • been in place for other projects. Ms. Sullivan clarified that there could be a condition included,and keep track of changes. Mr. Clarke asked if it would include the stormwater on the property only,but not on road. Mr.Puleo said that the road was part of their responsibility. Mr. George recommended looking at the net-impact on area and building in safeguards. Standard 3. Mr.Turner said that the extensive bedrock throughout the site severely limits infiltration in the existing and proposed conditions. A stormwater infiltration area and a bio-retention area are provided on the Wal-Mart portion of the project. An existing condition is a giant piece of rock. He noted that if there is some runoff,it will be designed to not leak out. He then showed where the infiltration and bio-retention areas are on map and noted that the bio- retention area is part of the planting area. Water will be directed to this area. Standard 4. Mr.Turner said that 80%TSS (Total Spent Solids) removal rate is achieved through the implementation of stormwater quality control measures as previously described. They are close to 90%removal on the project. Standard S. Mr Tumer said that this is in accordance with TSS removal standards. Mr. Puleo asked if there are standards for icing. Mr.Turner stated no, they would not do more than what is needed. Mr. George asked what is the rate of the area of impervious paving. Mr. Turner said he was not sure of the exact number. Mr. George asked if he knows what is there today(in terms of impervious paving) and what will be there when the project is done. Mr.Turner stated that he does not know what is there now. Mr. George asked about the chemicals used for salting. He stated that his concern is that the chemical use for salting may be increased if the parking area and the paving is expanded. Mr.Ross stated that there is no standard for amount of salt on area. Mr. Moustakis asked if it is porous pavement. Mr. Turner stated no. Mr.Ross described recommendations and options for the engineers to think about such as porous pavement, bio-retention areas, and tree boxes. Standard 6. Mr.Turner stated that what is required for this standard is not in any areas of the project thus they do not have to worry about it. Mr. Puleo asked if the runoff will make its way to Spring Pond. Mr.Turner responded,no. Mr. Clarke asked if the peer reviewer,Mr. Ross, agrees with this assessment. Mr. Ross stated yes. Standard 7. Mr.Turner noted that they are meeting all of the standards in Standard 7. • 2 Standard 8. The project is required to file and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with national and state standards. Mr.Puleo asked if they would put a temporary sediment basin in place during • construction. Mr.Turner responded, "potentially". Standard 9. Mr.Turner said that the long-term operation and maintenance plans are to be provided to the land-owner. Standard 10. Mr.Turner stated that they don't plan for anything to go into the pipes that are not stormwater. Mr.Turner presented the grading and drainage plan. He described the design changes that came about through the review process. Mr. Puleo asked if the camp's drainage will be going into the same basins as the drainage from the rest of the development. Mr.Turner stated that no, the camp's stormwater is designed to be its own catch area and they have designed the basin for the camp that will meet the standards. Mr. Ross said that the design is based on the impervious area of the camp. Mr.Puleo asked how that impacts the project,if they don't build right away. Mr.Turner said that they are building a road for them which will be sized for the full build out. Mr. Moustakis asked if there will be an underground watering system for vegetation. Mr. Turner answered that irrigation is not in the plan. Ms. Sullivan noted that Wal-Mart and Lowe's have separate systems, and asked who Mr.Turner's client is. Mr.Turner responded that he is working with Lowe's. Steve Decoursi,who works for Bohler, stated that his client is Wal-Mart,working in conjunction with Lowe's. Mr.Turner stated that Mr. Ross has done a through analysis of both plans to make sure no one is assuming the other is taking care of responsibilities. Mr. Correnti stated that the decision was made in beginning to come in with a PUD instead of separate plans for each store, to ensure the plans work together. Mr.Turner then presented the utility plan discussing how to connect the proposed water line. He stated that they reached out to the city to get the plans moving forward. Mr. Puleo asked how this aspect of the project will be coordinated. Mr.Ross responded that the developer is putting in the water main. Mr.Turner stated that the idea is to run the water line up to the tank pad. Mr. Puleo asked if the plan was to make the final connection once water tank is there. Mr. Ross stated that it would be done prior. Mr. George directed a question to Mr. Ross asking if he has any concerns going forward that have not been addressed. Mr. Ross stated that he did not;the storm water management has met all of his requirements,needs and questions. Ms. Sullivan asked how this compares to other systems brought before him. Mr. Ross responded that this is a well-designed sstem; they will create a buffer above required minimum,which is beyond what you see in other developments. Mr. Ready Wected another question to Mr. Ross asking him if he can provide an executive summary of the quality of the engineering,in terms of how this project looks. Mr.Ross stated that he felt that they have done a reasonably thorough job. When they were asked to expand the study area, they agreed to do so even though they had to start over again. He noted the project is sharing different catchment areas,and the design was well done. Even in areas where the design was not conservative enough,the firm heard Mr. Ross'concerns and made adjustments. He feels that the engineering is good quality. One recommendation was that they could have gotten together sooner,but overall he is fully satisfied. Mr. Moustakis asked Mr. Ross if he feels comfortable that there is no more drainage than what is there now. Mr.Ross said that their assumptions seem reasonable. Their analysis was done properly and the results of their analysis predict there is going to be a reduced amount of drainage. Iyrue opened up forpublic comment William Trahant Jr,Lynn City Councilor said that he can't believe people feel comfortable with a drainage plan with a patch. He asked what happens when rest of the pipe freezes. This should be a major concern. He recommends petitioning the state for new pipes. Mark Bannister,25 Lee St, Salem and Local 103, states that he has been coming to these meetings,and he is convinced that what they are proposing for drainage is better than what is there. Andrew Hall,Lynn Water and Sewer Commission. Earlier in design stage there was talk of replacing the stretch of storm drain pipe downstream and he asked what the status of that was. Mr. Correnti stated that downstream from the project this will help the neighborhood and they will talk about that in more detail. He stated that there is a city drain about 300 feet southeast of the project. Mr. George asked for clarification on where this would be. Mr. Correnti stated that it was around Buchanan Circle. Mr. Ready asked if this is a long-term drainage problem in Lynn, and are they looking for help on a long- 4erm project through this development.?He further asked if these issues are going to be resolved by city of Lynn.?Mr. Hall esponded no. . 3 Leslie Courtemanche,Lynn, said that she is concerned about the environmental impact of project. She feels that they are creating a dead zone,and the proposed retention ponds will eventually leach into the wetlands. She stated that no one is addressing this. She says there is evidence that there are pools up there that support wildlife and the cost of this is too great to the environment. She would like to present evidence after the meeting showing this. Mr. Puleo said the project has to be filed with the Conservation Commission. Ms. Courtemanche stated that the drainage will eventually go down to Spring Pond. She said the area is technically a pine barren,and with blasting,water will flow into Spring Pond. Ms. Duncan requested that she submit her evidence as part of the public hearing. Mr. Clarke asked Mr. Ross what his opinion is regarding the claim that there will be no water impact to Spring Pond. Mr. Ross stated that it has been demonstrated that all the water will move away from Spring Pond. Richard Randall,4 Ridgeway Court,Lynn stated that they didn't specify the runoff of the camp site. The porous ground that will have impact on Spring Pond needs to be addressed. Mr.Turner stated that all stormwater will be directed away from Spring Pond,and the Camp Lion site will be directed away from Spring Pond as well. Paul Lynch,business agent with the ironworkers, thanks the engineering firm, Kennedy Development Group. He stated that the engineers went above and beyond what is required. He feels that these projects will enhance the areas and he hopes that the board members recognize this effort. Norm Cole, 30 Coolidge Road,Lynn states that the water from the site impacts him directly. He asked about the sewer right below wetlands area and the double catch basin by the Camp Lions area. Mr.Turner stated that they will be removing and replacing the grate to preventing clogging in the area. Mr. Ready asked if the catch basin is on Lynn or Salem side. Mr. Turner stated that it is on the Salem side and they are going to put a new grate on it. Mr. Ready asked if they could clean the existing basin. Mr. Turner stated that it could be done if it needs cleaning. Mr. Cole stated that the catch basin is still inadequate and replacing it will not improve it. He thought that at 9/30 meeting that the engineers agreed to do a site study, and he asked if it has been done. Mr.Turner stated the meeting has been scheduled. Mr. Cole said that he gives the Planning Board a lot of credit for their work on this but feels that we never get to the bottom line. Before the Board votes on this he had a couple of questions: 1. How long has Wal-Mart been there? 2. We talk about maintenance,but what guarantee do we • have that they will maintain the site? Mr. Ready stated that the review process has been lengthy because the Board needs to carefully review the project. Mr. Ross stated that the catch basin should be directly addressed since it's close to site,which he has requested of the engineers. Mr. Puleo asked where the runoff is going once the driveway is eliminated. Mr.Turner stated that it has been shown in the study that the amount of water going there is going to be reduced. Mr. George stated that these questions have prolonged all of the meetings due to sensitivities to site needs and impacts. It is a long, cumbersome process and hopes that Mr. Cole understands that. Dan Quintilliani,Lynn, commented that the bottom line is that the project is in Salem and Salem should not be required to repair Lynn's problems. Rick Kehoe,representing unions in Lynn, said that the project can only improve area. If nothing is done, then people will still have flooded basements. He is in support of this project. Dan McIntyre, 51 Falmouth St,Lynn, asked who owns street. Mr. Puleo said that the state owns it. Mr.McIntyre asked why the state hasn't been part of these meetings. Mr. Clarke stated that the Board doesn't have the jurisdiction to require that the state be involved in these meetings. Calvin Anderson, 12 Concord St,Lynn, states that he is for these jobs, but for controlled growth. He feels that it is a good project, but just in the wrong place. Katerina Pangiatakis,Ocean St,Lynn,asked about the size of the storm drains. Mr.Turner stated that storm drains on Highland Ave vary. Ms. Pangiatakis said that 12 inches is being assumed and that is inadequate. She has spoken with other businesses about flooding. She asked how much of the downhill will be paved over near Spring Pond. Her concern is that ponds are generally low and we need a better map of what is going on with the environment. She says Wal-Mart's water bas is in a protection area and Lowe's is near the protection areas. She says there is no watershed on these plans and it is a shame 4 to not be able to comment on all these