2012-PLANNING BOARD CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
P -OUR
FILE N
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, December 20, 1012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street.
Charles M. Puleo, Choir
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
Y 12/6/12 meeting minutes and 12/4/12 Joint Hearing minutes
2. Continuation of Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC, for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan for five (5)single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA (Assessors
Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on
Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
3. Old/New Business
4. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 1-1028 through 1-2033.
' J 13U�t 6,0„ r
8�tt 1 ft*" f)n rL
Vow). 4q 17, rt.C, I,3, Zo
: 4d? , , .► Gw �
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, NIASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEhLCON1
5 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
9
Board p �a�n�Y�e. oaf
Date 1 -.2- / 'Z--O) / li
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Page of
t��i�frR9�
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
���rrnurcn�e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX: 978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: December 13, 2012
RE: Agenda— Decembers 2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
Planner's Memo
• ➢ Agenda
➢ 12/6/12 meeting minutes and 12/4/12 Joint Hearing minutes
Continuation of Public hearing: Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive
Subdivision Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE
ST., Salem, MA (Assessors Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to
serve two of the newly created lots on Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St.,
and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
Fire Prevention has confirmed that a proposed 18-foot private roadway is sufficient for safety
and access to lots 1 and 2, and they have no concerns about emergency vehicle access to any of
other the homes. However, the applicant still must meet with Engineering to review the
alteredIan with David Knowlton's requested changes. Mr. Delulis will like) meet with
P q g Y
Engineering Monday or Tuesday of next week, and so I will not be able to confirm before then
whether all the plan changes are satisfactory. If David Knowlton can confirm that he is satisfied
with the plans prior to our meeting, then I will come to the meeting with draft conditions for
approval, should the Board be ready to vote.
•
A
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES 12/20/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready, Lewis Beilman, Mark George, and Randy Clarke.
Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Those absent were: John Moustakis, Vice Chair, George McCabe, and Helen Sides.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:12 pm.
Approval of Minutes
December 4, 2012 Joint hearing draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Mark George motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Ready. All approved 5-0.
December 6, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.Tim Ready motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Mark George. All approved 5-0.
• Continuation of public hearing: Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive
Subdivision Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE
ST., Salem, MA (Assessors Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to
serve two of the newly created lots on Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St.,
and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Revised site plan last dated 12/16/12
Patrick Delulis, 18 Thorndike Street, introduced himself and Frank Delulis. They had been waiting for
some feedback from city departments. They have gotten an approval from the Fire Department on the
narrowing of the driveway. Scott Patrowicz, the Site Engineer, has gotten the approval from the
Engineering Department. They now have the grading completed on the plan. Mr. Puleo asked for
clarification on the width issue about the private way, and asked if that included the driveway to which
Mr. Delulis said it was just the private way and the Fire Department had to approve the reduction in the
width of the private way in relation to where the fire hydrant will be located.
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, stated that the new fire marshal, Lt. Lemelin, stated verbally that all of
the issues had been addressed, there were no issues of emergency vehicle access to any houses, and the
plan was to their satisfaction. Mr. Delulis reviewed some water connection changes in relation to valves
and manholes. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Delulis to clarify the changes to the pavement to which Mr. Delulis
described on the plan and the relation to the private way.
•
• Randy Clarke asked if they addressed the access around #5. Ms. McKnight responded that fire and
engineering had no problem with the access.
Tim Ready stated that he ran into the fire department while they were at the site and they were all over
the lot.
Mr. Puleo asked if the plan of putting in swales was okay, Mr. Delulis explained that all of the surface
water will remain on site and said that the aqua brick will help and the soil should percolate as well.
They have never seen any flooding on the site in the last seven years.
Mr. Ready noted that no one is here to speak from the public and asked if the neighbors have been
notified. Ms. McKnight said abutters had been notified prior to the hearing opening. Mr. Delulis
responded that they have been in touch with the neighbors many times and Councilor Sosnowski has
also been out talking to neighbors and acting as an intermediary. Mr. Ready stated that based on that
then he is going to assume that there are no other overriding concerns. Mr. Delulis said most of the
issues were addressed with the Zoning Board.
Mr. Puleo asked if they need to go before the Conservation Commission, to which Mr. Delulis responded
that they have been to the Conservation Commission and they want to record everything
simultaneously. He noted that the only other issue was due to the riverfront zone and their only
request was to create some type of greenery. Mr. Puleo asked if this was for aesthetics and then asked
where does the wall stop in relation to the site. Mr. Delulis stated that they don't have the benefit of the
sound barrier of the wall, and said they would plant some kind of evergreen or berm which will be
• discussed with the conservation agent. Mr. Puleo then asked which sites were within their jurisdiction,
to which Mr. Delulis responded that three of the lots were within the jurisdiction and the only concern
was that they have some protection of the coastal bank. Mr. Puleo asked if there were restrictions on
lots and Mr. Delulis stated that it was just the standard restrictions which included hay bales during
construction and the create the berm.
Mr. Puleo asked about fire hydrants and sidewalk and Mr. Delulis pointed out where they are going to
update or create the sidewalk on the site. Mr. Puleo clarified where they are proposing cutting a
sidewalk, to which Mr. Delulis showed him on the map and added that there will be handicapped
curbing. He also noted that out on Thorndike Street they are going to put a catch basin. He showed Mr.
Puleo where there should be a notation on the plan for a new fire hydrant.
Puleo asked if they connect the fire hydrants to the main pipes. Mr. Frank Delulis said they wanted
more valves.
Mr. Puleo asked if the Board had any further questions. Mr. Delulis asked if the Health Department had
any comments, to which Ms. McKnight said that they did not submit any comments but there is
standard language in the draft decision that will require meeting any conditions the Health Department
may have.
Issue opened to the public for comment
No one from the public was present.
• Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Ready. All approved 5-0.
II i
l
Ms. McKnight read through the draft approval and noted that there are some waivers included which
• she reviewed as she read the draft of the approval. Mr. Puleo asked if the waivers are only in relation to
the private way. Ms. McKnight explained that the waivers are needed because he is creating a
subdivision and he is creating lots that have undersized frontage, which is part of the subdivision.
Ms. McKnight also reviewed the timeline for the covenant. Mr. Delulis stated that they will provide the
covenant. Danielle continued reviewing. Mr: Puleo asked for clarification on the timeline, to which Ms.
McKnight stated that this is a standard time frame, to which Mr. Puleo asked further if this is for water
and sewer. Mr. Frank Delulis stated that it's water only.
Mr. Delulis clarified that new utilities will be underground, but some can connect to overhead utilities
existing on the public ways. The Board discussed making the condition more clear. Danielle asked
which are the lots that will have above ground utilities. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification that there is a
pole that doesn't belong to them that is on the site. Mr. Delulis explained where the power comes
from. Randy asked if they could keep it the way it is and not be specific. It was decided to allow
connection to existing overhead utilities only from Hubon St. Randy asked for a standard condition on
traffic during construction, to which Ms. McKnight said she would add it.
Lewis Beilman made a motion to approve the application with the conditions reviewed, seconded by
Randy Clarke. All approved 5-0. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
Randy Clarke thanked Lewis Beilman for his service. Danielle McKnight also stated that she has
• accepted a position as the Town Planner for the town of North Reading and her last day would be
Thursday, December 27.
Adjournment
Tim Ready made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George. All approved 5-0. Chuck
Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:49 pm.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions
have been posted separately by address or project at litto.-Illsolem.com/PogesISolemMA PlonMin/.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
•
0
CITY OF SALEM
r
PLANNING BOARD
1011 OEC 2b AID ii
CITY CLERK,LE #
December 20, 2012 SALEM,MASS,
Corrected Decision - 18 Thomdike Street
Form C- Definitive Subdivision and Waiver from Frontage
On October 18, 2012, 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 Pasquanna
Developers, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant" and/or"Owner") to allow construction
of the proposed Subdivision and associated roadways and utilities. The subdivision contains five (5)
residential lots.
The hearing was continued to November 1,2012 (but was not heard on that date), November 15, 2012
(but was not heard on that date), December 6, 2012 (but was not heard on that date), and December 20,
2012. At the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on December 20, 2012 the public hearing was
closed and the Board voted by a vote of five (5) in favor(Charles Puleo, Timothy Ready, Lewis Beilman,
Randy Clarke and Mark George) and none (o) opposed,to approve the Form C Definitive Subdivision
and Waiver from Frontage, subject to the conditions below.
• 1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the following: The set of plans titled "Definitive Subdivision Plan,Site
Plan for 5 New Single-Family Houses at k 18 Thomdike Street, Salem, Massachusetts," prepared
by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering,dated September 26, 2012 and last revised
December 16, 2012.
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 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM
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. Roadway width: 24 feet is required; waived- 18 feet is approved
b. Planting strip: 3 feet is required; waived - no planting strip provided
c. Sidewalk: 5 feet is required;waived- no sidewalks provided
d. Curb: 6" vertical or sloped granite is required; waived- no curbing provided
e. Turnaround: 90-foot diameter is required; waived- no turnaround provided
f. Frontage: 100 feet of frontage is required; waivers for each lot are granted, as follows:
➢ Lot 1: 73 feet
➢ Lot 2: 53 feet
➢ Lot 3: 71 feet
➢ Lot 4: 39 feet
➢ Lot 5: 20 feet
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. The Board was advised by the
Departments of Engineering and Fire Prevention that the 18-foot roadwaywould be sufficient
for access. Sidewalks, planting strips, and curbing are waived in order to allow for drainage
• swales as shown on the plans.
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 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 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 run 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-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.
•
S. Salem Conservation Commission
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission, as
specified in Order of Conditions #64-538.
9. Office of the Building Commissioner
All work shall comply with th the requirements of the office of the Salem Building Corriinissioner
as affected by this decision.
10. Office of the City Engineer
The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer.
11.Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department as affected by this
decision.
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
14. Pre-Construction Conference
• 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 Corrunissioner,
3
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. 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.
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. 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 and Police Department 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.
4
• 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 bythe City, at the
expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns as is deemed necessary by the Cry Planner.
20. Utilities
Any utilityinstallation for housing lots shall be reviewed and approved bythe CiryEngineer
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All utilities shall be installed underground,with the
exception of those connecting to above-ground infrastructure already existing on Hubon Street.
21. As-built Plans & Street Plans
As-built plans and street plans,stamped by Registered Professional Engineer,shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of
Public Services prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision.
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.
• A completed tie.card, a blank copy(available at the Engineering Department) and a certification
signed and stamped bythe 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 bythe CityEngineer.
22. 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 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
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 Puleo
Chairman
5
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2012 C -5 P I: 20
IL
NOTICE OF MEETING
CITY CLERH, SALEM, MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 11/15/12 meeting minutes
2. Discussion and vote: Recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed amendment to include Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries in the definition of Medical Clinics in the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
• 3. Old/New Business
➢ New Business: Recommendation to MA Department of Environmental Protection regarding
issuance of a Chapter 91 License for MBTA garage
4. Continuation of Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS,INC.for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA(Assessors
Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on
Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St.,and access to two lots is from Hubon St. APPLICANT
REQUESTS TO CONTINUE HEARING TO DECEMBER 20,2011.
5. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2018 through 2-2033.
§t t"'^ 19191 10/
s QC 6r Z
0,114
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 WWW,SALEM.COM
• 4
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1011 NOV 30 A ID 32
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, December 6, 1012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 11/15/12 meeting minutes
2. Discussion and vote: Recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed amendment to include Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries in the definition of Medical Clinics in the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
• 3. Old/New Business
➢ New Business: Recommendation to MA Department of Environmental Protection regarding
issuance of a Chapter 91 License for MBTA garage
4. Continuation of Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA(Assessors
Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on
Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
5. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 4238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM
1
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1111 NOV 29 P 2: 2,1
FILE #
CITY CLERK. SALEM,MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, December 6, 1011 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Anne Room 313, 120 Washington Street.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 11/15/12 meeting minutes
2. Discussion and vote: Recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed amendment to include Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries in the definition of Medical Clinics in the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
• 3. Continuation of Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC.for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA(Assessors
Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on
Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 423B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
On 003"a1al 01j,
city Salem, m>r.3s. wl /V0q' z9 ulz'
y ;x�L yt; j1..VVV •.
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
•
�'�� • � ac'i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIM BERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: November 30, 2012
RE: Agenda — December 6, 2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Minutes from 11/15/12
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Discussion and vote: Recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed amendment to include
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the definition of Medical Clinics in the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Our joint hearing with City Council on this matter will be on December 4. A copy of the ordinance is
enclosed in your packet.
Old/New Business
➢ New Business: Recommendation to MA Department of Environmental Protection regarding
issuance of a Chapter 91 License for MBTA garage
The MBTA has requested that the Planning Board make a recommendation regarding the issuance of a
Chapter 91 license for the new garage. An excerpt of the project plans are included in your packet. We
recommend that the Board make the following findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to public rights in tidelands. In fact,the project will serve to
bring the public to the waterfront and provide enhanced access through the development of the
North River viewing area and other station elements that will encourage the public's access to
the tidelands area.
2. The project serves a proper public purpose. The enhanced station, including the new parking
garage, is an important element of the City's transportation and economic development plans,
•, and is a very important project for the City. The City of Salem has been working with the MBTA
for several years in order to advance the design and construction of the Salem Intermodal
Station project. The project is supported by the Salem Planning Board.
• Continuation of Public hearing: Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive
Subdivision Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE
ST., Salem, MA (Assessors Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to
serve two of the newly created lots on Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St.,
and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
Outstanding issues:
The applicant's engineer has met with our Engineering Department, and they are currently
trying to evaluate whether an 18-foot roadway (for the private way) might be advisable, rather
than the 20-foot roadway proposed. This is in response to feedback from our Engineering
Department that it would be better to provide a small buffer area between the swales on either
side of the road and the property lines. However, before making this recommendation,
Engineering is looking to the Fire Department to confirm there would be no safety/access
issues. Fire is still evaluating the issue, and we expect to hear from them early next week.
The following comments/questions from Engineering are still outstanding; the applicant has
been working to address them. I don't have a revised plan to include with your packet yet,
since a major part of the revisions would include an 18-foot roadway, if Fire recommends it.
However, these are the issues we are looking to resolve:
1. A drainage alteration plan is required per City Ordinance 38-286 to 289 because
• proposed grade change is greater than 2 feet. Describe overall drainage disposal;
especially at northern end at Bridge.
2. Show existing storm drain inlets in Thorndike or Hubon to be utilized.
3. What is the CB frame and Cover structure on Lot #2?
4. Add sewer MH at end of private way.
5. What is the roof drainage? What are the impacts?
6. Describe maintenance of the "Aqua-brick" pavers.
7. Will there be a buffer between swales and abutting properties to eliminate potential of
abutter flooding?
8. Handicap ramps should be on both sides of the private ways.
9. There should be a triple gate configuration at both Thorndike and Hubon at the
connection to the existing main (only one gate configuration is proposed).
10. Tapping sleeve is NOT allowed.
11. Are the soils are corrosive, and if so, does the water main then need protection?
12. Is there an AUL on the site? What are the limits of recharging Stormwater to
groundwater?
13. Six-inch sewer service pipe is required.
14. Is a hydrant needed on Hubon Street? (There is one shown between the two driveways
on Thorndike St. and another at the corner of Bridge St. and Hubon St. — I have asked
Chief Cody if this is sufficient and will let you know his response.)
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 12/6/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, December 6, 2012 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,Tim Ready, Lewis Beilman, Mark
George, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community
Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Absent: George McCabe.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:04 pm.
Approval of Minutes
November 15, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Tim Ready motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 7-0.
Discussion and vote: Recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed amendment to
include Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the definition of Medical Clinics in the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
• Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Draft ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance definition of medical clinics
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, gave a review of the meeting with the
City Council and the recommendation process. She stated that the City Council is not taking this issue
up this evening, which is its only meeting in December. Chuck Puleo asked Ms. Duncan to provide more
information about the ordinance that was put in place last year. She stated that when the Planning
Board made recommendations to the Council regarding medical clinics last year, and when Council
passed it, the ordinance specified medical clinics would be allowed by ZBA special permit only in
business zones, not residential zones. The way the ordinance stands now, dispensaries are already
included in that definition of medical clinics.
Helen Sides asked why pharmacies are not dispensers. Mr. Puleo stated that the law requires that they
are dispensed by a non-profit.
Mark George stated that he feels that it is premature to put a recommendation forth when the
regulations haven't been written by MADPH. He is of the opinion that they should hold off. Randy
Clarke agreed. Ms. Duncan stated that the City Council has to act within 90 days, and MADPH probably
won't have regulations in 90 days.
Mr. Ready said he is in favor of Mr. George's suggestion to wait on this. He feels that there is no rush for
• them to act now as they gain nothing. They truly do not have enough data to make an informed
decision and he recommends waiting until the state comes out with the regulations.
7
• Mr. Clarke agrees and he doesn't understand why they are being asked to make a decision on something
that hasn't been developed yet and feels that this is a waste of a process.
Mr. George asked if they could make a recommendation to City Council that they forestall the
recommendation until there is more information. Ms. Duncan said that they could make a
recommendation that they do not act until the state promulgates regulations. Mr. Puleo asked Ms.
Duncan if she feels good about the zoning, as it is worded, to which she said yes.
Randy Clarke made a motion to recommend that the City Council hold off on this amendment until
official regulations are created and distributed by MADPH, seconded by John Moustakis.All approved 7-
0. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
New Business: Recommendation to MA Department of Environmental Protection
regarding issuance of a Chapter 91 License for MBTA garage
Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Chapter 91 License Application, Salem Intermodal Station, prepared by Epsilon
Associates, dated 9/27/12
• Randy Clarke recused himself and left the room.
Ms. Duncan walked the board through the recommendation and summarized the review, noting
that the development of the station is going to enhance the area. They are in a unique situation
with tourists and commuters. Mr. Puleo noted that this is long overdue.
Helen Sides motioned to recommend approval of the Chapter 91 license, seconded by Tim
Ready. All approved 6-0. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Mr. Moustakis asked if there was a discussion of putting a walkway under the road, to which Ms.
Duncan said yes, but it was decided against because of the cost and safety concerns. Mr.
Moustakis said that he was thinking about the lighted intersection and how it impacts traffic.
Mr. George asked what's the sense on the city's part to how long DEP will respond to which Ms.
Duncan said that she does not have time frame in front of her, but the MBTA is moving forward.
She said the archaeological dig is underway. They are moving along and should be done with
that before the end of the month. She concluded by noting that this project coincides with the
paving of the Universal Steel site for parking.
Randy Clarke returned to-the room.
Mr. Puleo asked what happens after the archaeological dig. Ms. Duncan stated that they are
doing extensive documentation with photographs and further described the process.
• Public hearing: Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem,
• MA (Assessors Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of
the newly created lots on Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to
two lots is from Hubon St. APPLICANT REQUESTED TO CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 20, 2012.
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, stated that the applicant is still waiting feedback from engineering and
fire.
John Moustakis made a motion to accept the applicant's request to continue to December 20, 2012,
seconded by Randy Clarke.All approved 7-0.
Adjournment
Tim Ready made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 7-0. Chuck
Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:33pm.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions
have been posted separately by address or project at http://Solem.com/PagesISo/emMA PlonMin/.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
• Approved by the Planning Board 12/20/12
•
'r
my CITY OF SALEM
'? PLANNING BOARD
1811 DEC -I q ID 20
CITY CLERK, ALEM, MASS,
December 7, 2012
Report to City Council
At its meeting on December 6, 2012, the Planning Board voted to recommend as follows on
the proposed zoning amendment:
To see if the City Council will amend Section 10-00
Ordinance by inserting the phrase "including the dispensingiof medi al aritions of iju,na by e City a treatment eSalem mg
center registered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health,"
immediately following the phrase "for the dispensing of medication" as it appears in the second
sentence of the definition for Medical Clinics.
The Planning Board voted seven (7) in favor (Charles Puleo,John Moustakis, Randy Clarke,
Lewis Beilman, Tim Ready, Mark George and Helen Sides) and none (0) opposed to recommend
• that the City Council take no action on the proposed amendment until official regulations regarding
medical marijuana dispensaries are promulgated by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
In making this recommendation, the Planning Board considered that policies regarding local
permitting for medical marijuana dispensaries had not yet been created by the Commonwealth, and
so the Board did not have sufficient information to make an informed recommendation with regard
to the proposed zoning amendment.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Lynn Duncan at
the Department of Planning& Community Development at (978) 619-5685.
Yours truly,
Charles M. Puleo
Chair
0
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, ibIASSACHUSETTS 01970 . PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 973.740.0404 ' WlV4V.SAL.EiM.COM
�coNatTq�o
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board u A� `�
Date 12- / c-
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Pap—L of�
CITY OF SALEM
u9 PLANNING BOARD
OV 20 A � 39
FILE li
CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS.
k'
CITY OF SALEiNI
NOTICE
JOINT PUI3LIC HEARING
OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 4, 1012
7:00 P.IbI.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Salem will
conduct a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council on Tuesday, December 4,
2012 at 7:00 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 taking up an Amendment to the
City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.0 Definitions, by inserting the
phrase `including the dispensing of medical marijuana by a treatment center
registered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public
Health," immediately following the phrase "for the dispensing of medication'as
it appears in the second sentence of the definition for Medical Clinics.
The complete teat of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
s on file in the Planning Department at 120 Washington Street, 3`a floor, and is
available for inspection during regular business hours.
CHARLES PULEO
ADV. Salem News CHAIR
11-20-12 & 11-27-12
. .��� 3aCI;�",. ,y�ai S$ F ..��Ci\ u%: �!* 5{
kvq
120 W'.�snl>:arkk,v Sreee:r S:At.k<,vi -.
til, SSACfic::b:7�9 01970 . 1.1 1 : 978 745.9595 Rn,t: 978.740.040-F • w`,atyI,
Ij
AI I.:," w, ti
• JOINT SALEM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
12/4/12
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00
p.m. in City Hall, Council Chambers, Second Floor, at 93 Washington Street, Salem,
Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Randy Clarke, Tim Ready,
Mark George. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent:
George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, and Helen Sides.
City Council President Joan Lovely opened the meeting at 7:00 pm.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Draft ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance definition of medical clinics
President Lovely reviewed the wording of the zoning amendment in question in regards to
• zoning for medical marijuana dispensaries. She asked Chuck Puleo to introduce the members
of the Planning Board, which he did.
Beth Rennard, City Solicitor, gave an overview of the ordinance. She gave the history of the
ordinance, referring to the medical clinic amendment passed last year, and saying this revision
would specify that medical marijuana facilities would be included. The Massachusetts
Department of Public Health (MADPH) has been developing regulations and there will not be
any licensed marijuana dispensaries until January of 2014, hence they want to address how
these facilities will be treated if they come before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Council President Lovely asked Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community
Development, to review what zones these dispensaries could go in, to which Ms. Duncan
described the areas.
Councilor Sosnowski stated his support for the new wording.
Councilor Furey spoke about the devastation caused by drug abuse. He thinks a hospital should
take over this and asked Ms. Duncan if a hospital could take this over in terms of the current
zoning. She stated that the hospital is currently zoned mostly residential and they are looking
at adjusting their own zoning. Councilor Furey then asked Ms. Rennard what she thought and
she responded that Ms. Duncan's explanation was accurate and the head of the hospital has
• spoken with the city about changing the zoning.
• Councilor Prevey asked what dispensaries look like and how these places would operate. Ms.
Rennard said that it is too early to tell as they are waiting on the MADPH to promulgate
regulations and she could not speculate.
Councilor O'Keefe asked if a dispensary is defined in the statute, to which Ms. Rennard said she
was not sure, but she would have to look.
Councilor Carr asked if they would be held to the state requirements to which Ms. Rennard
cited a case in Michigan where a town tried to prohibit the dispensaries and they found that the
state law preempted the town stating that the state had a right to protect the health and
welfare of its residents but local governments can make further regulations. Councilor Carr
noted that this conflicts with federal law.
Councilor Turiel stated that society is moving towards a greater acceptance of these
dispensaries. He thinks the solution is an effective one; more to the point, this is the better
path to take. He also noted the conflicts in law between city and state.
President Lovely described the business district in her neighborhood, and she asked Ms.
Duncan what is to prevent someone from opening a dispensary next to a home that is built in a
business district. Ms. Duncan responded that if there is to be a proposed dispensary, there
• would be a discretionary permit by the Board of Appeals and used last year's proposed
methadone clinic as an example. She also noted that the methadone clinic did not go forward
due to conflicts in traffic generation and children walking to school. The Board of Appeals could
deny due to the location of homes. Ms. Rennard said that this may be a two step process in
terms of the issuing of the regulations and how this will impact zoning.
Counilor Sargent it's not unusual for communities to put in required distances between certain
business and residences it's important to think about that.
Councilor Carr asked Ms. Rennard what controls would be in place at a local level to which Ms.
Rennard stated that there is a county limit and a state limit.
Councilor McCarthy then asked Ms. Rennard about an outright ban. Ms. Rennard responded
that in her opinion that cities and towns can enact ordinances but not those that conflict with a
general law and a ban would be such a conflict.
Councilor O'Keefe stated that there is no age restriction in the current law, and he feels that
there is a flaw in the law. He disagrees with the law, but it was overwhelmingly approved in
Salem. He feels that they should wait until they hear more from the state before making a
decision.
• President Lovely opened the topic up to members of the audience. She asked for members of
the audience in favor of the ordinance to raise their hand and come to the podium to speak.
Terry Kalgren, owner of Artemesia Botanicals, 3 Hawthorne Blvd., says that she has customers
in need of pain relief who talk about the benefits of medical marijuana. These are not people
who are looking for gateway drugs. She has a customer that is sick with Parkinson's Disease
and cancer and the marijuana has helped her. She hates to think about people who are in pain
being denied this.
Mark George asked Ms. Rennard for clarification on the law, specifically if it is for the
cultivation in addition to distribution to which she responded in the affirmative.
Randy Clarke asked if it is correct that the referendum gives the responsibility of developing
regulations for marijuana dispensaries to MADPH to which Ms. Rennard said yes. His second
question asked how this would differentiate from a local pharmacy. Ms. Rennard stated that
the way a clinic is defined is in the ordinance and noted that this is strictly a dispensary. Ms.
Rennard recommended waiting for MADPH's regulations.
Councilor Carr asked what is the urgency is to move forward tonight. Ms. Rennard stated that
she does not see urgency, though she was contacted by one of the other councilors to address
this. She feels that they have language in place that they feel is sufficient for the moment.
Councilor Carr said he would not support this tonight but may support it down the road.
. Councilor Turiel said he thinks the currently-worded amendment is a good start for the time
being. If the regulations take shape,then at that time they can make the rules stricter once
they come out. This gives us the ability to regulate the treatment centers, of which there will
be five in Essex County, and he thinks it's a good idea.
Councilor Sosnowski noted that all they are doing is inserting a piece of wording into the
ordinance and asked why can't this go to a drug store as this is going to be a prescribed drug by
a licensed physician. He recommended that they should have one or two leading pharmacies
be the distributor.
Councilor McCarthy asked if based on the regulation, it could not be CVS, to which Ms. Rennard
said that was correct because it has to be run by a non-profit entity.
Councilor Sosnowski said that they cannot refer this out to the Planning Board as that will start
the clock ticking and if they really want to hear more of this from the state, then they should
keep it in committee.
Councilor Ryan stated that they are thinking about this way too early. He doesn't have a
problem making it more specific but they don't know what the state is going to do.
• Councilor Sosnowski reviewed the timeline of reviewing and adjudicating the ordinance. He
asked for Ms. Duncan to comment on the timeline.
Ms. Duncan stated that from the close of the public hearing, the Planning Board has 21 days to
report back to the City Council and then the city council has 90 days to report back.
Council President Lovely then asked for members in the audience who were opposed to the
ordinance to raise their hand and come to the podium to speak.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, she is in the middle because she does not know what the
law means. She does not have all that great trust in the state. She thinks that our children are
the future and they are imbibing in marijuana that is laced and she is not sure that this will help
the situation.
Councilor McCarthy moved to close hearing and moved that hearing be adjourned. Approved
8-2.
Councilor Sosnowski moved that this issue be moved to the Planning Board for
recommendation. 10-0. All approved.
Meeting adjourned at 7:44pm.
. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the
decisions have been posted separately by address or project at
http://solem.com/PogesISclemMA PlonMin/.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 12/20/12
•
0
CITY OF SALEM
r PLANNING BOARD
111! NOV 14 A 0 21
FILE #
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, November 15,2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street.
ZZ
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 10/18/12 meeting minutes
2. Request of KEN STEADMAN for release of lots 215, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 in the WITCH HILL SUBDIVISION,
DELL STREET.
3. Request of KEN STEADMAN for change to rephrasing agreement for the WITCH HILL SUBDIVISION, DELL
STREET, in order to allow street light installation after issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Phase I lots
(lots 211, 212, 213 and 214).
4. Request of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC,CVS/PHARMACY,for acceptance of a bond for work to be completed
after opening of the new CVS/pharmacy store (72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 &300 CANAL ST;and 399% &401
JEFFERSON AVE).
5. Continuation of Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA (Assessors
Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on
Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St.,and access to two lots is from Hubon St. APPLICANT
REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 6,1011.
6. Old/New Business
7. Adjournment pow oil OQWW
Maas, ')A /vlyewb'� 14 Zorz
00 ftrmr�r
t�s1oo+1, ,
�ow Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM
}
0
I CITY OF SALEM
J PLANNING BOARD
FILE N
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, November 15,2011 at 7:00 p.m. at City Holl An�gx, .Room 13, 120 Washington Street.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 10/18/12 meeting minutes
2. Request of KEN STEADMAN for release of lots 215, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 in the WITCH HILL SUBDIVISION,
DELL STREET.
• 3. Request of KEN STEADMAN for change to rephrasing agreement for the WITCH HILL SUBDIVISION, DELL
STREET, in order to allow street light installation after issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Phase I lots
(lots 211, 212,213 and 214).
4. Request'of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC,CVS/PHARMACY,for acceptance of a bond for work to be completed
after opening of the new CVS/pharmacy store(72 LORING AVE;292,296&300 CANAL ST;and 399%&401
JEFFERSON AVE).
S. Continuation of Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan for five (5)single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA(Assessors
Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on
Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
6. Old/New Business
7. Adjournment powd on � �1y
City Nano "m 14000, OR I or. 28�z
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting law M.G.L. c. 39 4238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 Fax: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI EM COM
_ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-74o-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD
DIREcrOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: November 8, 2012
RE: Agenda— November 15, 2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Minutes from 10/18/12 were in your last packet.
Request of KEN STEADMAN for release of lots 215, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 in the WITCH HILL
SUBDIVISION, DELL STREET.
Mr. Steadman has completed the road and cul-de-sac (Nurse Way up to and including Good
Circle), through the binder course. Fay, Spofford &Thorndike,the firm we have been using to
inspect construction work for this project, has reported to us that they had no concerns about
the work done.
Request of KEN STEADMAN for change to rephrasing agreement for the WITCH HILL
SUBDIVISION, DELL STREET, in order to allow street light installation after issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy for Phase I lots (lots 211, 212, 213 and 214).
The decision letter describing the re-phasing of this project required installation and inspection
of street lighting for each phase prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for that phase.
However, due to extenuating circumstances caused by the recent storms, National Grid has
been unable to respond to Mr. Steadman's requests for street light installation in a timely
manner. There are several home sales pending, however, and it is our recommendation that
the occupancy permits should not be delayed because of these unusual circumstances.
•
Request of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, CVS/PHARMACY, for acceptance of a bond for work to •
be completed after opening of the new CVS/pharmacy store (72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300
CANAL ST; and 399% &401 JEFFERSON AVE).
The CVS store currently has a 30-day Certificate of Occupancy, which allows them to stock their
shelves and set up the store, but does not allow them to open to the public. Their objective is
to complete all site work within about a week and a half so they would be able to obtain
permission from the Building Inspector to open the store. It is possible that certain items may
not be complete by this time, and so Attorney Joseph Correnti is requesting that the Planning
Board accept a bond for these items so that the City could guarantee the work would be done.
This would include completion of the landscaping, given the time of year; submission of as-built
plans to the Planning Department; and completion of the siding on the ambulance building at
the rear of the site. The applicant is now drawing up cost estimates for this work, which I will
need to have approved by the Engineering Department prior to our meeting.
Continuation of Public hearing: Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive
Subdivision Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE
ST., Salem, MA(Assessors Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to
serve two of the newly created lots on Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St.,
and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
Because we did not meet on 11/1, 1 am providing the information about this project again, with
updates: •
The purpose of the Board's review is to evaluate the proposed new roadway, ensuring
adequacy of access to the proposed new lots;to evaluate the adequacy of proposed utilities
and drainage; and to consider impacts to traffic and safety. The full text of the subdivision
regulations can be found here:
http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA Planning/subdivregs.pdf.
Zoning:
The Zoning Board of Appeals has granted Variances from minimum lot area, lot area per
dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and rear yard setback. The property is
located in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District.
Jurisdiction of the Planning Board under Subdivision Control does not include how the single-
family homes are situated on the lots, nor the design of the homes.
Access:
The applicant has requested a waiver of the frontage requirements of our subdivision
regulations (which call for the same dimensions as our Zoning Ordinance). In order to approve
the subdivision, the Planning Board will also need to grant a waiver of frontage for the lots. The •
R2 zone requires 100 feet of frontage. Frontages for the proposed lots are as follows:
-2-
I
Lot 1: 73 feet
Lot 2: 53 feet
Lot 3: 71 feet
Lot 4: 39 feet
Lot 5: 20 feet
Access to two of the lots (2 and 4) is from a proposed roadway off of Thorndike St. It is noted
that the applicant proposes that this roadway will not be accepted as a public way. Access to
lots 1 and 3 is from Hubon Street, and access to lot 5 is from Thorndike Street.
I have asked Chief Cody the question raised at our last meeting about whether access by
emergency vehicles would be adequate; I will let you know his response when I receive it.
Engineering:
I asked Engineering whether they recommend a waiver of the street width to allow a twenty-
foot wide roadway;they felt the proposed width would be adequate.
I received the following comments and questions from Engineering, and they have since met
with the applicant. I expect an update from Engineering on several of these comments, and will
pass them along as soon as I receive them:
• 1. A drainage alteration plan is required per City Ordinance 38-286 to 289 because
proposed grade change is greater than 2 feet. Describe overall drainage disposal;
especially at northern end at Bridge.
2. Show existing storm drain inlets in Thorndike or Hubon to be utilized.
3. What is the CB frame and Cover structure on Lot#2?
4. Add sewer MH at end of private way.
5. What is the roof drainage? What are the impacts?
6. Describe maintenance of the "Aqua-brick" pavers.
7. Will there be a buffer between swales and abutting properties to eliminate potential of
abutter flooding?
8. Handicap ramps should be on both sides of the private ways.
9. There should be a triple gate configuration at both Thorndike and Hubon at the
connection to the existing main (only one gate configuration is proposed).
10. Tapping sleeve is NOT allowed.
11. Are the soils are corrosive, and if so, does the water main then need protection?
12. Is there an AUL on the site? What are the limits of recharging Stormwater to
groundwater?
13. Six-inch sewer service pipe is required.
14. Is a hydrant needed on Hubon Street? (There is one shown between the two driveways
on Thorndike St. and another at the corner of Bridge St. and Hubon St. — I have asked
• Chief Cody if this is sufficient and will let you know his response.)
-3-
Other waivers from subdivision requirements:
Mr. Delulis has submitted a letter, enclosed in your packet, requesting several waivers from the
subdivision regulations.
•
•
-4-
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 11/15/12
• A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Alternate Vice Chair Tim Ready, George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, Mark George,
Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning
Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, and Tim Kavanagh.
Tim Ready opened the meeting at 7:03 pm.
Request of KEN STEADMAN for release of lots 215, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 in the WITCH HILL
SUBDIVISION, DELL STREET.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Request letter from Ken Steadman dated 11/5/12
Request of KEN STEADMAN for change to rephrasing agreement for the WITCH HILL SUBDIVISION,
DELL STREET, in order to allow street light installation after issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for
Phase I lots (lots 211, 212, 213 and 214).
Documents & Exhibititions:
➢ Request letter from George Atkins dated 11/8/12
• Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St., representing the applicant, reminded the Board of the project as
well as the phasing agreement. He stated the first four homes have been built and sold and noted that
part of the phasing agreement requires the applicant to install street lights. He asked to begin with the
second agenda item and explained that part of the phasing agreement requires the installation of street
lights. The applicant has been working with National Grid for several months on this and the lights still
have not been completed. They are asking that the Board waive requirement that lighting be installed
prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for this phase but not for the next phase of the project. He
then specified that this request is only for lots 211, 212, 213 and 214 on Martin Lane.
Mr. Atkins continued stating that everyone is feeling optimistic about this project getting done and the
other 6 lots that are before the board tonight are under agreement and ready to be sold. He reiterated
that Mr. Steadman has completed his aspect of the work that was agreed upon in the phasing
agreement, and there is more work to be done before the certificate of occupancy is issued.
Based on Mr. Atkins' explanation of the streetlight issue, he asked Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, if
there are any reasons why the city would object to this. Ms. McKnight stated that the Planning
Department recommends to allow the C.0's to be issued in light of the extenuating circumstances.
The applicant, Mr. Ken Steadman, stated that the bases are all in for the streetlights, though some of the
copper wiring has already been stolen. Mr. Ready asked him to clarify that he has gone as far as he can
go without the electric company, to which he said he has.
•
Randy Clarke made a motion to accept the change to rephrasing agreement for the WITCH HILL
• SUBDIVISION, DELL STREET, in order to allow street light installation after issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy for Phase I lots (lots 211, 212, 213 and 214), seconded by Mark George. All approved 6-0.
The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Mr. Ready asked Mr. Atkins to review the request to release the 6 lots, to which Mr.Atkins described
the lots on Good Circle and Nurse Way. Helen Sides asked Ms. McKnight if there are any issues. Ms.
McKnight stated that Fay, Spofford and Thorndike are the Engineers-on-call who have been overseeing
the construction and putting in the roadway; to which she noted that the roadway is in. They have
reported that there are no issues with the construction; thus the Planning Department's
recommendation is to release the lots. Mr. Ready asked if the bond remains in effect, to which Mr.
Atkins stated yes,the tri-party agreement remains in effect.
Helen Sides made a motion to approve the release of lots 215, 230, 231, 232, 233, and 234, in the Witch
Hill Subdivision on Dell Street, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 6-0. The decision is hereby
incorporated as part of these minutes.
Request of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, CVS/PHARMACY, for acceptance of a bond for work to be
completed after opening of the new CVS/pharmacy store (72 LORING AVE; 292,296 &300 CANAL ST;
and 399 Y22 &401 JEFFERSON AVE).
Documents & Exhibitions:
• ➢ Photographs of the site submitted at the meeting
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the petitioners, reminded the board of the
location of the project and gave an update on the project. He stated that the store is ready to open and
there site work is almost complete, which is why they are at the meeting tonight. They are asking to
post the bond so they are able to open. He stated that the interior is stocked, the employees are hired
and they would like to open on Sunday November 18th . He then introduced the team, which consisted
of Tim Bovaire, the General Contractor and Bill Bevelaqua from TRB and Doug Murray from Gershwin
Brown Crowley. He stated that they have been putting together a list of the outstanding work and he
will have Tim Boiseford run through the items that aren't complete, like landscaping. He would like the
board to accept the bond to cover the remaining work that will be subject to the Building Inspector
issuing an occupancy permit as well as a site visit by the Planning Department to ensure that what has
been promised to be done is completed.
Tim Bovaire,TRB Development, stated that they have prepared a list of things that have not been
completed, such as sidewalks and landscaping. He stated that the sidewalks and striping will be 100%
complete by Sunday's opening. The topcoat paving in a couple of areas will not be done, but the
landscaping will be 100% complete. He said that the safety and life apparatus will not be compromised
and they will have complete what will be physically allowed. They are requesting that a bond be
sufficient to cover the things that are not complete.
Ms. Sides asked for pictures, to which Mr. Correnti shared pictures that were taken this afternoon. Ms.
Sides asked when the paving will be done in the areas where it is needed, to which Mr. Bovaire said it
• would be done by the end of the day on Friday.
Mark George asked if the striping on Canal Street has been completed to which Mr. Correnti said it was
all complete and Mr. Clarke noted that he had driven by the site several times and noted that it was
completed. Mr. Correnti clarified that the basecoat is all that's left and even without the basecoat the
road and parking area are able to be driven on.
Doug Murray, Gershwin Brown Crowley, explained that anything that hasn't got the basecoat will be re-
striped once the topcoat is applied.
Mr. Ready asked about the lighting to which Mr. Bovaire stated that the Electrical Inspector has already
tested and approved the lighting. Mr. Ready asked about the Fire Department, to which Mr. Bovaire
said that they have already tested and approved the sprinklers, strobes and fire systems.
Mr. Ready then asked Ms. McKnight if the City Engineer weighed in on any aspect of this to which she
responded that he weighed in the costs of the landscaping in the amount of$44,930, and has accepted
the amount for completion of those items. She noted that the cost of the paving was not an issue but
where they did not know the areas that needed paving she did not know how to make a
recommendation where the Planning Department and Engineering would support bonding that. She
then asked the team to explain in further detail about the paving. Mr. Murray said that they will put
down the basecoat, stripe it if necessary, then put on the top coat and restripe it. In the meantime, the
Fire Department will have full access to the site until everything is paved, as well as any car accessing
the site. Mr. Ready asked then to clarify if in preparation for Sunday's opening, whether it is basecoat or
topcoat, the area will be fully striped in accordance with the plans originally submitted, to which they
said correct.
• Ms. McKnight said that she doesn't think that the Planning Department would have a problem with
making a recommendation that the store open with the basecoat striped. What she would need is
authorization from the Planning Board for her to sign off on a routing slip for the Certificate of
Occupancy for the store; they are not making the decision whether to open the store, which lies with
the Building Inspector. She just wants to be clear that it not their decision to open the store.
Mr. Clarke stated that he wishes all developers could move as quickly as this developer. Mr. Murray said
that this project was completed six weeks ahead of schedule.
Ms. McKnight reviewed what they would be approving in terms of the bond amount for the paving
which would be worked out with the Engineering Department and noted that this has to be determined.
She stated that they have $44,930 for the landscaping and she thinks that should be the amount as
David Knowlton has already looked at that. Mr. Bovaire said they are bonded to $130,000 which is three
times the cost of what they have left to do.
Mr. Correnti stated that the way Ms. McKnight worded it was perfect and thanked Ms. McKnight, Tom
St. Pierre and the city for their work on this project. They will be back at City Hall the following morning
in order to come to the agreement for the appropriate amount.
Issue opened to the public for comment
No one from the public was present to comment.
• Randy Clarke made a motion to approve with coordination between the Planning Department and
authorizing Ms. McKnight to work with the Engineering Department and sign off on the routing slip for
the C.O., seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 6-0. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of
these minutes.
Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision Plan for five
(5)single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA(Assessors Map
37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on
Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 6, 2012.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to December 6, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides.All approved 6-
0.
Old/New Business
New Business: Ms. McKnight informed the board that the Legacy Park decision was filed and the
appeal period had run with no appeal.
Ms. McKnight also announced that Lewis Beilman is moving to Connecticut in January and will
resign from the Board, to which everyone wished him good luck. She announced that Tim
Kavanagh has also resigned. Mr. Ready stated that the Board will have a great loss in losing
these two members who have had striking performances.
Ms. McKnight stated that the Chapter 91 filing for Goodhue Street is available for review.
• Mr. Clarke asked about upcoming projects to which Ms. McKnight mentioned the power plant
redevelopment project. Mr. Clarke stated that he attended a meeting about this project and
felt it would be valuable for the Planning Board to be involved in it. Ms. McKnight said she
doesn't have details about the project yet, and there probably would not be a filing until March.
Approval of Minutes
October 18, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. George McCabe motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 6-0.
Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 6-0. Tim
Ready adjourned the meeting at 7:36 pm.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions
have been posted separately by address or project at http://solem.com/PagesISolemMA PlonMin/.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 12/6/12
•
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
MINE�-
Date ( / _/ 12-
Name
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Page—1 of
JL CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Jill oc 31
CANCELLATION NOTICE FILE 8 MASS.
CITY CLERK, SALEM-M
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,
November 1,2012 at 7.00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, has been
canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The following petition will be continued to the Board's
next regularly scheduled meeting on November 15, 2012:
Continuation of Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC.for a Definitive Subdivision Plan
for five (5)single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA(Assessors Map 37,
Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on Thorndike St.
Access to one lot is from Thorndike St.,and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
C" � am�
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
•
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.I. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
saleffl, M809. apt 006 effS/ Zoe-
stool All PWOM we 0,11W
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
•� ' '� PLANNING BOARD
�9B�h11V6
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
i 10/18/12 meeting minutes
2. Continuation of Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA (Assessors
Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on
• Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
3. Old/New Business
4. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
Hag
/ a
T
. cn rrn W
r
r�
m
I • 3
� IV
Ul
� t
120 WASHINUruu SREE-1, SALEM, IMASSACHUsr.rrs 01970 • Tr:i.: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0.104 0 WWW.sALF%1.cosi
CITY OF SALEM
r � J PLANNING BOARD
1111mrt? Ata-
FILE d
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK,SALEM•MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, October 18,2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 110 Washington Street.
OPOLd -P--Q1Z Ja9>'Lk
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA(2"d REVISION)
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 9/11/12, 9/20/12 and 10/1/12 meeting minutes
2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237& 239), Salem MA(redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
• Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. Site plan has been revised to include
two additional parcels, l &5 HARMONY GROVE RD(Map 16, Lots 377&378),with no change to the
number of proposed residential units. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family
residential buildings(total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building,
and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC.for a Definitive Subdivision Plan for five (5)
single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA(Assessors Map 37, Lot
38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on Thorndike St.
Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2018 through 2-2033.
S
,. 117•l T .' l� I 3 i :Y?' r.. -. � 's:'x, f .,
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SAI,EM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
Z '
PLANNING BOARD
FILE
S
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK, ALEM. MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 9/11/12, 9/20/12 and 10/1/12 meeting minutes
2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision Plan for five (5)
single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA(Assessors Map 37, Lot
38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on Thorndike St.
Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
Know your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 523B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
\ WW1 .rc 'TS y�t� ',.a'� iSi`� •. �}�Y !� C`a :r��
�In
120 %VA5fIIN(VION STREFT, SALEM, Ill:vSSACIfL; FEPr5 01970 • Ti-i.: 978.745.9595 FAX 978.740.0404 4 WWW.sALFNLCOM
NDtT(�0
Jst'` CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
r� aka i4
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
INV
YIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: October 11, 2012
RE: Agenda—October 18,2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
➢ Minutes from 9/11/12 and 9/20/12
• ➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property
located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &239), Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory),for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The
proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential buildings(total of 141 units),
re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building,and associated parking and
landscaping.
Should the Board be ready to vote on this project,and if the project is approved, here are suggested
special conditions for the decision (boilerplate language not included):
8. Health Department and Board of Health
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Health Department and Board of
Health, including but not limited to the following:
a. The units must comply with all the requirements of Chapter II of the State Sanitary code:
105CMR410 including but not limited to:
➢ Screens for windows
➢ Adequate trash disposal facilities
➢ Adequate ventilation
➢ Provide heating during the heating season at the required temperatures
• b. Provide a mosquito control plan for the catch basins.
c. All units that are rented must be granted a certificate of fitness by the Board of Health •
prior to occupancy. A copy must be provided to the renter.
d. If the units are sub-metered, then the owner must fill sub-metering affidavit for each
individual unit prior to renting unit. If the affidavit is not filed, tenant cannot be charged
for water.
e. Applicant must submit a trash disposal plan to ensure there is adequate capacity for
storage of trash onsite, including contingencies to address tenant changeovers and
other high trash disposal events.
f. Building owner is required to ensure that adequate contingencies are in place to address
pest control/remediation. Specifically:
➢ A pest control survey is to be done prior to commencement of construction.
➢ There is to be a pre-baiting program in place.
➢ There is to be an ongoing pest monitoring program and a program to respond to
complaints from abutters.
➢ Applicant is to submit a written description of the program and ongoing results
of pest control site visits has to be available for inspection.
➢ Reports must include any rodent activity and actions taken. The locations should
be mapped and activity identified by location of stations.
9. Office of the City Engineer
The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with the requirements of the City
Engineer, including but not limited to the following: •
a. Applicant is to provide a completed NO1 and SWPPP to the Planning Board prior to
any land disturbance, and in any event, prior to issuance of a building permit.
b. Applicant is to provide a completed and signed Illicit Discharge Compliance
Statement to the Planning Board prior to obtaining a building permit.
c. Applicant is to provide detailed design plans stamped by a Massachusetts Registered
Professional Engineer for the proposed retaining walls for review and approval by
the City Engineer prior to obtaining a building permit.
d. Applicant is to provide a step-backwater analysis for the 10-, 50- and 100-year flood
events for both existing and proposed conditions to demonstrate the adequacy of
the hydraulic opening, structure depth and profile of the access road, for review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to obtaining a building permit for the residential
buildings or bridges.
e. Applicant is to provide a detailed structural, geotechnical and hydraulic design for
the bridges for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to obtaining a building
permit for the residential buildings or bridges.
f. Applicant is to provide detailed hydraulic flow and design calculations for the
proposed domestic and fire water services for review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to obtaining a building permit or commencing land disturbance
activities.
•
-2-
. g. Applicant is to coordinate with the City to obtain access to the valve at Beaver Street
in order to evaluate its condition and to determine if it will need to be replaced prior
to obtaining a building permit for the residential or commercial buildings. Applicant
shall coordinate this inspection with the City Engineer.
h. Applicant is to add the MDC traps to the operation and maintenance plan, schedule
and log form. The operation and maintenance plan should include at a minimum
the frequency of inspections, cleaning and pumping.
i. Applicant will be responsible for replacing the sewer service if it proves to be in
unsatisfactory condition. Applicant shall be responsible to coordinate the inspection
of the existing sewer lines with the City Engineer.
15. HVAC
a. The HVAC equipment located on the building roofs shall be visually screened by
parapets, as shown on the submitted plans.
19. Special Conditions:
a. The parcel located at 5 Harmony Grove Road, if developed in the future, is to be
developed for a commercial use. Such future development shall be considered an
amendment to the Planned Unit Development and is subject to Planning Board
review.
• b. Applicant is to submit revised plans to the Planning Board demonstrating that the
parcels identified as 1 Harmony Grove Road and 5 Harmony Grove Road are included
in the overall Planned Unit Development site, prior to issuance of a building permit
for the residential buildings. The inclusion of these parcels helps ensure that the
overall residential uses and associated improvements do not exceed 50%of the land
area comprising the PUD site.
c. Applicant is to provide an easement running to the City for a multi-use path on the
parcel located at 1 Harmony Grove Road. The easement is to be recorded at the
Registry of Deeds prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
d. Applicant is to provide an easement running to the City of Salem for public access
and recreational use of the multi-use path shown on the site plans. This easement is
to extend the entire length and width of the multi-use path, as well as the areas
between the path and the Canal, and the path and five feet from the front of
Buildings 2 and 3 (not including any area shown as residential land area on the site
plan). The easement is to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and
recorded at the Registry of Deeds prior to issuance of a building permit for the
residential buildings.
e. Elevation drawings showing renovation of the existing commercial building on 60
Grove Street, along with a description of the proposed use, are to be submitted to
the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit for 60
Grove Street.
• f. Traffic Improvements:
-3-
Subject to all necessary permitting and approvals from the City of Salem, the •
applicant is to make the following improvements, as described in the submitted
Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove,
Salem, MA, prepared by Vanasse &Associates, Inc., dated December 2011:
➢ Sidewalks are to be upgraded to the City's standard concrete sidewalks along site
frontages on Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street, prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy.
➢ Existing signage and markings at the Grove Street railroad crossing are to be
updated to comply with current standards of the US Department of
Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as
amended, prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
➢ At the intersection of Grove Street, Beaver Street and Goodhue Street:
i. Provide pavement markings to delineate travel lanes
ii. Install stop signs on the Grove Street northbound approach at
Goodhue Street, the Beaver Street westbound approach at Grove
Street and the Beaver Street eastbound approach at Goodhue Street
iii. Provide appropriate signage to enforce one-way traffic flow on
Goodhue Street
➢ At the intersection of Grove Street at Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street:
i. Install a stop sign at the Grove Street northbound right-turn
movement
ii. Upgrade signs and pavement markings at the intersection •
➢ During months when vegetation is in leaf, as indicated in the submitted Traffic
Impact and Access Study, vegetation must be kept trimmed back to ensure
adequate driveway sight lines and sight triangles for vehicles existing the site.
Public hearing:Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision
Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem,
MA (Assessors Map 37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of
the newly created lots on Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to
two lots is from Hubon St.
Patrick Delulis will be presenting the application. In February, 2012, the applicant was granted
relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the five-lot subdivision. The ZBA granted Variances
from minimum lot area, lot area per dwelling unit, frontage, lot width, front yard setback and
rear yard setback. The property is located in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District.
The application was routed to Building, Conservation, Fire Prevention, Health and Engineering.
The Building Commissioner concurred with the proposal and noted that it had been thoroughly
vetted by the ZBA. The Conservation Agent commented that a portion of the project is subject
to Order of Conditions #64-538. 1 have not yet received comments from Fire, Health or
Engineering. •
f
-K-
���oN�ITq�Q\ it
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
1l
9F��ntiEo�N?; Board
Date I o / l c / Iz
Name Mailin6 Address Phone # E-mail
93 7VLOP1(,,
;J,r
db
04�js jkjo--�&
L
S Q?& 7 yy-Sao/ rv_T porn rhnef
)S 1 q7g ,�/( 57
Sal �, �eGU,d8' �(0
tler
T
•
Page of Z
�coNorrq�a
5, City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
9� 4
��%�nv�_o� Board o 4,
Date ! 0 / 1 / 12--
N/j /
Mailin�Address Phone # E-mail
Page of 2
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 10/18/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 18, 2012 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,Tim Ready, George McCabe, Lewis
Beilman, Mark George, Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Lynn Duncan,
Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,
Planning Board Recording Clerk,
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Approval of Minutes
September 11, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Mark George. All approved 9-0.
September 20, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Lewis Beilman motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Randy Clarke. George McCabe and Mark George abstained. All
approved 7-0.
October 1, 2012 draft minutes
• No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.John Moustakis motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Ready. All approved 9-0.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property
located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &239),Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory),for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. Site plan
has been revised to include two additional parcels, 1&5 HARMONY GROVE RD (Map 16, Lots 377 &
378),with no change to the number of proposed residential units. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings(total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents& Exhibitions:
Letter from James R. Treadwell, AICP, dated October 18, 2012
➢ Letter from Rinus Oosthoek, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, dated October 16, 2012
➢ Letter from Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St., dated October 18, 2012
➢ Legacy Park Apartments, Salem
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners
from MRM Project Management and stated that this is their 11" public hearing on this matter. He said
there is something new that they want to discuss, which is the addition of the adjacent parcels, 1 & 5
Harmony Grove Road, and the incorporation of the parcels to the plan. They have plans that
• demonstrate this. These are vacant parcels which are beneficial in a number of ways as they are a
natural fit for the site. If there are any further questions, they can answer them after Bob Griffin's
presentation.
• Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, showed a graphic with the landscaping plan and where the additional
parcels will be added to the plan. 1 Harmony Grove Rd. has potentially developable land though
currently the applicant is proposing no activities on either parcel at this time. He identified the city
boundaries on the graphic as well. The total area for the 2 parcels is 65,000 square feet which reduced
the percent residential space to 40.7%and the total project area is 8.3 acres.
Mr. Puleo asked if the shaded area over the canal is their property and Mr. Griffin said yes, and he
showed this on the graphic.
Mr. George asked what is the commercial use to which Mr. Griffin stated that this hasn't been hatched
out yet, but the non-residential is 59.3%.
Mr. Correnti stated that they have completed their presentations and will answer any questions.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, asked about the 1 Harmony Grove site. She understands that the area
is designated as a floodplain, and in the initial application, a lot of the vegetation is considered part of
the natural area and asks that the Planning Board require that the applicant maintain the area as a
natural area. Her second question was about the sewer treatment easement location, and the third part
of her question is about the canal tidal section, which makes the location of the commercial site even
smaller. How does the developer plan to build on 1 Harmony Grove- it does not seem like a real
commercial addition. Mr. Correnti stated that it is being proposed as open space. The frontage will now
• allow them to have space from the Peabody line to the Moose Lodge.
Ward 3 Councilor Todd Siegel, 28 Brittania Circle, asked if the proponent could break down the
percentages of commercial buildable space. He noted that there is no such place in the ordinance that
is called non-residential. Mr. Siegel asked of the 59.3%of the property that is designated commercial,
what is buildable and further asked what can be built commercially. Mr. Correnti said that, regarding
"non-residential;" that is not a correct statement, and he quoted from the ordinance as well as the PUD
requirement. He continued, stating that until they actually do soil tests they don't know what would be
buildable and could not give a clear answer on that; but they can give a clear answer that this meets the
ordinance requirement. He also noted that this is also the opinion of the Assistant City Solicitor and
Attorney Bobrowski, who both determined that it meets the ordinance. Mr. Correnti concluded by
stating that the answer to the question is that they meet it.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, feels that it would be very easy to calculate the commercial space based
on what is shown on the plan. He agrees with the zoning ordinance. As a planner he would not build on
those areas as they are on floodplain. He showed a graphic demonstrating the floodplain designation
location. He then quoted from the applicant's environmental impact plan, spoke of"natural area" and
keeping the area in its natural state. He then reviewed his letter to the Planning Board which included a
list of his concerns:
- the requirements of Site Plan Review
- the floodplain management issues in relation to the Peabody project with the Army Corps of
Engineers
• - environmental condition of the site and reminded the Board that they are still waiting on the
reports from Luke Fabbri (the Licensed Site Professional), and recommended the Board being
provided with those reports before making a decision
I
ithe pedestrian bridge was not included when the review was done by the engineer
weatherproof areas for the bicycle racks, and he has not seen the plan for that
the adoption of 7.3.1
the environmental impact statement should be considered
These are things that he thinks are still outstanding and these issues are all included in a letter he
submitted to the Board.
Mr. Puleo asked if the bridge has been moved and asked Mr. Griffin to clarify, to which Mr. Griffin said
he was correct. Mr. Puleo then asked Mr.Treadwell if his concern was about the construction or the
moving of the bridge. Mr. Treadwell responded that he concern centered on the fact that the bridge
was not included in the engineer's peer review.
Randy Clarke said that he thought the bike rack issue was resolved. Mr. Correnti said yes and that they
do not provide interior plans as part of site plan review.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, asked if their decision would coincide with the Conservation
Commission reviews. Mr. Correnti stated that they will apply to the Conservation Commission as soon
as this is resolved and then they will go to Chapter 91. Ms. Riley-Goggin asked if the Planning Board can
make a decision without all of the decisions in. Mr. Puleo said that their hearing becomes part of the
project's records.
Councilor-at-Large Tom Furey, 36 Dunlap Street, stated that he grew up on Boston Street, and it's hard
to picture what the commercial footprint will be in ten years. Commercial development is premiere and
• it's really depending upon the market and the economy, which will be the lynchpin to the development.
That whole area will be the new frontier for Salem.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, asked if the term "usable open space' is a term that
has always been used or if it is something new, in relation to Attorney Bobrowski's review. Lynn
Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, clarified that open space is a separate land
use category. She stated that the percentage of residential land does not exceed 50%and the remaining
land use is commercial and open space, which is acceptable to count open space as a land use category.
Mr. Prevey stated that his concern for the overall project is the density and agrees that commercial
development is premiere and that is not what this development is about. He stated that they had come
up with restrictions to residential with the belief that the rest of this would be developed commercially
and this project misses that. They are concerned about traffic in the area, combined with the other
projects in the area are creating a problem. He said if this is approved, who then can work through the
problems which should not be shouldered on the neighborhood. He said he went to the Salem Moose
last night and was surprised at the amount of traffic and that was without the project. The Council
wanted the Planning Board to have a say in how projects like this are built and the Board is in a position
to mold this project into a better project. He feels that the neighbors' concerns are very valid.
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, thanked the Board for their hard work on this Board. As
far as this project, he thought that this would be more commercial. He feels this is too much residential
and he understands that the developer needs to make money for the cleanup effort, but the Board
doesn't have to accept this. He asked the Board to make the best decision for the City of Salem, and this
• is too much residential for this area.
• Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver Street, stated that as the sun set today, she reflected on this whole report and
reminded the board of the previous projects in the area and wondered if there was this kind of oversight
during those projects. She asked if the height of the buildings could be reconsidered to fit in with the
rest of the neighborhood.
Tricia Meyers, 14 Beaver Street, said she thought that the PUD was a tax thing to help cover the
numbers of the kids going to school here. She asked how many were two bedroom units,to which Mr.
Correnti did not know the exact number. She said if she had known that this development would have
been there, she never would have bought her home.
Ward 5 Councilor Josh Turiel, 238 Lafayette Street, said that there are some great things to develop in
the area, we have plenty of residential inventory;the factories are not coming back but they are
hopefully going to bring in more commercial opportunities. He would like to see a bigger commercial
component and they don't have enough of it here. It's good to see there is life coming to the area, but
they can do better.
Ward 2 Councilor Mike Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, noted that there are 7 councilors here tonight and
there are 7 councilors who want this developed and there are at least 5 of them here tonight that would
vote against this.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, stated that they have had different opportunities to build commercial
units where they did not follow through and spoke of the Salem Suede site, as well as Salem Oil &
Grease. They are now going to have a gigantic residential space instead of commercial. It seems to her
• that the administration and the Planning Board seem to be pushing for the CPA and a tax increase, yet
they are not taking the opportunity to build good commercial property to increase our tax base.
Ms. Duncan stated that if they had a choice of commercial or predominantly residential development,
they would choose commercial, but this is not the choice before them. In terms of tax revenue, she
listed the biggest residential projects in the city and their significance of the tax rate. She also spoke of
the ripple effect of the spending and taxes. For this project, in terms of construction, they expect that 56
jobs will be supported; in terms of supporting the wholesale and retail trade there are 12 jobs; in terms
of the ongoing effect, over 9 jobs. She says this will have a net gain in tax revenue.
Mr. Clarke stated that the Board has not discussed the CPA.
Councilor-at-large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue, thanked the board for going through this review. He
stated that the residential tax rate is a losing proposition by Massachusetts state figures and they don't
want to go too far with that. The other thing is that he does not see how this will pay a 50%commercial
rate.
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, read a letter from Rinus Oosthoek, Director of the Chamber of
Commerce, into the record.
Councilor Todd Siegel asked if they are going to hire Salem residents to work the construction jobs.
• Victor Ramos, 15 Thorndike Street, stated that in the area where he lives, all of the construction vehicle
plates were from New Hampshire.
A
Councilor Sosnowski quoted from the PUD ordinance. Ms. Duncan clarified that she was speaking to the
• fact that the Board does not have a commercial proposal before them.
Mr. Puleo asked about the improvements on Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road. Mr. Griffin stated
that they have proposed to reconstruct the sidewalk along the property line. Mr. Puleo clarified if they
would get new sidewalks where there aren't any, to which Mr. Griffin said there would be sidewalks
from end to end on this project. Mr. Puleo asked about the catch basin improvements at 3 Harmony
Grove Road and about the drainage on the driveway over the bridge. Mr. Griffin stated that they will
upgrade the catch basin at the location in question. On Harmony Grove Road,they will add a second
catch basin. He noted that most of the water is stuck at the railroad tracks, and will flow out to the
North River Canal. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to clarify if they are replacing the pipe and if that will
help with the flooding in the area. Mr. Griffin said that with the second catch basin there will be a
significant improvement.
Mr. Puleo asked if they would do any clearing on the opposite side of the site with the new parcel. Mr.
Griffin stated that they were not proposing anything off of#1 or#5 Harmony Grove Road. Mr. Puleo
asked if it will be improved. Mr. Correnti stated that sidewalks will be replaced and repaired and brush
will be cleaned up. They will make sure it is safe and clear.
Mr. Puleo asked if the pipe is clear,to which Mr. Griffin said the design capacity is adequate but they
have not put a camera in there. Mr. Puleo said they either need to improve the pipe or replace this. He
asked if this is the lowest point in the street. Mr. Griffin said it is and if there is a problem, they will
repair it.
• Mr. Clarke asked about working with the city on the bike path, and also what traffic mitigation would be.
Mr. Correnti said for 5 Harmony Grove to the Peabody line, some of the land is wide enough for a path,
but some is not. The sidewalks can be put in excellent shape, but requires an engineering look. In terms
of the second part about traffic remediation,there will be a condition about that.
Mark Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, stated that he works for the Town of Danvers and if something like this
came before him, he would not be happy about it. He is concerned that his house is four stories from
the ground level and they are proposing something four stories higher than his. The commercial plan is
of great concern and should be for Salem as it seems like it will cost more to take care of those people
than it's worth. The money is not going to be collected in taxes.
Ms. Riley-Goggin asked about AULs on the property. Mr. Correnti stated that there are many AULs on
the site and the cleanup will continue. The site has to be remediated to a level that is approved by DEP
and there is a lot of work that has to be done.
Celeste Ross, 20 Beaver Street, noted that when it rains significantly, there is flooding beyond their
driveway. She noted that traffic is a nightmare in Salem and can't imagine how much worse it will be
with all of these added residents. She asked if they are going to keep up with the rodents or does she
have to call the Health Department. Mr. Puleo said the developer will have to have a pre-work
requirement for rodent control and then monitor them on a bi-weekly basis.
• Michael Ross, 20 Beaver Street, thanked the Board for coming out for the site visit. He noted that the
visit was when there were leaves on the trees and recommended that somebody should look at the area
when there aren't leaves on the trees as they will see what a nuisance it will be. Mr. Puleo said that
• their goal is to not make it that way, and they usually have a condition in there about landscaping which
the Planning Department will look at. He used Swampscott road as an example, explaining that over the
course of ten years they planted the spruce trees because of complaints about the rock wall, and now
this isn't seen. Mr. Ross said that he is also concerned about tax revenue, which they could turn it into
Boston or Lynn.
Mr. Correnti said that this is a development on a brownfields site and there are impacts and
opportunities. This is a real plus for this city. He thanked the Board for the long process and they have a
better project than what they started with due to the input of the public and the Board. He spoke of the
site visit and said that no one is arguing that this shouldn't be developed. He pointed out that this is an
opportunity and this has to be weighed in a thoughtful way. No aspect of this project has not been
reviewed by an expert. Woodard &Curran concluded that this site meets all the criteria for Site Plan
Review. He noted that this is a tortured site with the canal and the railroad running right through it.
Traffic has always been a concern, and this has been peer reviewed by Fay, Spofford and Thorndike and
their comments have been incorporated into the plan. When the Board decides on if this is an
appropriate and proper site, he asked the Board to think about what the experts have said. These are
141 market-rate units and if approved, there will be a percentage of affordable units, as requested.
They believe that they have met all of the requirements.
Councilor Sosnowski asked what is the proposed percentage of affordable housing to which Mr. Correnti
said 10% maximum.
Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 9-0.
• At this time the Board agreed to begin the deliberations discussion.
Mr. George asked if they have sufficient participation to take this to the next level to make sure
everyone has been at all of the meetings and heard all of the tapes, to which Mr. Puleo said yes.
Mr. Ready asked Mr. Correnti if there have been 11 meetings and if they have had half a dozen meetings
with the neighbors. Mr. Correnti stated that they have not met with them that many times and went on
to explain the process and the associated filings that were required.
Suggested draft findings were reviewed by Ms. McKnight. Ms. McKnight stated that she is reviewing
suggested findings to see if the Board agrees with the wording. Ms. Duncan stated that it is important
that Ms. McKnight read through the conditions and it's important for the public and the councilors to
hear the findings.
Mr. Kavanagh asked about the area of land that they have acquired and the area of the proposed
entrance. He said he would like to have a condition where the applicant improves some portion of the
land between the bridge and 50 Grove Street and would like to see some development of commercial
space. He would like to have the bike path and commercial space requirements included in the
conditions. The second thing for the Board to think about are the parking locations and sizes as
additional parking spaces are going to be developed and we are not imposing a higher parking space
requirement. He recommends giving the applicant fewer parking spaces for the residential area to
encourage them think about the parking location. Mr. Puleo said that the required parking on this site is
1.5, per unit to which Mr. Kavanagh recommended requiring 172 parking spaces and so if a part of the
site becomes more commercial that they can make the rest of the parking available. Mr. Clarke stated
c
that he supports Mr. Kavanagh's proposal. Mr. Kavanagh said that they may find that the parcel is
desirable and if we build the flexibility in now there is that possibility for developing it commercially.
George McCabe said that he likes that idea. Mr. Kavanagh suggested wording that included if they just
set the minimum for the parking spaces then there could be flexibility in the future for commercial
development and associated parking. Ms. Duncan stated that she thinks it great that they are thinking
about ways for a commercial space to be encouraged in the future. If a commercial development is
proposed then they would have to come back to the Planning Board to amend the PUD. Under the
Conditions section there could be language where the Planning Board encourages additional commercial
development on that site. She further went on to state that if an additional commercial development
were proposed, which would have to come in under an amended PUD,the Planning Board would only
require at that time that only 172 parking spaces would be required to support the residential space and
the remaining 43 spaces could support the commercial development.This would not change the
requirement in the future. Mr. Kavanagh stated that the area presents challenges and opportunities
and at some point someone could want to use that space commercially. Mr. Puleo said this would be
done by an amended plan only.
Ms. McKnight reviewed the draft conditions. Mr. Puleo asked if the new parcels are included in the total
square footage of the project to which Ms. McKnight said yes. Ms. McKnight continued reviewing the
draft conditions. Ms. McKnight explained the time frame requirements. Mr. Puleo asked if it is part of
the requirement that the applicant give the Board a time frame. Ms. Duncan stated that this standard
condition satisfied the timeframe requirement. Mr. Puleo asked if they would automatically get a two-
year extension, to which Ms. Duncan said no and she explained the permit extension law and said this
wording holds the project to a specific time frame. Mr. Puleo asked about the landscaping time frame
and Ms. McKnight and Ms. Duncan reviewed the process. Mr. Puleo asked if they submit an as-built
plan, to which Ms. Duncan and Ms. McKnight said yes. Mr. Puleo asked about the signage location, to
which Mr. Correnti stated that there would be signage at two locations, Harmony Grove Road and Grove
Street.
Mr. Clarke asked if there was supposed to be a police review, which is what was done for the St.
Joseph's Church project and he thought that would be come a boilerplate requirement. Ms. McKnight
said that this was a requirement on that project and it can be added to this project's requirements. Ms.
Duncan said it would be noted that they would supply two sets of plans to the Planning Department and
the Police Department.
Ms. McKnight continued reading the draft conditions.
Mr. Puleo stated that he was concerned about the catch basin. Mr. Griffin suggested language for the
condition which was that the applicant shall inspect and repair as necessary the 12 inch drainage pipe
beginning at Harmony Grove Road extending to the North River Canal that is located on the 1 Harmony
Grove Road parcel subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Ms. McKnight added that if
repairs were required then the applicant would be responsible for making those changes or repairs.
Mr. Correnti asked if the documents required in sections A and B are to be submitted to the Planning
Department or the Planning Board as they want to make sure they are in compliance with the
conditions, and the wording was changed to submit to the Planning Department.
. Ms. Duncan asked about the pedestrian bridge in section E. Mr. Griffin stated that as it is above the 100
year flood line so it does not have the same effect as the roadway bridge as that is below the 100 year
• flood line. Mr. Puleo clarified that the applicant would still need a building permit to construct it. Ms.
Duncan asked about the permit and the analysis required to be done prior to the building permit, and
separated out the requirements for the roadway bridge and those for the pedestrian bridge. Mr. Clarke
asked if the information about the pedestrian bridge would be submitted prior to a certificate of
occupancy.
Mr. Clarke recommended wording changes for the approvals required for the bridges.
Mr. Ready asked Ms. McKnight to read Section E back with the new changes, which she did.
Mr. Puleo asked about the refuse plan. Mr. Griffin stated that they have refuse adjacent to the buildings
and in the northern parking area. Mr. Puleo asked if the refuse will be screened,to which Mr.Griffin
said yes.
Mr. Puleo asked if 60 Grove Street will be improved even if there is no tenant, to which Mr. Correnti said
yes,the exterior will be done. Mr. Puleo clarified that all of the landscaping and other associated
improvements will be done to 60 Grove Street, to which Mr. Correnti said yes.
Mr. Puleo asked how far they can get into Gary Hebert's recommendations for road improvements. Ms.
Duncan reviewed the recommendations. She explained that they are looking for state funds for some of
these projects. She stated that they have about$150,000 from the Stop &Shop mitigation fund, and
she described the other monies they are also looking at.
. Mr. Puleo asked about the grant fund monies, to which Ms. Duncan said they asked for about$900,000;
Mr. Puleo then asked what that would cover,which Ms. Duncan described the locations of the two
projects under consideration and she said that they expect to hear by November. Mr. Puleo asked how
they would move forward with the other improvements. Ms. Duncan said they would talk to the City
Council about setting a bond for capital improvements or Chapter 90.
Randy Clarke made a motion to approve with all of the stated conditions, seconded by Tim Kavanagh.
John Moustakis abstained. Approved 8-0. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Public hearing: Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision Plan for five
(5)single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA(Assessors Map
37, Lot 38). Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on
Thorndike St. Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Form C Application and waiver of frontage request, dated 9/26/12
➢ Definitive Subdivision Plan, Site Plan for 5 New Single-Family Houses at 18 Thorndike Street,
Salem, Mass., dated 9/26/12, by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering and North Shore
Survey Corp.
➢ Aerial photo with house renderings, no date
Patrick Delulis, 18 Thorndike Street, gave the Board a brief overview of the site. He stated that the
• parcel is oddly configured, and part of the property was part of the Welch Construction site. They
acquired the property in 2006, and they then had to go through brownfield remediation. They started
this process two years ago and they have gone before both the Conservation Commission and the
0
. Zoning Board and have received their approvals. Mr. Puleo asked if they got variances from the Board of
Appeals to which Mr. Delulis responded that they did, and described the variances. Mr. Puleo asked if
this was the same plan that they other boards saw, to which Mr. Delulis showed the graphic of that was
shared with the other boards. He went on to explain that what they would like to do is subdivide this
property into 5 properties; they want people to have ownership with their land. They thought the best
approach would be utilizing the services they have while being mindful of the density of the
neighborhood. He described the locations of the five properties and their access points. The plan shows
how the Zoning Board approved the plans in terms of how close they could build to each of the
properties. He noted that the neighborhood was not supportive of this site initially, but changes were
made, and Councilor Sosnowski helped mediate. They are asking for a waiver because they do not have
the frontage required. He thinks the proposed development will fit in with the neighborhood. He said
that the site has become overgrown. Due to how the land is configured the abutters will now have
people behind them. Mr. Puleo asked if there are lot lines or fences on the property to which Mr.
Delulis said that there is not a requirement to construct fences, and at this time they do not know what
they will create. He said that as part of the stormwater management plan, they are trying to minimize
the impervious surfaces on the site. So for instance, on the driveways they are recommending aqua
brick pavers, they are requiring bituminous paving for the private way only. They are not proposing any
curbing on the private way in order to not impede snow removal. They reviewed this with Scott
Patrowicz to make sure they are going to avoid any flow. Mr. Puleo asked if they are going to raise or
maintain the grade, to which Mr. Delulis said that they would raise it 3 feet. He noted that in the
process of the previous commercial use,the soil became contaminated. They will need to bring the site
up to grade.
• Helen Sides asked if the renderings showing the houses are drawn to scale. Mr. Delulis said that he
believes they are. Ms. Sides said that they look bigger than the surrounding houses to which Mr. Delulis
said they are. He said that they are trying to allow for the maximum space for someone to build. Ms.
Sides said she would hope that they would stay to the scale of the neighborhood. Mr. Delulis said that
some people want big houses, to which Mr. Clarke said that it's about the neighbors. He responded
stating that they will most likely scale down. Mr. Clarke asked what the square footage of the houses
would be, to which Mr. Delulis said that they are about 2000 square feet. Ms. Sides said that she is
sensitive to the scale of the neighborhood. Mr. George said that when he walked the property he
noticed that the lot sizes are double the size of the other lot sizes. Mr. Delulis said he did not want to
seek higher density and five seemed to be a compromise. They are going to keep it somewhat in the
character of the neighborhood, but some of the houses are tiny and they couldn't build something that
someone would buy. Ms. Sides said that it's too bad that some of the houses weren't moved up to the
street to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood to which Mr. Delulis responded that this was a similar
sentiment of the Zoning Board. Ms. Sides said there are all kinds of ways to change the plan to
accommodate the neighborhood with this, and that's what makes the Board like these neighborhoods.
Ms. McKnight summarized the discussion at the Board of Appeals about this issue and they were split
between providing more or less relief. These were the decisions of the Board of Appeals and where
they provided relief. She notes this is before the Planning Board to have the street and the lot lines
reviewed. Ms. Sides said she feels it's unfortunate that this is coming to the Planning Board after these
decisions are made. '
• Issue opened to the public for comment
Ward 2 Councilor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, stated that he has been working with this site for
ten years and was originally proposed to hold 12 houses. They've had many neighborhood meetings
0
and they neighbors were happy with 5 houses. A lot of what we are seeing here is because of the
neighborhood influence.
Lawrence Timilio, 11 Ames Street, described his house location in relation to the project.
Mr. George stated that when he was looking at this when two neighbors approached and stated that
they are happy that this area got cleaned up. Councilor Sosnowski said that they are a very vocal group.
Mr. George asked how many houses Mr. Delulis originally tried for to which Mr. Delulis said they tried
for 8 units.They are just at a point where they want to put it all together and then just finish it off. It
currently is an eyesore, so for a number of reasons they want to clean it up.
Mr. Puleo stated that they have to get the City Engineer's review for this. Ms. McKnight stated that she
has not heard back from engineering but she will check back. Mr. Delulis said if there are additional
details needed, they will definitely add them. Mr. Puleo asked about seeing an engineering sheet for
site drainage and other issues.
Mr. Clarke asked about the fire department feedback as the right of way is tight. Mr. Delulis said that he
didn't know if a fire truck could get down there. Ms. McKnight stated that they are waiting to hear back
from the fire department.
Mr. Moustakis asked about grading. Mr. Delulis stated that they need to bring in fill to bring it back up
to grade. He knows that there is still review to be done and he appreciates being opened tonight.
• Mr. Timilio described his house in relation to the site and spoke about a drainage pipe off of Thorndike
Street. He stated that he does not want to see it all get drained into the ocean, Mr. Delulis stated that
they plan to keep it all on their site. Mr. Puleo stated that the City Engineer will review this. Mr. Delulis
said that they have been to Conservation Commission who recommended building a berm in front of lot
#5. Mr. Puleo asked about their comments and Mr. Delulis responded that they want them to build
some berms with some plantings and they are very cognizant of the drainage issues.
Helen Sides made a motion to continue to November 1, 2012, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved
9-0.
Old/New Business
None.
Adjournment
Lewis Beilman made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George. All approved 9-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:25 pm.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions
have been posted separately by address or project at http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA PlanMin/.
Respectfully submitted,
• Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 11/15/12
i
+n
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit,
and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision
(Corrected Decision)
1, 3 & 5 Harmony Grove Road and 60& 64 Grove Street j
Map 16, Lots 236, 237 239, 377& 378 C-)
r v
r' N
October 26, 2012 z" a'
F-4t
D
a
MRM Project Management, LLC N
P.O. Box 388
N o
Beverly, MA 01915
• RE: Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Flood Hazard District Special
Permit Decision for Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments
On February 2, 2012, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing under Section
7.3, Planned Unit Development, Section 9.5, Site Plan Review, and Section 8.1, Flood Hazard Overlay
District (FHOD), of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, at the request of MRM Project Management,
LLC, for the properties located at 3 Harmony Grove Road and 60 & 64 Grove Street, (Map 16, Lots
236, 237 and 239). The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential
buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building,
associated parking and landscaping, and a bicycle path providing public access to the North River
Canal.
The Public Hearing was continued to February 16, 2012 (but was not heard on that date), March 1,
2012 (but was not heard on that date), March 15, 2012, April 5, 2012, April 19, 2012 (but was not
heard on that date), May 3, 2012, May 17, 2012, June 7, 2012, June 21 (but was not heard on that
date), July 5, 2012, July 19, 2012 (but was not heard on,that date), September 6, 2012 (but was not
heard on that date), September 11, 2012, September 20, 2012 (but was not heard on that date),
October 1, 2012, and October 18, 2012.
At the hearing on October 1, 2012, the applicant presented a plan showing the addition of two
adjacent parcels to the Planned Unit Development, 1 and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16, Lots 377
• .and 378). The continued public hearing on October 18, 2012 and revised project with additional
parcels was properly re-advertised and additional abutters notified.
120 WAS IIINGrUN STaecr, SALEM, IvLAssncnuar;rrs 01970 . '(r.i.: 978.7,15.9595 FAX: 978.710.0+04 . w%.vw.S,u.r:M.COM
The Planning Board, after numerous public hearings and review of submitted materials and
• testimony, hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinance, Sec. 7.3 Planned Unit Development, as follows:
1) 7.3.1 Purpose—The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD), which incorporates a mix of
housing, commercial space and open space, meets the purpose of Planned Unit Development,
Section 7.3, to ensure compliance with the Master Plan of the City of Salem, Neighborhood Master
Plan of the North River Canal Corridor, and good zoning practice. The proposed Planned Unit
Development will promote the purpose of Section 7.3 by redeveloping a contaminated, blighted
brownfield site and bringing it into productive reuse. The 1996 Master Plan emphasizes the
presence of vacant industrial properties as one of the most important land use issue facing the
City of Salem (City of Salem Master Plan Update and Action Plan, 1996, page 23), and highlights
the difficulty of redeveloping these properties, particularly those with environmental
contamination.
While the property is not within the NRCC neighborhood or zoning district, it is adjacent to it, and
shares many of the characteristics of the former industrial parcels in the NRCC. The Neighborhood
Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor(2003) promotes constructing a waterfront
pathway along the banks of the North River(Section 2.8), providing waterfront access along the
canal, unlocking redevelopment north of Bridge Street, and improving the image of the canal
edges (Section 3.3).
• Further, 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 districts.
The mixture of residential, commercial and open space/recreational uses proposed is appropriate,
and the departure from strict provisions of zoning classifications, specifically residential use in the
Business Park Development zoning district, is justified by the cleanup of the formerly
contaminated and dangerous property, rehabilitation of a blighted site, location of new housing
near the Salem MBTA commuter rail station, and construction of a multi-use path along the canal
that continues the walking and biking trail system proposed for the North River Canal Corridor in
its neighborhood master plan and in other NRCC development projects.
ThePlanned Unit Development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. The
project requires remediation of a property contaminated from its former industrial use. The
cleanup of the site, introduction of controlled drainage infrastructure, and erosion prevention
measures will result in improvements to the natural environment on the site and surrounding it,
including the water quality in the North River Canal.
2) 7.3.2 Applicability—The proposed PUD meets the minimum size requirement of 60,000 square
feet; the development parcels total 362,000 square feet. The underlying zoning districts of the
proposed development parcels are largely Business Park Development, with a small portion of
Industrial; both are eligible zoning districts for PUD treatment. A portion of 64 Grove Street,
• which is mostly zoned Business Park Development, is zoned Residential Two-Family, which does
not allow PUD. However, the PUD development does not extend more than 30 feet into this more
restrictive zoning district, and so is allowable under the Salem Zoning Ordinance (Section 2.4, Lot
Split by Boundary Line).
2
• 3) 7.3.3 Uses—All proposed uses, including residential multi-family and commercial, are allowed in a
PUD development.
➢ 7.3.3.2 —A commercial use (office space) is proposed within the PUD project site. However, it
is not directly adjacent to a residential zoning district.
➢ 7.3.3.3 — In the Business Park Development district, residential uses and associated
improvements cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcel. The residential
development, including associated improvements such as driveways, parking and landscaping,
comprise less than 50% of the total land area of the project site.
4) 7.3.4 Dimensional Requirements:
7.3.4.1. Bulk, yards, parking and loading needs were evaluated by the Planning Board and
found to be adequate.
7.3.4.2. No individual house lots are proposed. The Planning Board finds the amount of
frontage provided on the project site to be adequate and appropriate to the surrounding
neighborhood.
➢ 7.3.4.3. No individual house lots are proposed. The Planning Board finds the amount of usable
and accessible open area within the total development is adequate.
➢ 7.3.4.4. No proposed residential building on the site exceeds four (4) stories, as determined by
the Salem Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer.
5) 7.3.5 Open Space—the applicant/project owner will provide an easement along the proposed
bicycle path and directly adjacent areas to allow for public access and recreational use by residents of
the City as a condition of this application (see Conditions, below).
The Planning Board hereby makes the following findings pertaining to the Flood Hazard District
Special Permit Application:
1. The proposed use will comply in all respects to the uses and provisions of the underlying
district in which the land is located.
2. There are adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the
site and in relation to adjacent streets and property, particularly in the event of flooding of the
lot(s) or adjacent lot(s) caused by either overspill from waterbodies or high runoff.
3. Utilities, including gas, electricity, fuel, water and sewage disposal, shall be located and
constructed so as to protect against breaking, leaking, shortcircuiting, grounding or igniting or
any other damage due to flooding.
• At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on October 18, 2012, the Planning Board
voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke, Lewis Beilman, Tim
Ready, Mark George, Helen Sides, and George McCabe), none opposed, and one abstaining (John
Moustakis) to approve the Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Flood
3
Hazard District Special Permit, subject to the following conditions:
• 1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the plans entitled, "Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development: Legacy Park
Apartments at Harmony Grove, 60 & 64 Grove Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road, Salem, MA
December 2011," prepared by Griffin Engineering Group, LLC, LeBlanc Survey Associates, Beauds
Art, Inc., Sebego Technics, WLS Lighting Systems, for MRM Project Management, LLC, including
pages N-1, C-1, C-2, C-3A-C, C-SA-C, C-6, C-7, C-8, 1 of 1 (Landscaping Plan), 1 of 1 (Photometric
Plan), A.1.1, A2.2, dated December 2011 and last revised June 20, 2012; page A2.1, last dated July
2, 2012; C-4A-C and C-8, last dated September 10, 2012, and pages C-3 and C-9, last dated
October 1, 2012.
2. Amendments
Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed to be a
significant change 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. Project Delays
The developer, his successors or assigns shall notify the Department of Planning and Community
Development if work on the site ceases for any reason for a period of six (6) months. In this event,
the applicant shall be required to appear before the Planning Board and report to the Board the
• reason(s) why work has ceased at the project and a schedule of when work will begin again at the
site, as well as a date of final project completion. If substantial work has not commenced on the
site, as deemed by the Board, and such work is not anticipated to begin within two (2) years of the
date of the Planning Board's original decision, the applicant shall notify the Board and, prior to the
two-year anniversary of the issuance of the permit, shall request an extension of the permit from
the Board. Applicant shall provide in such request any and all materials the Board may require to
make a determination on the extension request, including but not limited to: studies, reports or
new plans, at the applicant's expense, as requested by the Board and deemed necessary by the
City Planner.
4. Landscaping
a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans.
b. 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.
c. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of the trees
shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting.
d. Final completed landscaping shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior to the
• issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. Signage
4
All proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner in accordance with the
• City of Salem sign ordinance prior to the issuance of a sign permit. Approval of the site plans does
not represent approval of proposed signage.
6. 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 for the residential buildings.
c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. 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. 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.
• c. 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.
d. 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 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 sidewalks, roadways, utilities, landscaping, etc. damaged during construction shall be
replaced or repaired to their pre-construction condition, or better.
h. A construction traffic/phasing management plan and schedule shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning & Community Development and Police Department for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
. 8. Health Department and Board of Health
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Health Department and Board of Health,
including but not limited to the following:
5
a. The units must comply with all the requirements of Chapter II of the State Sanitary code:
• 105CMR410 including but not limited to:
> Screens for windows
> Adequate trash disposal facilities
> Adequate ventilation
> Provide heating during the heating season at the required temperatures
b. Provide a mosquito control plan for the catch basins.
c. All units that are rented must be granted a certificate of fitness by the Board of Health prior to
occupancy. A copy must be provided to the renter.
d. If the units are sub-metered, then the owner must fill sub-metering affidavit for each
individual unit prior to renting unit. If the affidavit is not filed, tenant cannot be charged for
water.
e. Applicant must submit a trash disposal plan to ensure there is adequate capacity for storage of
trash onsite, including contingencies to address tenant changeovers and other high trash
disposal events.
f. Building owner is required to ensure that adequate contingencies are in place to address pest
control/remediation. Specifically:
A pest control survey is to be done prior to commencement of construction.
> There is to be a pre-baiting program in place.
> There is to be an ongoing pest monitoring program and a program to respond to
complaints from abutters.
• > Applicant is to submit a written description of the program and ongoing results of pest
control site visits has to be available for inspection.
Reports must include any rodent activity and actions taken. The locations should be
mapped and activity identified by location of stations.
9. Office of the City Engineer
The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer,
including but not limited to the following:
a. Applicant is to provide a completed NO[ and SWPPP to the Planning Department prior to
any land disturbance, and in any event, prior to issuance of a building permit.
b. Applicant is to provide a completed and signed Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement to
the Planning Department prior to obtaining a building permit.
c. Applicant is to provide detailed design plans stamped by a Massachusetts Registered
Professional Engineer for the proposed retaining walls for review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to obtaining a building permit.
d. Applicant is to provide a step-backwater analysis for the 10-, 50- and 100-year flood events
for both existing and proposed conditions to demonstrate the adequacy of the hydraulic
opening, structure depth and profile of the access road, for review and approval by the
City Engineer prior to obtaining a building permit for the residential buildings or the
bridges.
. e. Applicant is to provide a detailed structural, geotechnical and hydraulic design for the
bridges for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to obtaining a building permit
for the residential buildings or vehicular bridge. Applicant is to provide a detailed
6
structural, geotechnical and hydraulic design for the pedestrian bridge for review and
• approval by the City Engineer prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.
f. Applicant is to provide detailed hydraulic flow and design calculations for the proposed
domestic and fire water services for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to
obtaining a building permit or commencing land disturbance activities.
g. Applicant is to coordinate with the City to obtain access to the valve at Beaver Street in
order to evaluate its condition and to determine if it will need to be replaced prior to
obtaining a building permit for the residential or commercial buildings. Applicant shall
coordinate this inspection with the City Engineer.
h. Applicant is to add the MDC traps to the operation and maintenance plan, schedule and
log form. The operation and maintenance plan should include at a minimum the
frequency of inspections, cleaning and pumping.
L Applicant will be responsible for replacing the sewer service if it proves to be in
unsatisfactory condition. Applicant shall be responsible to coordinate the inspection of the
existing sewer lines with the City Engineer.
j. Applicant shall inspect and repair as necessary the 12-inch drainage pipe from Harmony
Grove Road to the North River Canal that is located on the 1 Harmony Grove Road parcel.
The work is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. If a different size pipe or
other repair is needed, the applicant shall be responsible for the work.
30. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
11. Office of the Building Commissioner
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner.
12. Conservation Commission
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission.
13. Utilities
a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
any Building Permit. The applicant shall have an engineer certify the utility plans for review by
the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit.
b. All electrical utilities for the site shall be underground.
15. HVAC
a. The HVAC equipment located on the building roofs shall be visually screened by parapets, as
shown on the submitted plans.
b. HVAC units shall be sufficiently buffered and the applicant shall take steps to further mitigate
noise emanating from the HVAC units(s) if the Board of Health receives any complaints.
16. Maintenance
• a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the
applicant. "Refuse removal" includes recycling, which shall be the responsibility of the owner,
his successors or assigns. The owner shall provide adequate facilities to ensure all users are
able to recycle their trash. Owner is to enter into a contract with a company of the owner's
7
choice to arrange pick-up of recyclable material. A copy of this contract is to be submitted to
• the City Engineer.
b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site.
17. As-built Plans
a. 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 any Certificate of Occupancy.
b. 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 any Certificate of
Occupancy.
c. 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 any Certificate of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City
Engineer.
18. 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.
• 19. Affordable Housing
The Petitioner shall place an Affordable Housing Restriction on the development ensuring that at least
fourteen (14) of the one hundred and forty-one (141) units shall be affordable. The form of the
restriction is to be approved by the City Planner and recorded with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.
The affordable housing restriction is to be in accordance with the eligibility criteria for the
Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory
for the purpose of ensuring that at least fourteen (14) dwelling units will be restricted as affordable
housing for households whose annual incomes are eighty percent (80%) or less of area median
income with rents affordable to low and moderate income households, by standards established by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for a period of ninety-nine (99) years from the
date of the first occupancy permit.
20. Special Conditions:
a. The parcel located at 1 Harmony Grove Road, if developed in the future, is to be developed
for a commercial use. Such future development shall be considered an amendment to the
Planned Unit Development and is subject to Planning Board review and approval.
b. The Planning Board encourages commercial development on the property in the future.
The Planning Board will require only 172 spaces on the site to be dedicated to residential
use. The remaining 43 spaces may be dedicated to commercial use in the future.
c. Applicant is to submit revised plans to the Planning Board demonstrating that the parcels
• identified as 5 Harmony Grove Road and 1 Harmony Grove Road are included in the overall
Planned Unit Development site, prior to issuance of a building permit for the residential
buildings. The inclusion of these parcels helps ensure that the overall residential uses and
associated improvements do not exceed 50% of the land area comprising the PUD site.
8
d. Applicant is to provide an easement running to the City for a multi-use path on the parcel
. located at 5 Harmony Grove Road. The easement is to be recorded at the Registry of
Deeds prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
e. Applicant is to provide an easement running to the City of Salem for public access and
recreational use of the multi-use path shown on the site plans. This easement is to extend
the entire length and width of the multi-use path, as well as the areas between the path
and the Canal, and the path and five feet from the front of Buildings 2 and 3 (not including
any area shown as residential land area on the site plan). The easement is to be reviewed
and approved by the City Planner and recorded at the Registry of Deeds prior to issuance
of a building permit for the residential buildings shown on the Plan.
f. Elevation drawings showing renovation of the existing commercial building on 60 Grove
Street, along with a description of the proposed use, are to be submitted to the City
Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit for 60 Grove Street.
g. Traffic Mitigation:
➢ The applicant agrees to donate $100,000 to the City of Salem for traffic improvements
in the area in and around Harmony Grove Road, Mason Street, Grove Street, Boston
Street, Bridge Street and Goodhue Street for traffic mitigation prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any of the new residential buildings shown on the Plan.
➢ Subject to all necessary permitting and approvals from the City of Salem, the applicant
is to make the following improvements, as described in the submitted Traffic Impact
and Access Study, Proposed Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove, Salem, MA,
• prepared by Vanasse &Associates, Inc., dated December 2011:
Sidewalks are to be upgraded to the City's standard concrete sidewalks along the
frontages of 3 Harmony Grove Road and 60 and 64 Grove Street, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. Any existing
bituminous concrete sidewalks along 1 and 5 Harmony Grove Road are to be
repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of any Certificate
of Occupancy.
❖ Existing signage and markings at the Grove Street railroad crossing are to be
updated to comply with current standards of the US Department of Transportation
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as amended, prior to issuance
of any Certificate of Occupancy.
4• At the intersection of Grove Street, Beaver Street and Goodhue Street:
i. Provide pavement markings to delineate travel lanes
ii. Install stop signs on the Grove Street northbound approach at Goodhue
Street, the Beaver Street westbound approach at Grove Street and the
Beaver Street eastbound approach at Goodhue Street
iii. Provide appropriate signage to enforce one-way traffic flow on Goodhue
Street
At the intersection of Grove Street at Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street:
i. Install a stop sign at the Grove Street northbound right-turn movement
ii. Upgrade signs and pavement markings at the intersection
• During months when vegetation is in leaf, as indicated in the submitted Traffic
Impact and Access Study, vegetation must be kept trimmed back to ensure
adequate driveway sight lines and sight triangles for vehicles exiting the site.
9
1 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, Chair
•
•
10
CITY OF SALEM
rra
� rx PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Corrected Decision
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,
October 18, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,
Salem Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted on the following item:
Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3 HARMONY
GROVE RD and 60 &64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special
Permit. Site plan was revised to include two additional parcels, l & 5 HARMONY
GROVE RD (Map 16, Lots 377 & 378), with no change to the number of proposed
residential units. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family
residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
Decision: Approved
Corrected decision filed with the City Clerk on October 25, 2012
This notice is being sent in compliance with 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.
�CO
/AN
CITY OF SALEM
\qjt PLANNING BOARD
IBI2 SEP 25 1 b
FILE it
CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a special meeting on Monday;
October 1, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Roorn 313, 120 Washington Street. (No
will be held on Thursday, October 4, 2012.)
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
I. Approval of Minutes
r 9/11/12 and 9/20/12 meeting minutes
2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the prope(',,
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Developm�-nt
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed pioje�t im
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an exisnwl 7,�IG0
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Old/New Business
T. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Low M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2023 through
'S!n?ei r S,�r.r:ai, Nkivaiu ,r:'rrs 01970 . 'Cia.: 9713.7'}; 959:) Fix. 4)73.740.0-t0-4 ,�i.e,v1 cuss
i(1�llUt(R9
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• , v DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSI FfS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAX: 978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: September 28, 2012
RE: Agenda —October 1, 2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
➢ Minutes from 9/11/12
• ➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property
located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory),for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The
proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units),
re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and
landscaping.
The applicant has provided the CAD file of the site plan showing the allocation of residential space
highlighted. I sent this file to Woodard & Curran to review; they responded:
"The calculated areas in CAD look good and match the table in the letter provided. The total area
referenced in the second paragraph of the letter reads "296,650 square feet" and should be 296,659.
The parcel size in the table is correct(296,659 square feet)"
Woodard &Curran also printed out the file provided; it is included in your packet.