areas. Danielle McKnight stated that the Planning Dept has the engineering plans on file and available to the public. Oeshe Courtemanche,Lynn,asked is this the only way they can get a remedy to these flooding issues on Highland Ave if Lowes goes there? Mr. Clarke stated that this is not the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. He recommended that she speak with her city councilor and/or state reps about the flooding. Kathy Sapio,Kevhill Road, states that she understands that it will provide work,but these are only temporary solutions. She says Highland Ave is not wide enough to accommodate the traffic for this project. She has collected signatures from residents of Salem and Lynn who oppose this project. She does not see how this project will improve anything. She asked how the redirecting of the drains is going to impact the site. The morning commute will be affected,which will impact a lot of people for a very long time. She asked how it will affect things down by Buchanan Bridge in the future. She feels that there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed here and we need hard evidential facts. Mr. George responded stating that drainage problems will not be a net gain or increase. All the other issues that have existed have been there for a long time before this Board. William Brennan,Park St,Lynn,Local 17,states that this project would not just offer part-time jobs. Wal-mart would be perfect for a lot of other people who are out of work. Barry Nealy, 15 Lynn St,Salem expressed his thanks to the Board and Kennedy Development Group. As a laborer he states that they would not sell short the community just for 6 months of a job. He feels that the taxpayers are going to benefit from this project. He was insulted to hear people say that laborers would work on something that was wrong for the community in exchange for just 6 months of work. Angela Lowstein,Eastern Ave.,Lynn. She is concerned with the traffic. She works on Highland Ave and has to go through Swampscott to get home because of traffic. She can't imagine how this project will impact traffic. Ootion made to continue hearing to December 16th by Mr. Ready, seconded by John Moustakis, all approved 9-0 to continue until the next meeting on December 16. Old/New Business Endorsement of 20 Maple St. Form A Plan (previously approved ANR) Danielle McKnight stated that the applicant had trouble recording this at registry due to the misspelling of the applicant's name and is asking the Board to re-endorse the plan. No motion needed. Request to extend Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for 28 Goodhue St.—Attorney Joseph Correnti Joseph Correnti,representing the applicant explained to the Board that this is a 44 unit mixed-use building,which was part of a NRCC project. He noted that the developer remains interested in completing this project and has filed simultaneously with the Board of Appeals to extend the permits issued for the project. Mr. Correnti requested an extension of permits for six months, to June 30th. Motion to approve the extension to June 30th by John Moustakis,Nadine Hanscom seconded. All approved 9-0. Request for insignificant change: T Mobile requesting to replace 8 foot fence on property at 181 North Street with a new 6 foot fence—Eric Kuklinsld Ms. McKnight gave a brief overview of the project stating that after the Board approved the installation of the 8 foot fence, the landlord asked T-Mobile to change the height to 6 feet to be in conformity with the rest of the property. 5 Yasin Noury, 52 Ashton St,Boston,MA,representing T-Mobile,requested a minor change in the fence,which is a design flaw on their part. T-Mobile's landlord requested a change in the fence size from 8 feet to 6 feet to match the rest of the property. Ms. Hanscom asked Mr. Noury to describe where the fence is located on the property. Mr.Noury described• the location. Motion to approve made by Christine Sullivan;Randy Clarke seconded. All approved 9-0. Adjournment Motion adjourn made by Randy Clarke,seconded by Nadine Hanscom. Approved 9-0. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk • 6 �0 CITY OF SALEM r PLANNING BOARD N N W December 22, 2010 p NIT. Eric Kuklinski N Maxton 50 Eastman St. South Easton, MA 02375 Re: Insignificant Change to Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit, 181 North Street, Salem, NIA B Dear Mr. Kuklinski: On December 2, 2010, the Salem Planning Board met to discuss your request for an insignificant change to the previously issued Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the property located at I S I North Street,'Salem, MA. The following Board members were present: Charles PUIC0, Tim Kavanaugh, .101111 MOnstakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Mark George. You I eiluested that the Board approve a six-foot fence around the equipment area on the ground at 18 1 North Street, which Would match the existing fence on the property, instead of the eight- t'ooi fence originally approved in the plans. The Board approved this request by a vote of 9-0 (Puleo, Kavanaugh, Moustakis, Ready, Clarke, Sullivan, Hanscom, Sides and George in favor, none opposed). Yours truly, Charles M. Puleo, Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI.EM.COM C CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD ZQii� S! t'4r '-7 2: 25 I NOTICE OFMEETINGCANCELLATI0N You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board meeting scheduled for Thursday,November 18, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been CANCELED due to a lack of agenda items t KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC will be continued to December 2, 2010 (hearing for 440,460,462 and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE - Lowe's,Walmart,Meineke, Camp Lion and municipal water tank) NORTH RIVER CANAL LLC will be continued to December 2,2010 (request for extension of permits previously issued for 28 GOODHUE STREET) SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC will be continued to February 17,2011 (hearing for 135 LAFAYETTE STREET- [St.Joseph's • 'P..Pe�/JSrL7t Charly M. Puko' Gxtir Cif Hall 011 --bcU. 16 . 010!(7 la:a s P 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM r m.. PLANNING BOARD 2U: a na, 0 P NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hdd its regularly sdxff/i W meting on Thursday, No zem her 18, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall A met,Room313, 120 Washington Street Charles M. Puleq Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes i 11/4/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Continuation of Public Heating: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded WahmuT store,expanded Meineke store,Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. • 3. Continuation of Public Heating: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attomey Joseph Correnti. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET(Map 34,Lot 307),Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent,renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new nixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attomey Joseph Correnti. 5. Old/New Business Request to extend Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for 28 Goodhue St. 6. Adjournment This iFotigC9 pen,v ,A' ^14?yRR,,.y Docro• city Fla,i d�✓ a56Pn� � � F � ra> #r !� Poi, r� M 9 .c ...:3.a 5„ o -_. . t -e di 1961 "vA r �...,d t�7 !r! �..°.'�.,, I 120 WASHINGTON STREET, .SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM ��o�utT,p90 4` CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Kwi3ERLEY DRISCOLL bIAYUR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOON N DUNCAN,AICD uueecroa TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: November 10, 2010 RE: Agenda—November 18,2010 meeting Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda D Materials for Agenda Items ➢ 10/21/10 Planning Board Meeting Minutes Notes on Agenda Items: Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2,3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering, the city's peer reviewer, has prepared a memo in response to updated engineering. The memo is enclosed in your packet. . Bill pointed out to me that the project consists of two separate and complex drainage designs and reports, so he did two separate reviews,which is why the review letter is so long. However, he told me that in spite of the number of comments,in his opinion, both projects were well designed and 1 appear to meet the requirements of the Mass. Stormwater Policy (depending on the response to • questions and requests for clarifications detailed in the letter). As requested by the Board, Bill has identified potential areas where the project could further improve stormwater management (see Section 2-26: Opportunities for Improvement). Bill Ross will be at the meeting to review and discuss his findings. Other issues may be discussed. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-thtough facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti. I have not received any additional information about this project. Request to extend Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for 28 Goodhue St. Attorney Correnti has submitted a letter requesting to extend the above mentioned permits through June 30, 2011. • • 2 1%. amCITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING You ae hereby nmfied that rhe SalemPlar mig Bcard well hdd its regulady sd2alided nnvrg'On Thuggay, Nowm. ber4, 2010 at 7.00 pin at QyHa11Awzc,Room313, 120 Washington Stsz?et°_ Charly M. Pik Q air MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 10/21/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Public Hearing: Request of IAN HUNTER for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the movement of the lot lines between the properties located at 12 DERBY STREET and 14 REAR FORT AVENUE (Map 41,Lots 260 and 268). 3. Fonn A: Request of IAN 14UNTER for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval,to allow the movement of the lot lines between the properties located at 12 DERBY STREET and 14 REAR FORT AVENUE (Map 41,Lots 260 and 268). • 4. Public Hearing:Request of CHRISTOS LARANTONAKIS for a waiver from the frontage requLrements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the subdivision of the property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE (Map 21,Lot 220) into two lots. 5. Form A. Request of CHRISTOS LARANTONAKIS for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval, to allow the subdivision of the property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE (Map 21,Lot 220) into two lots. 6. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4),Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). AttomeyJosephGorrenti. 7. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard OverlayDistrict Special Permit for the propertylocated at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1),Salem MA Attomeyjoseph Correnti. 8. Old/New Business Tints nofte pooled on "(fIi�Manl 9 offn 0AW CRY Hell "a Ic rn, Win, am a6` &A0. 9. Adjournment JOA a of 1 • ».fid=.�` g:sys�is.e.ma. .,.<,y'-n Le� ,. ,,,, � > ,�,;;�,,.�` 3 020 WASCHINGTON STREET, .SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS.019701 + TEL. 978.7415.9595 FAx: 978.740 0404 c WN+W.SALEM.COM ar CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 7 I 1MV -3 P 12: (11 NOTICE OF MEETING Yon are hereby Trot�ied that the SalemPlarnwtg Bceml will hold its regdady so(,uhled" rang on Thurs day, November 4, 2010 at 7:00 pin at City Hall Amzc,Room313, 1�2�0 WashingtonStrw l.Na�eti. `lP- -&../fThTt Charles M. Praleo, Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 10/21/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Public Heating:Request of IAN HUNTER for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the movement of the lot lines between the properties located at 12 DERBY STREET and 14 REAR FORT AVENUE (Map 41,Lots 260 and 268). 