We have also asked Woodard &Curran to review the responses to Griffin Engineering's last response
letter(distributed at the last meeting), to ensure the new information is accurate and adequately
addresses their concerns. I will not have the results of this latest review back from Woodard & Curran
until Monday, but if I receive them early enough in the day, I will forward them to you by email.
• We have also received comments from Health Agent Larry Ramdin:
• • The units must comply with all the requirements of Chapter II of the State Sanitary code:
105CMR410 including but not limited to
o screens for windows
o Adequate trash disposal facilities
o Adequate ventilation
o Provide heating during the heating season at the required temperatures
• Building owner is required to ensure that adequate contingencies are in place to address
pest control/remediation
• Provide a mosquito control plan for the catch basins
• ALL units that are rented must be granted a certificate of fitness by the Board of Health
prior to occupancy. A copy has to be provided to the renter
• If the units are sub-metered then owner must fill sub-metering affidavit for each
individual unit prior to renting unit. If the affidavit is not filed , tenant cannot be charged
for water
• A trash disposal plan to ensure there is adequate capacity for storage of trash onsite.
Contingencies to address tenant changeovers and other high trash disposal events.
I requested some additional clarification regarding rodent control, since neighbors had expressed
concerns about this issue at a previous meeting. Larry provided the following detail:
• The Pest control survey has to be done prior to commencement of construction
• There has to be a pre-baiting program in.place
• • On ongoing pest monitoring program and a program to respond to complaints from abutters
• A written description of the program and ongoing results of pest control site visits has to be
available for inspection
• The reports must include any rodent activity and actions taken.The locations should be
mapped and activity identified by location of stations.
•
-2-
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 10/1/12
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Monday, October 1, 2012 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,Tim Ready, George McCabe, Lewis
Beilman, Mark George,Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Lynn Duncan,
Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,
Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Approval of Minutes
September 11, 2012 draft minutes
Postponed until the next meeting.
September 20, 2012 draft minutes
Postponed until the next meeting.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site
. Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ PowerPoint Presentation, Legacy Park Apartments,Salem, dated May 2012
➢ Review letter from Woodard &Curran, dated 10/1/12
➢ Email from Paul Jacques, Woodard & Curan, dated 9/27/12,and accompanying CAD printout
Attorney Joseph Correnti,63 Federal Street,Salem, represents the developers and property owners
from MRM Project Management and he expressed his thanks for the meeting being rescheduled to
move the issue forward with the ultimate goal of wrapping it up. As they stated at the last meeting,
they are done with the overall presentation and they are responding to requests and feedback. They
will review the engineering peer review tonight as well as present an additional amenity which is a
pedestrian footbridge. After they review the engineering calculations they want to discuss the acreage
questions that have been previously raised. Mr. Puleo asked if they will review the letter from Woodard
and Curran as the Board has not had an opportunity to fully review it. Mr. Correnti said they also just
received it. Mr. Puleo asked if they had trash disposal details, a question raised by the Board of Health.
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, reviewed the letter received by Woodward and Curran, highlighting the
• new comments. In terms of the infiltration systems,Woodard and Curran had no more comments
regarding perc tests. They also referred to the catch basin that was on Harmony Grove Road,which Mr.
1
Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to the identify the location of the catch basin. He stated this was the one that
originally had a typo on the plan. A completed stormwater pollution prevention plan was recommended
by Woodard &Curran,which they have promised to do this as a condition of approval prior to any land
disturbance. They have been asked to provide a statement that there are no illicit connections made
into the sewer system, and prior to submitting that statement they want to tear down the buildings that
are there today as they don't know if there is something underground that they are currently unaware
of. Mr. Griffin then stated that they made improvements to the parking lots and changed the retaining
wall to better manage water. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to identify the areas on the plan which he
refers to,to which Mr. Griffin pointed them out. Mr. Griffin stated that the bridge crossings have to be
addressed with the Conservation Commission in terms of hydraulics and width. He continued to review
the letter and noted that the issues were previously addressed in past meetings. There are things that
will be done in the future. They have no more comments about the sewer flows,and there were
questions about the MDC traps, which ties into the sewer system. Woodard &Curran said that they are
an important part of the plan that should be included,which the team has submitted their plans to the
city. The sewer will be inspected during construction, as well as on a quarterly basis for the first year,
and they will replace as necessary.
Mr. Griffin then moved on to to comments about a pedestrian bridge,which is located over the North
River. He stated that it is intended to be a convenience to the proposed commercial space and he
shared copies of the plans with the Planning Board. Mr. Puleo asked if the public will have access to the
bridge, and Mr. Correnti said yes. Mr. Griffin then described the location, elevation and the proposed
construction of the bridge. He noted that the bridge has been set just above the 100 year flood line and
will include handicapped ramps.
He then discussed the CAD file,to which Ms. McKnight stated that Woodard &Curran stated that the •
CAD calculations provided by the applicant were correct. Mr. Correnti spoke about how the calculations
are close to the requirement but are less than the 50% residential area, as required by the zoning
ordinance. He noted that they are the first project in the city to do this and they are pleased to hear
that their calculations are being confirmed. He also acknowledges that some of this is subjective and
there are real concerns about this. They have thought about ways to address this. He says the project
has the opportunity to redefine the project site and add land to the site,which adds more non-
residential space. He notes that this is a concern that they are addressing,and Mr. Griffin presented a
slide on this issue. He spoke of adding property to the site on Harmony Grove Road, at#1 and#5. They
will add 1.5 acres to the 6.8 acres to the project, and he shared a picture of the spacing plan which
demonstrated this. Mr. Puleo asked if they are adding in the square footage of these two parcels to
which Mr.Griffin responded in the affirmative, and he went on to provide the calculations. Mr. Correnti
explained that the two pieces of land are currently vacant and one is an unbuildable lot. They are
looking at this as an attempt to clean up Harmony Grove Road. Mr. Correnti continued describing the
areas that they are recommending including,which was presented on a slide, and he stated that they
are not residential. He noted again that they have heard the concerns and they think this is a solution
that they think is possible,and they would be willing to be follow up with. Mr. Correnti stated that both
pieces are owned by Harmony Grove Cemetery.
John Moustakis asked about the location of#5 Harmony Grove Road,and Mr.Griffin stated that it goes
down to the Peabody line. He then asked if they own the land going towards Peabody,to which Mr.
Griffin described the location of the property in relation to the Stop &Shop.
Helen Sides noted that it is all cleared. •
2
• Randy Clarke asked if these lots are big enough to allow for some kind of retail space or would it all be
open space; and would they be interested in working with the city on a bike path. Mr. Correnti said yes
that making these parcels part of the PUD allows for those options,though they are not proposing
anything right now. Mr. Clarke asked if they are amenable to working with the city to get this
commissioned to be a bike path,to which Mr. Correnti said that this is so new but they are open to
looking at those possibilities. Mr. Puleo asked what the square footage of lot#1 is and if it would be
large enough to put a building on it. Mr. Griffin responded that the size of#1 Harmony Grove Road is
half an acre to which Mr. Correnti acknowledged that it is nothing large but they do want to keep it
open to putting a structure on there. He then continued stating that once they make it part of the PUD
then they could come back to the Board in the future. Mr. Puleo then asked if he could look into what
could be done with the property.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, asked for clarification if Mr. Puleo was
speaking of the bike path to which Mr. Puleo said that he was going back to Mr. Clarke's original
question in regards to lot#1. Ms. Duncan said that is a possibility if it is part of the PUD. She then
stated that if the other newly added parcel is developed that it has to be for commercial use because
that is the land that is being added in, even though it was confirmed by the City's Consultant Engineer
that it is under 50% requirement, but it should be clear that is commercial use in the future which would
also further the City's goal toward that end. Mr. Puleo asked Ms. Duncan to clarify if it would support a
building or if it's part of the PUD, so they should not be concerned about lot size,to which she agreed
and noted that it has the appropriate frontage.
• Lewis Beilman asked if they have spoken with Harmony Grove Cemetery to which Mr. Correnti said that
there is an agreement in place that they will purchase the land if the Board agrees to this.
Mark George asked if this is actually under agreement,to which Mr. Correnti said yes. Mr. George then
asked if the total acreage of both lots if approx 1.5 acres. He then asked about the frontage,to which
Mr. Griffin said 260 feet.
Mr. Puleo asked Ms. Duncan if this would require re-filing. Ms. Duncan said no, but it would require a
new notification.
Mr. Griffin then presented a PowerPoint on the impact of the project on the density of the area, to
which Mr. George asked if this is the percent of total site size and included commercial and residential.
Mr. Griffin stated that this is based on units per acre based on the plans that have been filed.
Mr. Clarke asked Ms. Duncan about how this impacts the Master Plan. Ms. Duncan stated that there has
always been an idea of connecting bike paths between towns and she will take a look at that.
Tim Ready asked Ms. McKnight if they have a formal written decision from the peer reviewer that says
the residential area doesn't exceed 49.5%,to which Ms. McKnight said yes. He then asked if the new
parcels would lower the residential percentage down to 40.6%,to which Mr. Correnti said yes.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Ward 3 Councilor Todd Siegel, 28 Brittania Circle, he stated that at the last meeting he asked what
• percentage could be built on this for commercial space. He doesn't care that they have a parcel of land
that cannot be built on,and he reiterated that this is not what the City Council had in mind. Mr. Griffin
3
stated that he did not have those numbers, and Councilor Siegel stated that he wants to know what can •
be built and where it can be built. Ms. Duncan responded that they are saying, and what the ordinance
says, is that under 50%of the land area can be residential and she understands that the City Solicitor has
agreed to work with the Council on amending the PUD ordinance. It should probably be an explicit
condition that the new parcel of land should be designated commercial. Councilor Siegel stated that
they originally intended this to have a 50%commercial tax rate and he doesn't see this as being
anything more than a 20%commercial tax rate and he wants the Board to understand this.
Councilor-at-Large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue, stated that he is happy with the way the ordinance
reads, he is just not happy with how it is being interpreted. This land started out as commercial and if it
isn't buildable, then it is not buildable for commercial. He asked what 50%of the commercial tax rate is
left when this is done. He wants the developer to show him where the 50% is.The way this is being
designed does not allow for this.
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan,4 Nichols Street, noted that this was originally zoned commercial and they
shouldn't have this much residential. He stated that the Board has the power to require this as this is
the closest they will have to a business project to Route 128. He stressed that more than 50%should be
commercial. He feels that this is getting ridiculous, and they have the power to require this. He
concluded stating that this is just playing with numbers.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, he thinks the numbers game is ridiculous. He thinks the zone of land is
subject to flooding. As a planner, he can't see why they are going to add this land other than adding a
meaningless lower density statistic. He does not think it accomplishes much. If they are looking to
connect to the Peabody system,they need to look at something more focused. He stated that he was •
assured by Ms. McKnight that the issues he raised during his memorandums would be considered in the
Planning Board decision. He revisited the letters and addressed some of the comments of Attorney
Bobrowski. He urged the Board to read zoning ordinance 7.3.5 and asked if this was clear to establish a
category of open space. He asked about the easement, and how that would be used. He then discussed
the landscaping issues and how that is defined as associated improvements in 7.3.3. He emphasized
that those are the big issues and he urged the Planning Board to consider them as they are making their
decision. He stressed that these issues are a numbers game. He noted that the pedestrian bridge has
been moved several times and that should be looked at more closely. His other issues were in relation
to the bicycle storage and the plan does not show any inside all-weather storage; the Conservation
Commission has not received a request for an order of conditions;the Chapter 91 requirement has not
been fulfilled; and the MEPA review also has not been completed. He feels that it is not in compliance
with the Master Plan.
Mr. Puleo asked if they need a Chapter 91 License for the footbridge to which Mr. Griffin said that they
do.
Ms. Duncan asked if there is proposed bicycle storage inside the building. Mr. Griffin showed the
locations of both indoor and outdoor bicycle storage.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked about the ownership of 3 Harmony Grove Road. She does not
know how they can stamp a project if the ownership is not resolved. Mr. Correnti stated that they
provided a deed for 3 Harmony Grove Road which was reviewed by the City Solicitor and they are very
comfortable with this. •
4
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that this is about how land use is defined, particularly in light
of a change in use with a special permit. He stated that the City Council has spoken quite clearly of what
their intentions were with this project. The question the Board has to answer with this project is what is
the meaning of all those bits and pieces and what is the equitable distribution of that open space.
Mr. Ready addressed a question to Councilor Ryan, and asked if he could clarify if they have the same
numbers. Mr. Ryan stated that their intention was to have more than just a small shop or an ATM there,
they wanted more business as it is a business park development. He pointed out that this was originally
a business park and they wanted more than 50%to be business. Mr. Ready stated that the Board has
labored quite diligently to make sure the numbers were correct. Mr. Ryan said that the numbers are in
the eye of the beholder and they can make the numbers look the way they want.
Councilor Sargent stated that he does not think that this will be assessed at the tax assessors office as
50%commercial.
Mr. George asked for clarification on what is proposed for 3 Harmony Grove Road, and how it is zoned.
Mr. Griffin stated that it is going to be an egress and it is zoned BPD. Mr.George the asked if the lots#1
and 3 were combined and it would only be used in a commercial manner,would that fit in line with the
City Council's intent. Mr. Correnti said that it would go towards that goal, and it was the planner's
suggestion not his, but if it is the Board's will,they can do that.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, asked about the elasticity of the numbers based on how non-residential
is defined. It has to do with the non-residential component. She thinks the new proposals for the
• parcels are good but she thinks they are in a flood area. She feels that nobody is really addressing what
would be built there.
Teasie Riley-Goggin,9 Wisteria Street,states that they will be setting precedent on this project and she
feels there is not enough clarity on this project. She feels that this could be answered by a court.
Mr. Beilman noted that the ordinance says in a PUD, all the uses or any combination of uses are
permitted. He says we have been talking about intent of the council, but the ordinance seems very
clear. If this was the intent,then the ordinance should say in the BPD,commercial uses shall exceed
50%, and he doesn't read that. He says it's not just a question of interpretation—the language seems
very clear. Councilor-at-large Sargent stated that the business park development requirements need to
be looked at first,then the PUD.
Mr. Correnti wants to have a clear understanding that the Planning Board likes the plan to add#1&5
Harmony Grove Road. They will submit the amended plan before the next meeting on October 18`"and
he reiterated that that they have concluded their presentation. Mr. Puleo said that he wants to be clear
that they are not telling the applicant that they will approve this if they buy the parcels. Mr. Clarke
asked if they need to close the hearing, to which Mr. Puleo said no,they would keep it open until they
feel they have reached a point of deliberation.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing to October 18, 2012, seconded by Mark
George.All approved 9-0.
• Adjournment
5
Lewis Beilman made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 9-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:28 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 10/18/12
•
6
y City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
s p
Board
Date [e / i / 1 -2
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
cast net
6k--? t lvs�,,_x .sem 1-7 +.a1-371,r7y�ee��ey, �w►��'e't-toy(
sf q7k 211 U 9/.6
dor 1- �F�a 2 be S
Page of
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
"" °EP I a .4. 11. 0®
FILE 0
CITY CLERK, SALEM.MAS$,
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street.
C'*.&, yjwl0l' K
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ 9/11/12 meeting minutes
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and
Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96)
and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2).The proposed project includes the conversion of the
• existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment Gf
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO
CONTINUE TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2012.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
®n
#ems, Maga. an SEP 1 8 2 2
'..
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street,
Charles M. Puleo, Choir
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
9/11/12 meeting minutes
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and
Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96)
and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of t'na
existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (recleveiopn ent of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
h
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 5238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-<028 tough 2-203;.
h 1v
r
rn N
rM
:.{
-14 M
v o
120 WASHINGTON STREeT, SALEM, MASSAciiuserrs 01970 . Tei,: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 . www.s,n.eM.cOa:
. SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 9/20/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, September 20,
2012 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, Tim Ready, Lewis
Beilman, Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Danielle McKnight,
Staff Planner.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:23 p.m.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review
and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property
located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET
(Map 26, Lot 2).The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building
to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ "Site Development Plans for 162 Federal Street located in Salem,
• Massachusetts," dated 1/25/12, last revised 9/12/12
Attorney Scott Grover represents the petitioner. Mike Novak, the project's engineer,
presents the requested detail changes: 18 parking spaces to be shown on the plan, as
well as the granite curbing detail at the site entrance.
Mr. Puleo asks if the Board should include in its decision the number of spaces, and
specify how these are delegated within condo association. We never know that
information —it doesn't get looked at. Mr. Grover says this is established in the condo
documents. He says there are 18 spaces for 8 units; he can't say with absolute
certainty, but he is confident the allocation will be 2 spaces per unit and 2 additional
spaces as handicapped and guest spaces. Mr. Puleo notes that the zoning only calls for
1.5 per unit, so how would these be delegated?
Mr. Grover says the demand for parking on Federal St. is very heavy. He says he has
agreed to give the Board a copy of the condo documents once they are drawn up. This
can o in the decision. Mr. Puleo notes that the Board would ou d at least have something to
g g
refer to if anyone complains about not having proper number of spaces.
Mr. Clarke moves to approve the application, seconded by Ms. Sides, and the motion
passes 7-0 (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Moustakis, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke,
• and Mr. Beilman in favor, none opposed). The decision is hereby incorporated as part of
these minutes.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the •
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236,
237 &239),Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease
factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands
and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings(total of 141 units), re-use of
an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and
landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2012.
Mr. Clarke moves to continue the hearing to October 1, 2012, seconded by Ms. Sides
and approved 7-0.
Old/New Business
Mr. Moustakis asks for an update on Lafayette St. gas station. Mr. Puleo says a request
to the Council requesting to be open 24 hours was denied.
Mr. Clarke asks about the status of gas station on 114; this is not known.
Mr. Clarke moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Beilman and approved 7-0.
Mr. Puleo adjourns the meeting at 7:36 p.m. •
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies
of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at
http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA PlanMin/.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approved by the Planning Board 10/18/12
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
a ,
9EcM,N� � Board
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
rz2
�T -71L X665
Page of
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
_ IIIl SEP 25 P 2, 41
FILE #
CITY CLERK SALEM. MASS,
Site Plan Review and
Flood Hazard District Special Permit
Decision
September 25, 2012
William Wharff
30 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
• RE: Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit— 162 Federal Street and a pori ion i
of 150 Federal Street
On Thursday,July 19, 2012, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing
regarding the application of William Wharff for a Special Permit pursuant to Section 9.5, Site
Plan Review, and Section 8.1, Flood Hazard Overlay District, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, for
an eight-unit residential development located at 162 Federal Street (Map 26, Lot 96) and a
portion of 150 Federal Street (Map 26, Lot 2). The project includes the renovation of the
existing structure on 162 Federal Street (a former convent building) into eight residential units,
and associated parking.
The Planning Board hereby makes the following findings pertaining to the Flood Hazard Ditrici
Special Permit Application:,
1. The proposed use will comply in all respects to the uses and provisions of the unclerl, in ;
district in which the land is located. The property is located in the Residential Tv.o
Family Zoning District. The structure was previously a legally nonconforming office
building, and the applicant received a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals
on September 28, 2009 to change this nonconforming use to another, less detrimental,
nonconforming use (nine residential units). The Zoning Board of Appeals also issuecl a
Special Permit on September 28, 2009 to extend the nonconforming side yard, as well .s
a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit. The number of units was subsecluent'y
reduced to eight.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSMS 01970 EL: 978.745.9595 F,ix: 978.740.0404 . WWW.SArEM.Cory
• 2. There are adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement
within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and property, particularly in the event
of flooding of the lot(s) or adjacent lot(s) caused by either overspill from water bodies or
high runoff.
3. Utilities, including gas, electricity, fuel, water and sewage disposal, will be located and
constructed so as to protect against breaking, leaking, shortcircuiting, grounding or
igniting or any other damage due to flooding.
The Public Hearing was closed on September 11, 2012. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning Board held on September 20, 2012, the Board voted by a vote of seven (7) in favor
(Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanagh, John Moustakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Lewis Beilman, and
Helen Sides) in favor and none (0) opposed, to approve the application as complying with the
requirements of the Flood Hazard Overlay District, subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform with the plan entitled, "Site Development Plans for 162 Federal
Street Located in Salem, Massachusetts," prepared by Meridian Associates, dated
January 25, 2012 and last revised September 12, 2012.
• 2. Transfer of Ownership
Within five (5) days of transfer of ownership of the site, the Owner shall notify the Board
in writing of the new owner's name and address. The terms, conditions, restrictions
and/or requirements of this decision shall be binding on the Owner and its successors
and/or assigns.
3. Amendments
Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning
Board,
4. Construction Practices
All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions:
a. 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 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. Blastin
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 de 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.
5. Office of the City Engineer
All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. This includes, but is
not limited to, the following:
a. The applicant is to field-verify the size, age and type of the connection to the city
water and sewer systems to determine whether a new connection is needed.
Connections shall be cleaned and televised to ensure that no service replacement is
needed, prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant is responsible for installation
of a new connection, if needed. This work is to be coordinated with the Engineering
• Department.
6. Board of Health and Health Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Board of Health and Health
Department.
7. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
8. Conservation Commission
All work shall comply with the Order of Conditions issued by the Salem Conservation
Commission.
9. Building Commissioner
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner.
10. Utilities
a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
11. Department of Public Services
• The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services.
• 12. Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of
the applicant. "Refuse removal" includes recycling, which shall be the responsibility of
the owner, his successors or assigns. The owner shall provide adequate facilities to
ensure all users are able to recycle their trash. Owner is to enter into a contract with a
company of the owner's choice to arrange pick-up of recyclable material. A copy of this
contract is to be submitted to the City Engineer.
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.
13. 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.
14. HVAC
If an HVAC unit is located on the roof, it shall be visually screened prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy. The method for screening the unit, including colors and
materials, shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to
installation.
15. Landscaping
a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans.
b. Maintenance of all landscaping on the site shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.
The Applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two
(2) year period, from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and completion of
planting.
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. Final completed landscaping, done in accordance with the approved set of plans, shall
• be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plans, to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
4
® 16. 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.
17. Condominium Documents
The applicant is to submit a copy of the condominium documents (or at least that
portion pertaining to the allocation of parking spaces) to the Department of Planning
and Community Development afterthe documents are recorded.
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
Chair
5
CITY OF SALEM
� 5 PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decisions
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,
September 20, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington
Street, Salem Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted on the following item:
Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for a public hearing under Section 9.5, Site Plan Review,
and Section 8.1, Flood Hazard Overlay District, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance,
for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96). The proposed project
includes the conversion of the existing'building to eight (8) residential units and
associated parking and landscaping.
Decision: Approved
• Filed with the City Clerk on September 25, 2012
This notice is being sent in compliance with 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.
•
CITY OF SALEM
��'l •rr'tl f' )r' <
a� PLANNING BOARD
m m
r- t
n,r �
NOTICE OF MEETING (RESCHEDULED) N
y, a-
You are hereby notified that tine Salern Planning Board meeting originally scheduled
September 6, 2012 (Election Day) will be held on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 instcu„
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
I. Approval of Minutes
7/19/12 meeting minutes
2. Request of BVS CORPORATION for release of lots and acceptance of bond for the two-lot tiuhuic1 �
located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET(Map 15, Lots 315 and 567).
Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the Property located at 162
;. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review arnl ;nd
..,:
anFEDERAL S i j)
d a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes tl:,•
existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
f. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Nlap 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem %'I"" ;'r,�„ev lc;;inent of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Developm•.nt
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District S eci
al construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 1,11 11 units),re t Sermit. The of aln (<i,trii���
Square foot commercial office building, and associatedarkin �
P g and landscaping.
5. Old/New Business
G. Adjournment
Allow Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Low M.G.L. c. 39 423B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 tA;
CITY OF SALEMAm MASSACHUSETTS
�a% DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
gin$Qej COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ICIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-74o-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner
DATE: September 6, 2012
RE: Agenda—September 11, 2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
➢ Minutes from 7/19/12
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
• Request of BVS CORPORATION for release of lots and acceptance of bond for the two-lot subdivision
located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET(Map 15,Lots 315 and 567).
Brian Sullivan, developer of this two-lot subdivision,will attend the meeting to make this request. All
conditions of his decision required to be met prior to issuance of a building permit have been satisfied.
Mr. Sullivan has provided a bond in the amount of$10,000,which the City Engineer has confirmed is
more than adequate to complete the remaining work.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands
and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26,
Lot 96)and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2).The proposed project includes the
conversion of the existing building to eight(8)residential units and associated parking and
landscaping.
A revised plan and memo are enclosed in your packet, showing the edits and notations relating to
engineering changes that were discussed at the last meeting. Engineering has confirmed that all of their
outstanding issues have been addressed,with the exception of the need to verify the connections to the
city water and sewer system. David Knowlton is comfortable with this being a condition to be addressed
prior to issuance of a building permit.
If the Board is ready to vote on this item, I have drafted the following "findings,"which must be made
for the issuance of the Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit:
•
1. The proposed use will comply in all respects to the uses and provisions of the underlying district
in which the land is located. The property is located in the Residential Two-Family Zoning •
District. The structure was previously a legally nonconforming office building, and the applicant
received a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 28, 2009 to change
this nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use (nine residential units).
The Zoning Board of Appeals also issued a Special Permit on September 28, 2009 to extend the
nonconforming side yard, as well as a Variance from lot area per dwelling unit. The number of
units was subsequently reduced to eight.
2. There are adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the
site and in relation to adjacent streets and property, particularly in the event of flooding of the
lot(s) or adjacent lot(s) caused by either overspill from water bodies or high runoff.
3. Utilities, including gas, electricity,fuel,water and sewage disposal,will be located and
constructed so as to protect against breaking, leaking, shortcircuiting,grounding or igniting or
any other damage due to flooding.
I have also drafted the following conditions,with those highlighted that are specific to this project and
not the usual boilerplate:
Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform with the plan entitled, "Site Development Pla s for 162 Federal Street
�c6 s
Located in Salem�.m,, MassacRiasetts; prepared by Meridian Associates,`dated January`,25, 2012'
and last revised July 26, 2012. •
Amendments
Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board.
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 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.
-2-
• f.All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site.
Office of the City Engineer
All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. This includes, but is not
limited to, the following:
�.... _
a The applicant is to field verify the size, age and type of the connection to the city water,and
..i is J, s` ^i �}rs..
sewer systems to determine whether a new connection isneeded Connections shall be cleaned
'"- A �ur,f �ff .o�
and televised to ensure that no serwce replacententis rt'eeded, prior,to issuance of a building
�. . �v� r .�•� gin: ��: �� ��., , ��-
permit Applicant is responsible for installation of a new connection;if needed.' This�Jork is to,
be coordinated with the Engmeer`ing Department;
Board of Health and Health Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Board of Health and Health
Department.
Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
Conservation Commission
All work shall comply with the Order of Conditions issued by the Salem Conservation
Commission.
• Building Commissioner
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner.
Utilities
a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of a Building Permit.
Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, recycling, 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. The applicant, his successors or assigns,shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two-
(2)year period.
13.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.
•
-3-
14. 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.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property
located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237&239),Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory),for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The
proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential buildings(total of 141 units),
re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building,and associated parking and
landscaping.
The following issues are outstanding from previous meetings:
Residential Space
Lynn Duncan's memo was emailed to you, and a hard copy is also enclosed in your packet.
Engineering
Because it has been two months since this was distributed, I am enclosing another copy of the final
review letter from Woodard &Curran. Most of the previously identified issues have been addressed.
However, as noted in this review letter,there are nine items remaining. Woodard &Curran is
comfortable with these being addressed as conditions in a decision, but the applicant has been working
to address as many of them as possible. I have not yet received any revisions. •
Building Height
Two letters are enclosed from Tom St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, addressing the compliance of the
proposed buildings with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The first is a general statement that the
structures comply;the second is a detailed explanation of height requirements.
Board of Health Comments
I received comments from Larry Ramdin, Health Agent, regarding water sub-metering requirements.
This is enclosed.
Other issues
➢ A member of the public asked about the status of DEP's Final Order of Resource Area
Delineation,which Mr. Correnti indicated he would explain at the next meeting.
➢ The latestplan revision
p a (6/20/12) show a new footbridge over the canal in the vicinity of the
commercial building,which Mr. Correnti has also told me he will explain to the Board at our
upcoming meeting.
Correspondence
Two packets of correspondence from Jim Treadwell are enclosed.
•
_q_
5e CITY OF SALEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNEFY DEVELOPMENT
Kimberley Driscoll
MAYOR- 120 W\51-1INC;I ON S IRI F i *SAij.Nj, iAd%sSA�HUSH is 01970
LYNN GOONIN DUNClN,AICP TEL 978-619-5685 + FAX 978-740-0404
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board
From: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director,
Re: Legacy Park Apartments
Date: September 4, 2012
Based upon the legal opinions of both Robin Stein and Mark Bobrowski and the public comments
at the public hearing, as well as written comments, I have further evaluated the proposed site
plan.
The legal opinion by Attorney Robin Stein states in part, "As part of a review pursuant to S. 7.3.3.
of a project that does not involve mixed-use buildings,the Planning Board must consider each
and every part of a site and determine if the land is in residential use or used as an improvement
• associated therewith. All land that is exclusively used or improved for residential purposes is in
residential use."
Pursuant to this guidance, I have reviewed the site plan again. I believe that the open space
components can generally be broken out as follows:
1. Areas adjacent to the buildings.
2. Areas adjacent to the walkway and the canal/railroad tracks
3. Parking areas
4. Driveway entrances at Harmony Grove and Grove Street
5. The buffer area generally between the retaining wall and the southwesterly property line
6. The area adjacent to the existing building proposed for commercial use
I offer the following comments:
1. Areas adjacent to the buildings:
a. The landscaped areas between the buildings are classified as an improvement
associated with residential use. I concur.
b. The open space area between buildings 2 and 3 and the ten-foot wide walkway, or a
portion thereof, may be considered as an improvement associated with the residential
use for the following reasons.
a. There is a proposed landscaping bed immediately adjacent to the buildings, and
b. There is a reasonable expectation that this area, or a portion thereof, will be used
exclusively as private space by the residents of the building, rather than the
general public.
It will be incumbent upon the project proponent to demonstrate why some, or all, of
• this land should not be counted as land "in residential use".
Planning Board
September 4, 2012
Page 2
c. The landscaped area adjacent to building 1 is classified as an improvement associated
with residential use. I concur.
d. The landscaped areas between the buildings are classified as an improvement
associated with the residential use. I concur.
2. The walkway and the area between the walkway and the canal/railroad tracks:
The purpose of the walkway is to encourage public access along the North River Canal.
However, it can only be considered "usable open space" if there is a public easement placed on
this portion of the property.
3. The landscaped areas within the residential parking lots are classified as associated with
residential use. I question the landscaped area adjacent to the parking lot snow storage area
at the northwesterly boundary of the site. This appears to be associated with the residential
parking; however, it is not shown as such. The proponent should address this issue.
4. Driveway entrances:
a. At the Harmony Grove entrance it appears that the lawn area is classified as an
improvement associated with residential use, but the area planted with trees and shrubs
Is not. The proponent should clarify the rationale for this distinction.
b. At the Grove Street entrance, some of the open space is classified as an improvement •
associated with residential use and some is not. The proponent should clarify the
rationale for this distinction.
5. The buffer area generally between the retaining wall and the southwesterly property line:
This area is shown as open space, not associated with the residential development. I concur
because this open space is an existing, natural vegetated area. The additional planting to
secure the slope does not change the fact that it is existing open space.
6. The area adjacent to the existing building proposed for commercial use: This area Is clearly
associated with the commercial use. I concur with its classification.
The project proponent should address the issues identified above and re-calculate the land area
that is"in residential use or used as an improvement associated therewith", as applicable.
•
SALEM PLANNING BOARD DRAFT MEETING MINUTES 9/11/12
• A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 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, Tim Ready, George McCabe, Lewis
Beilman, Mark George, Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Lynn Duncan,
Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,
Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Xjy
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:07 pm. '"
Tim Ready made a motion for a moment of silence to remember the attacks of September 11, 2001,
seconded by Tim Kavanagh. A moment of silence was observed,a.
y
Approval of Minutes
July 19, 2012 draft minutes ``1
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Ready:-All approved 9-0.
-
Request of BVS CORPORATION for release of lots a_nd,acceptance of,'bond for the two-lot
• subdivision located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET(Ma`pt15,Lots 315`and 567).
aAP �
Mr. Puleo gave a quick overview of the last time the applicant was before the Board and stated that the
applicant has a $10,000 bond. Ms. McKnight informed the Board that the city does have the bond. The
city engineer has determined that this amount is sufficient to finish the outstanding work. Tonight they
are being asked to vote to release the two lots of the subdivision and accept the $10,000 bond.
'D
;k sr ,..,
Tim Kavanagh.motioned:to accept the $10 000 bond and release the two lots at 15 and 16 Scotia Street
from the covenant, seconded by MarkGeorge. All approved 9-0.
r'
Continuation of public healring: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a
Wetlands and Flood Hazard''Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162
FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The
proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8) residential units
and associated parking and landscaping.
�a
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ "Site Development Plans for 162 Federal Street located in Salem, Massachusetts," dated
1/25/12, last revised 7/26/12
Attorney Scott Grover represented the applicant, William Wharff, who has an agreement to purchase
162 Federal Street and a portion of the property at 150 Federal Street, which is the old St.James Parish.
• He reminded the Board of the past meeting and the revision requests and comments made by the
Planning Board. He introduced Mark Novak who is the civil engineer from Meridian Engineering, and
asked Mr. Novak to walk through the changes made since the last meeting. Mr. Novak reviewed the
• issues related to the project that were raised at the July 19, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
- The first issued raised was in relation to the environmental impact statement, which has been
submitted to the Planning Board.
- The second comment was in regards to the driveway, which they graded the driveway to direct
the water towards the spillway to prevent flooding;
- The third issue was a proposed drain basin which was mislabeled as a catch basin, and they
changed it to include a solid top;
- The next issue was in relation to that same area in terms of elevation differences which have
been updated; . �
- The next comment was in relation the material used for the pipe draining to the street; it has
been changed to a concrete enforced pipe; `,
- The next comment was in relation to the existing utilities.for the building. In speaking with Ms.
McKnight and the Planning Department this will be a condition which states that the size, age,
and type of the connection should be shown on the plans
- The last one was a request for dimensions in the building and the parking lot,which has been
added. r ,
Mr. Puleo asked if they have not changed the note to the parking lot. He stated that the note should be
changed to 18 spaces to which Mr. Novak said that he forgot to change it. The other issue Mr. Puleo
questioned was in relation to the bituminous Cape Cod berm rather.than granite curbing at the entrance
to the site. Mr. Novak agreed and stated that he will provide the Boerd with an updated plan with this
detail. Ms. McKnight asked for the date of the latest revision,,to which he responded that it was dated
• 7/26/12. Mr. Novak stated that they would haveanother revision submitted.
'f7� .
m
Ms. McKnight stated that she received a letter from a resident, Connie Haine, 17 North Street, Unit 1,
which addresses the issues they have had at 17 North Street regarding flooding and parking issues thus
she requested that the city make certain requirements on this site that was not part of the previous site
requirements. Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight what the issues were, to which she stated that they were
electrical wiring,issues, flooding problems,sump pump"malfunctioning issues, a fence that was not
constructed;and`parking rThe resident recommended a $25,000 bond to be held in escrow after the
initial one year warran y;3,Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight if they had an as built plan for this project, to
which she said they should'';Ms. McKmghf said that she shared the letter with the Building Inspector,
who did not see any violations.'Mr. Puleo asked if the city would require a bond for the site plan review,
to which Ms McKnight explained that the conditions would need to be met before issuance of an
occupancy permit,-and if there are any violations after the property has been met then it is up to the
Building Commissioner enforce'any violations, but there is not usually a bond involved in that. Mr.
X
Puleo asked if the applicant would be required to post a bond for the concrete pipe drainage. Mr.
Novak said the Building Department would bring this up at the time of construction and would be done
prior to issuing a building permit.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, asked if the property has been purchased and if not, when they plan to
purchase the property, to which Attorney Grover responded no, and that they expect to purchase the
property on November 1'`
Cindy Sekandi, 17 North Street, Unit 5, stated that they did have a lot of difficulties with the owner of
their property, who is the applicant's brother and they recommend exercising caution. Mr. Grover said
that the ownership structure is different on this project. The other brother does not have any relation
• nor involvement in this project as he did in the other project. Ms. Sekandi said that she sent checklists
to the developer and nothing has been done and recommended a bond be issued for longer than one
year.
Ms. Strauss asked if it is appropriate to have this discussion if the property has not been purchased. Mr.
Puleo explained that this is contingent on the purchase going through. Atty Grover said that they
submitted with the Planning Board application letters of approval from the current owners to go ahead
with this application. Ms. Strauss said that she understood that the closing has been postponed several
times, to which Atty Grover said that it has been postponed by mutual agreement.
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, supports. '
The board discussed if there are any outstanding issues with this project to which Ms. McKnight said
that there are now just corrections to be made on the plans (parking spaces and curbing).
Mr. Ready noted that many of the comments about 17North St. do not have any relevancy to this
particular project- they should not consider other issues at another,property owned by another brother
and would move to vote.
a
Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded b Helen Sides. All approved 9-0.
tinge
The Board reviewed what was required of the'appljcant for the next meet+;ng.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the September 20,2012 meeting, seconded by Helen Sides,
all approved 9-0. -
Continuation of pubc hearing: Petition of MRM'PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONYiGROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site
Plan Review,"Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141'units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building,and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents & Exhibitions V
➢ Letters from JimiTreadwell, 18 Felt St., dated July 25th and August 91h
➢ Letter from Ward'6 Councillor Paul Prevey dated Sept. 11, 2012
➢ Memo from Lynn Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of Planning &Community Development,
dated Sept. 4, 2012
➢ Letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer, dated Sept. 5, 2012
➢ Photo of 14 Beaver St. view from ground in winter, submitted by 14 Beaver St. resident Tricia
Meyers
➢ PowerPoint Presentation of MRM Project Management dated May 2012 and delivered at the
Sept. 11, 2012 meeting
• ➢ Response memo from Griffin Engineering dated Sept. 24, 2012
➢ Revised site layout plan sheet C-3, dated 12/20/11 and last revised 9/10/12
a
• Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners
from MRM Project Management and he stated that they have been working on the issues that have
been raised during previous meetings. They have completed their initial presentation and are answering
any issues and questions that have been raised. He reminded the Board that at the last meeting on July
5, 2012 they had received opinions from the Assistant City Solicitor, Robin Stein, and Mark Bobrowski.
They are meeting tonight and next Thursday night, and they will continue to get through the issues to
try to move forward.They began the presentation on the engineering revisions.
1�.
Mark George asked if they are clear and satisfied with the land use questions;�to which Mr. Puleo said
they will address this later in the presentation.
dl j�
Mr. Griffin stated that they would discuss the outstanding issues in Woodard and Curran's letter, which
he emailed to Ms. McKnight. He began with the percolation tests which were good and the depths
showed that it was appropriate and will send the numbers to-Woodard and Curran.
16,
The second item had to do with the lowest point of a p p invert) t6t was carrying water, which was on
the Harmony Grove side of the project. He believes there a a typo and they have corrected the invert
elevation. ;yq,
The third item was in regards to limiting the'disturbance to the Beaver Street side of the project. He
showed the board several slides with revisions which included the landscaping plan and a "limit of work"
line. The limit of work will show where the landscaper is"planting rather than clearing. There was also a
• concern about the retaining wall and the swale on.top of the;retaining wall. He agreed with the -
comments and they are going to put some stones to prevent eroding and then a pipe in the trough,
which is a flexible system.;ThiSwill prevent cracking.'
Fourth and final item was a request for a sewer calculation^They noted that there will be a slight
increase when the updates to the commercial side of the property are taken into account. Mr. Puleo
asked how this impacts the pipes,to which Mr Griffin said it is minor.
John Mousks asked fomr further clarif ation about the riprap to which Mr. Griffin described it, and Mr.
Moustakis said that they cl notwant it to look like Swampscott Road. Mr. Griffin said it would not be
like that, but also he does not think anyone will see it from the road. Mr. Moustakis recommended
making a note about it. Mr. Puleo asked if the planting is actually in the stone. Mr. Griffin stated that
in n. Mr. Puleo
the tants would.go,about 6 inches below the stone and is like a to dressing a garden.P g P
asked if this would'affect the trees' ability to survive. Mr. Puleo is concerned that the plants will not
survive like this, and ased ifafis has been done before to which Mr. Griffin said yes. Mr. Moustakis said
that he is concerned about how this will look. Mr. Puleo said that this is for drainage and will be located
ori the top of the wall.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, asked if it would be helpful for her to
walk through her letter which outlines her concerns about the residential space, to which Mr. Puleo said
yes. Based on public comments and legal opinions from Robin Stein and Mark Bobrowski, she took a
very close look at the plan in terms of residential and non-residential use. She quoted Assistant City
Solicitor Robin Stein's memo. Ms. Duncan then looked more thoroughly at six specific areas with
• improvements: Areas adjacent to residential buildings, walkway, and area between walkway and canal;
A
parking areas; driveway entrances; buffer area between retaining wall and southwesterly properly line
• abutting Beaver St. residences; and space abutting the existing commercial building.
She offered to the Board the following comments:
areas adjacent to building, landscape areas between buildings are classified by applicant as residential
—she concurs;
Open space between buildings 2 & 3 and the walkway or a portion thereof may be considered an
improvement associated with the residential, and this is a change. Mr. Puleo & Mr. Clarke asked for
further clarification on that area —it's the edge of the building to the walkway. This was designating as
not in residential use, which she questions. She has two reasons: one whichis related to the
landscaping and the second is that the area could be used as private space for residents rather than the
public. She says it's incumbent upon the project proponent to show why some or all of this land should
a
not be included in residential use.
-The landscaped area adjacent to Building 1 was designated as in residential use;and she concurs.
-The walkway itself and the area between it and the canal —the purpose of the walkway is to encourage
public access to the canal. However, she thinks that it can only be considered public space if there is a
public easement on this space.
-The landscaped areas within the residential parking areas are considered residential use; she concurs.
However, there is one small area within that specific spot that is shown as not in residential use, which
she was looking for a clarification on. Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification on where landscaping
picks up around the bend from Beaver street to Harmony Grove Roai&hMs. Duncan said she sees a
separate open space area there, but she will address that in a later comment:,The driveway entrances—
at the Harmony Grove entrance, it appears some of the area is associated asYresidential but landscaping
is not; she is looking for clarification. Some of the Grove St. entrance is classified as residential and
some is not; she is looking for clarification of this too.
-The buffer area she sees as an open space area, and'would be whatever the development would be on
this site. It was buffer when it wasSale'm Oil & Grease. She is satisfied with this being classified as not
in residential use. ``<t*' §Y `�
-The last area she addressed was the area-associated with the commercial building, and she agrees the
commercial use classification is accurate there "tR' .''`
j 111
She recommends that the a11 pplicant address these issues and recalculate the land use area in residential
us or used as an improvement to a residential"use. Mr. Puleo asked about usable open space and open
space. Ms:Duncan said that in terms of relevancy to residential use or not, they do not have to deal
with that issue and she quoted'Assistant City Solicitor Stein, who said any land used exclusively by
residents of the development would be considered residential. She suggested on the walkway that the
portion open for public,use should have an easement. Mr. Puleo asked if there was a specific amount of
open space that had to be useable; Ms. Duncan said no.
ThV
Mr. Moustakis asked about the parking areas, specifically how that is not for a residential purpose. Ms.
Duncan said she is saying that it is residential. She said each of the areas needed to be broken out and
looked at closely.
Mr. George asked for clarification on how the land between the wall and the rear upper contiguous
properties gets assigned to commercial use. She said no; she explained that there is another category,
which is open space, and that is not used exclusively by residents. The development could be residential
• or commercial, and the vegetated slope would be there in any event. It's not used by the developer one
way or the other. Mr. Puleo then asked about the usable open space provision in 7.35 of the zoning
ordinance. He asked about the requirement for usable open space in a PUD. Ms. Duncan said this is
why she is recommending an easement for public access on the walkway. Mr. Puleo then asked if there
is a formula for usable open space, to which Ms. Duncan said no.
Mr. Correnti stated that they have tried to clarify how the land is calculated and noted that this is the
first project its kind coming before the board. They are going to walk through their plans so just the
residential is hatched and now they are going to address the comments in Ms. Duncan's memorandum.
The open space requirement of the PUD will be met by the passing of the easement. The passive
recreational use on this site is significant, as an easement will be granted for public use.
Mr. Griffin continued his presentation showing the differences in the residential space area between
their last presentation and tonight. They had reviewed Ms. Duncan's memorandum and addressed
issues raised in her memorandum. First, addressing the walkway, h expllained that originally the entire
40 foot wide strip of land was dedicated to non residential use,�They,have moved the line back a little,
showing some of the area adjacent to the building as being.in residential use. However, he said that
extending the residential area much more may harm the goal of having a beautiful walkway. It would
restrict users. In response to Ms. Duncan's memo, they have moved the line to five feet from the
building. As they continue along the walkway he identified other areas identified as residential. They
did overlay the landscaping plan on the whole plan to figure outwhere to draw the lines`. He reviewed
each area describing how and why each one was designated residential and non residential. He noted
that they are now at 49.6% residential space allocation. Mr. Pule asked Mr. Griffin to outline property
lines on the Harmony Grove side of the prope�rt, 'to'whih Mr. Griffin described the areas on the plans.
Mr. Puleo clarified which parts of the property that they own
Lewis Beilman asked Mr. Griffin to clarify the area between bwldings'3 & 3 and asked where the
easement would go. Mr. Correnti stated that it would go about 5,feet off the building.
Ar:;
Mr. Clarke asked what the percentage was of each section of the site to which Mr. Griffin said he didn't
have this breakdown, but could calculate this when he sits Idown. Mr. Puleo stated that this is a crucial
question for the Board. Mr. Correnti stated that the numbers are still very close but this plan which
they think iso a sonable does not exceed 50%.George McCabe asked for clarification on the hatched
space on the plan, which he was told.is alliesidential. Mr. Clarke asked if engineering or the peer
reviewer have reviewed the calculations.NMsDuncan stated that they would ask the city engineer or
the peer reviewer to do this as it had noYbeen part of Woodard and Curran's scope.
Ms. read a letter,from Ward 6 Councilor Prevey into the record. .
Issue opened to the p blicforcomment
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he wants to counter some of the accusations made this
evening. The areas that are being discussed now are very important. He referenced his two memoranda
submitted to the Board on July 25`"and August 9`h. He walked the Board through his memo, but first
noted that he thought that there would have been a new landscaping plan by now. He does not believe
that Attorney Bobrowski had all of the information. He quoted the landscaping plan which relates to the
whole complex. He addressed the "limit of clearance", now being called the "limit of work", and he
stated that if the proposed lilac bushes are not part of an associated improvement then he does not
know what one is. He addressed the northern strip of land designated as common areas, and if they are
• not going to recreate here, then where are they going to recreate, and it is clearly an associated
improvement. Mr. Clarke asked if they did not do any landscaping would it still be considered an
associated improvement. Mr. Treadwell stated that the intent is to serve as a buffer to prevent erosion,
• and it should be considered an associated improvement. Mr. Treadwell continued that the site plan
review requires that the actual areas be shown and they are not. He guesses that based on figure C-3
that the amount of space allocated for residential use, is over 54%, and if the landscaping along the
parking field it goes over 60%of the total area. He reiterated that these improvements are associated
with the residential uses and they do go over the 50%required. Mr.Treadwell then moved onto his
other memorandum which addresses useable open space and gave a brief history of the ordinance. He
also described the ordinance for"cluster development," which also contains an open space provision.
He stated that there is no open space requirement in the PUD and pointed out that lot size has not been
covered in the other aspects of the development. He focused on useable open space which in Sec. 7.35
relates only to ownership, and he further explained the ordinance. If it useable open space it will be
owned by the public and must be accessible, otherwise according to the zoning the Planning Board
would not approve it. He referred to the residential space plan and`argue'd'that there are areas that are
questionable. He reiterated that they must find that the site plan is in harm ny with the master plan.
He recommended referring to a memorandum he sent to Ms"D Wean on June 18`h. He would argue that
the zoning is not in compliance with the master plan. Mr'Moustakis asked why he thinks the retaining
wall should be considered residential to which Mr. Treadwell responded that the retaining wall is an
associated improvement that is required to protect the parking area and other areas. He concluded
stating that as it is currently configured the plan should not be'given a permit because it exceeds the
requirements. �a u
�s
Celeste Ross, 20 Beaver Street, asked what the sizes of the buildings are. Mr.Griffin stated that they are
all the same number of stories and they all have gar'age's underneath. She stated that she is curious why
• the height issues aren't being addressed and wondered why the developer has not considered taking off
mayr.
a level. Mr. Puleo stated that the Board has been listening and they are thinking about all of this. She
also submitted a picture from her,neighbor's house showed that they will definitely see the
development.
7 11, „
tF,
Mr. Griffin responded to the earlier question about the residential land area breakdown by saying the
overall development is 6.81 acres,of which 3.38 acresare non-residential in total. Ms. Duncan said that
they are gomg'to ask the engineering,department to' check their numbers, but wants to know how their
numbers were calculat d.Mr. Griffin,fated that they used AutoCAD to measure out the whole site and
he will provide that information to Ms. Duncan. Mr. Ready recommended that Mr. Griffin return with
the exact'"calculations. Mr. Clarke agreed and stated that having this reviewed by the engineering
departmentis very important. ]
,i!