3. Foran A. Request of IAN HUNTER for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval,to allow the movement of the lot lines between the properties located at 12 DERBY STREET and 14 REAR FORT AVENUE (Map 41,Lots 260 and 268). • 4. Public Hearing: Request of CHRISTOS LARANTONAKIS for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the subdivision of the property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE (Map 21,Lot 220) into two lots. 5. Fonn A. Request of CHRISTOS LARANTONAKIS for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval, to allow the subdivision of the property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE (Map 21,Lot 220) into two lots. 6. Continuation of Public Heating: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit,for the propertylocated at 440,460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 18. 2010. 7. Continuation of Public Heating: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Perrit for the propenylocated at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1),Salem MA. Attomey Joseph Correnti. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 18. 2010. 8. Old/New Busine ss t +. City Hall NA 9. Adjournment el3 A ,,. i)) " 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM �ONWT9 p CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS • In� h t' .>� 4� DEPARTMENT OF PL.-INNING AND rte, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,9��1MtiVRDt?�1 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,NLISSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx: 978-740-0404 1{IMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN, AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: October 28, 2010 RE: Agenda—November 4, 2010 meeting • Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ 9/30/10 Planning Board Meeting Minutes Notes on Agenda Items: Public Hearing: Request of IAN HUNTER for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the movement of the lot lines between the properties located at 12 DERBY STREET and 14 REAR FORT AVENUE (Map 41,Lots 260 and 268). Form A: Request of IAN HUNTER for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval, to allow the movement of the lot lines between the properties located at 12 DERBY STREET and 14 REAR FORT AVENUE (Map 41,Lots 260 and 268). Thomas Cote, owner of 12 Derby St., received relief from the Board of Appeals in August to adjust the parcel boundary at 12 Derby Street to convey a piece of land to the property at 14 1/5 Fort Avenue, thereby providing access to a public way and allowing construction of a garage. At the same meeting, Ian Hunter, owner of 14 1/5 Fort Avenue,petitioned the Board of Appeals separately for zoning relief related to the proposed lot line adjustment. Mr. Hunter now is before • the Planning Board for a waiver from frontage requirements and a Form A plan to complete the process. A reduction from 57' to 41' of the required 100' frontage is proposed. 1 • The application was routed to Fire, Health, Conservation,Building and Engineering. The Board of Health responded that they require no review; Conservation responded that the project is outside Con Com jurisdiction; the Building Inspector responded that the project has received proper ZBA relief; and I have not received comments from Engineering or Fire. Public Hearing: Request of CHRISTOS LARANTONAKIS for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the subdivision of the property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE (Map 21, Lot 220) into two lots. Form A: Request of CHRISTOS LARANTONAKIS for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval, to allow the subdivision of the property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE (Map 21, Lot 220) into two lots. The petitioner proposes to subdivide the property, creating another single-family house lot. The Board of Appeals granted relief from lot area and frontage in April. The frontage proposed is7 1.54 feet for each lot; 100 feet is required by zoning. The application was routed to Fire, Health, Conservation,Building and Engineering. Fire has no issues; the Building Inspector responded that the project received all needed ZBA relief; Conservation responded that this is outside Con Com jurisdiction; Health replied that no review is needed; and I have not received comments from Engineering. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. • for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2,3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Cotrenti. Bill Stansfield, head of the Peabody DPW, called the Planning Department to say he has no issue with the project's proximity to Spring Pond. He now has a full set of the plans for Peabody's reference. The applicant submitted revised engineering plans for review by Bill Ross, our peer reviewer. We expect Bill to provide his feedback in a memo prior to the meeting, but I will not have that memo to send you until a day or so before the meeting, and possibly even the day of. I will forward it by email as soon as I receive it. Billwill also be attending the meeting. I am also enclosing a letter from a resident concerned about the project's potential light pollution and effects on the night sky. 2 PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 11/4/10 �regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,November 4,2010 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third loor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Randy Clarke,Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:06 pm Approval of Minutes 10/21/10 Planning Board meeting minutes The minutes from the October 21,2010 meeting were reviewed. No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Mark George motioned to approve, seconded by Randy Clarke. Approved 9-0 Public Hearing: Request of IAN HUNTER for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the movement of the lot lines between the properties located at 12 DERBY STREET and 14 REAR FORT AVENUE (Map 41, Lots 260 and 268). Ian Hunter, 14 Rear Fort Avenue,presented the proposal to redraw lot lines based on an existing reciprocal line of easement at both 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue. Mr.Hunter explained the"reciprocal line of easement"as defined by the Registry of Deeds and described the lot locations. Mr. Hunter has a driveway on 12 Derby Street,and his neighbor is deeding it to him. Chuck Puleo asked for clarification on lot lines and asked if the lots in question are non-conforming. Mr. Hunter said both of the lots are non-conforming. He added that currently his driveway is on 12 Derby Street's land,but the lot has Obeen used by 14 Rear Fort Avenue for access . - Issue opened up forpublic comment No comments were received by the public. Randy Clarke motioned to close the public hearing,seconded by Christine Sullivan. All approved 9-0. Motion to approve the petition made by Nadine Hanscom,seconded by Randy Clarke. Approved 8-0. Mark George abstained. Form A: Request of IAN HUNTER for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval,to allow the movement of the lot lines between the properties located at 12 DERBY STREET and 14 REAR FORT AVENUE (Map 41,Lots 260 and 268). Motion to endorse made by Randy Clarke,Nadine Hanscom seconded. All approved 8-0,with Mark George abstaining from voting. Public Hearing: Request of CHRISTOS LIRANTONAKIS for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the subdivision of the property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE (Map 21,Lot 220) into two lots. Danielle McKnight gave the board a brief history of the project and explained that it went before Board of Appeals to receive relief from frontage and lot area,which was granted. Christos Lirantonakis,20 Maple Avenue,explained that he wants to divide his lots in half to build another house,and needs relief from the frontage requirements.. Mr. George asked clarifications from the ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals) decisions. Ms. McKnight explained that part of the ZBA decision was •based on the fact that this change is in line with the layout of the neighborhood. Ms. Sullivan asked what the role of this 1 Board is since the ZBA has already approved this plan. Ms. McKnight stated that both boards have to approve this change and"ZBA has given the relief they were petitioned for. The actual change in the lot lines is what the Planning Board decides.• Ms. Sides asked about the location of the driveways;Mr. Lirantonakis indicated them on the site plan. Issue opened up for public comment No one from the public was present to comment. John Moustakis motioned to approve,Mark George seconded. Approved 9-0. Form A: Request of CHRISTOS LARANTONAKIS for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval,to allow the subdivision of the property located at 20 MAPLE AVENUE (Map 21,Lot 220) into two lots. Motion to approve by Nadine Hanscom, seconded by Randy Clarke, all approved Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store,Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 18. 2010 Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 18, 20,10. AttyJoseph Correnti requested that the hearing be continued to the next meeting on 11/18/10. They are working with the peer review consultants from the city on the traffic and drainage issues and will be prepared to present those • recommendations at the next Planning Board meeting. Motion to continue the public hearing to November 18,2010 made by Christine Sullivan,Randy Clarke seconded. Approved 9-0. Old/New Business Adjournment Motion to adjourn made by Randy Clarke, seconded by Nadine Hanscom. Approved 9-0. Chuck Puleo adjourns the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Minutes approved with edits by the Planning Board 12/2/10 Decisions Corrected Decision Waiver from Frontage 12 Derbyr Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue • 2 A Public Hearing on this petition was held on, and closed on November 4, 2010 with the following Board Members *resent: Chair Charles Puleo,John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Mark George, Helen Sides, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready. Petitioner Ian Hunter (owner of 14 Rear Fort Avenue, AKA 14 '/2 Fort Avenue) requests a waiver from frontage requirements from the Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow the property line between 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue to be moved, reducing the frontage of 12 Derby Street from 57 to 41 feet,where 100 feet of frontage is required. The Waiver from Frontage is granted for the property located at 12 Derby Street, as shown on the plans titled, "Plan of Land in Salem, Massachusetts, Prepared for Ian T. & Sarah P. Hunter, 14R Fort Avenue and Thomas P. Cote, 12 Derby Street," Prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc. 161 Holten Street, Danvers, NLA 01923, dated June 23, 2010. The Planning Board voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Puleo, Moustakis Sides, Sullivan, Clarke, Ready, Kavanaugh, and Hanscom), and none opposed, with George abstaining, to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 12 Derby Street. The endorsement shall not take ef#ect until a copy of the decisions 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 and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The owner or applicant shall pay the fee for recording or registering. •I hereby certfy 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 M. Puleo, Chair Corrected Form A — Decision 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue On November 4, 2010, the Salem Planning Board voted 8-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, John Moustakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, and Helen Sides in favor, none opposed, Mark George abstaining) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: 1. Applicant: Ian Hunter • 2. Location: 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue (AKA 14 '/2 Rear Avenue) 3 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to move the property line between 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fo Avenue as shown on the plan titled"Plan of Land in Salem, Massachusetts, Prepared for Ian T. &Sarah P. Hunter, 14R Fort Avenue and Thomas P. Cote, 12 Derby Street,"Prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates,Inc. 161 Holten Street,Danvers, MA 01923, dated June 23,2010. A Waiver from Frontage was also granted by the Planning Board on November 4, 2010 for 12 Derby Street to allow 41 feet of frontage instead of the required 100. Sincerely, Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk Form A —Decision 20 Maple Avenue (AKA 18 Maple Avenue) On November 4, 2010, the Salem Planning Board voted 9-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, John Moustakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, Helen'Sides, and Mark George in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: 4. Applicant: Christos and Eleni Lirantonakis 5. Location: 20 Maple Avenue (AKA 18 Maple Avenue), Map 21, Lot 220 6. Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide the property located at 20 Maple Avenue as shown on the plan titled"Salem, Massachusetts Subdivision of Land Prepared for: Christos and Eleni Larantonakis, 20 Maple Avenue,Parcel ID 21_0220;'dated October 13, 2010. A Waiver from Frontage was also granted by the Planning Board on November 4, 2010 to allow the newly created Parcel A and Parcel B to have 70.54 and 71.54 feet of frontage, respectively, instead of the 100 feet required in the R-I Zoning District. Sincerely, Charles M. Puleo Chair • 4 Cc: �heryl LaPointe, City Clerk Decision Waiver from Frontage 20 Maple Avenue (AKA 18 Maple Avenue) A Public Hearing on this petition was held on, and closed on November 4, 2010 with the following Board Members present: Chair Charles Puleo,John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Mark George, Helen Sides, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready. Petitioner Christos Lirantonakis requests a waiver from frontage requirements from the Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow the subdivision of the property into two parcels, Lots A and B, with a frontage of 71.54' and 71.54,'respectively,where 100 feet of frontage is required. The Waiver from Frontage is granted for the property located at 12 Derby Street, as shown on the plans titled, "Plan of Land in Salem, Massachusetts, Prepared for Ian T. & Sarah P. Hunter, 14R Fort Avenue and Thomas P. Cote, 12 Derby Street," Prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc. 161 Holten Street, Danvers, MA 01923, dated June 23, 2010. The Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor (Puleo, Moustakis Sides, Sullivan, Clarke, George, Ready, Kavanaugh, and Hanscom), and none opposed to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 12 Derby Street. OThe endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decisions bearing certfication 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 Re gistry of Deeds and is indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record and noted on the owners cervi ficate of title. The owner or applicant sball pay the fee for recording or register ng. I hereby cert 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 M. Puleo, Chair 5 CD . CITY OF SALEM r PLANNING BOARD -s P 2: 25 Form A — Decision clfr ta_r. . 20 Maple Avenue (AKA 18 Nlaple Avenue) On November 4, 2010, the Salem Planning Board voted 9-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, .John Moustakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Mark George in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: L Applicant: Christos and Eleni Lirantonakis 2. Location: 20 Maple Avenue (AKA 18 Maple Avenue), Map 21, Lot 220 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to Subdivide the property located at 20 Maple Avenue as shown on the plan titled "Salem, Massachusetts Subdivision of Land Prepared for: Christos and Eleni Larantonakis, 20 Maple Avenue, Parcel ID 21_0220," dated October 13, 2010. • A Waiver from Frontage was also granted by the Planning Board on November 4, 2010 to allow the newly created Parcel A and Parcel B to have 70.54 and 71.54 feet of frontage, respectively, instead of the 100 feet required in the R-1 Zoning.District. Sincerely, (' 1�JLI- �1•. lAmid Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: C'hervl LaPointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, [MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 Fax: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALFM.COM C� �v CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2010 :"'Y -8 P 2 26 Form A — Decision 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Av tle' I.= On November 4, 2010, the Salem Plannin; Board voted 9-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, John Moustakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Mark George in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: 1. Applicant: Ian Hunter 2. Location: 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue (AKA 14 % Rear Avenue) 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to move the property line between 12 Derby Street and W Rear Fort Avenue as shown on the plan titled "Plan of Land in Salem, Massachusetts, Prepared for Ian T. & Sarah P. Hunter, 14R Fort Avenue and Thomas P. Cote, 12 Derby Street," Prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc. 161 Holten Sheet, Danvers, MA 01923, dated ,lune 23, 2010. A Waiver from Frontage was also granted by the Planning Board on November 4, 2010 for 12 Derby Street to allow 41 feet of frontage instead of the required 100. Sincerely, Charles M. Puled Chair Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 WWW.SA[,ENI.COM CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD I, - . 6 Decision Waiver from Front w 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue A Public Hearing on this petition was held on, and closed on November 4, 2010 Math the following Board Members present: Chair Charles PUleo,Jahn Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Mark George, Helen Sides, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Reacly. Petitioner Ian Hunter (owner of '14 Rear Fort Avenue, AKA 14 '/ Fort Avenue) requests a waiver from frontage requirements from the Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow the property line between 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue to be moved, reducing the frontage of 12 Derby Street from 57 to 41 feet, where 100 feet of frontage is required. The Waiver from Frontage is granted for the property located at 12 Derby Sweet, as shown on the plans titled, "Plan of Land in Salem, Massachusetts, Prepared for Ian T. & Sarah P. Hunter, 14R Fort Avenue and Thomas P. Cote, 12 Derby Street," Prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc. 161 Holten Street, Danvers, MA 01923, dated June 23, 2010. The Planning Board voted by it vote of nine (9) in favor (PUIeU, IAVPoustalds Stoics, Sullivan, Clarke, Geor;,e, Ready, Kavanaugh, and Hanscom), and none opposed to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 12 DerbyStrect. The endrnsenLV shall not take effort enrol a miry of the dxuiom lxnmi ,,aotifi(atim of the City Clerk that tieenty (20) ctr)s lxaze elapsed and no appeal has Gin film or that if such appeal has been filed that it has I;ctn c&ndrn sed or denial, is rttorded in the Essu South Registry(f Deeds and u induced in the SraWor irxlex under the name Gf the curter of wuorcd and noted on the ozvx✓s atniftatte cf title The wuxe-or appliezrnt shall pay the fen for nrrmldrg or r�iste,ing /lxoehy certify that a copy r f this (Iwsion nn file Toith that City Cluk ,cod that a upy(J the Decision a?xl playa is ore file with the Planning Bozrd Put, /Pak Charles M. PUIVO, Chair • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745'.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALFM.COM 0 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Corrected Decision a Waiver from Frontage 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue A Public Hearing on this petition was held on, and closed on November 4, 2010 with the following Board Members present: Chair Charles Puleo,John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Mark George, Helen Sides, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready. Petitioner Ian Hunter (owner of 14 Rear Fort Avenue, AKA 14 '/z Fort Avenue) requests a waiver from frontage requirements from the Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow the property line between 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue to be moved, reducing the frontage of 12 Derby Street from 57 to 41 feet, where 100 feet of frontage is required. The Waiver from Frontage is granted for theroe located at 12 Derby Street as shown on the P P rtY Y , plans titled, "Plan of Land in Salem, Massachusetts, Prepared for Ian T. & Sarah P. Hunter, 14R Fort Avenue and Thomas P. Cote, 12 Derby Street," Prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc. • 161 Holten Street, Danvers, MA 01923, dated June 23, 2010. The Planning Board voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Puleo, Moustakis Sides, Sullivan, Clarke, Ready, Kavanaugh, and Hanscom), and none opposed, with George abstaining, to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 12 Derby Street. The endarsenva shall not take effect urnil a copy cf the&xiora beanng art/iratim of the City Clerk flan tueruy (20) clerk haw elapsed aryl m ap*has bffn filed, or that if such appeal has leen frlal than it has Icon disrnssed or cle7nec4 is r xorded in the Esser Saah Registry cf Detzls and is imbced in the grantor irxlee trrxler the rarre cf the uuy,vr cf morel and notal m the oz¢ `s certifttate gr title The curer or applicant shall pay the fee for rtwa&g or ngnstenng I hereby ce tify that a copy cf this decision is on file with the City Clerk and that a copy of the Derision and plans is on file with the Plamnrrg Boznl ( p Charles M. Puleo, Chair • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 F,vx: 978.740 0404 www.SALEM.COM CD �v CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD r .� . ,t: Corrected Form A De'eis><on 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue On November 4, 2010, the Salem Planning Board voted 8-0 (Charles PUleo, Tim Kavanaugh, .101111 Nloustakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, and Helen Sides in favor, none opposed, Mark George abstaining) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: I. Applicant: Ian Hunter 2. Location: 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear Fort Avenue (AKA 14 % Rear Avenue) 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to move the property line between 12 Derby Street and 14 Rear.Fort Avenue as shown on the plan titled "Plan of Land in Salem, Massachusetts, Prepared for Ian T. & Sarah P. Hunter, 14R Fort Avenue and • Thomas P. Cote, 12 Derby Street," Prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc. 161 Holten Street, Danvers, MA 01923, dated June 23, 2010. A Waiver from Frontage was also granted by the Planning Board on November 4, 2010 for 12 Derby Street to allow 41 feet of frontage instead of the required 100. Sincerely, Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.749.9494 WWW.SAI-EM.COM City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board e 16-IL Date 10 Name�� Mailing Address Phone # Email Pa- _L of i� 4� CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Notice of Decisions At a special meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday, November 4, 2010 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: Christos &Eleni Lirantonakis Location: 20 Maple Ave. (AKA 18 Maple Ave.), Salem,MA Description: Waiver from Frontage Decision: Approved- Filed with the City Clerk November 8, 2010 Applicant: Ian Hunter a. Location: 12 Derby Street and 14 R Fort Ave (AKA 14 '/z Fort Ave), Salem, MA Description: Waiver from Frontage Decision: Approved- Filed with the City Clerk November 8, 2010 This notice is Ding sent in mnpliance uith the Massa&taetts General L ays, Chapter 40A, Semon 9 and da3 not require action by the 7vVienrt Appeals, if any, shall be=&pwsuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be fikd within 20 ckt fiorn the date zebu&the decision zeds fkd zudr the City Clerk. TA. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS r BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WAS]IIN(;tON S'IIII;r:r ♦ 'SAIJi:M,AlASSACI-NSH['I S 01970 MNIBE.RI.ev DmSCOt.L Tei.],::978-745-9595 ♦ FAS 978-740-9846 AlAYOR MEETING NOTICE-2^d REVISION You are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board o(Appeals will bald its regrdarly scheduled meeting oil lVednesday,May 21, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall Annex, RM 313, 120 IVashingion St, Salem,illPl Rebecca Curran, Chair � o n MEETING AGENDA r- m � I. ROLL CALL �m Ui II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES n s. ➢ April 16,2014 meeting 3 IV S' O III. REGULAR AGENDA O • Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Section 9.4 Special Permits of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the extension of the existing nonconforming retail use,in order to sell firearms at the property. Applicant MICHAEL BEAULIEU Location: 128 MARGIN STREET (112 Zoning District) APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.1 Principal Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a medical clinic providing analytical testing, and requesting a variance from the provisions of Section 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow fewer than the required number of off-street parking spaces. Applicant: ALPHA ANALYTICAL Location: 121 NORTH STREET (Bl Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting special permits per Sec. 3.35 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures and Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the renovation of an existing nonconforming single-family residence into a two-fatrtily residence,with less than the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Applicant: JOSEPH &MARIA GAGNON Location: 105 BROADWAY(112 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec. 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to construct an addifion at the rear of the existing nonconforming structure, and a variance from the requirements of Sec. 3.2.4 Accessory Buildings and Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the expansion of • a previously-approved garage such that one wall lies on the southern property line. .Applicant: RAYNALDO DOMINGUEZ Location: 38 CABOT STREET (112 Zoning District) Page I oft This notice posted on Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 9L4 (S,0 at9 X0 1 (IA -_in accordance w th MGL Chap. 30A, City of Salem Board of Appeals Agenda for May 21,2014 Meeting Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses and Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a clog daycare business and the fencing of the outside space. Apphcant: G. RACHEL HILL Location: 1 FLORENCE STREET (R3 Zoning District) Project: Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single- and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the addition of a covered porch and rear steps,as well as raising the roofime of the existing structure. Applicant: CHAPMAN MILLER Location: 13 GRAFTON STREET (RI Zoning District) Project: Petition special permit per Sec 9.4.2 Special Permits—Criteria and Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming Uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a real estate consulting office in a building currently in a nonconforming use,at the property located at Applicant: RODNEY SINCLAIR Location: 107 FEDERAL STREET (R2 Zoning District) Project Petition requesting a special permit per Sec 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single-and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow a 20'-9"x 16'-11" single-story addition to the existing residence and Bed&Breakfast. Applicant: PHILIP MARCHAND Location: 47 SUMMER STREET (112 Zoning District) • IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 • _ -_ __ NOTICE OF MEETING ^W You me lxaeby notlft�l that the Salem Plamang Baud udl bold its ngdmly sdx clidal nEetitg oui-bturs d , October 21, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall A wEv, Rim�,,pp313,"�120 Masbitgton Sdset Cl,mles Al. Pudeo, Clyuir. _y REVISED MEETING AGENDA 'U 71 1. Approval of Minutes 9/16/10 Planning Board meeting minutes A 2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307),Salem, MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attomey Joseph Correnti. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 18, 2010. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood I-Lizard District Special Permit for an approximately4.8 acre part of the propertylocated at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7,Lot 79),Salem,MA (proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). 4. Request for Endorsement of a Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- Fomn A: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for the propertylocated at 4 TECHNOLOGY\VAY. (Map 7,Lot 79). • 5. Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for a Wetlands and Flood I-lazaud District Special Permit for the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY(Map 7, Lot 79),Salem,MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approxumtely 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). 6. Continuation of discussion: Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7.17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock will, or to move the guardrail inwards. 7. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Pernit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Pennit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2, 3 and 4),Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new,expanded Walmin store,expanded Mcitneke store, Qinnp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 8. Continuation of Public Heating: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood I-Lizard Overlay Dist ict Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem NIA. Attomey Joseph Correnti. 9. Old/New Business New Business: Request to extend final action on a Form A plan believed not to require approval, l2 Derby Street (petitioner Ian Hunter) to 11/9/10. 10, Adjoununent T63j3 wn'k 43 ;;' u r I$ cluja �4 3 al l)nl ' CITY SALEM CI1 Y Off" ,Sl�L��M . _ % P L,ANNIN BOARD IANO OCT NOTICE OF MEETINGCI7y r fr r.. , ;`. f7 y, You are hereby notifed that the Salenx Planning Board veil[bold its nytlarly sd ubilel nz-mT on Tburs day, October 21, 2010 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex,Rcorn313, 120 Washington Strom Charles M. Puleq CGxair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 9/16/10 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan Review,and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307), Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent,renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). AttomeyJoseph Correnti. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 18, 2010. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing:Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for an approximately 4.8 acre part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7,Lot 79),Salem,MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. £t. of light industrial space). • 4. Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the propertylocated at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY(Map 7,Lot 79), Salem,MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). 5. Continuation of discussion:Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7.17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock wall,or to move the guardrail inwards. 6. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. 7. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. AttomeyJoseph Correnti. 8. Old/New Business • New Business: Request to extend final action on a Form A plan believed not to require approval, 12 Derby Street (petitioner Ian Hunter) to 11/9/10. 9. Adjournment This noft® p$€, pd on "MN n0 Bvtl °i, Baan °° „� , AA ,44 Ch aaoo. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS � d DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ��Pf1lV4�d�P COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Kiwi:RLLY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECTOR TELE: 978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: October 14, 2010 RE: Agenda- October 21, 2010 meeting Please find the following in your packet: i Planner's Memo Agenda • : Materials for Agenda Items 9/30/10 Planning Board Meeting Minutes Notes on Agenda Items: Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock wall, or to move the guardrail inwards. I am enclosing correspondence provided by Tony Tiro from a contractor and from Lou Robito, PE, from Mass DOT (Highway Division) explaining in detail why installing the guardrail to the ledge presents problems. I am also enclosing a memo from David Knowlton- he concurs with the Mass DOT and contractor's opinions that the guardrail installation is not feasible. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, • INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property 1 located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. • We expect the applicant to present renderings and discuss landscaping and buffering. The applicant is also currently working on a revised engineering report that takes into account the changes to the site presented at the last meeting (change in driveway location, reduction of paved area, etc.). Our peer reviewer will be reviewing this new report once it is submitted. I am enclosing an email opposing the project— I have received 229 copies of it as of today. On October 12, the Board of Health voted to approve the plan with the following conditions: 1. 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 copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. 4. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP,Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. • 5. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. 6. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the cry Engineer. 7. 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. 8. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. 9. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. 10. 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. 11. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 12. 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 and as further interpreted in the MA Department of Environmental Protection noise pollution policy and 310 CMR 7.10 . • 2 13. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. • 14. 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. 15. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. 16. Proposed food establishments must have their plans reviewed by the Health Agent prior to their build-out. 17. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review for an approximately 4.8 part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY(Map 7, Lot 79), Salem,MA(proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). It was discovered since our last meeting that this project requires a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit because construction is planned for the wetland buffer area. The applicant has submitted a WFH special permit application, which is enclosed in your packet. It was routed to Engineering,Fire, Conservation, Building and Health. The applicant also submitted revised site plans in response to Board comments about the need to reduce the • parking area (at least until such time as the business expands and more parking is needed), and these are included in your packet. The departments had the following comments: The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and requested some additional information from the applicant's engineer prior to the meeting. However,we still expect the project could be ready for a vote on the 21". Lt. Griffin (Fire Marshall) is comfortable using the standard language that all requirements of the Fire Dept. are to be adhered to; she has no special conditions. The Conservation Agent commented only that the project's Notice of Intent is under review by the Conservation Commission and DEP. The Board of Health approved the project at their October 12 meeting, with the following conditions: 1. 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. • 3 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 copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. 4. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP,Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. 5. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. 6. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. 7. 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. 8. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. 9. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. 10. 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. 11. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 12. 