Mr. Puleo asked if#e 6/20/12is`the latest version of the plan to which Mr. Griffin said that it is. He
then described the landscaping£plan and noted that there is a lot more planting on the 6/20 plan than
there was on the previous,plans. He then described the new plantings in relation to the locations of the
abutters. He described the plantings slated for the newest plan and noted that there are scheduled to
be Frasier firs. Mr. Beilman asked what the purpose of those plantings is, to which Mr. Griffin said to
provide screening for the Beaver Street residents.
Ms. Ross asked where exactly the plantings will be located- above or at the bottom of the retaining wall
and Mr. Griffin stated that they will be on top of the wall. Ms. Duncan asked where the top of the slope
will be and where the Frasier firs will be located. Mr.Griffin then went through the plan to show the
• locations proposed for the fir trees on the Beaver Street. Ms. Duncan then asked if the Frasier firs could
be planted on top of the slope. Mr. Griffin briefly described the landscape plan. He showed the view
from 14 Beaver and explained that they would see Colorado spruce at the top of the slope and
. rhododendrons at the bottom.
Tricia Meyers, 14 Beaver Street, stated that the pictures submitted show that the trees there are leafless
and she will be able to see the tops of the buildings inside her house, and she will see buildings. Mr.
Griffin stated that they have done a good job of screening.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street stated that the landscaping described is an associated improvement, and
therefore connected with the residential. Mr. Beilman stated that the only reason that they are putting
it in there is for the abutting residents. '
Todd Siegel, Ward 3 Councilor, 28 Brittania Circle asked how the calculations are done and how much
actual space is going to be allocated. He wants the board to note that when this was voted on by the
City Council they determined that anything associated with the building such as a buffer is also
associated with the residential and he would be interested to see how much is left over for the
commercial space.
Jane Arlander 93 Federal Street, feels that the view g es two ways, and whether you are a resident of
the new development or an abutter, you will see the same trees*. F
Mr.Treadwell stated that in Ms. McKnight'symemo dated 9/6 there is a.note that there will be a
discussion on the bridge and the locations ofthe bike racks. Putting the bike racks at the front areas in
the same spaces as the handicapped areas and the loading areas. He recommended putting the bike
racks in the lower levels and he would like to hear about the pedestriarrbridge. Mr. Griffin referred to
the site plan of 6/20 to describe the pedestrian bndge'pJn regards t he bike racks, they will be located
,
at the lower levels next to th1. e elevators a,nd they willa also have one's at the front doors. Mr. Treadwell
asked if the interiors have been changed to reflect thiqs and recommended putting the as many bike
racks in the basement4"� \
JF
Arthur Sargent, Councilor at Large, 8 Maple Circle,^asketo look at this as a commercial tax base. He
noted that his biggest concern is losing the commercial tax rate. He compared this to Pickering Wharf.
He said it looks like it is 70%`residential.'The assessor will have to determine the tax rate.
Ms. Meyers asked about the location of the substation and if this is part of the ratio. Mr. Griffin
described the proposed location of the electrical equipment and his expectations for the electrical
service. He noted that there will be transformers located at the roadway. Mr. Puleo asked for further
clarification, to which`Mr. Griffin,described the wiring locations to each of the buildings. Mr. Puleo asked
if it will look different to hat there now and what kind of screening will be installed. Mr. Griffin
stated that there isn't a lot-of screening.
r
Mr. Puleo asked for some further clarification on if there are going to be HVAC units on the ground and
what they will look like. Mr. Griffin stated that they will all be on the roof and none on the ground.
Ms. Ross asked what happened if they knocked off a level,and Mr. Griffin stated that in that scenario,
that would remove about 36 units which is about a 25% of the units. Mr. Puleo asked her if she was
asking this question in terms of height, not density to which Ms. Ross said that she asked this in relation
• to the tree height. Mr. Correnti reminded the Board of previous meetings and the unique layout of the
site, which is critical to the project. He stated that this is a "brownfield-designated" site and reminded
0
the Board of the presentation by the LSP. The number of the units makes it critical to go forward, but if
they start talking about lopping off floors then they don't have a project.
Ms. Meyers discussed the profit for renting all of the 141 proposed apartments as something to keep in
mind.
Mr. Treadwell addressed a concern with the HVAC on the roof and reminded the Board of the Derby
condos, and Mr. Puleo stated that there have never been any complaints from that building. Mr.
Treadwell recommended a condition to be added to the decision. He recommended that the
environmental impact be further examined, to which Mr. Puleo said that they can look into this.
e ,
Mark Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, stated that his property backs right up to the old buildings and once they
are removed, his yard is going to collapse. He said that the applicant`offe�r'ed to meet him out at the
property, but he didn't know what good that was going to do as that has nothappened. He sees it on a
a
^
plan that the retaining wall is going to end way before his pr .ft w',operty; but his property is 10-12 feet above
the building they are proposing to demolish. Mr. Puleo initially responded stating that Mr. Griffin gave a
detailed description of how that was going to work. Mt. Griffin said that they had tried to arrange a
meeting to which Mr. Pattison said that they called him atahe,last minute and asked him to meet him
there while Mr. Pattison was at work. Mr. Griffin described how they will remove a porti=on of the
building and then fill in to the top part of the foundation which should keep his property in tact. Mr.
Pattison asked if they are going to take everything below the yard,to which Mr. Griffin responded that
they would punch holes in the concrete slab to allow water to drain,though there is no reason to
remove all of the foundation. Mr. Pattison asked the Board what happens if this is not met. Ms.
• McKnight stated that this would have to be shown on the as-built plans to the plan specifications, and
that has to match exactly what they are going to do. Mr Puleo said that they do follow-up on these
things, as it is part of what the Board does. Mr. Clarke asked if the city engineer has to review the as-
built plans to which Ms.McKnight said that the building inspector reviews them. Mr. Correnti said that
the least effective remedy is with th(�Planning Board if they,collapse his yard—there are other ways to
remedy that. The building permit has to show how they will address that and they understand that.
A letter from Tom st. Pierre, Building Commissioner was read into the record by Ms. McKnight regarding
compliance f the buildirigmheight with the zoning ordinance.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing on September 20, 2012, seconded by
Randy ClarkeaAll.approved 9-01
Old/New Busmes
The September 20`h meeting may be rescheduled due to conflicts.
Adjournment
John Moustakis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 9-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:31pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
•
n
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 9/11/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Tuesday,September 11, 2012 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,Tim Ready, George McCabe, Lewis
Beilman, Mark George,Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides.Also present: Lynn Duncan,
Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,
Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:07 pm.
Tim Ready made a motion for a moment of silence to remember the attacks of September 11, 2001,
seconded by Tim Kavanagh. A moment of silence was observed.
Approval of Minutes
July 19, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Ready.All approved 9-0.
Request of BVS CORPORATION for release of lots and acceptance of bond for the two-lot
• subdivision located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET(Map 15, Lots 315 and 567).
Mr. Puleo gave a quick overview of the last time the applicant was before the Board and stated that the
applicant has a $10,000 bond. Ms. McKnight informed the Board that the city does have the bond. The
city engineer has determined that this amount is sufficient to finish the outstanding work. Tonight they
are being asked to vote to release the two lots of the subdivision and accept the$10,000 bond.
Tim Kavanagh motioned to accept the$10,000 bond and release the two lots at 15 and 16 Scotia Street
from the covenant, seconded by Mark George.All approved 9-0.
Continuation of public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a
Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162
FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2).The
proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8) residential units
and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ "Site Development Plans for 162 Federal Street located in Salem, Massachusetts," dated
1/25/12, last revised 7/26/12
Attorney Scott Grover represented the applicant, William Wharff, who has an agreement to purchase
162 Federal Street and a portion of the property at 150 Federal Street,which is the old St.James Parish.
• He reminded the Board of the past meeting and the revision requests and comments made by the
Planning Board. He introduced Mark Novak who is the civil engineer from Meridian Engineering, and
1
asked Mr. Novak to walk through the changes made since the last meeting. Mr. Novak reviewed the •
issues related to the project that were raised at the July 19, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
- The first issued raised was in relation to the environmental impact statement,which has been
submitted to the Planning Board.
- The second comment was in regards to the driveway,which they graded the driveway to direct
the water towards the spillway to prevent flooding;
- The third issue was a proposed drain basin which was mislabeled as a catch basin, and they
changed it to include a solid top;
- The next issue was in relation to that same area in terms of elevation differences which have
been updated;
- The next comment was in relation the material used for the pipe draining to the street; it has
been changed to a concrete enforced pipe;
- The next comment was in relation to the existing utilities for the building. In speaking with Ms.
McKnight and the Planning Department this will be a condition which states that the size, age,
and type of the connection should be shown on the plans.
- The last one was a request for dimensions in the building and the parking lot,which has been
added.
Mr. Puleo asked if they have not changed the note to the parking lot. He stated that the note should be
changed to 18 spaces to which Mr. Novak said that he forgot to change it. The other issue Mr. Puleo
questioned was in relation to the bituminous Cape Cod berm rather than granite curbing at the entrance
to the site. Mr. Novak agreed and stated that he will provide the Board with an updated plan with this
detail. Ms. McKnight asked for the date of the latest revision,to which he responded that it was dated
7/26/12. Mr. Novak stated that they would have another revision submitted. •
Ms. McKnight stated that she received a letter from a resident, Connie Haine, 17 North Street, Unit 1,
which addresses the issues they have had at 17 North Street regarding flooding and parking issues thus
she requested that the city make certain requirements on this site that was not part of the previous site
requirements. Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight what the issues were,to which she stated that they were
electrical wiring issues, flooding problems, sump pump malfunctioning issues,a fence that was not
constructed, and parking.The resident recommended a $25,000 bond to be held in escrow after the
initial one year warranty. Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight if they had an as built plan for this project,to
which she said they should. Ms. McKnight said that she shared the letter with the Building Inspector,
who did not see any violations. Mr. Puleo asked if the city would require a bond for the site plan review,
to which Ms. McKnight explained that the conditions would need to be met before issuance of an
occupancy permit, and if there are any violations after the property has been met then it is up to the
Building Commissioner enforce any violations, but there is not usually a bond involved in that. Mr.
Puleo asked if the applicant would be required to post a bond for the concrete pipe drainage. Mr.
Novak said the Building Department would bring this up at the time of construction and would be done
prior to issuing a building permit.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street,asked if the property has been purchased and if not,when they plan to
purchase the property,to which Attorney Grover responded no,and that they expect to purchase the
property on November 15`.
Cindy Sekandi, 17 North Street, Unit 5,stated that they did have a lot of difficulties with the owner of •
their property, who is the applicant's brother and they recommend exercising caution. Mr. Grover said
2
• that the ownership structure is different on this project. The other brother does not have any relation
nor involvement in this project as he did in the other project. Ms. Sekandi said that she sent checklists
to the developer and nothing has been done and recommended a bond be issued for longer than one
year.
Ms.Strauss asked if it is appropriate to have this discussion if the property has not been purchased. Mr.
Puleo explained that this is contingent on the purchase going through. Atty Grover said that they
submitted with the Planning Board application letters of approval from the current owners to go ahead
with this application. Ms. Strauss said that she understood that the closing has been postponed several
times, to which Atty Grover said that it has been postponed by mutual agreement.
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, supports.
The board discussed if there are any outstanding issues with this project to which Ms. McKnight said
that there are now just corrections to be made on the plans(parking spaces and curbing).
Mr. Ready noted that many of the comments about 17 North St.do not have any relevancy to this
particular project- they should not consider other issues at another property owned by another brother
and would move to vote.
Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing,seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 9-0.
The Board reviewed what was required of the applicant for the next meeting.
• Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the September 20, 2012 meeting,seconded by Helen Sides,
all approved 9-0.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 &64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site
Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Letters from Jim Treadwell, 18 Felt St., dated July 25`"and August 9th
➢ Letter from Ward 6 Councillor Paul Prevey dated Sept. 11, 2012
➢ Memo from Lynn Duncan,AICP, Director, Department of Planning&Community Development,
dated Sept.4, 2012
➢ Letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer, dated Sept. 5, 2012
➢ Photo of 14 Beaver St. view from ground in winter, submitted by 14 Beaver St. resident Tricia
Meyers
➢ PowerPoint Presentation of MRM Project Management dated May 2012 and delivered at the
Sept. 11, 2012 meeting
• ➢ Response memo from Griffin Engineering dated Sept. 24, 2012
➢ Revised site layout plan sheet C-3, dated 12/20/11 and last revised 9/10/12
3
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,Salem, represents the developers and property owners •
from MRM Project Management and he stated that they have been working on the issues that have
been raised during previous meetings. They have completed their initial presentation and are answering
any issues and questions that have been raised. He reminded the Board that at the last meeting on July
5, 2012 they had received opinions from the Assistant City Solicitor, Robin Stein,and Mark Bobrowski.
They are meeting tonight and next Thursday night, and they will continue to get through the issues to
try to move forward.They began the presentation on the engineering revisions.
Mark George asked if they are clear and satisfied with the land use questions, to which Mr. Puleo said
they will address this later in the presentation.
Mr. Griffin stated that they would discuss the outstanding issues in Woodard and Curran's letter,which
he emailed to Ms. McKnight. He began with the percolation tests which were good and the depths
showed that it was appropriate and will send the numbers to Woodard and Curran.
The second item had to do with the lowest point of a pipe (invert)that was carrying water,which was on
the Harmony Grove side of the project. He believes there was a typo and they have corrected the invert
elevation.
The third item was in regards to limiting the disturbance to the Beaver Street side of the project. He
showed the board several slides with revisions which included the landscaping plan and a "limit of work"
line. The limit of work will show where the landscaper is planting rather than clearing. There was also a
concern about the retaining wall and the swale on top of the retaining wall. He agreed with the •
comments and they are going to put some stones to prevent eroding and then a pipe in the trough,
which is a flexible system. This will prevent cracking.
Fourth and final item was a request for a sewer calculation. They noted that there will be a slight
increase when the updates to the commercial side of the property are taken into account. Mr. Puleo
asked how this impacts the pipes,to which Mr. Griffin said it is minor.
John Moustakis asked for further clarification about the riprap to which Mr. Griffin described it,and Mr.
Moustakis said that they do not want it to look like Swampscott Road. Mr. Griffin said it would not be
like that, but also he does not think anyone will see it from the road. Mr. Moustakis recommended
making a note about it. Mr. Puleo asked if the planting is actually in the stone. Mr. Griffin stated that
the plants would go about 6 inches below the stone and is like a top dressing in a garden. Mr. Puleo
asked if this would affect the trees' ability to survive. Mr. Puleo is concerned that the plants will not
survive like this, and asked if this has been done before to which Mr. Griffin said yes. Mr. Moustakis said
that he is concerned about how this will look. Mr. Puleo said that this is for drainage and will be located
on the top of the wall.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, asked if it would be helpful for her to
walk through her letter which outlines her concerns about the residential space, to which Mr. Puleo said
yes. Based on public comments and legal opinions from Robin Stein and Mark Bobrowski, she took a
very close look at the plan in terms of residential and non-residential use. She quoted Assistant City
Solicitor Robin Stein's memo. Ms. Duncan then looked more thoroughly at six specific areas with
improvements: Areas adjacent to residential buildings,walkway, and area between walkway and canal; •
4
parking areas; driveway entrances; buffer area between retaining wall and southwesterly properly line
abutting Beaver St. residences; and space abutting the existing commercial building.
She offered to the Board the following comments:
areas adjacent to building, landscape areas between buildings are classified by applicant as residential
—she concurs;
Open space between buildings 2 & 3 and the walkway or a portion thereof may be considered an
improvement associated with the residential, and this is a change. Mr. Puleo & Mr. Clarke asked for
further clarification on that area—it's the edge of the building to the walkway. This was designating as
not in residential use,which she questions. She has two reasons: one which is related to the
landscaping and the second is that the area could be used as private space for residents rather than the
public. She says it's incumbent upon the project proponent to show why some or all of this land should
not be included in residential use.
-The landscaped area adjacent to Building 1 was designated as in residential use,and she concurs.
-The walkway itself and the area between it and the canal—the purpose of the walkway is to encourage
public access to the canal. However,she thinks that it can only be considered public space if there is a
public easement on this space.
-The landscaped areas within the residential parking areas are considered residential use; she concurs.
However,there is one small area within that specific spot that is shown as not in residential use,which
she was looking for a clarification on. Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification on where landscaping
picks up around the bend from Beaver street to Harmony Grove Road. Ms. Duncan said she sees a
separate open space area there, but she will address that in a later comment. The driveway entrances—
at the Harmony Grove entrance, it appears some of the area is associated as residential but landscaping
• is not; she is looking for clarification. Some of the Grove St.entrance is classified as residential and
some is not; she is looking for clarification of this too.
-The buffer area she sees as an open space area, and would be whatever the development would be on
this site. It was buffer when it was Salem Oil&Grease. She is satisfied with this being classified as not
in residential use.
-The last area she addressed was the area associated with the commercial building, and she agrees the
commercial use classification is accurate there.
She recommends that the applicant address these issues and recalculate the land use area in residential
us or used as an improvement to a residential use. Mr. Puleo asked about usable open space and open
space. Ms. Duncan said that in terms of relevancy to residential use or not, they do not have to deal
with that issue and she quoted Assistant City Solicitor Stein, who said any land used exclusively by
residents of the development would be considered residential. She suggested on the walkway that the
portion open for public use should have an easement. Mr. Puleo asked if there was a specific amount of
open space that had to be useable; Ms. Duncan said no.
Mr. Moustakis asked about the parking areas, specifically how that is not for a residential purpose. Ms.
Duncan said she is saying that it is residential. She said each of the areas needed to be broken out and
looked at closely.
Mr. George asked for clarification on how the land between the wall and the rear upper contiguous
properties gets assigned to commercial use. She said no; she explained that there is another category,
which is open space, and that is not used exclusively by residents. The development could be residential
• or commercial, and the vegetated slope would be there in any event. It's not used by the developer one
way or the other. Mr. Puleo then asked about the usable open space provision in 7.35 of the zoning
5
ordinance. He asked about the requirement for usable open space in a PUD. Ms. Duncan said this is
why she is recommending an easement for public access on the walkway. Mr. Puleo then asked if there
is a formula for usable open space,to which Ms. Duncan said no.
Mr. Correnti stated that they have tried to clarify how the land is calculated and noted that this is the
first project its kind coming before the board.They are going to walk through their plans so just the
residential is hatched and now they are going to address the comments in Ms. Duncan's memorandum.
The open space requirement of the PUD will be met by the passing of the easement. The passive
recreational use on this site is significant,as an easement will be granted for public use.
Mr. Griffin continued his presentation showing the differences in the residential space area between
their last presentation and tonight. They had reviewed Ms. Duncan's memorandum and addressed
issues raised in her memorandum. First, addressing the walkway, he explained that originally the entire
40 foot wide strip of land was dedicated to non residential use. They have moved the line back a little,
showing some of the area adjacent to the building as being in residential use. However, he said that
extending the residential area much more may harm the goal of having a beautiful walkway. It would
restrict users. In response to Ms. Duncan's memo, they have moved the line to five feet from the
building. As they continue along the walkway he identified other areas identified as residential. They
did overlay the landscaping plan on the whole plan to figure out where to draw the lines. He reviewed
each area describing how and why each one was designated residential and non residential. He noted
that they are now at 49.6% residential space allocation. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to outline property
lines on the Harmony Grove side of the property, to which Mr. Griffin described the areas on the plans.
Mr. Puleo clarified which parts of the property that they own.
Lewis Beilman asked Mr. Griffin to clarify the area between buildings 2 &3 and asked where the •
easement would go. Mr. Correnti stated that it would go about 5 feet off the building.
Mr. Clarke asked what the percentage was of each section of the site to which Mr. Griffin said he didn't
have this breakdown, but could calculate this when he sits down. Mr. Puleo stated that this is a crucial
question for the Board. Mr. Correnti stated that the numbers are still very close but this plan which
they think is reasonable does not exceed 50%. George McCabe asked for clarification on the hatched
space on the plan,which he was told is all residential. Mr. Clarke asked if engineering or the peer
reviewer have reviewed the calculations. Ms. Duncan stated that they would ask the city engineer or
the peer reviewer to do this as it had not been part of Woodard and Curran's scope.
Ms. read a letter from Ward 6 Councilor Prevey into the record.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he wants to counter some of the accusations made this
evening. The areas that are being discussed now are very important. He referenced his two memoranda
submitted to the Board on July 25`h and August 9`h. He walked the Board through his memo, but first
noted that he thought that there would have been a new landscaping plan by now. He does not believe
that Attorney Bobrowski had all of the information. He quoted the landscaping plan which relates to the
whole complex. He addressed the "limit of clearance", now being called the "limit of work", and he
stated that if the proposed lilac bushes are not part of an associated improvement then he does not
know what one is. He addressed the northern strip of land designated as common areas, and if they are
not going to recreate here,then where are they going to recreate,and it is clearly an associated •
improvement. Mr. Clarke asked if they did not do any landscaping would it still be considered an
6
associated improvement. Mr.Treadwell stated that the intent is to serve as a buffer to prevent erosion,
and it should be considered an associated improvement. Mr.Treadwell continued that the site plan
review requires that the actual areas be shown and they are not. He guesses that based on figure C-3
that the amount of space allocated for residential use, is over 54%,and if the landscaping along the
parking field it goes over 60%of the total area. He reiterated that these improvements are associated
with the residential uses and they do go over the 50% required. Mr.Treadwell then moved onto his
other memorandum which addresses useable open space and gave a brief history of the ordinance. He
also described the ordinance for"cluster development,"which also contains an open space provision.
He stated that there is no open space requirement in the PUD and pointed out that lot size has not been
covered in the other aspects of the development. He focused on useable open space which in Sec. 7.35
relates only to ownership, and he further explained the ordinance. If it is useable open space it will be
owned by the public and must be accessible, otherwise according to the zoning the Planning Board
would not approve it. He referred to the residential space plan and argued that there are areas that are
questionable. He reiterated that they must find that the site plan is in harmony with the master plan.
He recommended referring to a memorandum he sent to Ms. Duncan on June 18`h. He would argue that
the zoning is not in compliance with the master plan. Mr. Moustakis asked why he thinks the retaining
wall should be considered residential to which Mr.Treadwell responded that the retaining wall is an
associated improvement that is required to protect the parking area and other areas. He concluded
stating that as it is currently configured the plan should not be given a permit because it exceeds the
requirements.
Celeste Ross, 20 Beaver Street, asked what the sizes of the buildings are. Mr.Griffin stated that they are
all the same number of stories and they all have garages underneath. She stated that she is curious why
• the height issues aren't being addressed and wondered why the developer has not considered taking off
a level. Mr. Puleo stated that the Board has been listening and they are thinking about all of this. She
also submitted a picture from her neighbor's house which showed that they will definitely see the
development.
Mr. Griffin responded to the earlier question about the residential land area breakdown by saying the
overall development is 6.81 acres, of which 3.38 acres are non-residential in total. Ms. Duncan said that
they are going to ask the engineering department to check their numbers, but wants to know how their
numbers were calculated. Mr. Griffin stated that they used AutoCAD to measure out the whole site and
he will provide that information to Ms. Duncan. Mr. Ready recommended that Mr. Griffin return with
the exact calculations. Mr.Clarke agreed and stated that having this reviewed by the engineering
department is very important.
Mr. Puleo asked if the 6/20/12 is the latest version of the plan to which Mr. Griffin said that it is. He
then described the landscaping plan and noted that there is a lot more planting on the 6/20 plan than
there was on the previous plans. He then described the new plantings in relation to the locations of the
abutters. He described the plantings slated for the newest plan and noted that there are scheduled to
be Frasier firs. Mr. Beilman asked what the purpose of those plantings is, to which Mr. Griffin said to
provide screening for the Beaver Street residents.
Ms. Ross asked where exactly the plantings will be located-above or at the bottom of the retaining wall
and Mr.Griffin stated that they will be on top of the wall. Ms. Duncan asked where the top of the slope
will be and where the Frasier firs will be located. Mr.Griffin then went through the plan to show the
• locations proposed for the fir trees on the Beaver Street. Ms. Duncan then asked if the Frasier firs could
be planted on top of the slope. Mr. Griffin briefly described the landscape plan. He showed the view
7
from 14 Beaver and explained that they would see Colorado spruce at the top of the slope and
rhododendrons at the bottom.
Tricia Meyers, 14 Beaver Street,stated that the pictures submitted show that the trees there are leafless
and she will be able to see the tops of the buildings inside her house, and she will see buildings. Mr.
Griffin stated that they have done a good job of screening.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street stated that the landscaping described is an associated improvement, and
therefore connected with the residential. Mr. Beilman stated that the only reason that they are putting
it in there is for the abutting residents.
Todd Siegel, Ward 3 Councilor, 28 Brittania Circle asked how the calculations are done and how much
actual space is going to be allocated. He wants the board to note that when this was voted on by the
City Council they determined that anything associated with the building such as a buffer is also
associated with the residential and he would be interested to see how much is left over for the
commercial space.
Jane Arlander 93 Federal Street,feels that the view goes two ways, and whether you are a resident of
the new development or an abutter,you will see the same trees.
Mr.Treadwell stated that in Ms. McKnight's memo dated 9/6 there is a note that there will be a
discussion on the bridge and the locations of the bike racks. Putting the bike racks at the front areas in
the same spaces as the handicapped areas and the loading areas. He recommended putting the bike
racks in the lower levels and he would like to hear about the pedestrian bridge. Mr. Griffin referred to •
the site plan of 6/20 to describe the pedestrian bridge. In regards to the bike racks, they will be located
at the lower levels next to the elevators and they will also have ones at the front doors. Mr.Treadwell
asked if the interiors have been changed to reflect this and recommended putting the as many bike
racks in the basement.
Arthur Sargent, Councilor at Large, 8 Maple Circle, asked to look at this as a commercial tax base. He
noted that his biggest concern is losing the commercial tax rate. He compared this to Pickering Wharf.
He said it looks like it is 70%residential. The assessor will have to determine the tax rate.
Ms. Meyers asked about the location of the substation and if this is part of the ratio. Mr.Griffin
described the proposed location of the electrical equipment and his expectations for the electrical
service. He noted that there will be transformers located at the roadway. Mr. Puleo asked for further
clarification,to which Mr. Griffin described the wiring locations to each of the buildings. Mr. Puleo asked
if it will look different to what is there now and what kind of screening will be installed. Mr. Griffin
stated that there isn't a lot of screening.
Mr. Puleo asked for some further clarification on if there are going to be HVAC units on the ground and
what they will look like. Mr. Griffin stated that they will all be on the roof and none on the ground.
Ms. Ross asked what happened if they knocked off a level, and Mr. Griffin stated that in that scenario,
that would remove about 36 units which is about a 25%of the units. Mr. Puleo asked her if she was
asking this question in terms of height, not density to which Ms. Ross said that she asked this in relation
to the tree height. Mr. Correnti reminded the Board of previous meetings and the unique layout of the •
site,which is critical to the project. He stated that this is a "brownfield-designated" site and reminded
8
the Board of the presentation by the LSP. The number of the units makes it critical to go forward, but if
they start talking about lopping off floors then they don't have a project.
Ms. Meyers discussed the profit for renting all of the 141 proposed apartments as something to keep in
mind.
Mr.Treadwell addressed a concern with the HVAC on the roof and reminded the Board of the Derby
condos, and Mr. Puleo stated that there have never been any complaints from that building. Mr.
Treadwell recommended a condition to be added to the decision. He recommended that the
environmental impact be further examined, to which Mr. Puleo said that they can look into this.
Mark Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, stated that his property backs right up to the old buildings and once they
are removed, his yard is going to collapse. He said that the applicant offered to meet him out at the
property, but he didn't know what good that was going to do as that has not happened. He sees it on a
plan that the retaining wall is going to end way before his property, but his property is 10-12 feet above
the building they are proposing to demolish. Mr. Puleo initially responded stating that Mr. Griffin gave a
detailed description of how that was going to work. Mr. Griffin said that they had tried to arrange a
meeting to which Mr. Pattison said that they called him at the last minute and asked him to meet him
there while Mr. Pattison was at work. Mr. Griffin described how they will remove a portion of the
building and then fill in to the top part of the foundation which should keep his property in tact. Mr.
Pattison asked if they are going to take everything below the yard,to which Mr. Griffin responded that
they would punch holes in the concrete slab to allow water to drain, though there is no reason to
remove all of the foundation. Mr. Pattison asked the Board what happens if this is not met. Ms.
• McKnight stated that this would have to be shown on the as-built plans to the plan specifications, and
that has to match exactly what they are going to do. Mr. Puleo said that they do follow-up on these
things, as it is part of what the Board does. Mr. Clarke asked if the city engineer has to review the as-
built plans to which Ms. McKnight said that the building inspector reviews them. Mr. Correnti said that
the least effective remedy is with the Planning Board if they collapse his yard—there are other ways to
remedy that. The building permit has to show how they will address that and they understand that.
A letter from Tom St. Pierre, Building Commissioner was read into the record by Ms. McKnight regarding
compliance of the building height with the zoning ordinance.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing on September 20, 2012, seconded by
Randy Clarke. All approved 9-0.
Old/New Business
The September 20`h meeting may be rescheduled due to conflicts.
Adjournment
John Moustakis made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 9-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:31pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 10/18/12
9
Y
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
qi
• q;`,
`��cinnvF.o� � Board
Date _111412-
N
1412-
N me Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
ti
I I �I d 14 lf/}{� I NdKW 1✓L�V��� �L�/— RVJ, 4COQ41 rl,,Vv J
do. 9� rgiPraw q'79- Nq -02IL
Po lqe6 P -Rn s AD rossg re vs le�C�corncc�s/,ne1
,s SttRAo 2-9 Sc�j.(, sr 9-78 -,?yy-i3ao �Sa�iy3SgC9�A�l,c�M
Lir 1wS se.lI.,vw� INsN� S� - uv1,
R 03s� I=16 0 ( NtUWMop co q0t-C44
C�
Page ` of 2
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
�'%MINB
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Page 2 of�_
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1011 JUL 18 P is 45
CITY CLERK L A#LEM. MASS,
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday,July 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall AnneeX, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
lt-fns.-¢-ti. I�Qea-/,G yn�
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
i 6/4/12 and 7/5/12 meeting minutes
2. Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of
150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building
to eight(8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
• 3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping, APPLICANT REQUESTS TO
CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 6,2011.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 4238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
+n a" ss, sk ti
a : oI2
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUsE'rN 01970 a TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALF,M.00b1
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday,July 19, 1011 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
'r 6/4/12 special meeting minutes and 7/5/12 regular meeting minutes
2. Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of
150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2).The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building
to eight(8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
• 3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings(total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
C',
r
m
rc
{�4 S 0 i 3lryii; �3F1 }Ri Y22 #lie "`
V) _—
�.J �r
&�1 3 U
y �
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACIIUSE"ITS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 Far: 978.740.0404 . WWW.SALEAI.COM
CITY OF SALEM MASSACI-ILTSE7TS
• q i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
r , r' }aTr COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
K1MI3RRLLY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSELr3 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX: 978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: July 11, 2012
RE: Agenda—July 19, 2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
i Planner's Memo
Agenda
Minutes from 6/7/12 and 7/5/12
• ➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96)and a
portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the
existing building to eight(8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
The applicant had originally intended to open this hearing several weeks ago, so I will give you
the project summary here again:
This building, owned by Northeast Behavioral Health Corp., formerly Health & Education
Services, received relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2009 to change its nonconforming
use (a mental health center) to another nonconforming use (eight residential units). The
property is located in the R-2 Zoning District.
Most of the requirements for a Site Plan Review application have been submitted. However,
the application does not contain building elevations, since no exterior work is proposed. The
applicant has offered to provide photographs of the building in order to give the Board context
for the review (I do not yet have these). Snow storage areas are not indicated on the plans, so I
have requested this information from the applicant.
The parking area shown is located on 150 Federal Street, located between 162 Federal Street
and Bridge Street. The applicant intends to acquire this portion of 150 Federal Street, which is
f
owned by the Archdiocese of Boston, and plans to change the lot lines as indicated on the
submission through an ANR (Approval Not Required) plan.
Because of its location in the 100 year flood zone (FEMA flood zone A), and within the 200 foot
buffer zone for the North River, an application was submitted for a Wetlands & Flood Hazard
District Special Permit. This application was made prior to the amendment of Section 8.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance (formerly Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District; now Flood Hazard
Overlay District). However, the changes to the ordinance do not impact the Board's review of
this project; there are no further requirements introduced by the new language that need to be
m et.
The application was routed to Fire Prevention, Building, Health, Conservation, and Engineering.
The Building Commissioner concurs with the proposal. The Conservation Agent notes that the
applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent to the Conservation Commission, and this hearing
opened March 22, 2012. 1 have not received comments from Health or Fire. Engineering sent
the following comments, which have been passed along to the applicant:
1. Details of the driveway exit connectivity to the proposed spillway need to be provided,
which show that all driveway run off enters the spillway and infiltration system.
2. Proposed drain basin should not have a catch basin frame and cover; it should be a
manhole only.
. 3. Provide more detail on (PSIS-1, 1e) elevation differences between invert in and invert
out to promote recharge.
4. HDPE pipe not allowed for public right of way installations; add transition structure for
HDPE to RCP.
5. The applicant is not providing any information regarding existing or proposed water and
sewer connections to the city's system other than the approximate location. Size, age
and type of the connection should be shown to determine whether a new connection is
needed or not. Connections shall be cleaned and televised to ensure that no service
replacement is needed.
6. Dimensions of the building and parking area for the existing and proposed conditions
are not specified in the plans.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237
& 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for
Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood
Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of
three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
• A memo from Lynn Duncan will be sent under separate cover.
-2-
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 7/19/12
• A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, July 19, 2012 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, Tim Ready, George McCabe, Lewis
Beilman, Mark George,Tim Kavanagh, and Helen Sides. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner,
and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Randy Clarke.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:08 pm.
Approval of Minutes
June 7, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. John Moustakis motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by George McCabe. All approved 8-0.
Tim Ready stated that the Recording Clerk is doing a very nice job with the minutes.
July 5, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. George McCabe motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by John Moustakis. All approved 7-0. Helen Sides abstained.
• Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96) and a
portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2).The proposed project includes the conversion of the
existing building to eight(8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Site Plan Review application date-stamped 3/13/12 and accompanying materials
➢ Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit application date-stamped 3/13/12 and
accompanying materials
➢ "Site Development Plans for 162 Federal Street located in Salem, Massachusetts," dated
1/25/12
➢ Stormwater Management Report for 162 Federal St. and a portion of 150 Federal St., Salem,
MA, prepared by Meridian Associates, dated 1/25/12
➢ Lighting detail, no date, submitted at meeting
➢ Photographs submitted at meeting
Attorney Scott Grover, representing the applicant, William Wharff, says Mr. Wharff has an agreement to
purchase 162 Federal Street which is the old St.James Convent and is the subject of this petition. He
introduced Charlie Weir who is the site engineer from Meridian Associates. He stated that the project
consists of two parcels, one of which is owned by Health and Educational Services, who has since moved
out, and this is about two-thirds of the site. The second piece is owned by the Archdiocese, which is
. about 10,000 square feet of vacant land and takes the site all the way back to Bridge Street. The
proposal before the Board is to take the office building and convert it to 8 residential condominium units
with 18 parking spaces in the back. He gave an overview of the project, which began with the Board of
• Appeals in 2009 and allowed for the 8 condominiums with 18 parking spaces. He stated that initially the
second piece was not part of the project, which meant there was very little green space on the site due
to all the parking. Access to the rear was also only through an easement granted by the Archdiocese.
Now, by picking up this piece of property, they now have complete access straight from Bridge St. He
showed the parking area and associated green space. In addition to the variances that were granted,
the project requires site plan approvals from Planning Board and the Conservation Commission, and it's
in the local historic district. There are very few changes to the building, which include minor
modification of lighting and painting, and this will be going before the Historic Commission. He
explained the reason for the multiple extensions they requested: they found out that the property is
filled tidelands from the North River, which means that it needs a waterway license and is subject to
Chapter 91. They now need to go before the Department of Environmental Protection to get a
waterways license. They do not anticipate DEP will require significant changes.
Mr. Puleo asked about the Chapter 91 process, which Mr. Grover explained. He said they have had
meetings with DEP and are hopeful to get the license. However, the only issue is the driveway. Mr.
Puleo asked him to clarify how the 8 units access the back without exterior changes. Mr. Grover stated
that there already is an entrance in the rear. Mr. Puleo then asked if the common hallway was done
internally, to which Mr. Grover said yes. Mr. Grover stated that there is the possibility of creating small
decks, but it is up to the Historic Commission.
Mr. George noted that these plans pre-date the flood maps updated by FEMA, and asked about how this
impacts the project. Charlie Weir said that he doesn't expect it to change the project—it is still Zone A—
• but he will discuss this further in his presentation. Even if there is a change, he does not suspect it will
be significant—he will look at it further. Mr. Puleo thought that the height of the water line was
increased. Mr. Weir said area didn't have an elevation listed on the old FIRM; with no elevation, they
just digitize what's on the plan. Flood water was predicted to come on the site as shown. He suspected
it's a flood elevation of 10, 11, or 12 feet, and they are holding the grades in the area. He said that they
are not really impacting the flood plain because all they are really doing is removing pavement, putting
in landscaping and putting in new pavement. They are also going to add stormwater improvements.
He reminded the Board that this is the remains of the North River, and is not technically a canal, but a
river, because it isn't man-made, only the walls are. The state doesn't consider it a canal; if it did, it
would not be subject to Chapter 91. Through several meetings with the conservation agent, they felt
that this would fall under Chapter 91. They are not concerned about the,driveway, but concerned about
changing the grading of the structure. He noted that the only thing DEP would be reviewing would be
the stormwater basin; this is the only portion of the site that is within their jurisdiction. They are
concerned with the change in grading, not the driveway.
Mr. Weir then described how they would redesign the site in regards to the landscape plan and the
addition of the 18 parking spaces. He reiterated that they are going to move pavement around and add
landscaping to the area, which includes a design that is compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act.
He described the underground filtration system and explained that there will be a small pocket which
will provide pre-treatment and which will then filter into a larger area. In terms of the infiltration basin,
he explained that for larger storms it provides treatment, clean water up as required and drain out into
the town system. He noted that grading on a particular area is required to show that water won't go
• into the neighbors' properties. He stated that neighbors have requested granite curbing at the entrance
of the site, however they were proposing bituminous curbing. He then moved on to the landscaping
plan. He showed what trees they would be preserving, and specifically noted that the saved trees will
. be mature trees. They are proposing three lighting fixtures for the parking lot, which will not give off
light pollution at night. They do have some comments from the Engineering Department, which they
can address. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Weir stated that the
3 lights are going to be 16 feet high, and referenced the lighting within the landscaping plan. Mr. Puleo
asked if one of the fixtures would illuminate the driveway. Mr. Weir responded that the driveway would
be lit up by the lighting on the street. Ms. Sides asked if this was once a playground, to which Mr.
Grover said yes, and it was associated with the school.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Weir to explain the curbing in relation to the lights. Mr. Weir described it and Mr.
Puleo stated that there concern is that bituminous does not hold up over time. Mr. Weir stated that the
experience that bituminous concrete works fine with a low ride Cape Cod berm. Mr. Puleo asked if
Engineering is reviewing the plan to which Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, said yes and there were
outstanding concerns in relation to the driveway and spillway. Mr. Puleo asked if those are on the plan,
to which Mr. Weir said not yet. Mr. Puleo reviewed the concerns and Mr. Weir stated how he would
address the issues outlined in Engineering's report; he then pointed out that they had Dig Safe done.
Mr. Puleo asked if he knows the size of the water service that is needed. Mr. Weir does not know, but
says it depends on what is there now.
John Moustakis asked how far away the lights will be from the buildings on Federal Street. Mr. Weir
said about 100 feet. Mr. Moustakis asked him to show this on the plan and identify the elevations for
each light and he asked if any glare will come off the lights. Mr. Weir said no and shared the
specifications on the full cutoff fixture.
• Ms. Sides asked about fencing or a grade change on the stairway on the right side. Mr. Weir stated that
he believed there is a retaining wall. Mr. Grover and Mr. Weir stated that they believe that there is a
fence there. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the property line, to which Mr. Weir pointed it out on
the plan. Mr. Puleo then asked about stairway access on the outside of the building. Mr. Weir said the
intention is for everyone to enter at the back of the building, which is what the neighbors want. Parking
for one of the condos is in the front.
Ms. Sides asked if the fences will be maintained by the condo association, to which Mr. Grover said yes.
Mr. Ready asked about the condition of the structure. Mr. Grover stated that since converting to the
office space the interior is not what it should be to accommodate for condominiums.
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, described the building and the intent of the applicant to preserve as
much of the building as possible.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Connie Hayne, 17 North Street, commented that when she purchased her condo from the Wharff
brothers they were told there was one parking place per resident and one for guests, which did not turn
out to be the case. She would urge that there be more parking to be considered and to get it in writing.
Mr. Grover responded that there is more parking on for the site than required.
Joyce Wallace, 172 Federal Street, asked who owns the space. Mr. Grover stated that main part of the
• site is owned by the corporation that succeeded HES and the back part of the site is owned by the
Archdiocese. He noted that they are scheduled to close in October.
• Mr. Wallace stated that the neighborhood association is fully for this project and they want it to get
done as soon as possible. This is a densely populated area and they would love to have this cleaned up.
Mr. Ready asked if he is representing the neighborhood association, to which Ms. Wallace said yes, that
she is on the Board.
Mr. Moustakis asked if this will be condominiums or rentals. Mr. Grover stated that these will be only
condominiums and described them as large 2 bedroom condominiums, approximately 1500 square feet
each.
Mr. Puleo asked about where they are in the process in terms of the Historical Commission. Mr. Grover
stated that they have not gone before them yet. Mr. Puleo stated that comments by Engineering should
be noted on the plan.
Ms. Sides stated that she thinks it looks great and it looks thoughtfully executed.
Mr. Puleo asked if they can have their issues resolved and updated on the plan for them to see at the
next meeting, to which Mr. Grover and Mr. Weir said they will. Mr. Puleo asked if there were any
comments from the Fire department, to which Ms. McKnight stated that Lt. Griffin misplaced her plans
thus the plans will be resent to Lt. Griffin for more specific feedback. Overall, Ms. McKnight felt that her
concerns were related to the interior. Mr. Puleo asked if they would add sprinklers to which Mr. Weir
said yes.
• Mr. Ready asked how many meetings they had with the neighborhood association, to which Mr. Grover
and Mr. Wallace said there were several. Mr. Ready said that it seems like there is a lot of community
involvement in this project, which he thinks is great.
Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification on the parking plan, to which Mr. Weir stated that they need to
update the plan to reflect 18 spaces, as they currently have 17 on the plan and there are 18 including
the handicapped space.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing on September 6, 2012, seconded by
Helen Sides. All approved 8-0.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site
Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.APPLICANT REQUESTS TO
CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 6,1012.
Mr. Puleo stated that there is a letter from the applicant asking to request allowance to continue to the
September 6, 2012 meeting.
•
Helen Sides made a motion to accept the applicant's request to continue the public hearing until
• September 6, 2012, seconded by George McCabe. All approved 7-0. John Moustakis left the room and
then returned.
Old/New Business
Danielle McKnight stated that there will not be a special meeting in August.
Adjournment
George McCabe made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George. All approved 8-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:59pm.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the
decisions have been posted separately by address or project at:
http://www,sclem.com/Poges/SalemMA PlonMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 9/11/12
•
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
7� n
Board
Date
Nam Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
lkayl&cE
Page of
A
Z
CITY OF SALEM
M.
PLANNING BOARD
1011 JUN 28 4 11:
CITY CLERK LE #
SALEM. MASS
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Plooning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
I, 6/4/12 special meeting minutes and 6/7/12 regular meeting minutes
I Form A: Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control
Law for 18 FELT STREET(Map 27, Lot 609).
3. Public Hearing: GEORGE FALLON requesting a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision
• Control Law for the property located at 5 SUMMIT STREET(Map 15, Lot 162). Property is proposed to he
subdivided to create a new building lot with less than 100 feet of frontage, and to reduce the frontage Of the
lot with an existing house to less than 100 feet.
4. Form A: Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control
Law for 5 SUMMIT STREET(Map 15, Lot 162).
5. Public Hearing: Request of MARK DENISCO for Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property
located at 12 WOODBURY COURT (Map 36, Lot 1). A new two-family house is proposed.
6. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (reclevelopmelit of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking arid landscaping,
7. Old/New Business
S. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Low NI.G,Lr C. 39§23B (In(,]City Ordinance Sections 2-2023 through 2-2033.
120 VAShI1VHIU S 1�1'1.F:I-, 1';:; 0P), 0 `J78--10.0101F.7M
rY epaq�f
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
�I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
`9°�nrmsoa" ,
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: June 28, 2012
RE: Agenda—July 5,2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
➢ Minutes from the 6/4/12 special meeting(minutes from 6/7/12 were in your last packet)
• ➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Form A: Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision
Control Law for 18 FELT STREET(Map 27, Lot 609).
On May 17,the Board endorsed an ANR plan and approved a waiver of frontage request in order to
subdivide this property into three single-family house lots,one of which lacked 100 feet of frontage.
This lot also contains the historic Ropes home. The applicant planned to preserve that home and build
two new single-family homes on the two additional lots, one with frontage on Felt Street and another
with frontage on Larch Street. However, the applicant has now proposed a new plan which leaves the
Larch Street lot intact but changes the configuration of the two Felt Street lots so that some of the
property will be conveyed to the abutter at 36 Felt Street, and the rest will be added to the property at
18 Felt Street with the historic home. Since both newly configured lots will have sufficient frontage,the
ANR plan is entitled to endorsement.
Public Hearing:GEORGE FALLON requesting a waiver from the frontage requirements of the
Subdivision Control Law for the property located at 5 SUMMIT STREET(Map 15, Lot 162). Property is
proposed to be subdivided to create a new building lot with less than 100 feet of frontage,and to
reduce the frontage of the lot with an existing house to less than 100 feet.
The property at 5 Summit Street wraps around two other properties, 11 and 13 Summit Street. The
proposal includes conveying small portions of the property to abutters, and subdividing the rest of the
property into two building lots, one of which already contains a house Lot A). A new house is proposed
for the other building lot(Lot B). In May,the Zoning Board of Appeals granted Lot A relief from lot area,
frontage/lot width, and side yard setback. Lot A has 56.88 feet of frontage (100 is required). The ZBA
40 also granted Lot B relief from lot area and frontage/lot width. Lot B has 50 feet of frontage (100
required).
This application has been routed to Conservation, Health, Building, Engineering and Fire Prevention. It is •
outside the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction, and the City Engineer has no comments. The
Building Commissioner has responded that he would like to see a more detailed parking layout including
the ground elevation,since there is a significant drop off, as well as parking spaces and a copy of the
easement granting access to the parking areas. I have passed this comment along to the applicant's
attorney,Scott Grover, who has replied that Mr. Fallon would work on this for the hearing.
I have not yet received comments from Health or Fire.
Form A:Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision
Control Law for 5 SUMMIT STREET(Map 15, Lot 162).
If the Board grants the requested waiver of frontage, then the ANR plan will be entitled to endorsement.
Public Hearing: Request of MARK DENISCO for Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the
property located at 12 WOODBURY COURT(Map 36, Lot 1). A new two-family house is proposed.
The proposed two-family house is located in the AE Zone, part of the 100-year flood zone. It has been
routed to Fire, Conservation, Building, Engineering and Health. I received the following comments from
the City Engineer:
➢ Please show sewer connection (detail saddle connections) .
➢ Please show water connection
➢ Drainage:
Must demonstrate that ground recharge is not possible.
■ Provide estimate flow to city Stormwater system.
May approve an overflow connection to city, need detail.
• No catchbasin to catchbasin connection allowed; MUST connect to a manhole.
I passed these comments along to the applicant,who has been working with Engineering to resolve
them, but I do not have updated plans.
A Chapter 91 license has been issued for this project, and the Conservation Commission has reviewed it
and issued an Order of Conditions.
I have not yet received comments from Health or Fire. The Building Commissioner had no comments. In
2009,the Zoning Board of appeals granted Variances from required side and front yard setbacks,
minimum lot area, and minimum lot area per dwelling unit. This decision is enclosed in your packet.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property
located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &239),Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil&Grease factory),for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The
proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential buildings(total of 141 units),
re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and
landscaping.
-2-
• Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein will attend the meeting to present a legal opinion in response to
questions raised about compliance with the Planned Unit Development provisions of the zoning
ordinance.
The applicant submitted revised plans in response to the questions raised by Woodard &Curran's peer
review. David White of W&C is reviewing the revisions and expects to have a review memo to us by
early next week. I will pass this along as soon as I receive it. I have also asked the applicant to have his
traffic engineer ensure that no new traffic or visibility issues are raised with the movement of the Grove
Street driveway seven feet to the south (which was presented at our last meeting).
I am also enclosing a letter I received today from James Treadwell, 36 Felt St., plus two earlier letters
intended for distribution at the last meeting,which was canceled (these last two were also emailed to
you).
•
•
-3-
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 7/5/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,July 5, 2012 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,Tim Ready, George McCabe, Lewis
Beilman, Mark George,Tim Kavanagh,and Randy Clarke.Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of
Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning
Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Helen Sides.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:15 pm.
Approval of Minutes
June 4, 2012 special NRCC draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.John Moustakis motioned to
accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 7-0(Mr. George not yet present).
June 7, 2012 draft minutes
John Moustakis motioned to postpone approval of the minutes until the July 19, 2012 meeting,
seconded by Randy Clarke.All approved 7-0(Mr. George not yet present).
Form A:Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision
Control Law for 18 FELT STREET(Map 27, Lot 609).
• Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Form A application date-stamped 6/20/12 and accompanying materials
➢ Plan of Land, 18 Felt Street, Salem, Property of Icecat, LLC, dated June 18, 2012, prepared by
North Shore Survey Corp.
Mark George arrived at 7:20pm.
Scott Grover, representing ICECAT LLC, described the location of the site. He says the owner reached an
agreement with Mr.Treadwell with regard to purchasing a portion of the property, and stated that they
are here tonight to ask that the change in the lot lines be approved.
Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the Form A request, seconded by John Moustakis.The Board
voted eight(8) in favor(Chuck Puleo, Randy Clarke,John Moustakis, Mark George,George McCabe,
Lewis Beilman,Tim Kavanagh and Tim Ready in favor),and none opposed, to grant the request for ANR
endorsement. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Public Hearing:GEORGE FALLON requesting a waiver from the frontage requirements of the
Subdivision Control Law for the property located at 5 SUMMIT STREET(Map 15, Lot 162). Property is
proposed to be subdivided to create a new building lot with less than 100 feet of frontage,and to
reduce the frontage of the lot with an existing house to less than 100 feet.
Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Waiver of frontage application date-stamped June 14,2012
1
➢ Subdivision Plan of Land located in Salem, Mass., 5 Summit Street, prepared by Eastern Land •
Survey Associates, Inc., dated May 24, 2012
➢ Written comments from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, dated 6/15/12
Scott Grover, representing George Fallon, presents the plan, which calls for the division of the land such
that a second house lot is created. He stated that they received approval from the Board of Appeals. He
explained there are 6 parcels created (4 are small and are not building lots). He stated that Lot C will
provide access to the abutters. He stated that there will be another of the small lots added to another
abutter, Mr. L'Heureaux,for no consideration;the abutter currently uses this area for parking. He also
noted that there are problems with encroachments which will be resolved by the changes in the lot
lines. Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification on the locations of the homes on the lots in question,
which Mr. Grover described. Mr. Puleo asked if Lot D gets combined with Mr. L'Heureaux's lot,to which
Mr. Grover said yes.
Tim Kavanagh asked if the waiver issue is a public hearing to which Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, said
yes. Mr. Kavanagh noted that it looks like this new configuration brings clarity to the lots in the area,to
which Mr. Grover agreed.
Mr. Moustakis asked about the location of Lot B and the changes in boundaries. Mr. Grover described
this area to him.
Mr. Kavanagh asked about parking on Lot B, and Mr. Grover pointed out on the plan how the abutters
will be able to access parking.
Issue opened to the public for comment •
No one from the public commented.
Ms. McKnight stated that the Building Inspector was interested in seeing the easement and parking
plan. Mr. Puleo asked about the parking plan,to which Mr. Grover stated that the parking plan was not
part of the original plan and they have worked out the parking issues. Ms. McKnight suggested including
a condition in the decision that addresses that concern.
Mr. Ready asked if all of the neighbors were informed as he was surprised by the lack of neighbors at
this meeting. Mr. Grover stated that there had been some opposition at the Board of Appeals.
Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing,Tim Ready seconded.All approved 8-0.
John Moustakis made a motion to approve the waiver from frontage with the following special
conditions:
1. A parking plan is to be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. A copy of the easement accessing parking areas is to be submitted for review and approval prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3. All requirements of the Health Department and Board of Health are to be adhered to.
4. All requirements of the Fire Department are to be adhered to.
2
• Tim Kavanagh seconded the motion. The Board voted eight (8) in favor(Chuck Puleo, Randy Clarke,
John Moustakis, Mark George, George McCabe, Lewis Beilman,Tim Kavanagh and Tim Ready in favor),
and none opposed,to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 5 Summit Street. The decision is
hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Form A: Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision
Control Law for 5 SUMMIT STREET(Map 15, Lot 162).
➢ Form A application date-stamped June 14, 2012
➢ Subdivision Plan of Land located in Salem, Mass., 5 Summit Street, prepared by Eastern Land
Survey Associates, Inc., dated May 24, 2012
Based on Mr. Grover's combined presentation on this agenda item and the previous item, Randy Clarke
made a motion to approve the Form A request for ANR endorsement,seconded by Mark George. The
Board voted eight(8) in favor(Chuck Puleo, Randy Clarke,John Moustakis, Mark George, George
McCabe, Lewis Beilman,Tim Kavanagh and Tim Ready in favor), and none opposed, to grant the request
for ANR endorsement. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Public Hearing: Request of MARK DENISCO for Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the
property located at 12 WOODBURY COURT(Map 36,Lot 1). A new two-family house is proposed.
Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Application date-stamped 6/6/12
• ➢ "Plan to Accompany Notice of Intent Located in Salem, Massachusetts, prepared for Mark
DeNISCO,n prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., dated March 22, 2012 and last
revised June 25, 2012.
➢ Written comments from Giovanna Zabaleta, Engineering Department, dated 6/21/12
Mark Denisco presented his petition and stated that he has an Order of Conditions from the
Conservation Commission,and approvals from the Fire Department and the Water and Sewer
Department. He noted that he has everything he needs except the Planning Board approval and the
required building permits. Mr. Puleo asked him what the Board of Appeals issues were and Ms.
McKnight stated that dimensional relief was required. Mr. DeNisco responded that he made the house
smaller and is going to provide parking access for his neighbors. Mr. Puleo asked about the engineering
detail to which Mr. DeNisco pointed out the location of the sewer on the plan. He stated that this is the
plan the Fire Department approved. Ms. McKnight commented that Lt. Griffin had not given her
comments on this project and asked Mr. DeNisco if his previous approval from the Fire Department was
a signoff on the routing slip for the building permit,to which he said yes. Mr. Puleo asked about the
width of the driveway,to which Mr. DeNisco said that this had already been approved by the Fire
Department. Ms. McKnight stated that Lt. Griffin is on vacation and recommended that if this is
approved that a condition be added that all her conditions would be adhered to.
Mark George asked for Mr. Puleo to clarify his concerns. Mr. Puleo stated that there may be an issue of
the width of the driveway as it is a two-family house. Mr. Puleo asked if Mr. DeNisco was required to
add sprinklers; he said no. Mr. George asked for clarification on the changes made. Mr. Denisco stated
that additional drains were put in.
•
3
Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the location of the project. Mr. DeNisco described the location and •
noted that he will be living in the home.
Issue opened to the public for comment
No one from the public made comment.
Mark George made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Randy Clarke.
Ms. McKnight stated that she got feedback from Engineering that with the conditions they supplied,
they were fine with giving approval. Mr. Puleo noted that there is a revised plan that shows a change in
the drainage connection. Ms. McKnight notes that the date on the new plan was last revised June 25,
2012.
Randy Clarke made a motion to approve with conditions, seconded by Mark George. The Board voted
eight (8) in favor(Chuck Puleo, Randy Clarke,John Moustakis, Mark George,George McCabe, Lewis
Beilman,Tim Kavanagh and Tim Ready in favor), and none opposed, to grant the Special Permit. The
decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property
located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236,237&239), Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory),for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The •
proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential buildings(total of 141 units),
re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building,and associated parking and
landscaping.
➢ Site Plan Review application, date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Planned Unit Development Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Wetland and Flood Hazard District Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Plans titled Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development, Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove,
60-64 Grove Street &3 Harmony Grove Road, Salem, MA," dated 12/20/11 and revised 6/20/12
➢ Letters from James Treadwell, AICP,dated 6/14/12, 6/18/12, 6/27/12, and 7/5/12
➢ "Letter Report—Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove Peer Review," prepared by Woodard &
Curran, dated 5/10/12
➢ Letter to Robert Griffin, P.E.,from F. Giles Ham,Vanasse &Associates, dated 7/5/12
➢ Email from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer, dated 7/5/12
➢ Memo from Robin Stein,Assistant City Solicitor, dated 7/5/12
➢ Memo from Attorney Mark Bobrowski, dated 7/3/'1
Mr. Puleo reminded the audience to direct questions through him and not directly with the presenters.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development introduced the Assistant City Solicitor,
Robin Stein,and stated that they have two legal opinions to share with the Board and the public, both
from Ms. Stein and from Mark Bobrowski,the attorney the city worked with on the zoning recodification
several years ago. •
4
• Robin Stein,Assistant City Solicitor, says she has prepared a memo; Ms. McKnight distributes it. Mr.
Puleo asks her to walk the Board through the memo. Ms. Stein says she sees two issues: 1. a general
question of how to approach the analysis of this project when looking at the requirements of the PUD
section along with requirements of other sections of the zoning; and 2. how to deal with Section 7.3.3.3,
which relates to the 50 percent issue specific to a PUD in the BPD. She went on to explain that as she
sees the first issue,the board may, but is not required,to grant the PUD special permit, and it must
comply with the entire section of the PUD zoning bylaw. She explains that the PUD which, as it is
written, allows for projects to deviate from underlying zoning if all PUD requirements are met.
Mark George asked about the issue of requirements for percentage of land use,and asked about the
intent of the PUD in BPD provisions—he is concerned about precedent setting. Ms.Stein stated that
when one reads a zoning bylaw,the intent is derived from the words. As written in 7.3.3.3, the
residential uses and associated elements cannot exceed 50%of the land area of the parcel. Mr. George
asks what the minimum is; Ms. Stein says there is no minimum. She says you then have to look at how
the Board interprets that—she says the Board needs to look at the entire project and each piece of the
site and analyze how it's being used. She gave the example of looking at the access—since the driveway
is used to access a residential use, it is counted as residential. She says the Board needs to look at how
each part is used to decide which areas should count as residential or other uses. Mr. George asks how
they determine which parts of the site benefit the residential or the commercial component. What if a
part of the site services both? Ms. Stein says they need to look at what improvements on the property
relate to which uses. Mr. George asks how you determine the allocation. Ms. Stein says if parking is for
the use of residential tenants, then that is counted as residential. Mr. George asks how much green
space must be allocated to each use. Ms. Stein says the Board has to make decisions about how each
• component is used.
Ms. Duncan clarified that Ms. Stein is providing a legal opinion; what the Board is asking for is a planning
interpretation. She said it might be helpful if they let Robin review the opinion from Attorney Bobrowski
regarding whether this plan is compliant with the zoning ordinance. She says the legal opinion answers
the zoning question, but the Planning Board has the discretion to determine whether the plan meets the
requirements. She says based on the legal opinion they were given, and on all the comments they have
received,the Planning Department wants to look again at which land would be associated with
residential development, and which land would reasonably be classified as open space. What we're
hearing is that it's the Board's discretion to look at that.
George McCabe asked Ms.Stein about the relationship between the PUD and the BPD. Ms.Stein stated
that if the board makes the three required findings required for a PUD,they can move forward with
evaluating a project. Lewis Beilman asked if these are threshold findings. Ms. Stein says yes, and says
that this is straight out of the bylaw—they must determine if these conditions are present. Mr. Beilman
asked for clarification on evaluating how the threshold is met and refers to the site being 49%
residential. Ms. Duncan stated that the plan as submitted could be compliant with the zoning, per
Attorney Bobrowski's legal opinion; there is nothing in the plan that on its face is inconsistent with our
zoning. The Planning Board has the discretion to find that the plan as proposed meets the findings of
the PUD, except the Board can also look at it and determine that there are open space areas that would
be better described as being associated with residential areas. She notes that no setbacks are required
for multifamily buildings. However, she says the Planning Department will look further into how the
open space areas are classified. She notes that parking areas and space between buildings has been
• classified as residential. She says we have the ability to look closely at the plan as proposed to
determine how each space should be classified.
5
Ms. Stein summarized Mr. Bobrowski's letter stating that there was nothing fundamentally inconsistent •
with the 7.3 and 7.3.3.3 in particular. She noted that the one challenge here is that commonly when
there is a piece of land it is typically for one use and what the Board needs to determine is what is and is
not in a residential use, based on the way the bylaw is written. We have identified residential,
commercial uses, and open space that is both usable and not usable. She says these are categories of
use. She discusses how the Board needs to determine whether areas allocated as usable open space are
appropriate to be used by the public.
Mr. Beilman asked how landscaping is counted and Ms. Stein said she can look into this if the Board
needs further clarification on this.
Mr. Moustakis asked if the parking under the buildings was considered into this. Ms. Duncan stated that
the parking is considered as part of the residential area. She stated that there is a portion of surface
parking specific to the commercial area. She also noted that the PUD has a requirement for public access
to useable open space.
Mr. Puleo turns the discussion over to the applicant.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners
from MRM Project Management and he reminded the Board of the last meeting where they heard from
the city's peer reviewer and their site engineer, Bob Griffin. He stated that their presentation will
include the response to the engineering peer review.
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, reviewed their responses as well as previous presentations. He stated •
that they spoke to the civil engineer about the comments received to date. He thinks that they are at
the end of the civil engineering comments and they don't have any major changes. He reminded the
Board of the request to move the driveway and they said they could move it about 7 feet which raised
the elevation. They were asked if that would impact the sight distance and Mr. Griffin submitted a letter
from Vanasse stating that the sight distance is not impacted significantly. They have submitted a new
plan with a 1/20 scale, as requested. Mr. Griffin identified the areas of activity and use limitation. He
then described the locations for the catch water basins and grates to facilitate heavy rains. He then
described some of the stormceptor devices to be used. He addressed other concerns from the peer
reviewers. He noted that the Department of Environmental Protection requirement for an illicit
discharge statement should be done before occupancy. He stated that the peer reviewers
recommended a check of the manhole sizes, and they are going to increase them. He noted that there
are still some retaining wall issues and related questions to be addressed in the future. They are going
to reinforce the swale with concrete, as recommended by Woodard and Curran. Mr. Griffin then
described widening the river and replacing the bridge, noting that the bridge will not affect flows coming
down from Peabody. He said they are trying to get information from the city of Peabody on water
flows, but they haven't been able to get those numbers, since Peabody is not yet ready to provide that
data. Prior to getting the building permit they will be able to address that.
Mr. Puleo asked what permits are required for construction of the bridge to which Mr. Griffin responded
that the permits required are Chapter 91 and Conservation Commission approval.
Mr. Griffin continued his presentation of reviewing the issues raised by Woodard and Curran. He •
discussed looping through a water line coming from Beaver Street, and they will test the valve at a later
6
• date. From the sewer perspective, he stated that it carries about 28,000 gallons per day and they will
submit their calculations. He also described the work on the sewer line, including reopening it. If they
find it is in bad shape,they will replace it.
Mr. Puleo asked about the driveway on plan C-4A,to which Mr. Griffin described the locations of the
catch basins. He asked about clarification on the granite curbing, and Mr. Griffin stated that the curbing
would be coming into the property, and there will be a transition from granite to concrete. Mr. Puleo
asked if it would match both sides,to which Mr. Griffin said that they would run the granite as far as the
city would ask them to do.
Mr. Puleo then asked about the plans on Building number 3 and asked Mr.Griffin to explain the location
of the flood zone with regard to the basement. Mr. Griffin explained that the garage floor is just above
the 100 year flood calculation.
Issue opened up for public comment
Mary Conley, 38 Beaver Street,asked what they are going to do for rodent control during the building of
the project. Mr.Griffin stated that the pest control is done on the property itself and is based on the
Board of Health requirements. Mr. Puleo stated that the Board of Health has procedures in place for
this, and pest control measures are improved today over what was done in the past. Ms.Conley then
asked about the public walkway. Mr.Griffin stated that this would still be part of the plan. She then
asked about the location of runoff along the walkway to which Mr. Griffin described the locations of the
drains on the plan. She noted that they knocked the retaining wall off her foundation and she wants to
• know who to contact about fixing this. Mr. Griffin said that he will look into this, but this is the first he
has heard about this. She asked about the sizes of the trees that will be planted, to which Mr. Puleo
pointed out that a new landscaping
PpIan was submitted.
Ward 3 Councilor Todd Siegel, 28 Brittania Court, asked when the Board plans on voting on this.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he appreciates Attorney Stein's interpretation. He says the
issue of terminology in land use planning is precise, and what is being used is not the appropriate
terminology; he recommends the Board should look into resources to find out what the correct terms
are. He noted that accessory uses are to be incidental to the primary use. He says there is no reference
to nonresidential use in 7.3.3. All the hatched areas on the plan could be misleading—we're not
interested in how much nonresidential use there is, but in how much residential use and associated use
there is. He references the Collins Cove condo development and says all of it is residential—including
open space and trails. All of it is for the residents and residentially related. All the uses on this site will
be owned and developed by one developer. He says the developer stated in their EIS that the
landscaped areas around the buildings were common areas for recreational activities—he believes that
means for the use of residents. He says this should count as residential. There are areas they have
classified as nonresidential that are landscaped and he believes associated with the residential. There
should be areas there for recreation just for residents. He thinks it's important to go piece by piece to
determine what is residential and accessory. He came up with 91%. He also says the Council's intent
was to limit the amount of land not in commercial/industrial use.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, stated that appreciates the present of Assistant City
• Solicitor Stein and the City Planner. He notes that no one on the Council got a copy of the legal opinion
and noted Councilor Ryan had requested an outside legal opinion. He said the Board in looking at the
7
development had to consider certain requirements of the BPD, and he reviewed the objectives of the •
BPD zoning district,which emphasizes economic development through creation of business and
industry, enhancement of employment base,and enhancement of the city's tax base. He referenced the
Lowe's project which fit these requirements and stated that he does not feel that this project fits those
requirements. He asked if there was a case law used in Ms. Stein's opinion, and also questioned the
interpretation of meeting the requirements in the BPD. Ms. Stein clarified that the three requirements
she referred to were specific to the PUD requirements, not the BPD requirements. She then described
the case law she referenced in her opinion (these cases dealt with how land used to access other land of
a certain use is also considered in that use).
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, stated that he appreciated Attorney Stein's opinion and
also Mr. Bobrowski's opinion. He stated the reasons behind why he voted to allow PUD in the BPD—
because the Planning Board has discretion and could evaluate each project. He thinks that there is too
much residential area in this project as planned. He states that they have not been specific about the
commercial uses—all the discussion has been about the residential component.
Ward 2 Councilor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, stated that when passing the PUD amendment,
they did not intend to include all of these other parcels in this designation. There are so many issues on
this project,such as the definition of what is a story. He says the Council did not want the height to
exceed certain levels. He is concerned about when the water levels were tested particularly in light of
having an unusually dry year. He reiterated that this is not what the Council wanted and if he could turn
it around they would. He cited Section 7.3.8, and asked who is making these findings. Ms. Stein states
that it is the Planning Board. The other concerns he raised were in reference to the size of the bridge.
He additionally asked where the spur is. He wants to see what happens here. He does not know where •
to go with this.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street,says she wholeheartedly agrees with Councilor Sosnowski and
asked if the Board can rewrite the zoning ordinances. Ms. Stein reiterated the outcome of the legal
opinion by Attorney Bobrowski in which he did not find a fundamental fault. Ms. Riley-Goggin asked if
the memo will be available online. Ms. Riley-Goggin asked Ms. Stein if she sees this site as 50%-50%,to
which she said that there are several uses to consider on the site. Ms. Riley-Goggin asked about the
stories to be allowed. Mr. Puleo stated that the basement level interpretation was given by the building
inspector. Mr. George said it's defined as above grade finished space.
Ms. McKnight read an updated letter from the Building Inspector stating that he has reviewed the new
elevation drawings and they comply with the zoning ordinance.
Councilor Siegel asked when they can expect a decision on the findings. Mr. Puleo stated that they will
need to get some answers from the review being done by the Planning Department to which Ms.
Duncan explained further. She noted that this discussion has underscored the discretion of the Planning
Board and further stated that the Planning Department wants to look at this over the next week to two
weeks. She acknowledged that the next hearing on the 191"conflicts with the next City Council meeting.
She says they want to look at this again, however. Councilor Siegel asked who is the making the
recommendations to the Planning Board in the department. Ms. Duncan responded that she provides
the recommendations,working with Danielle McKnight. The Board makes the decision.
•
8
City Council President Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street, asked for an electronic copy of the Master Plan. Ms.
Duncan stated that the most recent master plan,which is from 1996, will be posted online. Ms. Lovely
asked if the legal opinion can also be posted online.
Mr.Treadwell stated that the Planning Department and Ms. McKnight have been helpful. He stresses
that this must be in compliance with the site plan and the PUD requirements. They expected that the
site would be used for economic development. He read from his memo that quoted the Master Plan
which promotes industrial and commercial use in this area.
Councilor Sosnowski brought the Board's attention to Council Order 380 to repeal the legislation that
allowed this so this type of development never occurs again.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, stated that there have been a number of requests for the
documents and they hope to have them posted. He reminded the Board and the audience of a
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued document regarding the negotiated resolution
and asked if that would impact any changes to the project plan. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the
DEP decision, to which Mr. Lebovici stated that it is titled a "Final Order of Resource Determination" and
further described the document. He explained that it details the appeals of the conservation
commission's findings by the opponent, and describes negotiations between the proponent and DEP.
He then asked if the plans that they are hearing about today are considered by the proponent to be in
compliance with the FORAD or would other changes be necessary? Mr. Correnti stated that can answer
that question at the next meeting.
• Susan Strauss, 29 School Street,asked why they couldn't just reverse the amount of commercial and
residential.
Michael Ross, 20 Beaver Street,says he is concerned that his backyard would be all windows. He
worries about his kids and other kids in the neighborhood being watched.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, said that the first question of a developer should be, does this meet of
the needs of the neighbors. She feels that this fails to meet the needs of the neighborhood. She feels
there will be more people, more noise, and more traffic congestion. She is concerned that there will be
an isolated transient community put in the middle of a tight knit community which is of great concern.
She is also concerned about how many more kids will be in the neighborhood and what it will cost for
school services, and other services. She quoted statistics from the Boston Globe about how much it
costs to send children to school; she says Salem's costs are higher than the state median—about
$15,000 per pupil. She thinks it will cost more than a million dollars to cover the costs of new students
living in this development.
Ms. Conley stated that she has a property for rent and asked how much anyone would pay to have a
brick monstrosity behind them. She will have to drop her rents because this will make the area less
desirable.
Celeste Ross, 20 Beaver Street,stated that she spoke to a woman who moved here because she thought
it was a quaint, suburban town. She stated that the woman has found this to not be what she expected,
and she is dreading this building going up and the extra traffic that will come along.
9
Ms. Duncan stated that she is not sure if the developer is available to speak to this tonight, but there is
an easement that would be placed for public access n a portion of the property. She asked if the
developer knows where this would be. Mr. Correnti stated that they have talked about the public
walkway and they will work on that for the next meeting.
Ms. Stein thanked the Board for inviting her and hoped that she helped the Board and others come to a
conclusion about the project.
Mr. McCabe asked if the Board could get a briefing on what it takes to change the zoning,just so the
Board knows. Ms. Duncan stated that any zoning change would not apply to this project, but it would
apply to future projects, but she would provide this information to the Board. Mr. Puleo suggested
looking at the map showing the rest of the BPD parcels the zoning changed applied to.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing to July 19, 2012, seconded by Lewis
Beilman. All approved 8-0.
Old/New Business
Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Chuck Puleo. All approved 8-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:49 pm.
Respectfully submitted, •
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the
decisions have been posted separately by address or project at:
http://www.solem.com/Paaes/SolemMA PlanMin/
Approved by the Planning Board 7/19/12
10
CITY OF SALEM j
fill- ' PLANNING BOARD
2811 JUL =q
FILE #
CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS,
Form A — Decision
18 Felt Street
On July 5, 2012, the Salem Planning Board voted 8-0 (Charles Puleo,John Moustakis, Randy Clarke,
Mark George, Lewis Beihnan, George McCabe, Tim Kavanagh, and 'Cim Ready) to endorse
".Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan:
1. Applicant: [cecat,LLC
2. Location: 18 Felt Street, Map 27,Lot 609
Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide the property at 18 Felt Street, creating
parcels A and B as shown on the plans titled, "Plan of Land, 18 Felt Street, Salem, Property of
Icecat, LLC," dated June 18, 2012, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation. Parcels A and B
• are not to be considered buildable lots and are to be combined with abutting parcels (parcel A with
36 Felt Street,Map 27, Lot 608, and parcel B with the remainder of 18 Felt Street).
Sincerely,
Charles M. Puleo
Chair
Cc:
Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
•
120 WASUINGroN SlUET, SALEM, MASSACuu r:IrrS 01970 • Nuvif; 973.619.5685 FAX 973.740.0404 ww�c.St�i.E�tco�a
(3y� dog CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
- 28
CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS.
Form A — Decision
5 Summit Street
On July 5, 2012, the Salem Planning Board voted 8-0 (Charles Puleo,John Moustakis, Randy Clarke,
Mark George, Lewis Beilman, George McCabe, 'Tim havanagh, and Tim Ready) to endorse
"Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan:
1. Applicant: George Fallon
2. Location: 5 Summit Street, Map 15, Lot 162
Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide the property at 5 Summit Street, creating
lots A, B, C, D, L and F as shown on the plans titled, "Subdivision Plan of Land Located in Salem,
Mass., 5 Summit Street," dated May 24, 2012, prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates. Parcels
• C, D, L and F are not to be considered buildable lots and are to be combined with abutting parcels.
On July 5, 2012, 2012, the Board also voted to grant a waiver from the frontage requirements of the
Subdivision Control Law and the City of Salem Zoning Regulations to allow less than 100 feet of
frontage on lots A and B (56.88 feet for lot A and 50 feet for lot B), as shown on the approved plan.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Pulco
Chair
Cc:
Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
•
l20 WAsmNT(A'ON SIREEI', SALMI, N1AssACHUSETrs 01970 • PFiows 978.619.5685 Fax 975.740.0404 • yV%Vvv.sAl.Ena.com
Xu CITY OF SALEM r
PLANNING BOARD
1011 JUL -9 A lit 28
FILE #
Decision
CITY CIERK, SALEM, MASS_
Waiver from Frontage
5 Summit Street
A Public Hearing on this petition was opened on Jul'y 5, 2012 and closed on that date with the
following Board Members present: Charles Puleo, Randy Clarke,John Moustakis, Mark George,
George McCabe, Lewis Beilman,Tim Kavanagh and 'fim Ready.
GEORGE FALLON requests a waiver from frontage requirements of the Subdivision Regulations
and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow for the subdivision of 5 Sumtnit Street into six
lots, one of which has 56.88 feet of frontage (lot A) and one of which has 50 feet of frontage (lot B),
rather than the requisite 100 feet of frontage. The remaining four parcels are not to be considered
building lots and are to be combined with abutting parcels.
The Planning Board voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Puleo, Clarke, iMoustakis, George,
McCabe, Beilman, Kavanagh and Ready in favor), and none opposed to grant the waiver from
frontage requirements for 5 Summit Street, with the following conditions:
1. A parking plan is to be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building
permit.
2. A copy of the easement accessing parking areas is to be submitted for review and approval
prior to issuance of a building permit
3. All requirements of the Health Department and Board of Health are to be adhered to.
4. All requirements of the Fire Department are to be adhered to.
The Waiver from Frontage is granted for the property located at 5 Summit Street, as shown on the
plans titled, "Subdivision Plan of Land Located in Salem, Il,lass., 5 Summit Street," dated Mav 24,
2012, prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates.
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 M. Puleo,
Chair
The endorsement shall aol lake dfi!mail a copy of the decisions hewing cel lilicalion o%/he Cily Cler,.lbal hpenty
(20) slays hare elapsed and no appeal ha.s been filed, or Mal if sneb appeal has been filed ilial it has been di.wli.oed or
denied, a recorded in the E.aes South Regi.dr),of Deeds and is iurleved in lhegranlor inde.v-nnr&r the name o f the
owner of�ecorel mrd noted on the m��ner'.r cci7�icale n//il/e. 7 Zee o�urter a•app/irrutt ehn/l pry the/ee/or rerardirt� or
regi.)tetzng.
120 WASHINGTON SfREEI', SAL.V-I, i'VIASSACHUSEI-FS 01970 ' PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 973.740.0404 ' mvw.SALEiv4c:oN1
C4
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2011 JUL -9 A ll: S
LE
CITY CLERK SALEM, MASS.
Flood Hazard District Special Permit
Decision
July 9, 2012
Mark DeNisco
13 Lynch Street
Peabody, MA 01960
RE: Flood Hazard District Special Permit— 12 Woodbury Court
• On Thursday, July 5, 2012, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing
regarding the application of Mark DeNisco for a Special Permit pursuant to Section 8.1 of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance, Flood Hazard Overlay District, for the construction of a two-family
house located at 12 Woodbury Court, Salem.
The Planning Board hereby makes the following findings pertaining to the Flood Hazard District
Special Permit Application:
1. The proposed use will comply in all respects to the uses and provisions of the underlying
district in which the land is located.
2. There are adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement
within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and property, particularly in the event
of flooding of the lot(s) or adjacent lot(s) caused by either overspill from water bodies or
high runoff.
3. Utilities, including gas, electricity, fuel, water and sewage disposal, will be located and
constructed so as to protect against breaking, leaking, shortcircuiting, grounding or
igniting or any other damage due to flooding.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, INASSACHUSF77S 01970 EL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740_0404 ♦ WWW.SAI,FM.COM
The Public Hearing was closed on July 5, 2012. At its regularly scheduled meeting of the
• Planning Board held on July 5,2 012, the Board voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Puleo,
Moustakis, Ready, Kavanagh, George, Beilman, McCabe, and Clarke in favor and none (0)
opposed, to approve the application as complying with the requirements of the Flood Hazard
Overlay District, subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform with the plan entitled, "Plan to Accompany Notice of Intent Located
in Salem, Massachusetts, prepared for Mark DeNisco," prepared by Eastern Land Survey
Associates, Inc., dated March 22, 2012 and last revised June 25, 2012.
2. Amendments
Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning
Board.
3. Construction Practices
All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions:
a. Work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM the
following day on weekdays or at any time on Sundays or Holidays.
• b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction
on abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours
prior to commencement of construction of the project.
c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00
PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting
shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations.
d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not
leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site.
e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of
the Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances
of the City of Salem.
f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the
site.
4. Office of the City Engineer
All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. This includes, but is
not limited to, the.,following:
•
7
a. The applicant is to provide copy of the AUL to the Engineering Department
• demonstrating inability to infiltrate drainage.
b. The applicant is to field-verify the existing sewer, water and drain sizes and structures
and revise the plan accordingly.
c. The applicant shall connect any stormwater flow/runoff to the appropriate structure.
d. The applicant must confirm no elevation conflict between the new connection and
the existing sewer and drain systems.
5. Board of Health and Health Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Board of Health and Health
Department.
6. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. Applicant is
to obtain written confirmation from the Fire Department that the turnaround and width
of driveway proposed are acceptable.
7. Conservation Commission
All work shall comply with the Order of Conditions issued by the Salem Conservation
Commission.
• 8. Building Commissioner
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner.
9. Utilities
a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
10. Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, recycling, 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. The applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees
and shrubs for a two- (2) year period.
13. 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.
•
3
• 14. 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
Chair
•
4
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Notice of Decisions
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,
July 5, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem
Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted on the following items:
Request of GEORGE FALLON for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the
Subdivision Control Law for the property located at 5 SUMMIT STREET (Map 15, Lot
162). Property is proposed to be subdivided to create a new building lot with less than
100 feet of frontage, and to reduce the frontage of the lot with an existing house to less
than 100 feet.
Decision: Approved
Filed with the City Clerk on July 9, 2012
•
Request of MARK DENISCO for Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property
located at 12 WOODBURY COURT(Map 36, Lot 1). A new two-family house is proposed.
Decision: Approved
Filed with the City Clerk on July 9, 2012
This notice is being sent in compliance with 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.
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
o ;
Board ��4n��rt� llBaryl
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Y^Sl�ow,7,� �� Lo'or�ci
awe 7w-yi8l
V� �l 9 6 (�O
4 1-4N CC,A(Ael�Z gy
7f?- NV-0916
iYl�c�u ^ nt1e a0 �ece erer�� R?P 7Yy snot n�ssa �� ,cas•�„��.
T. Z7 Afa.(rrn�,ff,LSA f - j7d-213-8 I�I 1
�t dliC( l 1SY 97S ,
Page of �—
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board P'1 o�
0.n.R,�NJ � cQ
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Page 1- of Z
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1111 JUN 14 A 0 38
FILE If
NOTICE OF MEETING fNTY CLERK. SALEM.MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday,June 21, 1012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
a4,� -PUAWbmx
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
6/4/12 special meeting minutes and 6/7/12 regular meeting minutes
2. Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96)and a portion of
150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building
• to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO OPEN THIS
HEARING ON JULY 19, 2012.
3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
-- - -- ---= — on -
lc.3 OR o+1c i4 zo Z
� i
Onow Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
0
v CITY OF SALEM :
PLANNING BOARD `
D^' C
rik
3
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's meeting scheduled fo
Thursday,lune 21, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, has
been CANCELED due to a lack of agenda items. The following items will be continued as noted
below:
1. Public Hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of
150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building
to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO OPEN THIS
HEARING ON JULY 19, 2012.
2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
• HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA(redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO
CONTINUE HEARING TO JULY 5, 2012.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
• ''n#49 6$
costed0f1 i¢s a m1f i'
_:iIty Matt 3 A3818 , MON. On 7uNe as a0k
—2 '
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI,EM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
AII� Ob
FILE #
CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday,lune 7, 1011 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puled, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
May 17, 2012 meeting minutes and May 3, 2012 Planning Board and City Council Joint Hearing minutes
2. Request of Paul DiBiase for release of all remaining lots in Phase IIA of the Strongwater Crossing (AKA Osborne
Hills)subdivision (Amanda Way, off Marlborough Road).
• 3. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
Tft ftft 0000 On 'Offfewflown"
city fto 9n�, �Acea. on X30 - /
:ill & 0 WI&
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSE"ITS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
�CON17(T,�O
v� r , CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
6y
y
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
• �sG;y�N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: May 31, 2012
RE: Agenda-June 7, 2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Minutes from 5/3/12 Joint Hearing and 5/17/12 regular meeting
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
At the beginning of the meeting, we'll be having Nadine Hanscom come in for a few minutes to
say a belated goodbye and thank you.
Request of Paul DiBiase for release of all remaining lots in Phase IIA of the Strongwater
Crossing (AKA Osborne Hills) subdivision (Amanda Way, off Marlborough Road).
Phase IIA consists of Lots 16-22, inclusive, and Lots 37-42, inclusive. In February, the Board
released Lots 18, 39 and 41. The remaining lots were being held pending completion of the
traffic signal at Marlborough Road. Now that the signal has been installed, Mr. DiBiase is
requesting release of Lots 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 37, 38, 40, and 42. 1 have been in discussion
with David Knowlton to confirm that the signal has been installed properly and functions as
expected. I do not yet have his recommendation about this, but I expect to before the meeting,
and I will pass it along as soon as I receive it.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237&
239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site
Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
There were a number of issues raised in the civil engineering peer review memo detailed in the
last packet and presented by David White of Woodard & Curran at the 5/17/12 meeting. I do •
not have responses to any of these issues yet, but Attorney Correnti has let me know that they
are continuing to work to address them.
•
s
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 6/7/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,June 7, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room
313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,Tim Ready, George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, Mark George,Tim
Kavanagh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides.Also present: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth
Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis,Vice Chair.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:04 pm.
Approval of Minutes
May 3, 2012 Planning Board and City Council Joint Hearing minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Lewis Beilman motioned to
accept the minutes,seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 8-0.
May 17, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to
accept the minutes,seconded by Lewis Beilman.All approved 8-0.
Request of Paul DiBiase for release of all remaining lots in Phase IIA of the Strongwater
Crossing(AKA Osborne Hills)subdivision (Amanda Way, off Marlborough Road).
• Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Email from David Knowlton, City Engineer, dated June 6, 2012
Paul DiBiase,Trustee of Osborne Realty Trust, updated the Board on the next phase of his project, which
included the relocation of a street light for a street they created,and he noted that they have put the
light in, which has been inspected and is fully operational. He asked for the release for the remaining
lots of 2A. Mr. Puleo asked how many lots are in 2A,to which Mr. DiBiase stated that it is 13 lots. Mr.
Puleo asked if he did anything else to work out issues with the neighbors,and Mr. DiBiase stated that he
hasn't done more than what the plan called for. Mr. Puleo noted that the light is functioning and it
seems to slow traffic down. He also noted that they have a letter submitted by Dave Knowlton,the City
Engineer stating the light was installed properly.
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, stated that the lots included in this release request are lots 16, 17, 19,
20, 21, 22, 37, 38,40 and 42. Mr. Puleo reminded the board of how Phase 2A of this project was
previously split into A and B sections.
Helen Sides made a motion to approve the release of the lots, seconded by Mark George.All approved
8-0. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Tim Ready asked to acknowledge that Mr. DiBiase has brought a great thing to the City with the light
which has helped improve the safety of the area significantly.
•
1
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the •
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site
Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Site Plan Review application, date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Planned Unit Development Special Permit application,date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Wetland and Flood Hazard District Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Plans titled Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development, Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove,
60-64 Grove Street&3 Harmony Grove Road,Salem, MA," dated 12/20/11
➢ Letter from James Treadwell,AICP, dated 6/7/12
➢ Letter from Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St., dated 6/7/12
➢ Email from Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St., dated 4/25/12, to Department of Environmental
Protection
➢ "Letter Report—Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove Peer Review," prepared by Woodard &
Curran, dated 5/10/12
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners
from MRM Project Management and he reminded the Board of the last meeting where they heard from •
the city's peer reviewer and their site engineer, Bob Griffin. He stated that their presentation will
include a presentation by Bob Griffin which will address some of the concerns from the peer reviewer's
comments. He stated that their responses to the consultant will be submitted to the city at a later date,
but they want to go through some of that tonight. They also want to state that their presentation is
coming to a close and they have nothing new to report tonight. He also briefly reminded the Board of
the previous presentations from the other people on the team and the types of presentations that they
gave. They feel that this has been a comprehensive presentation, but they are open to revisiting other
issues if the Board would like them to.
Bob Griffin,Griffin Engineering, began addressing past questions raised: first in regards to the
percentage of impervious paving. He explained that it will be 43.7%of the area, and after the paving of
the of the bike path it will be up to 48%,which is an increase from the current 31%. He then they are
proposing to use Portland cement concrete for all sidewalks. He moved on to address other issues that
they are currently dealing with which includes water and sewage,which are continuing to be worked
out. They are still working on hydraulic rate calculations, as requested by Woodard and Curran. He
noted that most of the revisions are minor. He then presented a graphic of the Grove Street driveway,
which, in response to the peer review comments, they moved about 7 feet from the previous alignment.
There is still a 90 degree angle, but they noted that the change will be better in case of flooding. Mr.
Puleo asked if the graphic is showing current or proposed elevations. Mr. Griffin stated that it's a little
bit of both and explained further where the grade will change. Mr. Puleo asked him to clarify further
the changes to the grading. Mr.Griffin described the changes to the grading and the driveway. He
moved onto other comments about groundwater and explained the process with the infiltration field
being developed which will move the water away from the area. They are using larger infiltration fields •
which will help with the stormwater management further by using larger chambers under the parking
2 '
• lot. He pointed out the locations of the infiltration fields on the graphic and stated that these will
prevent pushing pollutants into the river. He then described the areas where the stormwater would be
treated by their system. He noted that they have put in a new catch basin,which will provide better
flow for water leaving the site, and they are also adding a drainage system. From Harmony Grove Road
there is some water that they can't catch, but they will have better catch basins with higher capacities
which can catch more than what is currently being caught. They are increasing the span of the bridge to
38 feet, and there is erosion protection added in the area of the bridge. Mr. Puleo asked about the
recommendation for increasing the height of the wall,to which Mr. Griffin stated that this was not one
of their comments. He stated that the walkway will be at the same grade as the wall for drainage
reasons. Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification of how the widening of the canal will occur. Mr.
Griffin said that they didn't know about that as that is a project run through the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. Griffin then described the stormceptors and treatment tanks and pointed out the various locations.
He also noted that they worked with the manufacturer of the treatment tanks to make sure that they
have done the calculations correctly.
He then moved onto the traffic-related comments, and reviewed the entrances on 64 Grove Street,
which they revised based on the peer reviewer's recommendations. He noted there were previously
two access points, and based on FST's recommendations,they are consolidating that driveway. He
noted that they liked the new design even though they lost a couple of parking spaces, but this is an
efficient layout. He then spoke of the grading in the Northern Parking Area and he stated that they
would add a small retaining wall. They were asked to check manhole sizes,which they did. They were
• asked to revisit the roof runoff design and they are going to bypass the water quality treatment device
and go into the infiltration bed, which is better than what is currently there. Concerning a 100 year
storm event, the elevation was changed slightly from 5 feet to 5.25 feet. They changed the slope of
some of the pipes to protect them during the 100 year storm. He then reviewed the yard drains and the
retaining walls—this was based on the recommendations of the peer reviewer. There was a
recommendation to conduct a fire flow tests, and they feel that they need to have further meetings with
the Fire Department and the City to work out the issues with the water and sewer challenges.
Mark George asked him to expound on the issues on Harmony Grove Road, and stated that he doesn't
want to burden the road further if they can make better improvements. Mr. Griffin explained the design
of the pipes and the catch basins currently as compared to their recommendations of larger pipes and
catch basins to better handle the drainage.
Mr. Puleo asked a question about the location of the HVAC units and asked to look further at that. Mr.
Griffin identified the locations of the HVAC units on the roofs of the buildings. He stated that they are
going to add sound dampening blankets and pointed out that the parapets as well as the elevation of
the buildings will help with the sound. He feels confident that more noise will come from this project
than from other buildings in the area. Mr. Puleo asked if the parapet would hide the equipment, or if
additional screening was proposed. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin how many HVAC units will be on the
buildings, to which Mr. Griffin responded that there will be individual units, though he does not know
how many units will be on the roof or on the ground; he stated that he would get back to Mr. Puleo on
this.
Mr. Puleo asked about the elevation on the commercial building and Mr. Griffin showed a graphic and
described the area of the project where the commercial building is being proposed.
3
Mr. George asked if the HVAC will be on the roof to which Mr. Griffin stated that it will have to be. .
Randy Clarke asked about an operations and management plan for the stormwater facilities. Mr. Griffin
stated that this has been provided as part of their stormwater management report, and it provides for
quarterly inspections and annual cleanouts of the catch basins. Mr. Clarke asked for clarification on who
will do the maintenance and Mr. Griffin stated they are on private property, except for the catch basins
proposed in the street. Mr. Clarke asked whether the City needed to approve taking on maintenance of
those in the public way,to which Ms. McKnight stated that she can find out.
Issue opened up for public comment
Katrina Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, asked about moving the Grove Street entrance closer to Beaver Street.
She stated that the move will make the drop from her property more precipitous and does not
understand how the retaining wall still is not required. She noted that with the two parking spaces
being lost that the parking is already 50%short of the requirement, and is concerned about having
parking off site. Mr. Puleo clarified that shared parking has been proposed within the site, not with
other sites. Ms. McKnight stated that the traffic peer reviewer recommended a shared parking
arrangement in the case that the number of employees in the commercial building exceeded a certain
number of employees. Ms. Pattison asked if we wouldn't expect to have the maximum number of
employees working in that space if the entire space was being utilized. Ms. McKnight said that different
types of commercial uses had different parking needs, so it would depend on what was going to be
there. Mr. Puleo said the building commissioner reviews parking needs prior to issuing occupancy
permits for new uses, and at this time, he would decide if more parking was triggered by the new use.
Ms. Pattison asked if she can infer that the use of building would be limited by the number of parking •
spaces the developer chose to put in. Ms. McKnight said she did not know this definitively.
Mr. Griffin then began his response to Ms. Pattison's questions by reiterating Ms. Pattison's question
about the need for the retaining wall near her property. He showed the location on the graphic and
stated that a retaining wall is not required. Ms. Pattison clarified the height of her property and the
proposed building. She doesn't know where her yard is going to go if she is losing part of it. She doesn't
know how her property is going to be graded. Mr. Griffin stated that they are not going to lower the
grade, they are going to meet her grade and described the locations of the buildings. He then said that
they are going to remove a building and replace it with dirt, and he described further the grading plan.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, noted the request of the peer reviewer to change of the scale of the
drawings. Also, he is concerned that the adequacy of the road system needs to be extensively
redesigned and he hopes there is some method to the change. He noted that the zoning ordinance
requires a special permit for shared parking. Mr. Puleo stated that Ms. McKnight will research that.
Ms. McKnight then read letters from Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, and Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver Street,
addressing their concerns about the project which were entered into the public record. She also read
from Ms. Sweeney's letter submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection regarding this
project.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, asked about the unresolved issues in terms of the
ownership claim of Harmony Grove Cemetery,the railroad, the Conservation Commission requirements,
and the MEPA filing. Mr. Correnti responded that the railroad track process is something they have to
apply for,which they will do; he then stated that the issue with the Harmony Grove Cemetery is being
4
• discussed with their attorney; in terms of the Conservation Commission, he stated that this is going to
be filed in July; and he concluded his responses by stating that the MEPA review is a state filing that has
not yet been made, but will be. He noted that this is the beginning of the process.
Mr.Treadwell stated that the flood mitigation planning will not be completed in time for the Board to
make their decisions. He stated that there are issues with the planning that still have not been
addressed. He asked about the appropriateness reviewing the project if the river will be widened. He
suggested that it would make more sense to go through the Conservation Commission review prior to
the Planning Board review,since the Planning Board no longer reviews wetland special permits. He also
reminded the Board that Chapter 91 and the MEPA reviews recommend that this review be done
sooner. Ms. McKnight stated that although the zoning provision has since changed, the applicant has
already applied for a Wetland and Flood Hazard district special permit, and the peer reviewer has
already given their feedback on the information submitted.
Councilor-at-Large,Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue, asked if the Board is considering this a PUD in a
business park orjust a PUD. Mr. Puleo stated that this is a Planned Unit Development regardless of
where it is located. Councilor Sargent expressed concerns about not using this property to expand the
city's commercial tax base. He said 50%of this project's tax base would not be commercial. He said if
they are paying 80%of their taxes at the residential rate then this project does not belong in the
Business Park Development zoning district. He felt that the first question should have been the
definition of the business park and if this project fits the definition of business park. Ms. McKnight
responded,stating that she spoke with the Legal and the Building Departments, and no zoning
compliance problems were identified with regard to the residential space. She referred to the plan the
• applicant submitted delineating the residential and other areas and said the applicant had reviewed it
with the building commissioner prior to submittal. Mr. Sargent said it has to be figured out how much
of this is residential and how much is business park. He can't see how this is 80%residential,and if this
is not paying 50%at the commercial tax rate then this is an illegal project. They have to follow the
zoning ordinance,which says 50%maximum residential,which the Board has to address. Mr. Clarke
noted that the legal department was advising. Mr. Sargent stated that as the Board this is their decision.
Mr. Puleo stated that he can ask Ms. McKnight to get back to the Board on this.
Mr. Ready asked about the Planning Board's jurisdiction on this issue. Mr. Puleo says it has to meet the
threshold in the zoning; if it doesn't,we have a problem.
Tim Kavanagh stated that a written letter would be very helpful and he would prefer a written legal
opinion on this.
Lewis Beilman said it would be good to get a written recommendation on this.
George McCabe stated that he agrees with getting this in writing.
Mr. George asked if this speaks to site size or building size. Ms. McKnight stated that it's the land area in
this case. Mr.George asked Ms. McKnight to further clarify if she is talking about building footprint. She
responded that the building footprint is one thing to consider, as well as anything directly accessory to
the residential buildings, like parking for the residents. She said she would get written clarification. Mr.
George stated that he's confused by how this gets delineated. Helen Sides stated that this is not the
• first time that this has been raised that this is something that they have to consider.
5
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, stated that when they passed the ordinance allowing the
PUD in the BPD they wanted to make sure they did it right. He reminded the Board that they are not
required to give the applicant the PUD, and the Planning Board has a lot of power in this matter. Mr.