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. 13. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. 14. 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. 15. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. 16. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. I am also enclosing a letter from a resident opposing the project. Note: Tim Ready kindlydrafted a letter from the Board commending Tom Devine for his work • over the summer. I have enclosed the draft for your review before I submit it. 4 MEETING MINUTES 10/21/10. • A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 21, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair, Mark George, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present:Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:08 pm Approval of Minutes The minutes from the September 30, 2010 meeting were reviewed. No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides moved to approve, Christine Sullivan seconded. Approved 9-0. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307), Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti. APPLICANT REQUESTS • TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 18, 2010. Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, requested that the Board allow the matter to continue to the second meeting in November in order to internally vet the changes to the pharmacy plan. Helen Sides moved to continue, Mark George seconded. All approved, 8-0 with Nadine Hanscom abstaining from voting. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review and,a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for an approximately 4.8 acre part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7, Lot 79), Salem, MA (proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY (Map 7, Lot 79), Salem, MA (proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space). Donald Seaberg, the project's engineer, presented the plan,which is on file at the Department of Planning& Community Development and hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. He stated that they eliminated spaces from 108 to 78 with the expectation that the land can be developed later. The revisions presented also included a retaining wall, and the catch basins which have been moved, as a result of their meeting with the Conservation Commission. • After describing the changes in the parking,Mark George asked if the snow removal would remain in the same areas, to which Mr. Seaberg responded in the affirmative. Christine Sullivan asked if the paving would still occur and Mr. Seaberg stated that it would continue on the road to allow trucks to get in. 1 Chuck Puleo asked how this would affect the drainage system capabilities, and Mr. Seaberg stated that the drainage capabilities are improved because there's less pavement. Mr. George asked about the results of their • meeting with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Seaberg stated that they are scheduled to have a site walk on 28"of October with the Conservation Commission. He additionally stated that they have gone before the Board of Health and the conditions were approved. Issue opened a0 forpublic comment Dennis Colbert, 37 Clark St, asked about the height of building with regard to the cliffs in the back and if there were mechanicals on the roof? Mr. DiLullo described the height of the building at different points and stated that the mechanicals will be built inside of the building. Motion to close the public hearing by Christine Sullivan, Mark George seconded. All approved 9 —0. Danielle McKnight reviewed the draft decision for this portion of the project. There was a brief discussion about what the Board would like to see included in the plan and the decision on curbing. Mr. Puleo asked if there is a plan for sloped granite curbing in the parking lot? Mr. Seaberg said no, that he is proposing a bituminous berm internally throughout. Mr. Puleo then asked if details for slope granite can be included instead,which Mr. Seaberg agreed to include. Mr. Puleo recommended that this should be included in the decision; specifically that the curbing matches the other side of the street. Ms. McKnight made a note that the applicant is to submit a curbing plan to match the other side of Technology Way in the plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Ms. Sullivan stated that she would like the City Electrician to comment on the lighting plan in regards to safety, in the back parts of lot. Ms. Duncan recommended including language that stated that the plan will be review and approved by the City Electrician for safety purposes. Motion to approve by Christine Sullivan, seconded by Chuck Puleo. Approved 9-0. (Decision is attached to these minutes.) Request for Endorsement of a Plan Believed Not to Require Approval—Form A: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7, Lot 79). Mr. Seaberg presented the plan,which is on file at the Department of Planning& Community Development and hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Board members had questions about the lot numbering, since the Land Court lots on the plan are different numbers from the lots assigned by the Assessor. Mr. Seaberg clarified that the Land Court designated Lot 739 as the new lot (which was 727 & 728 formerly), where the building and parking area are. Mr. Seaberg explained that more of the land would be parceled off and .separated as new projects were proposed for 4 Technology Way. Motion to approve by Christine Sullivan, seconded by Randy Clarke. Approved 9-0. (Decision is attached to these minutes.) Continuation of discussion: Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock wall, or to move the guardrail• inwards. 2 Chuck Puleo read an email from the city engineer who based his decision on Mass Highway's opinion, confirming that the state does not mount guardrail to ledge for safety reasons. Issue opened ap forpublic comment Susan Howland, 3 Thomas Circle, recommended that the conversation should be focused on the width of the road. Currently, there is not enough room on the road to allow fire engine and car on road. She implored the board to devise a solution to make Thomas Circle a 20 foot wide road. Mr. Puleo stated that had the engineer looked at the state requirement for widening and blasting out the ledge and noted that had the original engineer looked more closely at the plan, he would have realized that the guardrail could not go in. Ms. Howland again stated that she would like something to be done to widen the road, which is a safety issue. Ms. Sullivan questioned if she could still donate her land to the city,would it only widen road at corner, to which Mr. Puleo said only at the corner could Ms. Howland donate her land,but that would not create a 20 foot wide road. Mark George asked if this would create a zoning issue by creating a nonconforming lot, to which Ms. McKnight responded that there was no definitive answer on that yet. Ms. Duncan stated that the building inspector asked the assistant city solicitor about this but does not have answer at this time. John Moustakis reminded the board that the request for an insignificant change—to eliminate the guardrail -is before the board, not the question of the land donation. Randy Clarke questioned and discussed with the Board the options available at this time in terms of boulder removal: Mr. George stated that all the Board is charged with determining for this meeting is relief from the guardrail. Ms. Sullivan questioned what the original decision was in 2000. The board reviewed the original decision from 2000 and continued discussing the requirements. The board discussed the layout of the road and • what options are available. Tim Ready stated that the most relevant issue, which is the recommendation of the city engineer,is that the plan will allow for an 18 to 19 foot road in this area and it is acceptable. Mr. Puleo read from the original decision which stated that Thomas Circle should be widened no less than 18 feet in that area. Ms. Howland stated that there was a Memorandum of Understanding issued later for the plan dated on 4/4/2006. She reiterated that she wants to move forward and have road done correctly. Mr. Clarke stated that the original decision is very clear. Mr. Puleo further stated that the Memorandum of Understanding was not worked out with the Planning Board. Ms. Howland stated that there were other plans approved in 2006. Ms. McKnight stated that Mr. Tiro made attempts to do the installation of the guardrail and then brought it to the attention of the board when he realized that it was not feasible to do it as approved. Mr. Puleo said that the fence installation people and MassHighway stated that Mr. Tiro made efforts to put in guardrail but found it unsafe. Tim Ready presented a motion to allow an insignificant change to eliminate the guardrail, as recommended by the city engineer and the Department of Transportation, Mark George seconded. Approved 9-0. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. • 3 Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Cortenti. • Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing Kennedy Development Group,provided a quick update on the plans. They have worked closely with both peer review consultants (engineering and traffic) responding to recommendations regarding the big issues,particularly the drainage concerns and the revised site layout. The big feature is the Camp Lion driveway that has been proposed to be removed. The benefits of the driveway removal were particular to drainage and noise-buffering. Traffic implications have been part of the Department of Transportation review. It is his expectation that in the next meeting or two, they will have the best proposal and the final proposal. Tonight's focus will be on the landscaping plan which will show different views of project presented by Austin Turner of Tetra Tech Rizzo and Matt Smith of Bohler Engineering. Austin Turner,Tetra Tech Rizzo, 1 Grant St, Framingham, showed a PowerPoint presentation; slides are on file at the Department of Planning& Community Development and are hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. The discussion focused on landscaping features as well as a visibility analysis,which was a balloon test conducted at the end of August. A focus of the landscaping efforts was examining how to maintain a significant buffer around the project,which included minimizing the footprint of the development. Site improvements included: a site entrance amended to include a larger and longer median, added plantings in back of Lowes building, the parking lot to be landscaped with vegetation, a solid ledge wall as part of water improvements, and a tiered retaining wall to support the Lowes parking lot. Chuck Puleo asked about the elevation behind the top of the wall at the parking lot level and Mr. Turner stated that the plantings are about 4 or 5 feet above parking lot. Mr. Puleo stated that when the Planning Board approved the Home Depot, they put double row of trees to fill in faster;he asked if that is an option. Mark George asked for clarification on the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Turner stated that it's about 15 feet eace which is 30 feet in total from street to parking lot. Mr. George clarified further that if the building is included, there is about 60 feet above access roadway grade to the top of the building, to which Mr. Turner responded in the affirmative. Mr. Turner further clarified that Meineke will not be moved. Matt Smith, of Bohler Engineering, said that Wal-Mart is not as dramatic in grade change but there are some grade changes, increasing from 0 to 8 feet,which is done with sloping. Youngstown Junipers will be planted, so when entering the site one will see trees rather than cars. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the grade changes. Mr. Smith stated that the parking lot is sunken, and from parking lot, the grade increases by one foot. Mr. Puleo recommended that the Board see a straight-on view of the proposed Wal-Mart store from Highland Ave, similar to what was presented for the Lowe's site. Mr. Clarke asked if the Board can get a better picture that shows how high the new wall will be from the street. Ms. Hanscom asked for clarification of what she would see driving into Wal-Mart. Mr. Smith described the view, stating that the grade goes from 117 at low point and then comes back up to 124 and looks flat. Mr. Turner stated that as a whole, the project incorporates 150 trees and 1350 new plantings and vegetation. He then moved on to the visibility study. Mr. Turner described the visibility study which was conducted at the end of August. The study analyzed the visibility from ten different locations with balloons in three locations (Grapevine Circle,Belleaire Avenue,Apple Hill Lane) that were raised to the height of the roof line of the proposed building. Ms. Sullivan asked if this was the equivalent of 60 feet above Highland Ave, to which Mr. Turner responded in the affirmative. Mr. Turner further explained that if you could see the balloon,you would see the roof Mr. Moustakis commented that the pictures showed what the vegetation looks like in summer,but asked what it will look like in the winter. He also asked if they are going to add anything to the vegetation in anticipation of the winter. Mr. Turner stated that not all of the vegetation is deciduous, there is a significant amount that will be coniferous and that they will hae landscaping along the back half to three-quartets of the Lowe's building. Mr. Puleo asked for the reasoning 4 behind putting vegetation halfway down, to which Mr. Turner stated that at the time, it was thought that this would be the most visible. Mr. George stated that it is difficult to get a handle on how the building is going to look with these pictures. Mr. Turner stated that this was the reason that there were 6 foot wide balloons flown • at a g height of what the building would be. Ms. Sides Ms. Hanscom and Ms. Sullivan commented that the g pictures show that the building will not be seen. Mr. Clarke asked about planting more deciduous trees so as to not see the building during any other time of the year. Mr. Turner stated that they are planning on planting coniferous trees around the site. Mr. Turner also presented a cross-view of the project to highlight the elevation, the buffers of the existing vegetation and the future vegetation in relation to the distance of the neighbors. Mr. Clarke asked for clarification on the existing camp road. Mr. Turner stated that the camp road is being removed and landscaped, and with the driveway removed, they can enhance the buffer while keeping the existing vegetation. Mr. Correnti stated that the cross-section diagram presented helps describe the sequencing of the two developments together. He acknowledged that the balloon test is not the end all-be all. He will not ever say that this building is not going to be seen. The developers are trying to be cognizant of the visual impacts on the neighbors. Mr. Moustakis commented that vegetation is very important and shrubs take years to grow,which means that the landscaping should be left open to improvements. Mr. Correnti stated that they get the point about screening and they are continuing to work on this. Ms. Sides stated that the pictures do show what the Board asked for. She said that by the nature of the topography, the site is very visible from Salem side, and less so from the Lynn side. Ms. Hanscom stated that she can see how far everything is and is glad they did this with the balloons. She also said that the Board is not just going by pictures; the Board has done hours of homework visiting and looking at the area. Ms. Sullivan echoed Nadine's comments adding that the vegetation adds quite a lot of buffer. Mr. George asked if there is a buffer between the Highland Condominiums and site. Mr. Correnti said yes, there is quite a buffer of trees there now and will remain there. Issue opened up forpublic comment • Tom Demakis, trustee of Apple Hill subdivision, said that virtually all of the trees there are deciduous and all the trees shown in the balloon study will lose leaves in another month. He stated that the balloon test was done on a very hot day, and the balloons exploded due to heat, thus the pictures do not show what it will really look like when the building is completed. Mr. Demakis asks for another balloon test in a month. He has retained another engineer,who, along with Mr. Turner,will tell the Board that once the leaves are off the trees the Lowe's will be visible from most points from the Apple Hill subdivision. They will not be able to screen the Lowe's with mature trees. They could lower the grade on the roof from 30 feet to 20 feet but that would be cost-prohibitive. He suggested another option is to build a berm. He noted that the Apple Hill development has been severely devalued and he is strongly opposed to the project. He urges the Board that if this is passed, the Board passes this with the mitigation to protect health,welfare, safety, and privacy. He said that they will need a sound barrier wall and appropriate screening; and for safety it needs a traffic signal for those neighbors directly impacted. Paul Lynch, Ironworkers representative, thanks the Board for their questions and states his support for the project because it will bring jobs to the area. He spoke about his members who are in desperate need of jobs. The Board then asked the audience if there were more comments about landscaping. Katerina Palengiatakis, Ocean Ave,Lynn said that the balloon tests are useless since the project will be taking away trees. Losing the trees will cause the sound to be horrible. Attorney Correnti clarified that the tress shown in the slides will remain. There are 150 feet of trees behind the project and some will come down. However the trees in the balloon test will be staying. • 5 Thomas Kennedy, Kennedy Development Grouping, 500 Broadway Everett,MA stated that the road will not be there and the tree line will still exist. There is part of a subdivision that sits on Highland Avenue and the recommended sound test will not prove anything when there is already a certain sound from Highland Avenulo Pat Liberti, 3 Lyons Lane, Salem, MA recommended that a double row of trees be put along building. She commends the developers for listening to all of the comments. William Trahant Jr., Ward 2 Councilor,Lynn requested that the balloon test be done again in a month. He also asked about dirt to build a berm into the bushes. Mr. Correnti stated that this would be taken under consideration. Dan Quintiliani,Lynn, stated that they do not need to do another balloon test. He stated that they do not need to hide the store, they need to build the store before the winter comes and there are more delays. He said that property values will not go down because of a store,property values will go down because of a lack of jobs. It's more important to get people to work. He spoke of the importance of bringing jobs and tax dollars to the area. Tim Fandell, Scituate resident,Vice President of North Shore Building Trades, commended the developer for incorporating design changes and green technology. Deborah Smith Walsh, 16 Coolidge Rd.,Lynn, asked about drainage issues coming across Western Avenue and the traffic impact. Mr. Puleo and Ms. Hanscom stated that these were issues that were discussed at the previous meeting and will be addressed again at future meetings. Calvin Anderson, 12 Concord Street, Lynn asked if they are going to hire local labor, to which Mr. Puleo and Ms. Hanscom stated that it is not a planning board issue. • Denise Quintiliani,Lynn, emphasized the need for building this to create jobs in this area. She stated that the land behind Camp Lion is very fertile and the trees will grow, so it's more important to get the project off the ground and bring the jobs to the area. Ward 4 Councilor,Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, Salem, said that he didn't think it would make a difference, but thought it would be a good idea to do the balloon tests within the next month. But he again stressed that he doesn't think it's going to make a difference. Richard Brandell,Ridgeway Court, Lynn asked if they are going to compensate for removed trees and wind blown trees. Motion made to continue hearing to November 4`h by Nadine Hanscom, seconded by John Moustakis. Approved 9-0. Old/New Business New Business: Request to extend final action on a Form A plan believed not to require approval, 12 Derby Street (petitioner Ian Hunter) to 11/9/10. Motion made by John Moustakis to approve to the extension, seconded by Mark George. Approved 9-0. Adjournment • Nadine Hanscom made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mark George. Approved 9-0. 6 Site Plan Review and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District • Decision October 27, 2010 On September 30, 2010, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY, Salem, MA, at the request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for construction of a new two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space and associated parking. Site is approximately 4.8 acres of the larger parcel. The Public Hearing was continued to October 21, 2010 and was closed on that date. In considering approval of the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, the Planning Board found that the proposed project met the requirements of the Overlay District, as stated in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The original application included 108 parking spaces. However,in the course of Site Plan Review, the Planning Board suggested that the parking area should be reduced, since the size of the project did not warrant so many spaces, and eliminating some of them would increase the amount of green area and pervious surface on the site. Subsequently, the applicant revised the plans to reduce the parking area to 78 spaces. Should the building require additional parking in the future, the Planning Board also approves the parking plan as shown on the original plans dated August 17, 2010, prior to revisions. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on October 21, 2010, the Planning Board, based on the information contained in the application and presented at the hearings,voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor (Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George,Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, and Helen Sides), and none (0) opposed, to approve the Site Plan Review application and the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plans Work shall conform to the following plans: "'United States Biological"' Salem Business Park in Salem,MA," dated August 17, 2010 and last revised on October 21, 2010,prepared by Benchmark Engineering Corp., 120 Quarry Drive, Milford Massachusetts 01757, 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. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved ser of plans. b. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. 4. The applicant guarantees the vegetation for a period of two (2) years. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. 7 b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Electrician for review and approval for safety prior to the issuance of a building permit. . 6. 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. 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 Mana eg ment Plan". I. The applicant shall promptly notify the Board of Health of any environmental condition encountered during construction that may adversely impact the abutters to the site. 7. 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. 8. Maintenance of Stormwater System Applicant is to submit an Operations and Management Plan for the stormwater system, including 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. 9. 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. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. d. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. e. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. I. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. g. 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. • h. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. 8 i. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. • j. 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. k. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 1. 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. m. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. n. 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. o. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. p. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 10. Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 11. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 12. Utilities Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a J&uilding Permit 13. City Engineer Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer,including the following specific conditions: a. Applicant is to provide documentation to the City Engineer for approval detailing the water needs and sewer flows of the facility, prior to issuance of a building permit. b. Applicant is to submit revised plan detail showing the retaining wall designed and stamped by a professional engineer to the City Engineer for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. c. Applicant is to submit revised plans showing separate fire service and domestic services to the City Engineer for approval,prior to issuance of a building permit. 14. Exterior Elevations Elevations shall be in accordance with the approved plans. 15. 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. 16. As-built Plans As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the PlanningDepartment and engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 17. Violations 9 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. 18. Special Conditions • Applicant is to provide detail for sloped granite curbing along the street from lot line to lot line to match the other side of Technology Way, for approval by the City Engineer,prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 Pennit 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. Puleo, Chairman • Form A—Decision 4 Technology Way On October 21, 2010, the Salem Planning Board voted 9-0 (Charles Puleo,Tim Kavanaugh,John Moustakis,Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Mark George in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: "Plan of Land in Salem, MA being a Subdivision of Lots 727 & 728, LC Plan #10802-56" 1. Applicant: Swampscott Realty LLC 2. Location: 4 Technology Way, Salem,MA (Assessors Map 7,Lot 79) 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide the property located at 4 Technology Way, separating an approximately 4.8 acre parcel from the rest of the lot. Sincerely, Charles M. Puleo • Chair 10 Cc: &heryl LaPointe, City Clerk MINUTES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD 11/4/10 • • 11 1 • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board PlatiA vim, g� Date I o / 2-1 / f amMailing Address Phone # Email v ul i n a JJ ) 7N c (A(L 026 If1 LLdifi e614✓r,Lyo ) � pi_J sot 19g � �7Ff 2. -7 ? n w014 1 10ma-9 qk2 • pmn;,, c"Ac✓I J� C_�Gt-/� S/ �[ �` T,7 -/Ov/ (✓Lt,�G�-��Oh. 4 6/- -",tel cwvsrnL �7 8 Lee Stjpet,Salem (979) 74S 2593 51` se lew;,< '[78 7Yl o7Yy C ltlla ZGD l7rD L . •4 S- leo, GG7 Yeo 141ke Lor c-1 S= I Gl7— ZrZ—G��d� ?4v( S4 vv4,-1 '-/`- q7j -C iF-Vv5 f /s'dkno 2� 5'ALt7i/ 971 -7YiG-9 Tim F�AJ�� Page of • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date ID Name Mailing Address Phone # Email S4- 7115- �;-/j w, ,u brJ 9? I -S3S Sy S3 ✓/v ��i/u , -7/> v o�2 ST f� dn�y�- q ?� - q 24 • nA �6 n 4ye / �cWU,",4--) 3 Loa% Lu eto )igoa;-do -)ax)7,4 SS 8 road! 2 I ✓O 3q6 -llogj G/$9, rlYG 'A c AGS Qj�' Nc,il 23d i�A2C SY t�1,2. wog-�33 ^Z3�� wc�c�.ei�� @J¢�3�n•MP� a(7 �OuyFi � 11s�/ �S13c7 hrc�to Nyrvl�r� �1 wa<a 3 2%1� aF CldL �MIM/11 Page of City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board P10-AAYlA 6" Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email �AV �i �i��,1 .' S l Lu�_vr+ SL /V,,.aO?1vy ?tl --ZVcLJY.37 1��Qcters4� Qr�o/ Co+ � 1 ( C 1 /y at7ft a11Y A0 4a �c i Zc� /�!� (✓ ✓J 1�✓ M / ( Z (� l 7 J L( tip! P� GUl115on Sfi! • • Page of c CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD N co October 27, 2010 - N CO Tony Tiro Jl Tiro Development & Construction w 9 Gianna Drive cn Saugus, MA 01906 a- RE: Request to for insignificant change— elimination of guardrail from plan The Salem Planning Board met on September 30, 2010 to discuss the request of Anthony Tiro to eliminate the guardrail originally shown in the plan for Thomas Circle approved • on May 18, 2000 and amended July 24, 2006. The discussion was continued to October 21, 2010. On October 21, 2010, the Board, by a vote of nine (9) in favor (PUleO, MOUstakis, George, Clarke, Kavanaugh, Ready, Sullivan, Sides and Hanscom) and none opposed, voted to approve the request to eliminate the guardrail. Based on correspondence from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the Salem City Engineer, and an independent contractor contacted by Mr. Tiro, the Board found that installation of the guardrail as originally planned would be difficult, if not impossible, to install, and that it would be unsafe if installed, since there is apparently no safe method of securing the guardrail to the bedrock that exists alongside the road. Sincerely, 'P�/atitx Charles M. Puleo Chair CC: Cheryl La Pointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SAI.EM.COM CITY OF SALEM = � N PLANNING BOARD co -o Form A — Decision w 4 Technology Way 6 On October 21, 2010, the Salem Planning Board voted 9-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, John Moustakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Mark George in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: "Plan of Land in Salem, MA being a Subdivision of Lot's 727 & 728, LC Plan #10802-56" 1. Applicant: Swampscott Realty LLC 2. Location: 4 Technology Way, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 7, Lot 79) 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide the property located at 4 Technology Way, separating an approximately 4.8 acre parcel from the rest of the lot. • Sincerely, Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, .SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 WWW.SAI,ENI.COM CITY OF SALEM • ' � PLANNING BOARD - N n V �7 Co Site Plan Review and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay Distrief," Decision w October 27, 2010 Cr On September 30, 2010, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY, Salem, MA, at the request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for construction of a new two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space and associated parking. Site is approximately 4.8 acres of the larger parcel. The Public Hearing was continued to October 21, 2010 and was closed on that date. In considering approval of the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, the Planning Board found that the proposed project met the requirements of the Overlay District, as stated in the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The original application included 108 parking spaces. However, in the course of Site Plan Review, the Planning Board suggested that the parking area should be reduced, since the size of the project did not warrant so many spaces, and eliminating some of them would increase the amount of green area and pervious surface on the site. Subsequently, the applicant revised the plans to reduce the parking area to I 78 spaces. Should the building require additional parking in the future, the Planning Board also approves the parking plan as shown on the original plans dated August 17, 2010, prior to revisions. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on October 21, 2010, the Planning Board, based on the information contained in the application and presented at the hearings, voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor(Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, and Helen Sides), and none (0) opposed, to approve the Site Plan Review application and the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plans Work shall conform to the following plans: "'United States Biological"' Salem Business Park in Salem, NIA," dated August 17, 2010 and last revised on October 21, 2010, prepared by Benchmark Engineering Corp., 120 Quarry Drive, Milford Massachusetts 01757. 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 All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM b. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. a. The applicant guarantees the vegetation for a period of two (2) years. 5. 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 for sat ety prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. 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. 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 Manaeement Plan". 1. The applicant shall promptly notify the Board of Health of any environmental condition encountered during construction that may adversely impact the abutters to the site. 7. 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. 8. Maintenance of Storm eater System Applicant is to submit an Operations and Management Plan for the stormwater system, including a narrative describing the frequency of cleaning and maintenance of catch basins and Stonnceptors and clearly define responsible party for maintenance, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. 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 flan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for the site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. c. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. d. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. e. 'Che developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. f. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. g. 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. h. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. i. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. j. 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. k. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 1. 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. m. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. n. 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. o. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. p. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 10. Fire Department • All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 11. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 12. Utilities Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 13. City Engineer Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer, including the following specific conditions: a. Applicant is to provide documentation to the City Engineer for approval detailing the water needs and sewer flows of the facility, prior to issuance of a building permit. b. Applicant is to submit revised plan detail showing the retaining wall designed and stamped by a professional engineer to the City Engineer for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. e. Applicant is to submit revised plans showing separate fire service and domestic services to the City Engineer for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. 14. Exterior Elevations Elevations shall be in accordance with the approved plans. 15. 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 oft site. c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the applicant, his successors or assigns. 16. A,s-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. 17. 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. 18. Special Conditions Applicant is to provide detail for sloped granite curbing along the street from lot line to lot line to match the other side of Technology Way, for approval by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 tiled 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. Puleo, Chairman • 4 " CITY OF SALEM F£\ PLANNING BOARD Notice of Decisions At a special meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday, October 21, 2010 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: UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL Location: 4 Technology Way,Salem,MA Description: Site Plan Review,Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Waiver from Frontage Decision: Approved- Filed with the City Clerk October 28, 2010 This notice is Ding sent in conpliance wth the Massachusetts General L ac¢s, Chapter 40A, Section 9 and dogs not require action by the rn ipier2 A ppeals, if any, shall be nvde punsacant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be fzlecl within 20&y fivm the date vhiob the decision vas filed with the City Clerk.