Puleo stated that there is still a lot to their discretion and they are a long way away from reaching a
conclusion.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he wanted to clarify what Ms. Sides stated earlier in regards to this issue being
raised before. Ms. Sides stated that these issues have been brought up many times and they are
important. He then went on to say that his first point is the requirement of the business park PUD is
that the amount residential uses and associated improvements cannot exceed 50%of the parcel. His
second point is that non-residential use is not used in that stipulation and the muddying of the waters
has been caused by the site plan layout of non-residential space; and he is just saying 50%is not clearly
defined. He referred to his memorandum and he used landscaping as an example, noting that if that's
not associated with the complex,then he doesn't know what is. Mr.Treadwell then asked if the open
space immediately adjacent to the buildings is non-residential space. He stressed that they need more
of a definition, and he would love to see the City Solicitor's opinion on this. He concluded by saying that
he hopes his memorandum clarifies things.
Mr. George is concerned about this being a precedent going forward and asked Ms. McKnight to speak
to the Building Inspector and the City Solicitor further clarify this issue. Ms. McKnight stated that she
would get a written opinion.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street,asked if the Planning Board decides that this whole development is
skewed in terms of the proportion, does that mean that the developer has to go back to the drawing •
board and redesign. Ms. McKnight stated that if the Board found it didn't meet the requirements of a
PUD, the Board would not be able to pass it. Ms. Strauss asked why they have allowed the developer to
continue with their plans without the Board first clarifying if the proportion of residential and
commercial spaces was allowed. Mr. Puleo responded that changes will have to be made if they are not
found to meet the required proportions. Ms. McKnight stated that when this first came to her she
checked with the building inspector on the zoning compliance, and he shared with her that the
developer had also spoken with him about this. The Building Inspector stated that it met zoning
requirements. Ms. Strauss then asked if the Board is willing to shelf the whole project if the Solicitor
says that the proportion is illegal. Mr.Clarke stated that they could not approve the permit in that case
—but this is moot until they get the legal opinion on this.
Mr. Beilman said it's not as though no thought went into this—the Board had received a memo
regarding the allocation of residential space. There may be some dispute about the definition of non-
residential space, but it's not like this was never addressed.
Ms.Sides stated that they are here to listen to the applicant and the public; and this is the first time they
are dealing with this type of application. This is the first project to come forward since the Council
approved this ordinance, and now they are seeing it in action.
Teasie Riley-Goggin,9 Wisteria Street, reminded the Board that at the last meeting they asked to have
the Building Inspector come in. She stated that she would appreciate clarification of whether the
building met the restriction on the number of stories. Ms. McKnight stated that the only information
Mr. St. Pierre could provide on the height requirements was the determination that the parking level is •
not a story; he cannot give an opinion on the rest of the building because they do not yet have scaled
6
. elevations since the building was redesigned. Ms. Riley-Goggin repeated that what she was hoping for
was a presentation from Building Inspector at this meeting.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing on June 21, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides.
All approved 8-0.
Old/New Business
Chuck Puleo presented Nadine Hanscom with a gift from the Planning Board and a city seal from
the Mayor. Danielle McKnight read from the certificate issued by the Mayor. Ms. Hanscom
thanked the Board for supporting her during her years of service and wished the Board good
luck.
Adjournment
George McCabe made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George. All approved 8-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:38 pm.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the
decisions have been posted separately by address or project at:
http://www.salem.com/Paaes/SolemMA PlanMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 7/19/12
7
�ONUITq
�Pv City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date 6 /_ - 1-2-
Name
ZName Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
-77 Ai.f49i 7,I.1),l,t11113 redarcle ��Ba73 X 19
/J _V X3777& 7w�r-09/9 .
b.1/r/ teq Il{ �!/S/�✓U J� 7/ -) ��aT� ��1ryG f/sl7�U leriLon. YIL�O
_ g_ n /' �/�— to ggoP a
5S2rel�l - g 2�-��y-Saul �ren�erc�cras/,r��l •
.7 4 rt 0.ntL
1 s S��
i
Page of
. CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Mll MAY 71 P 1: 11
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY CLERK,SALEM. MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a special meeting on
Mondav, lune 4, 2012 at 7.00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Pul�Choiir
MEETING AGENDA
1. North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study—Public Meeting k3
The Salem Planning Board will be holding a third and final public meeting to discuss transportation
issues within the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) area. The City has engaged Fay, Spofford &
Thorndike as consultants to examine the traffic impacts of the redevelopment of key sites and to
recommend transportation improvements for the area. The third public meeting will include a
• presentation of final recommendations and cost estimates, and will offer an opportunity for discussion.
2. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 523B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033,
polrD on "{1twlam!"
01eq�mjl �_ ftlem, M8911. art z3, lo/z
• A X9 st
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSE'rTS 01970 ♦ STEL: 978,745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALEAI.CoNt
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
n
, Board ��an� �Y� 1�0arIX
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail /
u I h rn 8S FuNr� S� g � awo�l�rhd¢y,� .rHo
ku
!O ?oR�o01 sfi g7�. 96a�'y sA e,�-P
Tage_ of 2
g9oic
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board f l "Vk"lir 6
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
I7� 1LG7r
�/A/r ��5 -6 o" /AfeoM awlIMA-1
1! GLS
ci.. LSI .rz/'eT /J/z 61yu �
� o� k alp alt -tom � 7 -2us-yis5-
FLI,/r
Page of I-
MINUTES OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 6/4/12
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Monday,June 4, 2012 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, Tim Ready, Mark George, Tim
Kavanagh, and Helen Sides. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community
Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Absent: George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, and Randy Clarke.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:06 pm.
North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study—Public Meeting#3
Discussion of transportation issues within the North River Canal Corridor(NRCC) area. The City has
engaged Fay, Spofford &Thorndike as consultants to examine the traffic impacts of the
redevelopment of key sites and to recommend transportation improvements for the area. This third
public meeting will include a discussion of draft recommendations.
Gary Hebert,Transportation Engineer, Fay Spofford and Thorndike, stated that he would explain the
implementation part of the project and make recommendations. He said that the purpose of this
evening's discussion would be to provide an order of the magnitude of the costs and identify
implementation priorities. He reviewed the project area and identified the key redevelopment parcels
including Legacy Park, Flynntan, Gateway Center, North River and Riverview Place. He noted that the
• city is working on several projects in terms of repaving some of the streets. He pointed out that there
are some traffic calming measures that have been proposed including the addition of traffic lights,
widening of certain roads and adding turn lanes.
Mr. Hebert began explaining the priority levels in terms of years when they will occur and then reviewed
the recommendation elements with the projected low and high costs associated with the recommended
actions. He first noted the issues with the various locations listed as "first priority(1-3 years)" including
Mason Street, the intersection of Mason and Tremont Streets, the intersection of Mason and Flint
Streets, the intersection of Aborn and Boston Streets, and the Harmony Grove Road shoulder bike lanes.
The costs associated for each of the project run between $235k and $330k. The second priority (3-5
years) locations include Grove Street between Mason and Goodhue Streets; the intersection of Bridge
Street and Boston Street, the intersection of Flint Street and Mason Street; the Mason Street calming;
intersection of Goodhue and Beaver/ Bridge Streets, New Bridge Street and Goodhue Street with a
multi-use path; and the intersection of Aborn and Boston Streets. The projected low and high costs for
these projects are between $100k-$800k each project.
John Moustakis asked if there has been any consideration to make Goodhue Street a two-way street.
Mr. Hebert stated that they gave this area a lot of consideration and they determined that this would
create serious risks to pedestrians and would back up the traffic queues significantly. Mr. Moustakis
responded that there are only two ways to get downtown from North Street, and he noted that North
Salem needs another option for getting downtown. He feels that this needs to be considered further.
Mr. Hebert stated that they are also considering a bypass street from Bridge St. to Goodhue St. to help
• mitigate this issue as well.
Mr. Hebert continued his presentation by presenting the third level priorities (more than 5 years) which
• included Boston Street crosswalk enhancements between Essex Street and the Peabody line; Bridge
Street between Flint and Boston Streets; and the Boston Street corridor to the Peabody line.
Mr. Puleo asked about the widening of Bridge Street and the Bypass Road, asking if there is a city cost or
if it is the responsibility of MassHighway. Mr. Hebert stated that this is not part of the city costs.
Mark George asked what is the best way to deal with Flint and Mason Streets, and if Mr. Hebert could
start with a blank slate how would he do it. Mr. Hebert stated that he would widen towards the park,
improving site lines. Mr. George stated that it is not going to get better, it will get worse with the added
traffic to which Mr. Hebert agreed. Mr. Hebert stated that he would start with an all-way stop sign. Mr.
George asked if he knew what that would do to traffic. Mr. Hebert stated that he doesn't think it will
help traffic but it will make the intersection safer; and if the traffic can be diverted to a proper location,
it can be better, but there are painful tradeoffs for that too. Ms. Duncan asked Mr. George to clarify if
he is referring to the whole street orjust the intersection. She reminded Mr. Hebert and the Board of
the first meeting where Mr. Hebert stated that his first recommendation included removing parking
from Flint Street and his second recommendation was to make Flint Street one way, and another
recommendation included a traffic signal. Mr. Hebert clarified his comment by stating that something
still has to be done about the intersection itself and he also noted that Mason Street and Tremont have
similar volumes. But he cautioned that before he recommended a traffic signal, he would like the all-
way stop at Mason and Flint to be tried first, as the conditions for an all-way stop are perfect for that
location. In an ideal world they could move parking to an acceptable location.
• Mr. George stated that when he looks at that immediate locus there are two roadways and he knows
that the neighborhood does not want more traffic and he agrees with that. He notes that they have a
bad situation that is about to get worse with the advent of the upcoming projects in the area and he
feels that the situation is untenable now. Helen Sides stated that there a great deal of traffic now and
until there is so much traffic that no one wants to drive anymore, there is going to continue to be a
traffic issue; and all they can do is adjust people's behavior. She noted there are many places in the city
where people drive so fast because people are trying to get ahead of everybody. She thinks that the
recommended measures will back things up but it will slow things down. Mr. Hebert stated that
changing the parking situation could be one of the measures that help the most as he found that it was
due to the parking locations around the intersection that slow people down. Ms. Sides commented that
ironically it is the parked car on Flint St.that slows people down.
Mr. Moustakis stated that North Street needs another way to get to downtown. He stated that he lives
up there and the traffic is horrendous. Mr. Hebert agreed and stated that one of the things that will
help significantly is getting the sidewalks added as well as making bike environments more user friendly.
Ms. Sides interjected stating that they are not going to add more real estate for roads as she noted that
the more cars that get added, the more traffic issues there are. Tim Ready added that there is no magic
wand in this board's hands and it's a matter of dealing with the situation at hand. Mr. Moustakis stated
that this needs to be looked at further and brought up the issue of making Goodhue Street two-way.
Ms. Duncan stated that this is not the first time that they have asked a traffic engineer look at Goodhue
Street. The reasons that she recalls in the past were related to a sight line issue, to which Mr. Hebert
described the issue further. He then described the challenges of the area and discussed new
• intersection possibilities including a new bike path, and traffic calming efforts. This would contribute to
the safety of the area and there are a lot things that can be done in that area which would make a huge
• difference to the traffic. Bridge Street can look and work a lot better than it does right now but
Goodhue Street is a different issue due to the five-way intersection at Boston Street.
Mr. Ready reminded the Board and the audience that we are listening to an engineer who is listening to
all of the suggestions and concerns.
Issue opened to the public for comment
John Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street, who is also the President of Board of the Harmony Grove Cemetery,
stated that they have a whole lot of problems on Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road which includes
replacing fencing. He concluded his comments by saying that it's a traffic nightmare and it's a weird
intersection. Mr. Hebert recommended that he look at the schematic that they created which is
available on the city website and included geometric modifications.
Nelson Dionne, 12 Summer Street, stated that 20 years ago there was a proposal to extend Tremont
Street to Bridge Street and asked if this was included in the study. Mr. Hebert stated that they only
looked at it in terms of the Commercial Street connector as it created a difficult intersection at Mason
Street. He further stated that the huge down slope contributed to the difficulty in that area, thus they
came to the conclusion that it could not work.
Lisa Joubert, 70 School Street, stated that she lives in North Salem and she keeps hearing the words
"traffic capacity" which concern her. She doesn't want to see the traffic capacity increase and she wants
the traffic to come to a grinding halt to make it safer. She wants bottlenecks to not open the traffic
more. Mr. Hebert asked what she thought of the 3-way stop. She stated that what happens currently
• during rush hour is already a three-way stop, so she doesn't think it helps during rush hour. She noted
this used to be a quiet neighborhood and now it's a zoo. She feels that they need to find ways to slow
the traffic down and these recommendations are not her first choice. Ms. Duncan asked what she
would like to see. Ms.Joubert stated that she doesn't care which direction it goes, but Flint St. should
be one way. She also recommended allowing parking in areas that will slow people down. Ms. Sides
stated that it's a long term teaching opportunity if people learn that there is a three-way stop there and
she noted that it's not new people getting lost driving through there, it's the regular drivers who are
zooming down the streets. Ms. Joubert stated that she loves the idea of a traffic light at Mason and
Tremont. Mr. Hebert stated that they are looking at the city taking actions to calm traffic at these areas.
Ms. Duncan asked for clarification on the Mason Street calming. Mr. Hebert responded that originally
the idea was to take the opportunity to do the calming measures at the same time that the street was
being repaved. They also thought that they would try out alternate side parking but those relocations
require time and city action. Ms. Duncan and Mr. Hebert noted that traffic changes go through the city
council. Ms. Duncan asked if the repaving is not getting done until drainage issues are dealt with, to
which Mr. Hebert yes, on the part of Mason between Tremont and Buffum. He noted that the goal is to
get the traffic calming measures in place at the same time as the repaving.
Mr. Moustakis noted that the people who are cutting through are not Salem people and they don't care.
Peter Eschauzier, 15 % River Street, stated that he lived in Marblehead about 40 years ago and used to
cut through Salem and it was common knowledge that regardless of which cut through route you
• choose, cars get to the same point in the same time. He stated that he observed that the only change is
that there are more cars. He recommended that if the streets were marked better it would help
significantly. He also feels that signals could be improved to prevent gridlock. He asked if there has ever
• been a study done to look at the percentage of cars on the main streets to see where they are going to
which Mr. Hebert responded that he didn't think so, but his question would be, what would one do with
that. Mr. Eschauzier asked what are the plans for Bridge Street between Flint Street to North Street. Mr.
Hebert responded that the plans were to mirror what had been previously done and create a four lane
intersection, like it is further up Bridge Street. Though currently part of it is used for spillover parking
from the Commuter Rail station, and while the garage is being built they will need as much extra parking
as possible. He noted that once that is done, the plan is to make that a four lane road, to which Ms.
Duncan said that it's the missing piece. Ms. Duncan stated that this is the state's plan and the project
will move more quickly once the garage is built. Mr. Eschauzier stated that what•is happening today is
something that one has to live with and noted that he attended a neighborhood meeting concerned
about speeding. He felt that this will always be a problem unless cars are forbidden from coming into
Salem.
Amber Woolfenden, 85 Flint Street, stated that she is saddened to hear that there does not seem to be
a solution. She recommends moving parking to Mack Park. Mr. George stated that things are going to
get pushed and people are going to be looking for shortcuts; it's not just Mason Street and Flint Street,
it's North Salem as well. Mr. George also stated that he wants the audience to know that they are
concerned about those impacts. Ms. Woolfenden asked if Oak Street has been considered for a full one
way. Mr. Hebert stated that Oak Street is not a safe alternative, as it is steep and winding.
Ms. Duncan provided an update on the work being done in the Planning Department related to this
project. She stated that Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, is working on contacting the owners of the
Public Storage site and has been having conversations with others to find advantages for these owners
• to benefit from these projects which could include an easement on the other side of the property in
order to build the proposed connector road.
Ms. Duncan asked Mr. Hebert about his recommendations for Flint Street. Mr. Hebert responded that if
he had his druthers, his recommendation would be to find a safe way for people to have access to their
vehicles on Flint Street, but still control it at the end of Mason Street. He would like to change the traffic
to something more pedestrian friendly and in a perfect world he would push something out to get more
space for sidewalks and sight lines. Mr. Puleo asked how people are allowed to park on park land. Ms.
Duncan stated that people are allowed to park on designated park land. Mr. Puleo clarified that there is
no way for the city to widen it to use it, to which Ms. Duncan said she did not think so, but she could
check on it.
Ms.Joubert asked how these concerns impact the remainder of North Salem and she suggested that the
traffic study site be enlarged. She asked what is the process to raise concerns to the next level. Ms.
Duncan stated that there is no way to expand a study without it impacting another area. She further
explained that they don't want to study an area and not be able to do anything about it. They are
talking to the Public Storage people and the 28 Goodhue Street owners to try to pursue building the
connector road to improve conditions in this area. Ms.Joubert then asked about what can be done
about the Main Street area, which she noted will be losing a lane and have a major trickle-down effect.
Ms. Duncan stated that Boston Street is a priority for reconstruction, and pointed out that the Bridge
Street Neck is almost done and Canal Street, with it's drainage issues, is on the list for fiscal year 2014,
Boston Street is the next major priority area. Ms.Joubert asked about the process for making an area a
• priority and Ms. Duncan stated that she believes the process is to go through the mayor's office, but this
study was in response to comments from the public, form the Planning Board and the city councilors.
Ms. Sides commented that the Planning Board was thrilled that these intersections were being looked at
n
• together. Mr. George stated that this is the kind of process that helps it all along. Ms. Duncan stated
that they never intended the scope to go all the way down Mason Street to Aborn Street and asked Ms.
Joubert the scope of the area that she is suggesting for study. Ms. Joubert responded that someone
needs to look at Tremont Street from the Peabody line all the way to Mason Street and the connecting
streets all the way over to Tremont; she added School Street, Symonds Street, and Dunlap Street. Mr.
Ready commented that what she is describing is the ripple effect.
Mr. Hebert then presented two graphics showing his idea on how to deal with Mason Street. Ms.
Duncan stated that this would be very helpful to share with the City. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on
what would need to happen to make this happen. Ms. Duncan reviewed the legislative process to look
at this.
Mr. Reardon stated that the lousy pavement on Chestnut Street is the best deterrent for speeds. He
noted that during the 1960s there was a proposal to run Route 128 running through the middle of
Salem.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, thanked Mr. Hebert for his work on this project. He
thinks that one thing the city should look at are the more immediate low-hanging fruit such as signage
and striping that could add a significant traffic calming measure. He feels that this is something that
would go a long way. He added to not only put the striping down, it's important to also maintain it.
Councillor Prevey concluded stated that this is something needed sooner rather than later.
Peter Nugent, 12 River Street, asked what the purpose of the study is. Mr. Hebert stated that the
purpose was to look at the cumulative traffic in the area due to development and to encourage better
walking and more safety in the area. He noted that he wants to make sure that this area is more
pedestrian- and bike-friendly; the study is really focused on multi-modal traffic. Mr. Nugent asked if
these recommendations came out of this study to which Mr. Hebert said yes.
Mr. Puleo asked about street lighting, commenting that it's really poor in some of the study areas. He
recommended that the street lighting should be included in some of these areas. Mr. Hebert stated that
the lighting can be changed to look attractive and there are ADA requirements that have to be met if the
lights are added to the sidewalks,to which Mr. Puleo asked how these work. Ms. Duncan stated that
the City has to look into this further in terms of right-of-way. Mr. Hebert stated that the street lighting is
included in the Boston Street costs, as well as the Phase II costs associated with Mason Street, however
there wasn't a detailed lighting plan done as part of this study. Ms. Duncan stated that they need to talk
to the City Electrician further about this and while it is not part of Mr. Hebert's scope, it is something
that the City needs to consider.
Mr. George thanked Mr. Hebert for his work and noted that it gave the Board a broader understanding
of the issues.
Ms. Duncan stated that this will be posted on the city's website and they will post the full report online
when it's available. She also noted that this is the third and final meeting on this issue.
Adjournment
• John Moustakis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 6-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:30 pm.
. Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 7/5/12
•
0
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, May 17, 1012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
n N
REVISED MEETING AGENDA m s
Nr
ry*
J
1. Approval of Minutes
May 3, 2012 meeting minutes ?
3 by
a
2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 1.08 for thAproperty located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA(redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit ec Development Special
p al
P
• Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay
District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150
FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to
eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO OPEN THIS
HEARING ON JUNE 21, 2012.
4. Public hearing: Application of ICECAT LLC requesting a waiver from the frontage requirements of the
Subdivision Control Law for the property located at 18 FELT ST, Salem, MA (Map 27, Lot 69). Property is
proposed to be divided into three lots, one of which lacks the requisite frontage.
5. Request for endorsement of Approval Not Required: Request of ICECAT LLC for endorsement of a plan
believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control. The property, located at 18 FELT ST, Salem, MA
(Map 27, Lot 69) is proposed to be divided into three
lots.
6. Old/New Business r
c on ' mcWsovdw
city H,qtl Salem, Was. on 10 zo/Z-
7. Adjournment a 3.�ia V-7 w
AA it 239
Wow Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-1028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MAS.LICHUSF:rrs 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.9,V.EM.00IMi
CO
CITY OF SALEM
f PLANNING BOARD
m! MAY
SALEM.MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK,
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 3113, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
I. Approval of Minutes
May 3, 2012 meeting minutes
2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
• Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay
District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL 5T(Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150
FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to
eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
4. Public hearing: Application of ICECAT LLC requesting a waiver from the frontage requirements of the
Subdivision Control Law for the property located at 18 FELT ST, Salem, MA (Map 27, Lot 69). Property is
proposed to be divided into three lots, one of which lacks the requisite frontage.
5. Request for endorsement of Approval Not Required: Request of ICECAT LLC for endorsement of a plan
believed not to require approval under Subdivision i son Control. The pro property, located at 18 FELT ST, Salem, MA
(Map 27, Lot 69) is proposed to be divided into three lots.
6. Adjournment
1 .7�
~3Yk9 a°f�R& t� WOt$ on f�41,9ii+�JV'S�'f erM Qii.pat ~
Mail On
row Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, NIASSACHUsrrrrs 01970 . Tl-.i.: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SArEN1.ix)n1
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• '` �i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
MANE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-74o-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: May 4, 2012
RE: Agenda— May 17, 2012 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
➢ Minutes from 5/3/12
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237&
239), Salem MA(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site
Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
The civil engineering peer-review memo from David White of Woodard & Curran is enclosed.
We will plan to have David attend the meeting on 5/17 to present his findings.
I also wanted to correct statements from the last memo (for the 5/3/12 meeting) regarding
non-residential land area requirements and open space requirements for Planned Unit
Developments. The Zoning Ordinance limits the residential use within a PUD in the Business
Park Development Zoning District to 50% or less of the land area of the development. The
Zoning Ordinance also requires that any usable open space in a PUD be accessible to the public.
This is accomplished either by conveying usable open space areas to the City for park or
conservation land, or through the use of public access easements. However, the zoning does
• not define how much, if any, open space needs to be considered "usable." In my last memo, I
incorrectly stated that public access or ownership would be required in order for open space on
the property to count toward the non-residential land area. As noted, public access/ownership
is only required for those areas of"usable" open space. The property contains several areas of •
non-usable open space, such as the slope to Beaver Street, which acts as a buffer, and the small
areas between residential parcels on Beaver Street currently being encroached on and used by
neighbors for a variety of purposes. There is no requirement that these areas be classified as
usable open space or be subject to public access easements or ownership in order to count
toward the required non-residential land area. I discussed this issue with the Building
Commissioner,Tom St. Pierre, and Assistant City Solicitor, Robin Stein, and both agree that the
residential buildings, the space between them, and the parking areas should be classified as
"residential," while other undeveloped areas of the site would not need to be classified as a
specific use in order for the site to meet zoning requirements.
Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay
District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96) and a
portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2).The proposed project includes the conversion
of the existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
The applicant confirmed that the project site includes a portion of 150 Federal Street, so the
application has been re-advertised with the correct addresses and abutters notified again.
This building, owned by Northeast Behavioral Health Corp., formerly Health & Education
Services, received relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2009 to change its nonconforming
use (a mental health center)to another nonconforming use (eight residential units). The
property is located in the R-2 Zoning District.
Most of the requirements for a Site Plan Review application have been submitted. The
application does not contain building elevations, since no exterior work is proposed, the
applicant has offered to provide photographs of the building in order to give the Board context
for the review (I do not yet have these). Snow storage areas are not indicated on the plans, so I
have requested this information from the applicant.
The parking area shown is located on 150 Federal Street, located between 162 Federal Street
and Bridge Street. The applicant intends to acquire this portion of 150 Federal Street, which is
owned by the Archdiocese of Boston, and plans to change the lot lines as indicated on the
submission through an ANR (Approval Not Required) plan.
Because of its location in the 100 year flood zone (FEMA flood zone A), and within the 200 foot
buffer zone for the North River,the project is subject to a Wetlands & Flood Hazard District
Special Permit. The section of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to this permit is 8.1 (the section
we are currently working to amend). However, at this time, the applicant must comply with the
current zoning. The requirements of 8.1 are detailed on the application form, and the applicant
has provided a response to each.
-2-
The application has been routed to Fire Prevention, Building, Health, Conservation, and
• Engineering. The Building Commissioner concurs with the proposal. The Conservation Agent
notes that the applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent to the Conservation Commission, and
this hearing opened March 22, 2012. 1 have not yet received comments from Health or Fire.
Engineering sent the following comments, which have been passed along to the applicant:
1. Details of the driveway exit connectivity to the proposed spillway need to be provided,which
show that all driveway run off enters the spillway and infiltration system.
2. Proposed drain basin should not have a catch basin frame and cover; it should be a manhole
only.
3. Provide more detail on (PSIS-1, 1e)elevation differences between invert in and invert out to
promote recharge.
4. HDPE pipe NOT allow for public right of way installations, add transition structure for HDPE to
RCP.
5. The applicant is not providing any information regarding existing or proposed water and sewer
connections to the city's system other than the approximate location.Size, age and type of the
connection should be shown to determine whether a new connection is needed or not.
Connections shall be cleaned and televised to ensure that not service replacement is needed.
6. Dimensions of the building and parking area for the existing and proposed conditions are not
specified in the plans.
Public hearing: Application of ICECAT LLC requesting a waiver from the frontage requirements
of the Subdivision Control Law for the property located at 18 FELT ST, Salem, MA (Map 27, Lot
69). Property is proposed to be divided into three lots, one of which lacks the requisite
frontage.
Two of the proposed new lots comply with frontage requirements, while the third has only 85
feet of frontage (100 feet is required). This project previously came to the Board of Appeals
with a plan showing a three-lot subdivision, demolition of the historic Ropes house, and
construction of three new single-family homes. After discussion with the neighbors,the City
and the Historical Commission about the importance of preserving the house, the applicant
revised the plans to allow for the house's preservation. The house is located on the lot lacking
the required frontage. The Board of Appeals granted a Variance from frontage requirements
for this lot, with conditions requiring that the house and four older trees on the site be
preserved in accordance with standards agreed to by the Historical Commission. This decision
is enclosed in your packet. Renovation of the house has begun.
The application has been routed to Fire Prevention, Health, Building, Engineering and
Conservation. Lt. Griffin has no comments for Fire Prevention. The Building Commissioner
commented that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Variance from frontage requirements.
Our Conservation Agent responded that neither the location nor the activity is within
Conservation Commission jurisdiction. Engineering has no comments. I have not yet received
. comments from Health.
-3-
Request for endorsement of Approval Not Required: Request of ICECAT LLC for endorsement
of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control. The property, located •
at 18 FELT ST, Salem, MA (Map 27, Lot 69) is proposed to be divided into three lots.
If the Board grants the requested Waiver of Frontage, then the plan is entitled to ANR
endorsement.
•
-4-
���OND,Tggo
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
A",
�9��%M,,� o ` Board
Date J / / _
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
pie, ao 3aueV - 9-)9-7VV-5-cZa)
1Zo 5� a0�/P�E�1��R�/S-re �l `6-al® -slag
/ �7 ✓(i/ JY (f
lie
� T Z L`✓Jr"<Sl� e� d.� S7' r'I�-� ��r bf�zz °
� 'vq ` N egve r 9'�Aa�O g1�b'l m
Page of
i
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 5/17/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready,George McCabe, Mark George,Tim Kavanagh,
Randy Clarke and Helen Sides.Also present: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning
Board Recording Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis,Vice Chair, and Lewis Beilman
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:18 pm.
Approval of Minutes
May 3, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.Tim Ready motioned to
accept the minutes,seconded by Mark George.All approved 6-0.
Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood
Hazard Overlay District Special Permit,for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26,
Lot 96) and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2).The proposed project includes
the conversion of the existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking
and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO OPEN THIS HEARING ONJUNE 11, 2012.
• Helen Sides made a motion to continue to June 21, 2012, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 6-0.
Public hearing: Application of ICECAT LLC requesting a waiver from the frontage requirements
of the Subdivision Control Law for the property located at 18 FELT ST,Salem, MA(Map 27, Lot
69). Property is proposed to be divided into three lots, one of which lacks the requisite
frontage.
Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Application date-stamped 4/26/12 and accompanying materials
➢ Plan of Land, 18 Felt St.,Salem, Property of Icecat, LLC, dated January 12, 2012, prepared by
North Shore Survey Corporation
Scott Grover, 27 Congress Street, representing ICECAT LLC,which owns the property at 18 Felt Street.
He reminded the Board of the previous publicity this site has received and noted that this is part of the
Ropes Estate. The original intent was to divide the lot into three lots with three new houses, but after
speaking with the neighborhood,they decided to preserve the historic house. He described the three
lots and explained that one requires relief from the frontage; a Variance has been granted by the Board
of Appeals. He comes to the Planning Board tonight asking for relief from the frontage requirement and
for Form A approval.
Mark George asked for clarification on what buildings are still standing. Mr. Grover described the
• current buildings on the property.
1
Issue opened to the public for comment •
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he is speaking in favor of the project. He noted that they have
worked closely with the Historic Commission to come up with guidelines for this project and he is
enthusiastically in favor of it. He described it as a win-win situation.
Tim Ready made a motion to close the public hearing,seconded by Mark George. All approved, 6-0.
Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the waiver from frontage requirements,seconded by Helen
Sides. All approved 6-0. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Request for endorsement of Approval Not Required: Request of ICECAT LLC for endorsement
of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control. The property, located
at 18 FELT ST, Salem, MA (Map 27, Lot 69) is proposed to be divided into three lots.
➢ Application date-stamped 4/26/12 and accompanying materials
➢ Plan of Land, 18 Felt St., Salem, Property of Icecat, LLC,dated January 12, 2012, prepared by
North Shore Survey Corporation
George McCabe made a motion to approve the endorsement, seconded by Mark George. All approved
6-0. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Tim Kavanagh arrived at 7:25 pm.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the •
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site
Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Site Plan Review application, date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Planned Unit Development Special Permit application,date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Wetland and Flood Hazard District Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Plans titled Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development, Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove,
60-64 Grove Street& 3 Harmony Grove Road, Salem, MA," dated 12/20/11
➢ Letter from Ward 2 Councilor Michael Sosnowski, dated 5/16/12
➢ Letter from Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, dated 5/17/12
➢ Letter from James Treadwell,AICP, dated 5/17/12
➢ Letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, dated 4/12/12
➢ "Letter Report—Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove Peer Review," prepared by Woodard &
Curran, dated 5/10/12
•
2
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners
• from MRM Project Management. He stated that since the last meeting they had a site walk-through
earlier this week. Their presentation will include a presentation by Bob Griffin,the site engineer,who
will show cross sections. They will be ready at the next meeting to address issues raised by the Peer
Review Consultant. Finally they will also review the site design renderings with Brian Beaudette,the site
architect.
David White,Vice President at Woodard Curran,35 New England Business Center, stated that his firm
has been assisting the City on other drainage projects, including the flood mitigation on the South River
area. He conducted a peer review and submitted a letter of 28 items to be addressed. He reviewed the
highlights of the 28 items on the letter submitted to the Board:
1. The Zoning Ordinance,Section 8.1.5.2 requires as a condition of site plan approval
that 'There are adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian
movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and property, particularly
in the event of flooding of the lot(s)caused by either overspill from water bodies or
high runoff."The FEMA 100-year flood elevation is shown on the plans as 10.8. The
Applicant states that the Grove Street driveway can be used for egress during this
extreme storm event. It appears that during the 100-year storm event, the driveway
connecting to Harmony Grove Road will be flooded and the driveway connecting to
Grove Street will be partially flooded.
Recommendation:The Applicant should evaluate the potential to adjust/move the,
Grove Street entrance towards the south to take advantage of the higher roadway
elevation along Grove Street.
• Mr. White recognizes that there is a challenging intersection just south of the site and that the Planning
Board has retained a Traffic Consultant-this recommendation should be shared with the Traffic
Consultant as part of their review to evaluate if this change can be accommodated safely. Mr. Puleo
asked if there is anything they can do at the Harmony Grove entrance. Mr.White said not unless they
were willing to do some vertical raising of the elevation on the public right of way.
2. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.1.6.1 requires a site plan at a scale of one (1)inch
equals twenty(20)feet be submitted as part of the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay
District Application. The Applicant has provided plans at a scale of one (1)inch equals
forty(40)feet.
Recommendation:The Applicant submit site plans at a scale of one(1)inch equals
twenty(20)feet to conform to the Ordinance or request a waiver from the Ordinance.
3. The Zoning Ordinance,Section 8.1.6.2 requires testing for the seasonal high water
table is performed during the last two(2) weeks of March or the first three(3) weeks of
April. The Applicant submitted testing performed on October 17, 2011 to determine the
seasonal high water table.
Recommendation:The Applicant should perform testing to determine the seasonal
high water table during the time period specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The logs of
the test pits observed on October 17,2011 did not indicate groundwater,
redoximorphic features or other evidence of seasonal high groundwater was observed
and the seasonal high water table was estimated to be at the lowest elevation of the
test pits. The Applicant should consider a groundwater adjustment to the bottom of
the test pits and in future test pits at the site.
•
3
Stormwater Management Standards(SWMS)
Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges •
4. The Applicant has proposed four new outfalls to the North River. The stormwater
management plan proposes to utilize deep sump catch basins with oil/water hoods and
proprietary separators to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge. The applicant has
also designed rip rap erosion control at the stormwater outfalls to address the proposed
discharge velocities.
Recommendation: The Applicant meets the requirements of Standard 1 provided
comments pertaining to Standard 4,outlined below,are adequately addressed.
Standard 2:Peak Rate Attenuation
5. The Applicant has provided design calculations indicating an approximate 3 percent
increase in post-development peak discharge rates for the 2-, 10-and 100-year storm
events. The stormwater management system discharges to the North River Canal, a
tidally influenced water body. The SWMS specify that Standard 2 may be waived for
discharges to land subject to coastal storm flowage.
Recommendation: This standard has been met.
Standard 3:Recharge
6. The Applicant states that the on-site soils are mapped as Urban Land by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA)Soil Survey for Essex County MA, Southern Part,
The USDA has not specified the hydrologic soil group(HSG)for Urban Land. The
Applicant assumed a HSG C for the site and calculated the required recharge volume
based on this designation. The project may be considered a mix of redevelopment and
new development. The Applicant has proposed to infiltrate the required recharge volume
for the increase in impervious area under proposed conditions in accordance with the
SWMS. W&C is unable to determine if two(2)feet of separation between the bottom of •
the proposed infiltration systems and the estimated seasonal high groundwater
(ESHGWT)has been provided.
Recommendation:The Applicant should address comment#3 above to verify the
ESHGWT. The Applicant should also provide a copy of the aforementioned USDA Soil
Survey.
7. The Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1 requires a mounding
analysis on a site that has, or is adjacent to a site that has, an Activity and Use Limitation
(AUL)that precludes inducing runoff to the groundwater,pursuant to MGL Chapter 21E
and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan 310 CMR 40.0000. The Applicant has indicated
in the stormwater report that portions of the site have AUL.
Recommendation: The Applicant should depict the location of the AULs on the plans to
confirm that the proposed infiltration system is not restricted by AULs on-site.Also,if
there is an AUL on-site, that precludes infiltration of stormwater, a mounding analysis
should be provided for the proposed infiltration system to confirm that the infiltration
will not cause or contribute to groundwater contamination.
Standard 4: Water Quality
8. The Applicant has calculated the stormwater quality volume required to meet the
Standard by applying a/:-inch runoff depth over the total proposed impervious area. The
Water Quality Volume calculations included in Attachment 8 of the drainage report
indicate there are impervious areas that do not receive treatment for TSS removal and
that these areas should be considered "de minimis"in accordance with the SWMS. The
TSS removal calculations provided by the Applicant use a weighted average to comply
with the 80 percent TSS removal requirement based on this "de minimis"assumption. •
4
The Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook(the Handbook), Volume 3, Chapter 1 details
• the conditions to be met for an impervious area to be considered "de minimis"and allow
the use of a weighted average TSS removal calculation to comply with Standard 4. The
following conditions have not been met or documented by the Applicant:
a. Physical site conditions must preclude installation of a TSS treatment practice.
b. The 2-year, 24-hour storm event discharge from an individual outlet must be less than
or equal to one(1)cubic foot per second(cfs). The stormwater calculations indicate the
2-year, 24-hour discharge from subcatchment P4 to the North River Canal is 1.56 cls.
c. Standard 2 and Standard 3 must be achieved on a site-wide basis.
A significant portion of the site is considered a redevelopment and therefore is required
to comply with Standard 4 to the "maximum extent practicable". The Applicant is
proposing to provide storm water treatment to a majority of the site which currently
provides little to no treatment, at equal to or greater than 80% TSS removal efficiency. It
is our opinion that the propose storm water management system, if sized properly,
would provide an improvement to the overall water quality from the project site.
Recommendation:The Applicant should address item a above and the size of the
proposed units should be determined in accordance with the MassDEP design criteria
(see comments#9& #10 below).
9. The Applicant is proposing to treat stormwater runoff for T55 removal with
Stormceptor water quality units, models 900 and 4501.A Technology Assessment Report
describing the TSS removal capability of different size Stormceptor water quality units is
included in the Drainage Report as Attachment H. The Technology Assessment Report
indicates the maximum treatment flow rate in gallons per minute(gpm)for the STC 900
. model to be 285 gpm, or about 0.64 cubic feet per second. Information on the STC 4501
model is not provided in the report. The HydroCAD analysis results show that the
maximum flow rate is exceeded in all the proposed STC 900 models for all the design
storm events.
Recommendation:The Applicant should provide water quality units sized to meet the
expected TSS removal design rate at the design flow rates from the HydroCAD
analysis.
10. The Technology Assessment report also establishes a maximum impervious drainage
area guideline for the STC 900 to achieve 70 percent TSS removal at 0.55 acres. The
Stormceptor water quality units labeled WQ51, WQ52 and WQ53 receive stormwater
runoff from more than the 0.55 acre guideline.
Recommendation:The Applicant should provide water quality units sized to meet the
expected TSS removal design rate for the impervious area that drains to the water
quality unit.
Standard 5:Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads
The Applicant has stated that the site is not a land use with higher potential pollutant
loading.
Standard 6: Critical Areas
The Applicant has stated that the site is not a tributary to an environmentally-critical
area as defined by the SWMS.
Standard 7:Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the
maximum extent practicable.
11. The site is a mix of redevelopment and new development. To the extent the project
• includes development of previously undeveloped areas, the project must comply fully
with the Stormwater Management Standards. Woodard& Curran is unable to confirm
5
compliance with Standard 7 until the Applicant has provided documentation showing
compliance with Standards 1 through 6 to the maximum extent practicable, and a •
pollution prevention plan and a long-term operation and maintenance plan in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Standards 8 and 9.
Recommendation: The Applicant should address Comments#6-14 appropriately, to
document compliance with Standard 7.
Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sediment Control
12. The Applicant has stated that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
consistent with the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements will be prepared
and submitted to the City at a later date.
Recommendation: The Applicant, as a condition of approval,should provide a SWPPP
to the Planning Board prior to any land disturbance.
Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan
13. The Applicant has provided an Operation and Maintenance(0&M)Plan. The
Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook specifies that a plan that is drawn to scale,
showing the location of all stormwater BMPs along with the discharge points should be
provided. This plan was not included in the O&M Plan.
Recommendation:The Applicant should provide the plan described above as part of
the O&M Plan.
Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges
14. The Applicant has provided a blank Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement form.
Recommendation:The Applicant, as a condition of approval,provide a completed and
signed Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement to the Planning Board prior to the
seeking an occupancy permit. •
Mr. Puleo asked if standard 8 applies during construction and 9 and 10 apply after construction, to
which Mr.White said yes.
General Engineering Comments
15. The Grading, Drainage& Erosion Control Plan,Sheet C-4 does not provide sufficient
detail near the northwest corner of the proposed parking area (parking are located west
of Building#1 and adjacent to the railroad tracks) to establish the limits of work in this
area. It is not apparent if a retaining wall or other soil stabilization measures may be
required to support the proposed grading near the parking area.
Recommendation:The Applicant should provide additional grading detail at the
perimeter of the parking area.
16. The Applicant has shown drainage structures that are designed with multiple inlet
pipes. Woodard& Curran has concern with the constructability of some of the structures
as shown on the plans:
Recommendation:The Applicant should evaluate the constructability of DMH 5 and
DMH 10 considering the number,size and orientation of pipes being served by the
drain manholes.
17. The Applicant proposes to connect the roof leaders into the proposed closed pipe
drainage system upstream of water quality treatment structures. Stormwater runoff
from rooftops is generally considered"clean"by the SWMS and is not required to be
treated for stormwater quality.
Recommendation: The Applicant should consider redirecting the roof leaders to •
structures downstream of the water quality treatment devices to provide more
'I 6
effective treatment of stormwater. It appears that this suggestion would require
• minor revisions to the roof drainage pipes on the north side of the buildings. The site
layout and topography may result in making such revisions to the roof leaders on the
south side of the buildings impracticable.
18. Details for the Stomceptor water quality units are provided on the Details 11, Sheet C-
7. The details appear to be a standard manufacturer's detail and depict a single inlet
pipe. Stormceptor water quality units WQSI, WQS2, WQS4 and WQS5 are shown on the
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C-4 as having multiple inlet pipes.
Recommendation: The Applicant should confirm with the manufacturer that the
devices can be manufactured and will function as intended considering the location,
size and orientation of the inlets. The details for each structure should be provided to
reflect the intended design.
Mr. George noted that we know the drainage in this area is not functioning correctly currently; how do
we approach that? Mr.White stated that there is drainage infrastructure in the street that they know is
not working, and the applicant should evaluate the drainage when the river is low. Nothing drains when
the river is high because of the lack of elevation of the road. Mr. George asked if the additional
impervious surface proposed for the site will exacerbate the problem. Mr. White said he's not sure if
there is additional water being directed into the street—the applicant did not address this—so he is
asking them to document this and whether the existing city system can handle this drainage.
19. The drainage analysis does not include calculations for the stormwater runoff from
the subject site to the existing drainage systems on Harmony Grove Road and Grove
• Street.
Recommendation:The Applicant evaluate, what if any, the project will increase the
peak rate of discharge to the public right of way. If so, the applicant should confirm
the existing drainage systems on Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street have the
capacity to receive the additional flow.
20. The HydroCAD analysis models CBIO and CBII as 15-inch diameter pipes connecting
to DMH9. The Grading, Drainage& Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C-4 indicates a 12-inch
from CB 11 to DMH9.
Recommendation:The Applicant should address this inconsistency.
21. The Applicant has included a dynamic tailwater as one of the input parameters
(boundary conditions)in the HydroCAD analysis. The Applicant does not provide
documentation to support the assumed tailwater elevations.
Recommendation:The Applicant set the initial tailwater condition at a constant
elevation equal to the mean high high water(MHHW)elevation for the North River in
the HydroCAD analysis. This will allow the HydroCAD model to analyze the hydraulic
performance of the project's stormwater system when the peak stormwater discharge
rate occurs during periods of MHHW.
22. The HydroCAD analysis indicates many of the drainage structures will surcharge
during the 100-year design storm event. The water surface elevation at the Proposed
Building#3 trench drain is 11.42'during the 100-year storm event. The adjacent garage
elevation is 11.0.
Recommendation:The Applicant should revise the drainage system such that the
water surface elevation at this location is below the garage elevation.
•
7
Mr. Puleo asked if high tide would prevent the pipe from draining. Mr.White said yes, and added that
whatever could be pushed through with two inches of pressure is all that could get through. Mr. Puleo .
asked if his recommendation was the larger the pipe the better,to which Mr.White said yes.
23. The Applicant is proposing to construct retaining walls along the south and south
west sides of the proposed parking areas. The height of the wall varies, but in some
locations reaches 15-20 feet in height. The applicant has provided two retaining wall
details, a gravity wall and a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall. They have also
provided an "approximate limit of grading"at the top of the wall to indicate the extents
of earth disturbance is required to anticipated construct the wall. The details indicate
"typical wall sections shown for Planning Board permitting only. Detailed design plans
required prior to construction".
Recommendation: The Applicant should provide the following additional information
to demonstrate the appropriateness of the wall design:
• Basis of the approximate limit of grading shown on the Plan.Such limits are
generally a function of soil characteristics, overburden condition, wall height
and wall type. The limit of grading is necessary to evaluate the remaining
vegetated buffer adjacent to the walls.
• Additional information as to where/how runoff collected at the top of the wall
will be conveyed into the site's drainage system at the ends of the walls.
• Evaluation of the location,species and size of existing and proposed planting
materials above the wall.
Mr. George asked about the wall systems, specifically what issues are raised with the wall construction •
in relation to the stormwater runoff. Mr.White explained that this was part of the next comment and
that they wanted more detail on the drainage system on top of the wall that the applicant is proposing.
Mr. White spoke of the nature of the planting plan in relation to the proximity of the wall to make sure it
is compatible and may have future impacts to this wall.
24. The Applicant is proposing to construct a vehicular bridge across North River, to
serve as the project's primary access/egress from the property. The bridge is proposed at
the location of an existing wood and metal bridge. The Applicant has provided a general
bridge cross section and noted that bridge design is conceptual and subject to further
geotechnical and hydraulic evaluation. W&C notes, that the applicant is proposing to
alter the waterway opening(widen)and cross section (raise) of river at this crossing.As
such, it is unclear as to what, if any, impact these alterations will have on the flood
elevations along the North River, upgrodient of the proposed crossing.
Recommendation:The Applicant should perform a step-backwater analysis for the 10-
,50-and 100-year events for both existing and proposed conditions to demonstrate the
adequacy of the hydraulic opening,structure depth and profile of the access road. This
information will also be necessary to address the performance standards for work
proposed in areas of jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
and National Flood Insurance Program.
25. As noted above, the bridge plans are conceptual in nature and therefore lack details
sufficient to evaluate the limit and scope of work of the proposed alterations to the
North River. Recommendation:The Applicant should provide a detailed site plan of the
bridge site at a suitable scale depicting the entirety of the proposed improvements, •
including but not limited to, existing bridge structure, existing bank and streambed
8
grades,proposed bridge structure,proposed bank and streambed grades, construction
• sequencing,sedimentation and erosion controls, extents of stone riprap scour
protection, utilities,etc.
26. The Applicant is proposing a 35 foot bridge span. The US Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE)has conducted a hydraulics analysis of the North River as part of the Peabody
Square Flood Mitigation Project. The ACOE is currently performing a cost-benefit analysis
for implementing improvements along the North River in Salem. Two principal
alternatives currently being considered include;
1) Widening the North River to 38 feet along the north bank from Howley Street to a
short distance downstream of the subject site bridge and widening North River along the
south bank from the MBTA Bridge, post Grove Street to the existing sheet-pile lined
portion of the canal. Widening along the south bank is currently being considered by the
ACOE at the location of the proposed gravel path.
2) Widening the river along the north bank as noted above, however instead of widening
the south bank a bypass culvert would be installed from MBTA Railroad Bridge to Grove
Street, through the area proposed for the proposed parking area and access driveway.
Recommendation:The Applicant should consider providing a minimum span of 38 feet,
subject to verification of the waterway adequacy as noted in Comment#24, to
accommodate potential future widening of the North River. This will prevent having to
replace the proposed bridge with a larger span in the future and avoid corresponding
disruption to the Site's principal access/egress.
Mr. George then asked if the widening could have a major impact on this project. Mr. White stated that
• the area to be widened is relatively narrow and there is adequate space between the area the Army
Corps of Engineers proposes to widen the river and the buildings.
Mr. White noted that the Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to widen the canal to 38 feet. He says
the hydraulic capacity of the bridge is defined by the open area under the bridge as well flood waters to
pass over the roadway and over the bridge. The applicant is proposing to widen the bridge but not
necessarily to 38 feet. They are also raising the profile of the existing ground in that area. Mr.White
says he is asking for a detailed analysis from the applicant of whether they will raise the water surface
elevation—will the bridge serve as a hydraulic restriction—or is the proposal sufficient to overcome the
ability of the river to overtop the bridge,to force the water under the bridge if the bridge—or have they
not made it wide enough? He is asking the applicant to evaluate that.
27. The Applicant is proposing to utilize existing water mains on Grove Street and Beaver
Street to serve the domestic and fire protection demands of the proposed facility. W&C
has the following comments and recommendations pertaining to the watersystem
depicted on Sheet C-5, Utility Plan;
A. The Applicant should provide documentation(include fire flow tests)indicating that
these demands can be accommodated by the existing City system.
B. The plan is difficult to read. The applicant should revise the plan to clearly depict the
existing and proposed infrastructure.
C. The plans depict an existing "MH"at the Grove Street entrance. Please provide
clarification as to the purpose of the structure.An evaluation of the condition of the
structure%omponents should be conducted and a detail as to what, if any,proposed
• changes to the structure are being proposed.
9
D. It is unclear as to what valving exists at the Grove Street entrance and the condition
of the valves at the existing Grove and Beaver Street connection. The applicant should .
evaluate the operation of the existing valves to provide shut off alternatives and
elimination of possible water service interruptions in the future.
28. The Applicant is proposing to utilize an existing sanitary sewer connection on Grove
Street and abandon a service adjacent to Harmony Grove. W&C has the following
comments and recommendations pertaining to the water system depicted on Sheet C-5,
Utility Plan;
A. The Applicant should provide an evaluation as to the anticipated sewer generated
from the project and the capacity of the City system to accept the demand.
B. The plan is difficult to read. The applicant should revise the plan to clearly depict the
existing and proposed infrastructure. We also recommend the location of the storm
drain system be shown on the plan such that potential conflict between the sanitary,
water and drainage systems can be evaluated. Note, 18"of vertical separation should
be provided between sanitary and water pipes.
C. Connection of the MDC traps to the proposed sanitary sewer line should be means
of a manhole rather than a service connection.
D. The applicant should provide further clarification as to what activities will occur
with the abandonment of the existing sewer pump station.
E. The applicant should field verify the elevation of the existing sewers at ESMH#2 as
well as evaluate the condition of the existing service from the property to Grove
Street.
After presenting the 28 points outlined in his letter, Mr. White concluded his presentation.
Mr. George asked for clarification on a redirection of the sewer system from Harmony Grove to be •
directed to Grove Street and they are not sure if the city has the capacity to handle that, to which Mr.
White said "Correct".
Mr. Correnti introduced Bob Griffin, and stated that most of these points will be addressed in the next
few weeks.
Mr. Puleo requested a 1 to 20 scale plan for the next meeting.
Mr. Griffin stated that they are coordinating with the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Peabody.
They can't address the bridge at this time as it has to go through other reviews. Mr. Griffin explained
that due to questions that came out of the site visit, he is readdressing the site cross-sections. He
reviewed the locations of each of the proposed buildings in relation to the neighborhood. He began at
14 Beaver Street, Section A. He described the roof elevations at the proposed building and at 14 Beaver
Street, noting that the height varies from 2 to 6 feet over the building and 144 feet between the back of
the buildings. He spoke of the planting plan that Mr. Doe presented. He then showed the other side of
Building A and highlighted a ten foot wide gravel path. Section B is at 24 Beaver Street and the
maximum parapet elevation is 71 feet and is 168 feet from the back of Beaver Street to Building#1. The
third cross section was at 38 Beaver Street and building#1, maximum elevation is 71 feet,which is 138
feet from the back of the Beaver Street building to Building#1. Elevation at the top of the chimney from
the top of the building is 38 feet. The railroad grade constrains what elevation they can come out at and
they are constrained to ten feet above the basement elevations. He then showed a slide on Harmony
Grove Road which is level in the vicinity of the railroad tracks, and showed the proposed bridge. Mr. •
Griffin noted that they are raising the structures underneath the bridge by about a foot.
10
• Helen Sides asked where the highest point of the retaining wall will be. Mr. Griffin said he could answer
this question after Mr. Beaudette's presentation.
Brian Beaudette, site architect, showed the main entrances to the buildings and explained that he tried
to design each building to be different from the other. They all include brick, stone, and stucco. He
showed different views of each of the buildings and explained that there will be black grated fencing.
He then took the Board through each of the buildings, showing the designs and unique features of each
building. He also showed the architectural drawings as well and stated that they will get more detailed
as the project goes on.
Mr. Griffin then answered Ms. Sides' question about the wall height—it is 16 feet at the AOH parking
area -and he reviewed other wall heights as well.
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, stated that she received a letter from Ward 2 Councilor Michael
g
Sosnowski,which she read aloud and entered into the record. She also read aloud a letter and entered
it into the record from Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey. She also stated that Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street,
has submitted a letter this evening. Mr.Treadwell paraphrased the letter for the Board and the
audience. Additionally, he shared a graphic that showed the proportion of commercial and residential
spaces as proposed. He said they are interested in how many uses support the area and how many do
not. One of the provisions that the council approved in 2009 was to limit PUDs in the BPD to 50%
residential space and he says this project is not in harmony with the business park zone designation. His
recommendation is that this should not be granted by the Planning Board in its current incarnation. He
• made some suggestions including adding an "Enterprise Center North". He said that he is worried about
compatibility at the edges as well. He thinks some of the buildings are 6 stories high. He said this
project would not allow for business park development in this specific space. He also noted that they
are setting a precedent here.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Celeste Ross, 20 Beaver Street,stated that she agrees with Councilor Sosnowski's letter and submitted a
petition and is expecting more signatures,which included comments about the height. She is concerned
about traffic issues and she is worried about violence. She thinks this will make Salem worse in terms of
transportation. She is concerned about her daughter walking home; who knows what kind of people
will be living in these buildings? She stated that the more people who are moving to the area,the more
she wants to get away. Mr. Ready asked how the petition was described/presented; Ms. McKnight read
the text above the signatures. It stated that they are against the project due to the size, crowding,
impacts to schools, and other concerns.
Katrina Pattison, 2 Beaver Street,asked if the retaining wall will go over her yard, and did not see that
addressed in the presentation. Steve Doe showed on the plan where the retaining wall will be. Ms.
Pattison stated that the building is supporting the current height of her property, and wouldn't the slope
collapse during demolition/construction?
Mr. Griffin shows the extent of the retaining wall along the site. He explains the area will be filled and
graded, and the yard would not collapse.
• Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, stated that she sees 6 levels, if you count where the utilities are.
11
Councilor-at-large Tom Furey, 36 Dunlap Street, stated that this area is going to be considered the new
golden triangle of Salem. He stated that he grew up in this area and they are going to see a whole new
Salem in the future. What you see in this area now, no one should have to put up with. He is in favor of
the development of this area. He thinks that it is going to be seen as a positive for the city of Salem in
the future.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that the mechanicals are going to be located at eye level to neighbors
on Beaver Street,which is terrible. He worked on a mayor's group for this area and they never
envisioned this. This should be a compatible extension of the current neighborhood. With respect to
Councilor Sosnowski's letter, there is common sense at work here and they have to realize that this is
too big for the neighborhood.
Ms. Ross stated that there should be a focus on increasing businesses to help bring in revenue rather
than new residents.
Michael Ross, 20 Beaver Street, stated that they need to focus on building business rather than bringing
new residents here. He asked about the widening of the river;to which Mr. Puleo provided a brief
explanation. Mr. Ross asked if the drawings were to scale. Mr. Puleo stated that the plan is to scale and
they have requested a larger plan at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Griffin showed the cross section slides
and reviewed the distances from the homes on Beaver Street. He confirmed that these are drawn to
scale.
Beverlie McSwiggin, 30 Japonica Street, stated that she is a lifelong resident of Ward 6 with former
employees of the factories that were there, and none of them want the project to the scale that it is •
currently planned. Ms. McSwiggin read from the joint Planning Board and City Council meeting minutes
from June 20, 2009 addressing the issue of PUD. Then she quoted from the Planning Board meeting
minutes after the City Council that discussed the height restriction. She also said that MRM will sell to
Federated and will not care about the residents here. She stated that Federated is also building a
development in Wilmington and she understands that 28%of it will be affordable housing. She said
they asked Attorney Correnti what the percentage of affordable housing would be for this project; he
thought 10%, but she thinks it will be a lot more than that. She references the old polluting factories
and says the neighborhood wants this cleaned up, but the scale should be brought down to something
that is more in line with the neighborhood,which has houses as old as the 1800's.
Councilor-at-Large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue, stated that the intent of the amendment to PUD
was to limit buildings to four stories in BPD. He doesn't think that anyone should buy the argument that
the garage under the building doesn't count towards the height. He feels that Pickering Wharf is
everything that the PUD should be and the City hasn't done anything like that since then. This is going
to be a large residential tax base and that is not what our business parks were designed to be. He noted
that not much has been said about the business park, and this is supposed to be a business park. The
city needs the commercial tax base.
Mr. Carr stated that visuals can be misleading, and asked for clarification on one of the cross sections,
and said the peak of the roof is perpendicular to Beaver Street. He stated that these kinds of subtle
things can be misleading. Mr. Griffin reviewed the cross sections showing the grading. Ms.Sides
addressed the issue of what is a story and what is a level. She stated that the garage is more than half
under-grade and it is not habitable thus the assertion that it is a story is not accurate. Mr. St Pierre's •
12
interpretation is accurate, and this is part of our zoning. Randy Clarke stated that it's the Building
Inspector's interpretation, not the Planning Board's.
Mr.Treadwell reviewed the designs and said the buildings would be 6levels. Ms. Sides stated that the
parking does not fit the definition of a level, and noted that it is defined by how much is above grade.
Mr.Treadwell stated that our zoning is not written that way. Mr.Treadwell then compared this to
Hawthorne Hotel. Mr. Puleo stated that there is a letter from Tom St. Pierre explaining the parking story
issue, and this letter is public information. Mr.Treadwell stated that he reviewed the letter and did not
understand it and it would be helpful if Mr. St. Pierre could present at the Planning Board and show a
diagram. Ms. McKnight stated that Mr.St. Pierre's letter only addresses the parking level,and is not a
determination about the total number of stories of the buildings, because he does not have scaled
elevations for the new design yet. Mr. Ready stated that it is not appropriate to question the Building
Inspector's interpretation and we either accept that or it becomes long-term contested. Ms. McKnight
stated that Mr. St. Pierre made it very clear to her that it is not up to the Planning Board to interpret his
interpretation and if anyone wants to challenge it,the appeal must go to the state. Mr. Ready stated
the Board has always accepted Mr. St: Pierre's interpretations on these matters. Mr. Clarke stated that
the Board always relies on experts for certain information—traffic, engineering,etc., and this is the
same. Mr.Treadwell stated that the issue is not that he is disputing his expertise but is asking for a
further explanation that is clearer to laypeople.
Councilor Sargent stated that he doesn't see this as 50% residential. There is no way that they can
achieve the 50% residential and 50%commercial requirement on this site in the current proposal.
• Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street,will not take issue with the building inspector's
interpretation as he will not question the expertise of the building inspector. However, he stated that if
he had known that this proposal would occur then the City Council would not have voted for the PUD
amendment. It was crafted to provide limitations and now they see what has happened and the council
should probably revisit this.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing to June 7, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides.
All approved 7-0.
Old/New Business
Mr. Puleo announced noted that the traffic light on Marlborough Road by Osborne Hills is up.
Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 7-0. Chuck
Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:37pm.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the
decisions have been posted separately by address or project at:
http.,Ilwww.salem.com/PagesISa/emMA PlonMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
• Approved by the Planning Board 6/7/12
13
CITY OF SALEM
9 PLANNING BOARD rg
11 MAY 21
CIryCLERK Sq EM,MA SS
Form A — Decision
18 Felt Street
On Nlay 17, 2012, the Salem Planning Board voted 6-0 (Charles Puleo, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides,
Mark George, George McCabe, and Tim Ready).to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control
Law Not Required" on the following described plan:
1. Applicant: Icecat, LLC
2. Location: 18 Felt Street, Map 27, Lot 609
Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide the property at 18 Felt Street into three
lots, one with frontage on Larch Street (Lot 1), and avo with frontage on Felt Street (Lots 2 and 3),
as shown on the plans titled, "Plan of Land, 18 Felt Street, Salem, Property of Icecat, LLC," dated
•
1/12/12 and last revised 4/25/12, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation.
A Waiver from Frontage was also granted by the Planning Board on b[ay 17, 2012 to allow 85 feet
of frontage on Lot 3 instead of the required 100. Lots 1 and 2 have 100 feet of frontage.
Sincerely,
lY'&�
Charles 1\4. Puleo
Chair
Cc:
Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
•
1207Vnsiw6ION S'IRFE, SALEM VIA= SA('Husurs 01970 • NoNF, 978.6195685 F:\x 978.740.0404 • w�vvV.snteaa.CUfM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
'1011 MAY 21 P 231
CITY CLERK,SL
Decision SALEM, MASS.
Waiver from Frontage
18 Felt Street
A Public Hearing on this petition was opened on May 17, 2012 and closed on that date with the
following Board Members present Charles Puleo, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, Mark George, George
McCabe, and Tim Ready.
ICECAP, LLC requests a waiver from frontage requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and
under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow for the subdivision of 18 Felt Street into three lots,
one of which has 85 feet of frontage, rather than the required 100 feet.
The Planning Board voted by a vote of six (6) in favor (Puleo, Clarke, Sides, George, McCabe, and
Ready in favor), and none opposed to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 18 Felt
Street.
The Waiver from Frontage is granted for the property located at 18 Felt Street, as shown on the
plans titled, "Plan of Land, 18 Felt Street, Salem, Property of Icecat,LLC," dated 1/12/12 and last
• revised 4/25/12, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation.
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 Elle with the Planning Board. //'/�� �
l Yn g� P ee-/,(,tR
Charles M. Puleo,
Chair
The endorsement sball not take e(feet until a copy of the derision bearing certification al'lhe City Clerk that lwenty
(20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or lhal i such appeal has been filed that it has been disnrisred or
denied, is r-ecorded in the Essex Soulh Regist y of Deeds and is indexed in the grantor index under the naive of the
owner a1'record and noted on the owner'i certificate of title. The owner or applicant shall pay lbe fee for recording or
registering.
120 \%'ASHiuctroN STREFF. SALEM, \11ASSACrn1SHTFs 01070 • 1'110NE 978.610.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 wwsasw.k:ni.cuaq
f C
3y CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
tort bnr -
FILE
CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS,
NOTICE Of SITE VISIT
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will conduct a site visit on
Monday, May 14, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST
former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory) for the proposed Legacy Park project. The Board
will meet in front of 60 Grove St.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
TV @ V0$tW can "01fJZW jaa *a 'Cee
hia2l. Oil,
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETrs 01970 • TEL: 978.745,9595 RAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.CObt
�_ _�_
I� � �
f
CITY OF SALEM
f
PLANNING BOARD
SALEM. MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK,
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a special meeting on
Mondav, May 7, 2012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
CORRECTED MEETING AGENDA
1. North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study—Public Meeting#3
Discussion of transportation issues within the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) area. The City has
engaged Fay, Spofford & Thorndike as consultants to examine the traffic impacts of the
redevelopment of key sites and to recommend transportation improvements for the area. This
third public meeting will include a presentation of final recommendations and will offer an
opportunity for discussion about these recommendations.
• 2. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2018 through 1-2033.
City Hall satem, moss. on
MA of
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ %VWW. ,ALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1911 APR 21 A Ilt 14
FILE N
CITY CLERK. SALEM,MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the earliest, immediately following a Joint Hearing with
City Council at 93 Washington Street. The regular Planning Board meeting will be held at City Hall
Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
CORRECTED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
March 29, 2012 special meeting minutes and April 5, 2012 regular meeting minutes
2. Discussion and vote: Recommendation to City Council on a proposed amendment to Section 8.1 of the
• Zoning Ordinance to comply with requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
including adoption of new Federal Insurance Rate Maps. Proposed amendment also includes deletion of the
requirement for a Planning Board Special Permit in wetland and wetland buffer areas.
3. Request of YMCA OF NORTH SHORE INC. for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under
Subdivision Control (Form A/Approval Not Required). Plan shows changes to the boundaries of two lots on
property located off of LEGGS HILL RD (Map 30, Lot 83).
4. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
5. Old/New Business
6. Adjournment hieft Dom on 'momftwd
«
41ty His"I S�If�+tt, I,AIt9S. OR rW z7, ZolZ.
� >
22.9 0 MALL
-•vow Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
0
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1011 APR 25 P 3 26
CITY CLERKS ALEM, MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the earliest immediately following a Joint Hearing with
City Council at 93 Washington Street. The regular Planning Board meeting will be held at City Hall
Annex, Room 313,,120 Washington Streets
/'l
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
March 29, 2012 special meeting minutes and April S, 2012 regular meeting minutes
2. Discussion and vote: Recommendation to City Council on a proposed amendment to Section 8.1 of the
• Zoning Ordinance to comply with requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
including adoption of new Federal Insurance Rate Maps. Proposed amendment also includes deletion of the
requirement for a Planning Board Special Permit in wetland and wetland buffer areas.
3. Request of YMCA OF NORTH SHORE INC. for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under
Subdivision Control (Form A/Approval Not Required). Plan shows changes to the boundaries of two lots on
property located off of LEGGS HILL RD (Map 30, Lot 83).
4. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
5. Adjournment
F i' ahY' SBIVr p
€k $ &I1
011 :Merz. Vola
.Cnow Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Low M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
1.20 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALENI.COM
CITY OF SALEM
1A
� q PLANNING BOARD
-- 1017 APR I-3
CITY CLERK L ALEM, M�, S
('I'll' OF S:�L.F:NI � ,c�-
NOTIC'I
PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC 111 ARIV'C;
At A" 3, 2012
6:00 P.M.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will COndnCt a .loint Public
Hearing with the City Council on Thursday, :May 3 at 6:00 P.M., in the City
C6m1CII Chambers, City I Ia11, 93 Washington Street, Salem, NIA, in accordance
with N .G.L. c. 40A, s. i for the purpose of amending section 8.1 of Ilse Zonim,
Ordinance to comply with requirements of the Federal Emergency iNlanagcment
Agency (FEMA), including designation of special Hood hazard areas within the
City of SAcm as Zone :N. AE. AO or VE on the Essex Cow"y Flood Insurance
Rate iVlap (FIRiN-I) issued by fFaMA fur the administration of the National flood
Insurance Program (NMP). as shown on map panels 25009: 04141. 04161,
0417F, 04131, 04191. 04361. 114371. 0438K 04391, 04.11 F. NOR 01431'.
0327f, 0531 F, 0532f, and 0512F, dated .luly 3, 2012. 'hhcse updates to
floodplain regulations and the adoption ofnew FIRM maps are required in order
for Salem to remain in compliance with NFIP and for property owners to remain
eligible fur Hood insurance In addition, the proposed amrnded ordinance deletes
the regmremcnt liar a Planning Board Special Permit in Weiland and Wetland
huffcr areas, since this Special Permit is repetitive with Conservatir,m
Commission revicw.
'file complete text ol'the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is on lilt
at the Department of Plannin_, and C'omnnuiity Development, 120 \Vashinuton
St., and is available for inspection Janne regular hn51nes3 hours.
Charles Puler,
City H0 A�W 01
C'h;tir
/0 e3 rlP
1
120 lVn.: ur:r in,� Sat<r i tiALF,%i, Nt 01970 . Tr'.. WS 745 8595 FAV 97`t.740.0091 0 WWW SAUMA1,a1
Minutes of Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and
Planning Board 5/3/12
Ajoint hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in
City Hall Chambers, Second Floor, at 93 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts,to discuss a proposed
amendment to Section 8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to comply with requirements of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), including adoption of new Federal Insurance Rate Maps.
Proposed amendment also includes deletion of the requirement for a Planning Board Special Permit in
wetland and wetland buffer areas.
City Council members present: Councillor Joan Lovely, President, Councillor Thomas Furey, Councillor
Robert McCarthy, Councillor Michael Sosnowski, Councillor Todd Siegel,Councillor Jerry Ryan, Councillor
Josh Turiel, and Councillor Paul Prevey.
Planning Board members present: Chuck Puleo, Chair, George McCabe,Tim Ready, Mark George, Lewis
Beilman,Tim Kavanagh,John Moustakis,Vice Chair and Helen Sides. Also present: Lynn Duncan,
Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,
Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Randy Clarke.
City Council President Joan Lovely opened the meeting at 6:06 pm.
Documents & Exhibitions:
• ➢ Ordinance to amend the Ordinance relative to Zoning(changes to Wetland & Flood Hazard
District Overlay District)
➢ Strikethrough copy of proposed ordinance
➢ Essex County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA for the administration of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), as shown on map panels 25009:0414F, 0416F, 0417F,
0418F,0419F, 0436F,0437F, 0438F,0439F,0441F,0442F,0443F, 0527F,0531F,0532F, and
0552F, dated July 3, 2012 (on file in the Department of Planning&Community Development)
Councillor Lov
el asked Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development,to review the
proposed amendment with members of the City Council and the Planning Board.
Ms. Duncan gave an overview to the City Council of the issue before the Planning Board and the City
Council. She explained that the purpose of the zoning amendment is to update regulations for Salem's
100-year floodplain, and to adopt new Flood Insurance Rate Maps—"FIRMs."This is very important,
because it will allow homeowners in Salem to continue to purchase flood insurance. She notes that
Danielle McKnight has worked with the Department of Conservation and Recreation on the wording of
the proposed ordinance. Inaccurate or outdated language has been updated. She notes that both the
old and the new maps are available in the Planning Department. In addition to making the required
changes, the Planning Department took the opportunity address some housekeeping issues, and
proposes deleting the special permit requirement for a wetlands special permit,which is repetitive with
Conservation Commission requirements because of the state Wetland Protection Act and Salem's local
wetland ordinance. She then presented the wording that she hoped the Council would adopt, as well as
• a strikethrough copy of the proposed ordinance.
1
Ms. Duncan stated most changes to the FIRMS are in coastal areas. There are properties that did not
require flood insurance before that will now, and those who will now no longer need it, based on the
new information. She said people will need to work with their insurance companies to add flood
insurance where needed. The Planning Board has a regularly scheduled meeting this evening,which will
provide the opportunity for the Planning Board to give a recommendation to Council regarding the
passage. Then,the amendment will require first and second passage, and a certified copy of the new
zoning sent to DCR. All this must be in place when the new flood maps go into effect on July 3, 2012.
Councilor Todd Siegel asked if the city would notify homeowners if they do or do not need insurance.
Ms. Duncan stated that this would be done through their insurance companies. Councilor McCarthy
asked for further clarification on notifying the insurance companies. Ms. Duncan said she could not
speak for the insurance companies but stated that the city does not have a list of properties affected.
Councilor McCarthy asked for clarification on the number of the flood maps the City has received. Ms.
Duncan stated that the City has only received one set,which is available in the Planning office.
Councilor Ryan then explained further how this has typically worked in the past through insurance
companies, noting that these homeowners are usually notified through by mortgage companies.
Council President Lovely asked if they knew how many homeowners this will affect. Ms. Duncan stated
that she does not and referred it to Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, who stated that they don't know
how many homeowners would be affected; the Department of Conservation and Recreation does not
have a list available. She stated that she was told by DCR that it is the responsibility of the mortgage
company and the insurers to notify the homeowners of changes to their new insurance requirements. .
Councilor Turiel asked if a side-by-side comparison of the old flood zone map and the new flood zone
map has been done. Ms. Duncan said this would be very difficult to do,since parcels are not shown on
the maps. The City would need to be careful because of liability not to tell homeowners whether they
are in a flood zone, but if the homeowner is in a coastal area then they should review the new maps.
Councilor Turiel expressed concern that all of Salem is coastal except Ward 4.
Councilor Furey asked if surrounding communities were also adopting new maps; Ms. Duncan confirmed
that they were.
Council President Lovely asked what must be done by July 3, 2012. Ms. Duncan explained that this is the
date that the new flood insurance maps go into effect and she noted that prior to that date the City
must send a certified copy of the vote to the Division of Conservation and Recreation.
Chuck Puleo asked whether this was happening nationally; Ms. Duncan said yes—through FEMA.
Lewis Beilman noted that when he lived in Florida,there were public meetings held about the issue. He
asked if there have been any public meetings about this. Ms. Duncan stated that the City has not been
informed of any meetings.
Councilor McCarthy asked about the procedure in terms of what within the ordinance the Planning
Board will be reviewing—will they be looking at the content? Ms. Duncan responded that Ms. McKnight
has been working on the content with the Division of Conservation and Recreation, and the Planning •
Department has received DCR's approval. She noted that the changes in wording also meet FEMA
2
requirements. The only piece is of the ordinance change not related to the FEMA requirements is the
• special permit for the wetlands,which is specific to the Planning Board. She then reviewed the
proposed changes to the ordinances. Councilor McCarthy asked if the recommendation to delete the
requirement to remove the special permit came from the Planning Department and Planning Board.
Ms. Duncan stated that she didn't know the history of the original adoption of the special permit, but
the recommendation to delete it came from the Planning Department.Councilor McCarthy asked
Chairman Puleo if this makes sense for the Planning Board. Mr. Puleo stated that in his experience,
there have been very few issues on wetlands that come before the Planning Board as the Conservation
Committee is the one that adjudicates on those issues.
Councilor Prevey asked if these changes limit the authority of the Conservation Commission. Ms.
Duncan stated that this does not change what the Conservation Commission does, but having the
special permit is confusing in terms of how the boards post their notices and how applicants have to
apply. She noted that deleting this will not affect Conservation Commission's role. Councilor Prevey
then commented that this is what his question was getting at.
Councilor Sosnowski asked about a specific section of the ordinance requiring base flood elevation data,
and feels that the 5 acre or 50 lots requirement is too high, and the ordinance should apply to anything
built in the flood zone. Ms. Duncan stated that DCR strongly recommended this wording. She reminded
the Council the strong action they took in adopting the stormwater ordinance,which applies to
everything as small as an acre. She clarified that this threshold applies only to the requirement to
submit base flood elevation data. Councilor Sosnowski asked why this shouldn't apply if someone wants
to build a single unit in a flood zone. Ms. Duncan said she would look into this.
• Councilor Sargent reminded the council and the Planning Board of site plan review requirements which
states that if a site is too small then the Planning Board cannot weigh in on it,and he wants them to be
able to. Ms. Duncan responded that this is a balancing act between monitoring large developers and
not overburdening small homeowners. She asked Ms. McKnight about the 5 acre recommendation and
Ms. McKnight responded that she has not spoken with DCR about this issue specifically, but said the
recommendation came from DCR that projects of this size should be required to submit base flood
elevation data, and this is not a threshold for review. Ms. Duncan said the Planning Department would
ask DCR about this. Councilor Sargent stated that small projects should also be within the Planning
Board's purview for site plan review. Ms. Duncan noted that this is not related to site plan review
thresholds. The threshold for stormwater ordinance review is 1 acre. She stated that she will speak
with the City Engineer to see if they are missing any significant projects with the requirements for the
stormwater ordinance,and also confer with DCR about their rationale for the size threshold for
submitting the data.
Councilor McCarthy asked what base flood elevation data is. Planning Board member Lewis Beilman
thought that it determined the flood rate insurance rate. Under a certain elevation data,a property
owner isn't eligible for flood insurance under the Federal program.
Council President Lovely asked for clarification on A Zones. Ms. McKnight said there A zones that are
numbered and unnumbered. She does not know if they are coastal. Mr. Puleo noted that Canal Street
and Jefferson Avenue are not designated as A zones.
. Mark George stated that base flood elevations exist; FEMA has them on their website and they are not
that difficult to find.
3
Councilor Sosnowski stated that the Planning Board shouldn't give up the authority to review anything .
within a flood plain. Ms. Duncan clarified and reviewed the ordinance, specific to Councilor Sosnowski's
concern and noted that all construction in flood zones must go through the Planning Board for a special
permit. Councilor Sosnowski asked if any section of the ordinance can be removed, and Ms. Duncan
responded that no sections can be removed as they are required by FEMA. Councilor Sosnowski stated
that his concern is that the big builder's lawyers will come and say that the ordinance doesn't require it.
Ms. Duncan said that they will provide a clean copy of the revised ordinance them which should help to
clarify the issue.
Council President Lovely opened the topic up to members of the audience. She asked for members of
the audience in favor of the ordinance to raise their hand and come to the podium to speak. No one
raised their hands or spoke in favor of the ordinance.
She then asked for members in the audience who were opposed to the ordinance to raise their hand
and come to the podium to speak.
Teasie Riley-Goggin,9 Wisteria Street, is not sure that she is in favor or against it. She thinks that all of
the tools the Planning Board can use should be available to members and is not sure if they should give
that up.
Councilor McCarthy moved to close hearing and moved that hearing be adjourned. All approved.
Joint hearing adjourned at 6:45 p.m. •
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 6/7/12
•
4
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
zolz MAY —9 P 2 41
Form A — Decision FILE #
CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS.
Leggs Hill Road
May 3, 2012
On May 3, 2012, the Salem Planning Board voted 9-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanagh, Mark
George, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, Lewis Beilman, George McCabe , John Moustakis and Tim
Ready in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not
Required" on the following described plan:
1. Applicant: YMCA of the North Shore, Inc.
2. Location: A portion of the property located off of LEGGS HILL ROAD (Salem Assessor's
Map 30, Lot 83, and Marblehead Assessor's Map 35, Lot 1A).
• 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide a portion of the property
located off of Leggs Hill Road, as shown on the plan titled "Subdivision Plan of Land in
Salem/Marblehead, Massachusetts," prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustin, Inc., dated
December 16, 2011. Lot 3 is an existing lot, with a building thereon with frontage on
Leggs Hill Road, Marblehead containing a merger of a 65 square food area located in
Salem. Lot 6A is a resubdivision of existing vacant lots located in Salem and Marblehead
with frontage on a subdivision road approved by recorded Plans.
Charles M. Puleo
Chair
Cc:
Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FA-x: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALFM.COM
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
•
9 �
9��jMNa,ovNA Board �IaVtV�Lz-a-
Date 6 / /2
Name Mallin Address Phone # E-mail
•
•
Page of Z
• 5P ��;. City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
s9 � Board a
Date S l 3 / 12-
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
tea_ o?h�vcs� q7�7Y 371'7
tv
JTA&tIaada- 93 Stre4- 47&-M-6941�
!q Y494 Val r5/o17 ey F0,? he�
29
3g i��iv� q7R'-7yy-jf37 PSL caM
/\I
/�-�s arc a0�ar�rS� g7fr7yySail ,prier , crmca&+ net
pCOr 77& V1 2-23 u19 1
•
Page 2 of
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
. C{ I
a! hof DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: April 24, 2012
RE: Agenda—May 3, 2012 regular meeting and joint hearing
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Minutes from 4/5/12
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
As a reminder, the Planning Board has a Joint Public Hearing scheduled with the City Council on
at 6:00 P.M., prior to our regular meeting at 7:00 P.M, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall,
93 Washington Street. After the joint hearing, we will reconvene at 120 Washington Street for
the regular Planning Board meeting.
Joint Hearing: Proposed Changes to Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District
The joint hearing is being held for the purpose of amending Section 8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
to comply with requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As part
of the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency Map
Modernization Program, Salem has received new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and an
updated Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report as part of a countywide update for Essex County. In
order to remain compliant with the National Flood Insurance program (NFIP) and to ensure
flood insurance remains available to property owners in Salem, the City needs to adopt an
amended ordinance that regulates the 100-year floodplain as shown on the 2012 maps and
meets the NFIP regulations and standards. This requires updating language in Section 8.1 of
Salem's Zoning Ordinance, Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District, which currently
regulates the 100-year floodplain as delineated on FIRM maps published in 1977.
•
There are some changes between the old FIRM maps and the new ones. Essentially, all of the •
changes have occurred in coastal areas. Outside of the coastal areas, the old data was 'lifted"
into the new maps, and those flood zones will not change. In the coastal areas, new analysis
was done to more accurately define the flood elevations. As a result, some properties that
were previously in a flood zone may not be, and vice versa. The old and new maps can be
compared in order to view these changes and to make determinations about specific
properties. The Planning Department has both the old and new maps on file, should residents
wish to view and compare them. A more complete explanation of the changes is included in an
enclosed message from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR is guiding
communities in their adoption of the new maps).
In addition, in order to be fully compliant with NFIP, we need to correct language that is
outdated, inaccurate or redundant. We also propose to take this opportunity for additional
housekeeping-to delete the requirement for a Special Permit by the Planning Board for work in
wetlands, since this is repetitive with Conservation Commission jurisdiction.
Enclosed is the proposed Ordinance to amend the Ordinance relative to Zoning, which contains
a detailed description of all the proposed changes. In addition, I have enclosed a document
that tracks the changes from our current ordinance.
Request of YMCA OF NORTH SHORE INC. for endorsement of a plan believed not to require
approval under Subdivision Control (Form A/Approval Not Required ). Plan shows changes to
the boundaries of two lots on property located off of LEGGS HILL RD (Map 30, Lot 83). •
The enclosed plan shows two building lots (Lot 3 and Former Lot 6), as well as Lot 19B, a larger
land area in Marblehead behind Lot 3 and Former Lot 6. In 2006, the Board approved creation
of both lots as part of a subdivision. For context, a copy of this 2006 plan is included. Currently,
Lot 3 has frontage on Leggs Hill Road in Marblehead. Former Lot 6 has frontage on a
subdivision road in Marblehead. The plan proposes increasing the rear of Lot 3 with land from
Lot 19B and a portion of Former Lot 6. Former Lot 6 will also be increased at the rear with land
from Lot 19B. The plan requires endorsement from both the Salem and Marblehead Planning
Boards.
Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3 HARMONY
GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &239), Salem MA (redevelopment
of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit.
The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total
of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building, and
associated parking and landscaping.
The proposal is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) located in the Business Park Development •
zoning district. A PUD allows a development to depart from certain zoning restrictions, such as
-2-
• those on parking and density, and allows for a mixture of compatible uses. Certain
requirements must be met, according to Section 7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. As requested,
the portion of the ordinance pertaining to PUD is below, with Planning Department
recommendations and opinions in italics:
7.3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
7.3.1 Purpose. Planned unit development is designed to provide various types of land use
which can be combined in compatible relationship with each other as part of a totally planned
development. It is the intent of this Section to ensure compliance with the master plan and good
zoning practices, while allowing certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of
specific zone classifications. The advantages which are intended to result from the application
for planned unit development are to be ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan
with a specific time limit for commencement of construction. It is the Planning Department's
opinion that the development proposal meets the ordinance's definition of Planning Unit
Development and complies with good zoning practice. The mixture of uses proposed is
appropriate, and the departure from strict provisions of zoning classifications, specifically
residential use in the Business Park Development zoning district, is justified by the cleanup of the
formerly contaminated and dangerous property, productive reuse of a blighted site, location of
new housing near the MBTA station, provision of open space for public use, and construction of
. a canal side path that continues the walking and biking trail system proposed for the North
River Canal Corridor in its neighborhood master plan and in other NRCC development projects.
7.3.2 Applicability. The Planning Board may grant a special permit for a planned unit
development for any parcel of land in the following districts provided that said parcel contains a
minimum of the lesser of sixty thousand (60,000) square feet or five(5) times the minimum lot
size of the zoning district it is in, and subject to the requirements and conditions set out in this
section. The proposed PUD meets the minimum size requirement of 60,000 square feet(the
three parcels equal 296,660 square feet).
R3 Multifamily Residential District;
B 1 Neighborhood Business District;
B2 Highway Business District;
B4 Wholesale and Automotive Business District;
B5 Central Development District;
BPD Business Park Development;
• Industrial District.
-3-
The project is located within the BPD Business Park Development zoning district and is therefore •
proposed for an eligible zone.
7.3.3 Uses. All uses or any combination thereof permitted in R3, Bl, 132, B4, 135, BPD, and I
Districts may be allowed in a planned unit development, subject to the following limitations of
uses:
1. There can be a multiplicity of types of residential development, provided that, at
the boundaries with existing residential development, where typical development is
permitted, the form and type of development on the planned unit development site
boundary are compatible with the existing or potential development of the surrounding
neighborhoods. The combination of uses proposed(multifamily housing and a small
commercial space) is compatible with the surrounding uses (mainly an R-2 and R-1 zoned
residential neighborhood and the Harmony Grove Cemetery). The property's previous
use was industrial. The residential use proposed would be less disruptive to the
neighborhood than the industrial use was, and would also be less disruptive than some
of the other uses allowed by right in the Business Park Development zoning district(food
and beverage manufacturing, bottling or processing facilities; research, laboratories and
development facilities;and medical and dental offices,for example). Business or
professional offices, also allowed by right in BPD, ore proposed as a small part of the
development, but if they were planned for the entire site, they would generate more •
traffic than the combination of commercial and residential proposed. Medical and
dental offices in particular generate high volumes of traffic. Other uses allowed by
Special Permit include nursing homes; adult day care; animal clinic or hospital; kennel;
commercial or residential scale wind energy facility; assembly or packaging facility;
contractor's yard/landscaping business, light manufacturing; manufacturing, mini-
storage warehouse facility, and wholesale, warehouse or distribution facility. Several of
these uses have the potential to be much less compatible with a residential
neighborhood than the proposed development. However, we would like to ensure
appropriate buffering between the development and its neighbors. To help us
understand whether buffering efforts are sufficient, and how the project will look in the
context of the neighborhood, we have asked the applicant to show the street-level views
and vantage points from around the neighborhood to the extent possible.
2. A specific commercial or industrial use for property adjacent to an existing
commercial or residential zone may be approved as a planned unit development. Where
this is permitted, the plan for the total property shall be submitted and the applicant shall
clearly detail, by engineering and architectural specifications and drawings, the manner in
which the subject area is to be developed and the means that will be employed to protect
the abutting property and the health, safety, welfare and privacy enjoyed thereon. No
industrial uses are proposed, the proposed commercial space was previously used as an
office building (but is now vacant)and also does not directly abut residential properties. •
-4-
• 3. In the Business Park Development(BPD) district, residential uses and associated
improvements, such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of
the parcel(s); or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of
the gross square footage of the proposed development. According to the applicant's
calculations, as shown on the Site Layout Plan (C-3), the non-residential area
(commercial space and open space) is 151,202 square feet, which is 51%of the total
land area and therefore meets the requirements of this provision. This calculation is
acceptable to the Planning Department because only usable open space to be accessible
to the public is counted toward the "open space"use; this does not include parking
areas, space between the residential buildings, dumpster areas, or access drives. It does
include the buffer area between the development and neighbors. There are no
requirements in the Site Plan Review or PUD sections of the zoning ordinance that
specify that any private open space be provided to residential multi family buildings.
The open space and pathway, while usable by residents of the development, are also a
public amenity. As noted below, usable open space in a PUD must provide public access
either through limited easements or public ownership of the land. These agreements will
need to be confirmed with the applicant and found agreeable by the Planning Board in
order for the development to be compliant with the zoning ordinance.
7.3.4 Dimensional Requirements.
• 1. Maximum bulk, yards, parking and loading requirements shall be established for
each planned unit development by the development plan approved by the Planning
Board. Height limitations shall be in accordance with the zoning district in which the
planned unit development is located. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that
the proposed bulk of the three new structures is appropriate for the size of the parcel,
given the new design for the buildings. The new configuration of these buildings—
different roofline heights and facade depths—and the varied materials used create the
effect of being less visually bulky. It is also the Planning Department's opinion that the
1.5 parking spaces per unit proposed is sufficient to meet the needs of residents. Our
peer reviewer, Gary Hebert, is recommending a shared parking arrangement between
the commercial and residential uses in order to ensure there will be enough parking at all
times of day and night. In addition, there are 117 two-bedroom units and 24 one-
bedroom units proposed; there will be no three-bedroom units. This limits the number of
cars on site. Mr. Hebert is also recommending changes to the loading areas in order to
ensure safe travel on the narrow access drive serving the office use. The complete peer
review memo is enclosed.
2. Minimum lot frontage. To preserve and protect the value of properties adjacent to
a proposed planned unit development district and to provide for an orderly and uniform
transition, lots which will be adjacent or across the street from existing residential
developments shall be required to provide an amount of street frontage not less than that
of existing lots but not greater than minimum Ordinance requirements for the zone in
• which they are located. This provision does not apply to the project, since there are no
individual house lots proposed.
-5-
3. Minimum lot size. Residential lot sizes in a planned unit development may be .
reduced below the minimum standards required by the Zoning Ordinance. As a .
prerequisite, the developer shall demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship
between the proposed lot size and the usable and accessible open area within the total
development. An individual lot shall be large enough to provide for private open space
associated with the living accommodations. This provision does not apply to the project,
since there are no individual house lots proposed.
4. Maximum stories. The maximum number of stories of any building containing
residential units in the BPD District is four stories. The design of the buildings
has changed since the original plans were submitted, and since it continues to
evolve, scaled elevation drawings and information about the interior space of the
top level have not yet been submitted. Therefore, Tom St. Pierre, Salem's
Building Commissioner, is unable to determine at this time whether the proposed
buildings comply with the four-story height limitation. However, he was able to
determine, assuming the parking level grading and height have not changed
since the original submittal, that the parking level is not considered a story,
based on the definitions of"story"in the Salem Zoning Ordinance, which is based
on the definition in the State Building Code. A written interpretation of this issue
by Mr. St. Pierre is enclosed.
7.3.5 Open Space. Provisions shall be made so that usable open space shall be owned: •
1. By the City of Salem for park, open space or conservation use;
2. By a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or
residential units within the land that may be approved by the Planning Board, with
provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of the City; provided
that such ownership shall vest in sufficient rights to enforce compliance with the
restrictions imposed by the Planning Board as conditions of its special permit. While the
applicant has indicated his intention that all open space areas be publicly accessible, he
will need to agree to an easement providing public access, or another acceptable
provision, as indicated above.
7.3.6 Application. Any petition filed for a planned unit development under this section shall
be accompanied by fifteen(15) copies of a site plan, which shall be at a scale to be
established by the Planning Board and shall include fifteen (15) copies of all the
information required for a definitive plan under section III B of the subdivision
regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, and such petition shall also be
accompanied by fifteen(15) copies of an environmental impact statement as set out in
Appendix A of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem.
-6-
Section 1116 of Subdivision Regulations: Some of the requirements listed here are outdated and
generally no longer requested by the Planning Board(such as India ink plans on cloth).
However, the information provided on the plans regarding topography, drainage, landscaping,
utilities, and other requirements listed in Section IIIB appear to be sufficient for Planning Board
review. Civil engineering peer reviewer Woodard& Curran will be examining the utilities,
drainage, grading, and other site issues, and will let us know if additional information is
required from the applicant.
Appendix A: The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Statement(which was
supplied along with the original application materials) with a response to each of the items
requested in Appendix A to the subdivision regulations. Generally, the responses are acceptable
and raise no significant concerns. However, we will highlight a few points: 1) Item 1.2.c states
that no percolation tests would be conducted because they were not applicable. However, after
submission of the application, I was contacted by the developer's engineer, who confirmed that
they would be performing percolation tests. 2) Item 1.5a indicates that hours of construction
will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but city ordinances limit drilling and blasting to the hours of 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. We have brought this to the applicant's attention. 3)Item 2.1.a refers to a
"bike path"proposed as port of the project—plans show this path will be gravel. When the
application was first submitted, we had asked the applicant to give some consideration to
whether a paved path would be possible in order to be more compatible with the paved path
proposed for the 28 Goodhue St. project. Gravel is not a suitable material for a bike path, and
• both gravel and stone dust are problematic if located in a flood zone because of the likelihood of
erosion. Gravel is also not ADA compliant because it is unsuitable for wheelchairs. All other
new bike paths proposed or recently built in Salem are multi-use, 10 feet wide, and bituminous.
It is the Planning Department's strong recommendation that the same be installed as part of
this project, rather than the proposed gravel path. 4) Item 2.5 states that there are no historic
buildings on the site. However, the site does contain buildings older than 50 years, which are
subject to demolition delay by the Historical Commission. This has been brought to the
attention of the applicant. One of these structures, however, is not being demolished but
rehabilitated for commercial use.
Several items pertain to stormwater treatment, utility connections, and drainage; these issues
are being reviewed by Woodard& Curran as part of the civil engineering peer review.
7.3.7 Distribution. The Planning Board shall, within seven (7) days after receipt of said
application, transmit one (1) copy of said application and plan to the Building Commissioner,
City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation
Commission, who may at their discretion investigate the application and report in writing their
recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall not take Final action on such
plan until it has received a report thereon from the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head
of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission or until
thirty-five (35) days have elapsed after distribution of such application without a submission of a
• report. Notice of the filing of the petition shall be given to the City Clerk, Police Department,
Department of Public Services, and School Department and further notice shall be given as
-7-
required by the Planning Board. The plans were distributed as required. Tom St. Pierre, Building
Commissioner, has responded with a comment that the hours of construction are dictated by
city ordinance, since the applicant's proposed hours of construction are outside of this, as noted
above. Tom Devine, Conservation Agent, has noted in response to the filing that the project is
within area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and will require submittal of a notice of
intent to the Conservation Commission. The Commission's July 2011 order of resource area
delineation for this property was appealed by residents. Depending on the outcome of that
appeal, the proposed plans may need to be modified to comply with the requirements of the
Wetlands Protection Act. Traffic Division Commander Lt. Preczewski requested the traffic study
narrative, which we have provided. Other departments have not yet responded.
7.3.8 Decision. The Planning Board may grant a special permit where the following findings
are made:
1. The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and
intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote
the purpose of this section.
2. The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be
sufficiently advantageous to tender it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements
of the district.
3. The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental •
impact.
Findings will need to be made by the Board once all materials, peer reviews, changes, etc. have
been submitted and reviewed, and once the Board has had adequate opportunity to hear all
public comments.
7.3.9 Conditions. The Planning Board may, in appropriate cases as it determines impose
further restrictions upon the planned unit development or parts thereof as a condition to granting
the special permit.
Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay
District Special Permit,for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96) and a
portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2).The proposed project includes the conversion
of the existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
The applicant has requested to open the public hearing on May 17, 2012 because he would like
to resolve a matter that as arisen with the Conservation Commission.
•
-8-
/%CO
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BO
tet, ARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduler/meeting on
Thursday, April 19, 1012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Roorrn, 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
S
MEETING AGENDA + �.
� e
r— a
n p
I. Approval of Minutes
March 29, 2012 Special Meeting minutes and April 5, 2012 meeting minutes ;> N
r'-4t
� _
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC form�LC
itie proparty located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salel ivlA (rvelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit DeGelo n
• Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes/
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
Square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands aril Flood Hazard Overlay
District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150
FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to
eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
3. Adjournment
Vii
ei ra ki-.
'A"
vl Fcb a8 . %N" r3`3i2"d.
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinonce Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
12U II!'S, i Il ')70 . Til : �) ia,.i.l i'1:> > > F ' 9
.. 7 11j,Ull) i � lAAC Ii.S:ALP:AL Ct',I
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2812 APR 13 A ID 03
FILE 4
CITY CLERK, SALEM.MASS,
NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board meeting scheduled for
Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has
been CANCELED due to a lack of agenda items. Applicants for the following hearings have
requested to continue, as follows:
1. Request of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60
& 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &
Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood
Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family
residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building,
and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TOMAY3 2012
2. Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special
Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET
• (Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8) residential
units and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO MAY 17 2012
Charles M. Puleo Chair
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
x3: #4WD i4 p,16"-0*J on 41 ,aaT
I b Hall SalOf 1, MOZA. On A1U?e 13, �oka
10t03Flpl in a
a an
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.04040 WWW.SA1,EM.00JM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
----------------
NOTICE OF MEETING
You ore hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board Will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 7:00 pm of City Holl Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Choir
n
MEETING AGENDA
C ^+
r- A
1. Approval of Minutes rT v
March 29, 2012 Special Meeting minutes and April 5, 2012 meeting minutes
2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC fore ro y
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salen iv A r Fwrt located o 3
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit DPGeIo(nEEfeveloprnent of
• Permit and Wetlands and Flo ocl Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project indlt p desl
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay
District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150
FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to
eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
Knout Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Caw NI,G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2025 through 2-2033.
•
20 7 JJ.0.;; ?:� 1) '8.% I().O-{()'I
(0
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
UP ARA 3 P 151
FILE ff
CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday,April 5, 2012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
March 15, 2012 meeting
2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 &64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay
District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150
FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to
eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping. Applicant requests to open hearing on
April 19, 1012 instead of April 5, 2012.
4. Old/New Business
S. Adjournment
on
`��+$� e ooh � 3 ZeIZ
1w
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2023 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON SrkEEr, SALEM, NIASSACNuse:rrs 01970 . TEi.: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 wwwsA1.E,a.c0m1
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Ira
P W 21
FILE S
CITY CLERK, SALEM,MA55.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, ApH15, 2012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
d .2... 9 a� X
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
March 1S, 2012 meeting
2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
. Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood
Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot
96). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8) residential
units and associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
90ftw so"" P
Man Salem, Mon. QA �Na. 4,2, 'JDIcZ
I y'a'1 Prq 011IMM Ift *41P. as
a in
'31 AV
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSFTTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.S.AI,EM.COM
q�M1.; Tq tO
kyr ;1, CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
oft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
M_N_
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECCOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: March 29, 2012
RE: Agenda—April 5, 2012 meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
➢ Minutes from 3/15/12
• ➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 &64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory),.for Site
Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
Our civil engineering peer reviewer, David White of Woodard & Curran, will be present to
observe the applicant's civil engineering presentation.
Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood
Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26,
Lot 96).The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8)
residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
This building, owned by Northeast Behavioral Health Corp., formerly Health & Education
Services, received relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2009 to change its nonconforming
• use (a mental health center)to another nonconforming use (eight residential units). The
property is located in the R-2 Zoning District.
The application has been routed to Fire Prevention, Building, Health, Conservation, and
Engineering. The Building Commissioner concurs with the proposal. The Conservation Agent •
notes that the applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent to the Conservation Commission, and
this hearing is scheduled to open on March 22, 2012. 1 have not yet received comments from
Health, Engineering or Fire.
Most of the requirements for a Site Plan Review application have been submitted, but the
application is missing the building elevations, a lighting plan, and indication of snow storage
areas. I have requested this information from the applicant.
The parking area shown is located not on 162 Federal Street, but on 150 Federal Street, located
between 162 Federal Street and Bridge Street. I have requested further clarification from the
applicant regarding the intent to acquire this portion of 150 Federal Street, which is owned by
the Archdiocese of Boston, and their plans for changing the lot lines as indicated on the
submission.
Because of its location in the 100 year flood zone (FEMA flood zone A), and within the 200 foot
buffer zone for the North River, the project is subject to a Wetlands & Flood Hazard District
Special Permit. The section of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to this permit is 8.1 (the section
we are currently working to amend). However, at this time, the applicant must comply with the
current zoning.
Note: I am also including in your packet a supplement to the Zoning Ordinance, reflecting •
zoning amendments made since the ordinance was printed.
•
-2-
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
NF `�` Board
MI
Date _/ S /
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Quz
o�
e oto lrernert�S� �7� s®��S' M
M
_ Y s acs r sr. 4��-�yv-saol M
7Y(��/�,/�sc>pu M
G M
•
Page of 1i
P(an,h,-f'J t� � n �
` liq caacRl��
C)3 CA
rAl
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
9
Board FIaAn � /4 Dar �Q
Date / / Z
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
e r /Y deaVt,
7V Y-37)7
azo PSIS g ITu M tkT- 9T 7110 9/ 0---
77,T- 9V!;-3L� M
278701 97/ V
u`G lol1--rw Y4 aZ M
Page 2 of 2.
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 4/5/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 5, 2012 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 and George McCabe, Mark George,
Lewis Beilman,Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides.Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff
Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent:Tim Ready.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:07 pm.
Approval of Minutes
March 15, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke motioned to
accept the minutes,seconded by Helen Sides.Approved 8-0.
Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood
Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26,
Lot 96).The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8)
residential units and associated parking and landscaping.Applicant requests to open hearing
on April 19, 2012 instead of April 5, 2012.
• Helen Sides moved to open the hearing at the Planning Board meeting on 4/19/12, Mark George
seconded. All approved 8-0.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory),for Site
Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,Salem, represents the developers and property owners
from MRM Project Management. He reminded the Board of the previous presentation on traffic and the
environmental work that has been done on the site. He also noted that the city's peer reviewer was at
the last meeting. He introduced Bob Griffin from Griffin Engineering,who will provide a review of the
civil engineering, and Brian Beaudette, the architect on the project. Mr.Correnti concluded by stating
that they have taken the feedback from the public on the site design and they are prepared to present it
this evening.
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, presented an overall site plan which included landscaping and parking.
He reminded the Board that there are 3 parcels that make up the site and briefly described each. He
. pointed out that the overall development scheme includes three residential buildings and a commercial
one. The commercial site layout for 60 Grove Street includes approximately 17,000 gross square feet
1
and includes 13 parking spaces in front of the property. The drainage in the area will be modernized to •
meet current stormwater management standards. On the residential portion of the site at 64 Grove
Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road,there are three buildings that will be removed as part of site
development work. There will be a looped access road, which provides for 24 feet of vehicular access
throughout the property; additionally there will be 33 parking spaces under each,of the 3 buildings, and
the rest will be on the surface level. There will be about a ten foot grade change. He showed the Board
that as one enters the property it will be relatively flat,and then it will rise up to the first level,which is
about 10 feet. There will be various levels throughout the property and there will be a sidewalk
throughout the whole property. There will also be a pedestrian gravel pathway, crossing the railroad
tracks,that will go along the river. He said they have a thorough landscaping plan that will be presented
in more detail at a later date. He noted that there will be approximately 2500 plants and they will retain
mature vegetation along Beaver Street. He described where there will be recycling stations in each of
the buildings and the dumpster will be enclosed with a fence. They will use existing services in each of
the buildings and they will probably use natural gas and new electricity coming in as well. There will be
underground service as well. From a drainage point of view, they are going to put in a modern drainage
system, that will meet the up-to-date DEP water management standards. They will have roof runoff
that will allow water to go into the drain water system, they will place some drainage to capture some of
the runoff. They will collect water and discharge into treatment tanks before they enter the North River
canal. Any water that overflows will go into another treatment tank before it goes into the North River
Canal and 94%of water from impervious surfaces will be treated. All existing discharges will be sealed
up so nothing will get into the North River without being treated.
Mark George asked what is the increase as a percent of total in impervious surface in contrast to what is
there now. Mr. Griffin responded that he didn't know the exact number but they are going to decrease •
the square footage of building coverage by 20%. Mr.George then asked for clarification on the rate of
run-off. Mr. Griffin stated that 94%will be treated which is significant to what is happening today,
which is nothing. Mr.Griffin said that he believes that this development will be the best thing to ever
happen to the canal.
Brian Beaudette,site architect, stated that they had great input from the February 2nd meeting. He
walked the Board through the site design and stated that he is going for the industrial loft look. The
intent of it is that each of the three buildings will be slightly different. He presented the Canal Side,
which has a parking level and 4 floors of living space. There is a 12 inch or so protrusion from the initial
design in order to create different roof lines. He then showed the upper level, and described the 2 to 4
inch protrusions in the building. He stated that the main entrances will be similar in style but slightly
different.
John Moustakis asked if the underground parking will hold all of the parking. Bob Griffin stated that the
elevation can hold it, and Mr. Correnti clarified that the parking is under the building, not underground.
Mr. Puleo asked if there will be brick on the protrusions. Mr. Beaudette stated that it would be some
sort of brick material and there would be 4 different materials used throughout the project.
Randy Clarke asked if this design allows for a green roof design. Mr. Beaudette said that he can look
into that. Mr. Clarke commented that he liked the design.
Mr. Puleo asked Helen Sides if she has been part of the design input and she said yes,and further stated .
that she feels it is vastly improved.
2
• Mr. Clarke asked if there is any opportunity to reuse any of the brick on the site currently. Mr.
Beaudette said that it wasn't possible due to the condition of the old brick.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin about the elevation of the project. Mr. Griffin showed a graphic which
described the 100 year flood zone based on the current topography of the site. The elevation is above
the canal and if the 100 year storm occurs,then the gravel path along the canal would be about 8 inches
under water. The location of the cars would be above the elevation. He then explained the various
elevations around the site,and stated that they could not do anything about the elevations of Harmony
Grove Road and the railroad tracks. However, he noted that Grove Street is above the elevation and
people will be able to leave the site. He noted that this area of the site was dry during the 2006
Mother's Day Storm. Mr. Puleo asked if this would affect the drainage system. Mr. Griffin further
explained that during a 100 year storm condition some water will come back into the drainage system,
but most would not be affected.
Mr. Moustakis stated that Peabody is planning on widening the river and asked how that will affect this
project. Mr.Griffin stated that they met with Peabody representatives and Army Corps representatives
who were pleased with the particular layout of the project. He commented that the Corps is in the
preliminary stages of analyzing the flood improvements and the river. The Corps was anxious to
proceed to move on to their phase two which would increase the capacity of the pipes in Peabody
Square, though there is still more that needs to be done.
Mr. Clarke asked if the pathway is going to be a public way, and asked if they will they have a
• maintenance plan in place for that area, regardless of if flooding occurs. Mr. Clarke asked Ms. McKnight
if this could be a condition of the approval.
Ms. Sides asked about the three spots of the site that come up to Beaver Street. Mr. Griffin described
the direction of the water main and described how they plan to tie into the water main to provide water
to the site and fire protection. She asked about a specific area of the plan and Mr. Correnti stated that
they are allowing neighbors on Beaver Street to use some of the vacant spaces for parking and other
uses, although these areas are on their property.
George McCabe asked if there are any Army Corps of Engineers permits required for this project,to
which Mr.Griffin said no.
Ms. Sides noted that she is on the Design Review Board and she has had a good experience working with
the architect and developer.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Beverly McSwiggin, 30 Japonica Street, she asked if the entrance on Harmony Grove Road will be a main
entrance and exit area,to which Mr.Griffin stated yes. Ms. McSwiggin stated that it will be a major
safety issue. She then asked about ownership of 1, 3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road to which Mr. Correnti
responded that they own 3 and the cemetery owns 1& 5,which is not part of the project. Mr. Griffin
showed a graphic and described the locations of each of the parcels.
• Jonathon Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street, stated that MRM does not own number 3 Harmony Grove Road.
3
Mr. George asked if the cemetery's land is offsite. Mr. Correnti stated that the cemetery is asserting a •
potential claim to a piece of 3 Harmony Grove Road. 1 &5 are not part of this plan. He noted that he
provided a deed to the Board that shows any potential title issues on 3 Harmony Grove. Mr. George
asked if 3 Harmony Grove Road is the location for the main access to the site and if that is where the
claim is. Mr. Correnti stated that yes it is and it has to do with a 100 year back title and concerns
movement of the river.
Michael Ross, 20 Beaver Street, is concerned that the buildings are going to be looking out on his family
having barbeques in his yard. He noted that his family has been living there for almost 100 years. Mr.
Griffin showed where his property will be located in relation to the project. Mr. Puleo asked what the
elevation of backyard is. Mr. Griffin described the various elevations of the site as compared to Mr.
Ross' home. He also noted that their goal is to keep the mature vegetation to use for screening, to
which Mr. Ross asked about what this will look like during the winter. Mr. Puleo asked about the
distance between the buildings. Mr. Griffin stated that the distance will be about 100 to 120 feet from
Mr. Ross' property to the site.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street,asked what percentage of this project will have affordable
housing. Mr. Correnti stated that they have a development partner that will be building this and there
are no current plans to go to condo and the affordable housing issue will be discussed with the city, but
he doesn't have exact numbers yet.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street,stated that she commends the architect as it is better than the previous
design. She is concerned about the height of the buildings and asked if some of the houses could be two
story apartments, and maybe gabled roofs to fit more in line with the rest of the neighborhood. She •
asked what the possibility would be to make more improvements. Mr. Beaudette said he appreciated
her previous comments and he is taken them into account.
Jim Raymond, 18 Silver Street, stated that he is a direct abutter and is concerned about the traffic and
described how he would get through the neighborhood. He asked about other entrances. Mr. Raymond
stated that he feels that it is a safety issue. Mr. Griffin stated that he feels that Harmony Grove Road
will still be the preferred route, and understands what he's saying.
Barbara Cleary, 104 Federal Street, said that it is a much better design, but wants to be clear that this is
a design to maximize the housing and it's big boxes, noting that it's not conducive to neighborhoods.
She pointed out that the reason this is a PUD is because the Planning Department and the Mayor said
they trust the Planning Board to do the right thing and that this needs to be smaller.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, says he looked at this from the perspective of the PUD and zoning review.
He feels that this could be award-winning architecture, but it needs to be tweaked more. PUD
encourages different types of housing,such as the 2 %:story townhouse style used in some of the A
housing. He reminded the board that there are PUD requirements and that they must meet the
requirements of the surroundings. He noted that in the EIS the ridgeline will be identical,which means
that there will be an incompatibility of this site. Some of the normal requirements of business park
development are waived for this PUD, but not the limit to four stories. He says height is measured at
the front of the building. He says revising this would help reduce the mass of these buildings. He also
disagrees with the development team's contention that there is enough parking based on the expected
capacity and feels that this has to be increased. He asked where the gravel path goes after it stops. He •
stated that the sight distance there is good but it is not perfect. He agrees that Beaver Street will be a
4
L_ _
• shortcut for getting around this property. As far as the landscaping plan goes, he is concerned about the
mature trees and wants more information on this. He feels that there are liberties that are being taken
that should not be, concerning the PUD requirements of the zoning.
Ms. McSwiggin asked about the proposed location of the transformer. Mr. Griffin pointed out where
the transformer will be located on the site. He noted that it will go from overhead electrical service to
underground electrical service. He also described a "pad mounted transformer"that they will also use
to provide electricity to the site.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street,asked Mr. Griffin to specify where the transformer will be located. Mr.
Griffin stated that it will be on the site. She also asked that at the next meeting that they get a rendering
of what the buildings will look like in the neighborhood. She reiterated a re-examination of the PUD
requirements. She is concerned about townhouses next to the neighborhood. She also feels it does not
meet the PUD requirement that the development be more than 50%commercial.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, asked about the maturity levels of the shrubs and
trees on the site. Mr. Griffin stated that it varies throughout the project and described the landscaping
plan, stating that there is a mixture of trees and shrubs throughout the property. Mr. Prevey asked if
there are any plans to increase the density of the shrubbery and the trees. Mr. Griffin recommended
waiting for the Landscape Architect's presentation to hear a more detailed description of landscaping
plan. He read a portion of the landscaping plan to give an overview. Councilor Prevey asked about the
sidewalk materials to which Mr. Griffin said he wasn't sure but would get an answer on that. Mr. Prevey
asked about the commercial aspect of the development and felt that it was being sidelined and asked
. what types of commercial development are being considered. Mr. Griffin stated that this would depend
upon the market, but the have thought about office space, storage space, and other types of
commercial space, but noted that there is no intended tenant to the space currently. Mr. Prevey asked
about the approval process if there was going to be affordable housing. He noted that he was a holdout
on the City Council on the PUD in BPD ordinance, since he was concerned about this property. He says
it's unfortunate that he was not contacted by the Planning Department about the project's design. He
encourages the Board to look at this project with a critical eye.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, noted that this is an area of superseding order of delineation,
which is in the process of being appealed by the proponent. He asked the board what aspects of the
superseding delineation cramped the foot of the proponent. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to clarify the
area to which he is speaking of. Mr. Griffin explained this further stating that they presented this to the
Conservation Commission, and they have an appeal pending with DEP. He stated that the outcome of
the appeal could affect the costs of the infrastructure of the project but will not affect the project as a
whole. Mr. Puleo asked how the outcomes could affect this. Mr. Griffin stated that he doesn't see this
being an issue as they would re-grade around the site. Mr. Puleo asked how long the process with DEP
would take. Mr. Griffin stated that the appeals go slowly. Mr. Lebovici stated that this was not the issue
that the 10 citizens group appealed and described how they appealed a waiver for historic mill
complexes. He then asked two questions: 1. does the override of the Conservation Committee's ruling
affect the development at all, and if so, how and 2. if there may be some small changes, could DEP's
determination potentially jeopardize the project. Mr. Correnti stated that they are not trying to keep
anything from the Board, but it is inappropriate to be cross-examined here when the issue is under
appeal. As Mr. Griffin stated,this is not jeopardizing the project.
•
5
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that there is a missing exhibit that should show a scale of the •
buildings in relation to the canal and that site section will be interesting to see. He feels that the
methods of calculating the residential and non-residential sections is fuzzy math at best. He asked what
is the height of the retaining wall at the rear of the houses on Beaver Street. Mr.Correnti stated that he
is happy to go over this project with members of the public and there is a reason why townhouses were
not included at the back of the site at the top of the hill. Mr. Griffin stated that the height of the
retaining wall varies with the hill changes and reviewed the retaining wall heights with the Board,which
range from 1 foot to 12 feet.
Ms. McSwiggin stated that they had a meeting at the Moose with MRM and Federated and it was their
understanding that he would sell to Legacy. Mr. Correnti said yes.
Mary Connelly, 38 Beaver Street, asked about the section of property at which there is a 15 foot drop.
Mr. Griffin showed where the retaining wall is located around her property. She then asked what they
are going to do with the hill around her property. She stated that they ripped everything but two trees
out behind her house. Mr.Griffin read from the landscaping plan about the vegetation that will be
planted and noted that they will look at the existing vegetation and if necessary they will supplement
the vegetation. She stated that every year the water washes land away and she doesn't know how they
will help that situation with a 1 foot wall.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to describe the grading proposal further,to which Mr. Griffin reviewed the
grading proposal and described how they would make a grade change.
Mr. Moustakis asked how they plan to handle the runoff. Mr. Griffin showed on the plan that there will •
be a swale and that it won't go across the parking lot;they will have a comprehensive stormwater
drainage system. Mr. Clarke noted that it will be a significant improvement to what is currently there
today.
Patricia Myers, 14 Beaver Street, stated that her concern is that she has only been notified only once,
and Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, stated that they only send out one notice. Ms. Myers stated that
her other concern is that a lot of kids will be cutting through the property. She would also much prefer
to see a two-story structure rather than a four story structure. She also stated that she would like to see
more vegetation and she does not want to look into other people's bedrooms.
Mr. Puleo asked who owns the fence,to which Mr. Correnti said that he would find that out.
Ms.Twohey stated that she assumed that there will be a site visit which will help the Board understand
the issues.
Mr.Treadwell stated if the neighborhood would like a new fence to be put up there than they should
define who owns it.
Ms. Myers stated that 315 people are a lot of people and recommended a community building or
recreation hall to be added to the design.
Mr. Ross stated that there will be a negative environmental impact due to this project. He noted that
since the dumping in the canal ceased,the fish and wildlife came back, and now this will impact it •
6
negatively. Mr. Clarke asked Mr. Griffin about how the wastewater system will impact the project and
Mr. Griffin stated that this will be the best thing to happen to the canal in 100 years.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing on April 19, 2012, seconded by Helen
Sides. Approved 8-0.
Old/New Business
Board members requested guidance and clarification on several zoning issues from the Planning
Department,to either be addressed by Lynn Duncan at a future meeting, or included in a memo to the
Board. Ms. McKnight said they could do this, and also asked any Board member who needs another
hard copy of the full Zoning Ordinance to let her know.
Ms. McKnight also says she contacted Board members about the Bridge Street Neck rezoning project
and Tim Kavanagh and Helen Sides stated they were interested in participating.
Adjournment
John Moustakis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 8-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:11 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 5/3/12
7
F62001, (�
OCAD��r-
CITY OF SALEM
Department of Planning & Community Development
Board Meetings
Agendas*Minutes*Decisions*Sign In Sheets
PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 2010 TO MARCH 2012
;C
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1011 MAR -A p • ��
CITY CLERK SALEM, MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a special meeting on
Thursday, March 29, 2011 at 7.00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study—Public Meeting#2
Discussion of transportation issues within the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) area. The City has
engaged Fay, Spofford &Thorndike as consultants to examine the traffic impacts of the
redevelopment of key sites and to recommend transportation improvements for the area. This
second public meeting will include a discussion of draft recommendations.
• 2. Adjournment
Know your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 J23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
MIS 0 posted an 'Official GUN ward..
nmF11 Salem, mass. on �qa. � gt,h9
at a A M d
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970. TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI.EM.CGM
'v
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board P(f � 'A4 D 6
Date _/ _/�
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
doss (jerd
• -7 04s Z-4upuccf `I� gvSdW S+ S4Lem 703_g6I- VZsZ �tw,lQud�c�,'@.gwiuil.cv� ,
7#oA(i,S VlCTORy 8 Zee Strut Oc1970-zf22 97g• 7¢y-2593 y
19�ver- 5VL � ^ �a 7 ✓e-, on• nt Y
es"OgpL 42,
erf a` vAlJi_s
I61AI i aZa� Grp rL. � �9- g 7� -7 KO
Page of
CONDYT-
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board i' i a vtvu rSA o u �D
Date / _/ (7
Name I Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
�is�i �ou�P/� ' 70A Scl�ool .Sj )IYy
Page of
• SPECIAL SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3/29/12
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,March 29,2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room
313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, George McCabe,Tim Ready,Mark George,Lewis Beilman,Tim
Kavanagh, and Helen Sides. Also present:Lynn Duncan,Director of Planning and Community
Development,Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk.Absent:
John Moustakis,Vice Chair and Randy Clarke.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:13 pm.
North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study-Public Meeting#2
Discussion of transportation issues within the North River Canal Corridor(NRCC) area. The City
has engaged Fay, Spofford&Thorndike as consultants to examine the traffic impacts of the
redevelopment of key sites and to recommend transportation improvements for the area. This
second public meeting will include a discussion of draft recommendations.
Lynn Duncan,Director of Planning and Community Development,gave an overview of the project. She
explained that this project was undertaken because the Board wanted to look at the NRCC area more
comprehensively, since several developments have been proposed in the neighborhood. The purpose of the
study is to look at proposed developments and their impacts,and determine what transportation
improvements are needed,as well as to determine cost estimates. Based on comments received at the first
public meeting, the city has scheduled a third public meeting(only two had originally been proposed). She
thanked the Board for holding this special meeting and introduced Gary Hebert of Fay,Spofford and
• Thorndike.
Gary Hebert,Transportation Engineer with Fay,Spofford, and Thorndike,noted that he had received very
helpful comments from the public after the first meeting. Tonight's presentation will include an
amalgamation of all the studies and comments they have heard,and present recommendations for
improvements. At the next meeting,he will discuss costs and order of magnitude for priorities.
He reviewed questions from previous meetings including:
- Are there enough intersections included in the study area?He said the answer was yes—relative to
the impacts of the five sites we're looking at—the study area included the important arteries and
intersections impacted by the proposed developments.
- How did the newly regionalized Ruane Court/ MBTA parking expansion affect the background
traffic for this study? He responded that after the MBTA expansion, traffic should be improved on
Bridge Street. He noted that in considering traffic, they have added background traffic from the
MBTA expansion as well as the future five developments.
- Why don't all the 2003 NRCC Master Plan recommendations still apply? Not only have changes
have occurred since the master plan was completed,but we must also look at this project through a
new lens since there were important considerations such as grading,etc. that must be contemplated
when moving from a planning study to a design,based on what conditions actually are.
Mr. Hebert then showed and explained the study area overview to the audience highlighting where the
upcoming projects/redevelopment parcels will be located,which included the Riverview, Gateway,and
North River(28 Goodhue) Sites,which have already been approved,and which represent about 72% of the
potential new traffic to be added to the area. He then discussed the intersections and corridors that are being
addressed. He noted that they were going to look at 6 intersections and they ended up looking at 12. He
described the programmed mitigation,including traffic lights that could be added to Tremont,Mason and
. Flint Streets, and included roadway modifications,as well as striping modifications. He then stated that they
looked at different traffic options at all of the intersections.
1
Mr. Hebert then gave an overview of the proposed recommendations: •
1. Mason Street traffic calming,which includes restriping crosswalks,changing the intersection with
Tremont Street and making a right turn lane;
2. Possible all way traffic stop at Mason Street and Tremont Street;
3. At Flint Street,an all way stop at Flint and Mason;consider how to help cyclists to get to the station
as well as discourage car usage;
4. Restriping the Friend Street&Mason Street intersection;
5. Grove Street corridor changes,including a huge increase in green space. They are considering a
roundabout which will make it better for pedestrians, cyclists,and drivers;
6. New connection between Bridge Street and the end of Goodhue& Grove Streets which will have a
strong impact on access for both new and current residents;
7. Restripe Bridge Street with bike lanes on both sides of the street which will also accommodate left
and right turns in order to make the intersection work for all users;
8. Improve the intersection of Bridge and Boston Streets;
9. On Aborn Street he recommended adding some geometric modifications for better pedestrian access
and safety;
10. Bridge Street widening;
11. On Boston Street, they are considering small flush medians and neck-downs as well as widening the
sidewalks, and bicycle improvements.
Mr. Hebert then went into detail describing each of the major recommendations for Mason Street calming;
Flint Street;Harmony Grove Rd.,Grove Street and Goodhue Street;Bridge Street;Boston Street;and Aborn
at Boston Street.
For Mason Street,Mr. Hebert acknowledged the crash problems,particularly at Flint and Mason Streets. He
looked at slightly raising the crosswalks,and more advanced markings for the safety of pedestrians. He also •
looked at alternating block to block on-street parking with crosswalk enhancements. At the intersection of
Buffum Street and Mason Street he recommended changing the striping to slow the traffic down and
enhancing the intersections. Because Tremont Street is 34 feet wide,it does not need to be widened,but
does have to be redone to fit a right turn lane properly. He then showed mock-up photos of how the striping
could create the turning lanes on Tremont St.
For the intersection at Flint and Mason Streets, he described the various current issues including Flint Street
not allowing enough room to drive and park,as well as poor sight fines. He reviewed the various options
considered. They recommended an all-way stop with three-foot curb extensions and bump-outs. He said the
best option would be to relocate the on-street parking,but understanding difficulties associated with this, he
said the next best option would be to make the street one way toward Bridge St. FIe acknowledged this
solution would also increase volumes elsewhere.
On Mason Street at the curve by Friend Street, he recommended added striping that would warn drivers of
the curve and define the edge. He recommended talking to neighbors about the geometry of the area.
At the intersection of Mason Street,Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road,he presented a slide that
showed what the area would look like with a roundabout. He said that he believes it could fit there, but it has
to be engineered,to confirm it would accommodate all vehicles. He then presented another configuration of
the intersection as an alternative to the roundabout.
He showed current pictures of the area of Grove Street,between Harmony Grove Road and Beaver Street
and said that this area needs work. He recommended an infrastructure upgrade,which included sidewalks
and railroads that need to be brought up to current standards. He recommended repaving Grove Street,
keeping sidewalks as continuous as possible and using in-laid concrete sidewalks across driveways.
2
• He recommended a mini roundabout at Goodhue and Grove Streets at Beaver Street,and said he considered
the flooding issues that impact this neighborhood when he was designing this. He also offered a
recommendation of a T-intersection and added green space. He explained that roundabouts are designed to
make the traffic flow with fewer delays. He recommended exploring the potential Grove and Goodhue
Streets to Bridge Street connector. He then showed a graphic highlighting the potential development of the
intersection to connect with the multi-use path and a traffic signal.
Mr. Hebert then showed potential options for Goodhue Street at Boston and Proctor Streets,which included
making Goodhue St. two ways,which he specifically did not recommend. He described a phase 1
recommendation for the intersection that included a new connector,shorter crossings and more green space.
He then showed graphics on Aborn and Boston Streets which allowed for more pedestrian crossings and bike
lanes. He noted that Boston Street is typically 54 feet wide,which allows for enough room for bike lanes.
Next,he presented slides on Boston Street, to which he recommended making improvements, but noted that
they will take longer than 5 years. He then described improvements which included a flush median,bike
lanes and signalized crosswalks.
Mr. Puleo asked for comments from the Board first and then the public on each of the major
recommendations:
Mason Street
Mark George asked about the locations of the three way stops and noted that they would be about a block
from each other. He asked Mr. Hebert what the impact of traffic will be if those are installed. Mr. Hebert
• stated that it is not as bad as the current situation. He said it could become difficult with heavy traffic. He
thinks it is going to make things a lot safer for pedestrians but noted that it will be more difficult in the
morning rush.
Mr. George said that something has to happen with Flint Street as it is a scary situation,and asked how he
recommended diverting traffic if Flint St. was made one-way. Mr. Hebert said that they could go down to
Goodhue Street or the potentially new street and he described possible routes.
George McCabe asked if he looked at the other side of the park,on Grove and Tremont Streets. Mr. Hebert
said it's currently an all way stop, and he thinks it works a lot better than it used to prior to having an all way
stop,but does need some work.
Helen Sides stated that she appreciates all of the work he has done and she sees the potential for a real
psychological change for how people drive through the city. She feels that they have got to slow people
down and the calming approach is a great idea. She thinks it will be a great transformation for the area. She
noted the importance of having all the developers provide proper sidewalks.
Tim Ready stated that he shares Ms. Sides'statements but notes that it will be essential to maintain any new
striping indefinitely. Whatever the city invests in must be done with the long-term in mind. He thinks it's a
wonderful plan and it will change the culture of how people use the roads. Mr. Hebert said that whenever
striping is discussed there are annual maintenance costs that have to be considered and have to be built into
the plan.
Mr. Puleo asked about Mason Street at Tremont, in particular if there is parking available going up the hill.
Mr. Hebert stated that there is parking,though some would be impacted by striping the turning lanes. Mr.
• Puleo then asked Mr. Hebert if he would make any speed limit recommendations. Mr. Hebert said that
getting the average speed down to about 25 mph would be ideal.
3
Mr. Puleo then asked about Mason Street from Flint Street to Harmony Grove Road,and described the .
narrowness of the road and safety issues—there is no curb, sidewalk or street lights. He asked if Mr. Hebert
would recommend anything else for the safety of the road. Mr. Hebert stated that ideally,he would
recommend a sidewalk all around Mack Park,but that is an expensive proposition. Mr. Puleo stated that this
would have been to the Board's benefit to have something like this study to think about this area prior to
earlier NRCC project proposals. He noted that Mason Street needs some serious improvements after it
crosses Flint Street.
Mr. Puleo requested comments from the public on the first item,Mason Street calming.
Tom Lauducci,95 Boston Street,would like to see the maps as Mr. Hebert addresses these issues;Mr. Hebert
presents the overview slide.
Lisa Joubert, 70 School Street, stated that she had a question about the all-way stop recommended at Flint
Street and Mason Street. She noted that if you make a right onto Mason there,you can't then take a left from
Mason onto North Street. Mr. Hebert said that was correct and was considered in his analysis.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street,stated that he was impressed with the presentation. He inquired about the
number of parking spaces were problematic on Flint Street to which Mr. Hebert said that he wasn't sure,but
didn't think it was more than 10 to 12 spaces. He then asked if Mr. Hebert was no longer addressing the
Commercial Street extension. Mr. Hebert stated that this would have a very negative impact on the neighbors
in that area and he was concerned about its operation. He continued, staring that from a feasibility
perspective,it didn't seem like it would work with two driveways so close together,and it would also be
difficult given the Riverview project. Mr.Treadwell stated that his final comment was that once Riverview
was constructed, then a lot of other options would be off the table. •
Flint Street
Mr. Puleo asked members of the board if they had any questions about the Flint Street recommendations.
Tim Kavanagh discussed the three way stop at Flint and Mason Streets,and stated that if a traffic signal were
put there and traffic stays two ways,it is going to be very difficult getting down Flint Street. He noted that if
the three way stop is implemented then there can't be any parking around there. Mr. Hebert stated that he
would never recommend something like that as it would not allow for a safe sight line and is not a standard
situation. His feeling is if we can relocate the parking or make the street one way, then the three-way stop
will work. However, the one-way traffic flow solution is more problematic.
Mr. Puleo asked for public comments on the Flint Street recommendations.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, asked Mr. Hebert if the direction of Flint St.were changed
to Bridge Street to Mason St....Mr. Hebert clarified that he is recommending the opposite, from Mason St. to
Bridge St. Councilor Prevey asked where access would be—Goodhue St.? Mr. Hebert said if you were
coming from Flint Street and turning right onto Bridge Street,make a right at Goodhue and then left to
Harmony Grove, or else continue on Bridge St. if you were traveling in that direction. Councilor Prevey
noted that there was an easement provided by the storage facility on Goodhue Street—was that something
that was looked at in order to create a right turn lane at the intersection? Mr. Hebert stated that they looked
at this possibility,but noted that this does not benefit pedestrian flow,and there are going to be a lot more
pedestrians in the future than there are right now.
Melissa Sabean,30B Silver Street, asked where people on Flint St.would park, since they had no driveways.
Mr. Hebert explained that Riverview Place was supposed to create parking just for those residents. He .
explained how the designated parking would be relocated. Mr. Hebert stated that parking relocation is his
4
. First choice over than one way traffic, since if the street were made one way, thousands of cars would be
diverted.
Lisa Joubert, 70 School Street,asked if a bike path had been considered on Flint Street as there are sidewalks
on both sides. Mr. Hebert stated that Flint Street is too small as a two way street to have a bike lane,but they
are trying to accommodate the bikes traveling to the MBTA station. She stated that it is currently difficult to
get to the MBTA station by bike, to which Mr. Hebert agreed. Ms.Joubert asked about an bike path
extension previously recommended that went through Leslie's Retreat and along where the bait shop is. Mr.
Hebert stated that he has been struggling with bike access in this area. He said the first step would be to get
bikes across the street where the signal is, then perhaps a lane on the right side under the underpass,but it
may be right under there.
Jim Treadwell,36 Felt Street,recommended talking with the bike path committee, to which Mr. Hebert stated
that he has worked with them before and will be meeting with them again. Mr.Treadwell said in the NRCC
plan, there was a street planned under the overpass that also accommodated bikes.
Jim Kearney, 1 Yz Cambridge Street, stated that he liked the presentation but he winced when Mr. Hebert said
that the people driving through Flint St. would have primary rights over the property owners.
Harmony Grove Rd./Goodhue Street
Mr. Puleo asked members of the Board if they had any questions about Harmony Grove Road and Goodhue
Street.
Lisa Joubert stated that she was confused about the directional options for Goodhue Street at the
intersection. Mr. Hebert explained: he showed the storage facility and described the proposed new road
• connection to Bridge St. He described possible changes to the driveways to 28 Goodhue,with one of them
being relocated,and reorientation of the driveway to Bridge St. into the new street,so it all came out one curb
cut. There wouldn't be two curb cuts too close together.
Mr. Puleo stated that some land was left aside for the path that goes along the North River and asked if this
proposed road is public or private property. 28 Goodhue is supposed to land is private property or is it city
land. Mr. Hebert stated that the land is on the 28 Goodhue site. He says he is having an engineer look at this
in further detail,at the city's request. He says it appears you can accomplish this without removing any
parking,which is important,and that it is side by side with the bike lane with a green space dividing it. It
does appear that on the surface that there enough space. The question is,does it make sense for the owners?
Ms.Duncan stated that they didn't want to be in the situation with these recommendations that they were in
with the Commercial Street connector—delving into a recommendation without doing the engineering work
to see if it was feasible to do,and finding out if the landowners were willing to do it, since that land is
privately owned. In consideration of this proposed connector street, the City has increased the scope for
FST's study and asked Mr. Hebert to create a conceptual plan. They are looking at the impact and are trying
to figure out what the impact to the owners would be and how to approach them.
Mr.Treadwell stated that this would be very expensive, and it would be a bike lane rather than a path. Mr.
Hebert clarified that it would be a path, not a lane, exactly the same as the one proposed for 28 Goodhue.
He noted that the intersection at Boston,Proctor and Bridge Streets should be improved and is the preferable
alternative. He also stated that the proposed traffic access into the Gateway project might require a signal—
why not put in a pedestrian signal there for crossing Bridge Street,rather than putting in an entire new street?
Mr. Hebert explained that the reasons for the new street are to increase both pedestrian and vehicle safety.
Mr.Treadwell asked about the traffic volume moving south on Bridge to West on Goodhue Street to
• Harmony Grove; Mr. Hebert stated that he doesn't have the data readily available here,but what they are
5
talking about is making lefts out of Boston to Bridge and rights coming out of Bridge Street onto Boston at
the same time—right now you can't do that. The same is true of the other direction. •
Katrina Patterson,2 Beaver Street, stated that Mr. Hebert noted the current entrances and exits proposed for
the Salem Oil&Grease redevelopment project. She asked whether any traffic lights would be needed. Mr.
Hebert stated that he is peer reviewing that project currently and this will be covered in his review letter. Ms.
Patterson stated that the connection Beaver Street from Grove to Boston wasn't really addressed and asked if
he would make any recommendations. Mr. Hebert stated that,while he hasn't looked at this in detail, a little
bulb out at the end of the street to make the intersection more clear might be considered. Ms. Patterson says
she is concerned about people cutting through the neighborhood,as people are trying to avoid North Street.
With the changes to Flint St.,will more people be diverted to Goodhue or Boston? Mr. Hebert stated that if
Flint Street was one way, traffic would be was diverted to Goodhue and Harmony Grove Rd.instead of
corning from Mason. It changes the traffic pattern in the area. Ms. Patterson said that it looks great,but the
flow of traffic will be heavily impacted by the determination for the direction for Goodhue Street. She was
surprised that the traffic lights for the Legacy Park entry have not been addressed. Mr. Hebert stated that
there isn't enough traffic for that area to warrant a traffic signal.
Several members of the public asked to see slides on Goodhue/ Grove/Beaver Streets and asked Mr. Hebert
which option he preferred. He stated that he preferred the T-intersection rather than the roundabout because
he is concerned about the flood storage capacity of the area. However,yield controls associated with a
roundabout allow for efficient traffic flow.
Mr.Treadwell stated that in the early stages of flood mitigation for Peabody, at one point they had discussed
the Grove Street Bridge over the canal.
Ms. Sides and Mr. George stated that they like the T-intersection the best because of the green space and it •
will help with flood runoff. Mr. Hebert noted that you could still accommodate some on-street parking on
Grove Street.
Mr. Puleo had a question on Bridge Street modifications,particularly from Flint Street to the new MBTA
station. He asked if the expansion to four lanes is still part of the final plan. Ms. Duncan stated that it is,
although the City does not yet have 25% design plans yet. Mr. Puleo asked how the intersections on Flint
Street should be handled. Mr. Hebert described offsetting left turn lanes,which allows cars and cyclists to
turn, from the MBTA station to Flint St. Mr. Hebert suggested considering a three lane cross section instead
of four, allowing us to shave off 6 feet in width,which makes a huge difference for conservation and green
space. He recommends this from the MBTA ramps to Flint St. Mr. Puleo stated that the worst backup on
Bridge Street is between Flint and River Street and asked Mr. Hebert if he would recommend leaving the
intersections wider. Mr. Hebert said that they could actually change the flow of the street at different times of
day, called reversible lanes, though that is not typically used in Massachusetts, and in order to do something
Eke that the road in question would have to have a significant flow rate. In this case,it would make a
difference to take the left turns out of the stream as you approach Federal Street—these hurt the flow a lot,
backing up lanes of traffic.
Trisha Lauducci, 95 Boston Street, thanked him for not recommending extending Hanson Street, as that is
the corner where her home is located. She then asked about the Route 128 Corridor report. Mr. Hebert
i p
e t
stated that he read the report,and one difference he would suggest would be bike lanes rather than sharrows,
and the only problem we would have with that would be the narrow section of Boston Street. He noted
where there could be some issues,particularly at Hanson Street, and recommended areas with high visibility
crosswalks bulb-outs and bike lanes to enhance Boston Street. Ms.Lauducci stated that there are nospeed
limit signs and would like at like at least one.
•
6
Mr.Lauducci asked about traffic increases and Mr. Hebert stated that they took into account the traffic from
• the new developments in this area. Mr. Lauducci asked about the signals and Mr. Hebert stated that they
looked at other signals and the signals have to be modified to work with the expected enhanced traffic. He
noted that Hanson Street was not an ideal intersection due to the grading and the location of the signals.
Boston St. and Aborn St.
Mr. Puleo then asked members of the board if they had any questions about Aborn at Boston Street.
Mr. Puleo asked about the right tum lane at Boston for the Gateway Center and asked if there was anything
he recommended. Mr. Hebert stated that it's already an approved plan but if he had his druthers that he
would create the new street,and that's where their exit drive would be. That could not have been forseen,
however. They have enough movements going in there that a three lane cross section would work better for
them than a four lane. Mr. Puleo stated that the intersection at Boston and Proctor Streets is a problem—if
you want to take a left on Proctor,you have the same signal you have coming into Salem, and you can never
get across. He says he thinks developers are changing the lights and putting in a pedestrian cycle. Mr. Hebert
said the alignment is such that it gets tricky to jog the intersection—it's sometimes okay if you want to slow
cars down. If you do widen, there could be a right turn lane and a short left turn lane.
Ms. Sides noted that the Aborn and Boston intersection is really awful.
Mr. Puleo asked Ms. Duncan if the approval for the Stop and Shop included the lights and improvements
over time. Ms. Duncan stated that they are still holding monies from that project and she will look further
into that. Mr. Puleo noted that it's one of the worst intersections for accidents. Mr. Hebert noted that the
engineering department is also looking at that intersection.
• Ms. Sides asked Ms. Duncan if there is any chance that they could alter what the Gateway Center is obliged to
do to the intersection of Boston and Bridge Streets with the right turning lane,if Mr. Hebert's
recommendations are preferred. Ms. Duncan said that if they didn't think the free right tum lane was a good
idea, then we could say they are not required to build it. If other measures were going to be taken, the may
need to come back to the Planning Board,however; and that could cause permitting and budding delays.The
moving of the driveway is only necessary if the Goodhue/Bridge connector is feasible. A lot of the
improvements he's recommending are tied to doing the Goodhue and Bridge Street connector. Mr. Hebert
stated that it is worth thinking about what would happen if the connector is not possible;you could still do
the first alternative,but now traffic is going down Goodhue St.,down Harmony Grove and Boston. Ms.
Duncan stated that it would be helpful to have that alterative included. Mr. Hebert says the diagram showing
this is included. Ms. Duncan says if there was an equal substitution—if it would cost a certain amount to do
the decel lane and we would rather take that money to do something else to the intersection,that might be
possible. Ms. Sides says that rather than doing something twice—it might make sense even to forfeit their
obligation if it's not necessary—if it would be preferable do something else, such as shortening the
intersection as you're coming down that vast wasteland below Dunkin'Donuts—it feels and looks awful.
Ms. Duncan says it sounds like if it's outside their site and doesn't involve changing their site plan,it's much
easier to do,and this is a good idea to consider.
Ms.Joubert asked what Mr. Hebert thought of the traffic problems and crash data of North Salem;she says
on Tremont,Dunlap, etc., the problems are very bad. Much of the traffic comes from cars trying to escape
North Street. Mr. Hebert stated that he has seen this data before, and he the Mason St. calming was done
because of the crash rates. He says North St. has more crashes because it has more traffic,and that's to be
expected. At some point, tthey should look at the other streets as well. Ms. Sides notes the top of School St.
needs attention—it's way too wide. Ms.Joubert says the traffic is terrible,and there isn't enough police
coverage to deal with the high speeds on School Street. Ms.Joubert asked if he thought the traffic calming
would cause diversions, to which he said no, since this calming is done not for the purpose of changing traffic
patterns,but for changing speeds. •
Mr.Treadwell asked when the PowerPoint would be posted. Ms. Duncan said that it could be posted
Monday.
Adjournment
George McCabe made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Mark George. All approved 7-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 5/3/12
•
8
�o
CITY OF SALEM
' PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, March 15, 1012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room ,3/13, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Choir
CORRECTED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
January 19, 2012 and March 1, 2012 meetings
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
• Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Old/New Business
C)
H
4. Adjournment
r =
rn m
a
�m J
r tt
3
3 Iy
ti
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
"Ity Hall Sedom, Mai 3 �IV-L
00
._!}�A 'r...'XL(f V..'S Des_.... •..,. '.:"_. ......! �.Ut.9!, ,
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSE71S 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAS: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI,FNI.COM
CITY OF SALEM
r
PLANNING BOARD
1011 Mpp -1 A Ilt 12
NOTICE OF MEETINGCITY CLERK LSALEM.MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
January 19, 2012 and March 1, 2012 meetings
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA(redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
• Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO
CONTINUE TO MARCH 15,1012.
3. Old/New Business
4. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 1-2028 through 2-1033.
A salleffl. M486. 0M
let
K 07r/Alotf
► �
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• �' 'I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
>3 p,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦. SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: March 7, 2012
RE: Agenda—March 15, 2012 meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
➢ Minutes from 3/1/15 and 1/19/12
• ➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 &64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237& 239),Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory),for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District
Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential
buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office
building, and associated parking and landscaping.
Our traffic peer reviewer, Gary Hebert of Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, will be present to
observe the applicant's traffic presentation. We will plan to have our civil engineering peer
reviewer present at the April 5 meeting.
Two members of the Design Review Board, David Jaquith and Helen Sides, have offered to do
an informal review of the project's architectural design.
Other notes/issues:
1. At the request of Councillor O'Keefe, I am enclosing an opinion from the City Solicitor's
. office regarding the definition of"family" in our Zoning Ordinance.
2. The Planning Department has received notice of an application for a Chapter 91 License
by National Grid to remove accumulated beach debris at Waite and Planters Street.
Please let me know if anyone is interested in more information about this.
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3/15/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,March 15,2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room
313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts.
Those present were:Tim Ready,Alternate Vice Chair(Chairing the meeting),Mark George,Lewis Beilman,
Tim Kavanaugh,Randy Clarke and Helen Sides.Also present: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth
Gerard,Planting Board Recording Clerk.Absent: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair and
George McCabe.
Tim Ready opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. He noted that the Board would be reviewing the minutes at the
end of the meeting.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil& Grease factory),for Site Plan
Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District
Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential
buildings (totallof 141 units),re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building, and
associated parldng and landscaping.
Documents &Exhibitions:
➢ Site Plan Review application, date-stamped 12/22/12
• ➢ Planned Unit Development Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Plans titled Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development,Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove 60-
64 Grove Street&3 Harmony Grove Road,Salem,MA,"dated 12/20/11
➢ "Traffic Impact and Access Study: Proposed Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove,Salem, MA,"
prepared by Vanasse&Associates,Inc.,Andover,MA
➢ PowerPoint presentation entitled"Legacy Park Apartments,Salem,"presented by MRM Project
Management,LLC&The Federated Companies,dated November 2011
➢ Letter from Attomey Joseph Correnti dated 2/22/12 regarding ownership of 3 Harmony Grove Rd.,
and accompanying deed for 3 Harmony Grove Rd. and 60 and 64 Grove Street
Mr.Ready welcomed City Councilors Paul Prevey and Jerry Ryan.He then introduced the traffic consultant
and peer reviewer for the city,Gary Hebert of Fay, Spofford,and Thorndike. Mr. Hebert stated that he is
also the city's consultant for the North River Canal Corridor transportation study.
Mr. Ready introduced a letter into the record from Attorney Correnti that discusses the ownership of the 3
Harmony Grove parcel,in response to questions raised at the last meeting. A copy of the deed has also been
provided. Mr. Ready noted that the Board will neither arbitrate nor adjudicate on the question of ownership
of that property.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,Salem,represents the developers and property owners from
MRM Project Management. He introduced Giles Ham, from Vanasse&Associates,who is the Traffic
Consultant and Luke Fabbri,of Geological Field Services,is the environmental consultant and LSP on the
site.
• Mr. Correnti provided a brief recap of the project. He stated that this is a$20 million investment in the
property of the former Salem Oil& Grease site,which is abandoned and vacated. Their intent is to demolish
all of the buildings except for one. The proposed construction includes 3 new residential buildings,which
1
has a total of 141 units; 17,000 square foot commercial space and 239 parking spaces. He noted that all of .
the buildings will be built above flood elevation and this is being done in coordination with the City of
Peabody. They are also proposing to rebuild the bridge to Harmony Grove Road,which will be their main
entrance. There will also be some comprehensive site remediation. He stated that they also have aerial views
of the site that can be shared.
Giles Ham,Vanasse&Associates,is the developer's traffic consultant, and stated that they have done a very
comprehensive study which was coordinated with the neighbors, the city and the peer reviewer. They looked
at the existing conditions,including safety and accident studies. They made recommendations to mitigate the
impact to make sure things are safe. They started this process a year ago,in March of 2011. They looked at
five intersections,which included Harmony Grove Road,Grove Street, Goodhue Street, and Boston Street.
Counts were done in March 2011. He found that the busiest times are from 7:15 am to 8:15 am and from
4:30 to 5:30 pm. They saw 500—600 cars per hour on Grove Street near the site driveway during those peak
hours,and it was heavier on Harmony Grove Rd. ,about 600-800 cars per hour. They noted that traffic has
slightly gone down in the last ten years,based on what was recorded in the NRCC study in 2003.
Mark George asked if the potential impact of the plan to change Main Street in Peabody to a single lane was
taken into consideration, and Mr. Ham said no,but it is something they can look into.
Mr. Ham continued stating that they looked at speeds in the vicinity,which are between 30 and 40 mph and
they paid particular attention to the how speeds impact the'sight distance when turning in and out of the site.
Additionally, they looked at accident data. The two intersections with the most accidents that were reported
were about 5 for each intersection. He discussed how they looked at potential traffic volume,which included
1,144 cars over a 24 period entering and exiting the site. They noted that more cars would come in during
the peak PM times. He did note that they are near the commuter rail station,which will impact traffic and
utilizing public transportation will be encouraged through this project. •
Mr. Ready encouraged the audience to move forward to read the slides more clearly. Mr. Ham continued and
described the traffic distribution map. They also looked at the driveways and how well drivers could see
beyond the egresses,and they felt that the proposed locations are the safest areas to have driveways. Mr.
Ham described the AM and PM peak traffic routes going in and out of the site.
Randy Clarke recommended that the fonts be larger for future presentations so the audience can see
information better.
Mr. Ham continued describing the proposed signage and striping for the area.
Mr. George asked Mr. Ham to further describe the enhancements proposed on Grove and Beaver Streets, to
which Mr. Ham showed on the slides the locations of the new striping and stop signs, as well as traffic
islands. Mr. George stated that there is no delineation currently. Mr. George asked if the proposal is to add
an island raise up the center area, to which Mr. Ham said no.
Mr. Ham continued his presentations describing the area of Grove Street,Harmony Grove Road and Mason
Street. He stated that they measured delays in this area, and they were not very significant. He stated that
they want to update and upgrade all of the signs to conform to MUTCD signage requirements—for example,
putting"all way" on the stop,signs. He also recommends improving the striping. He feels that they don't
need a roundabout in this area, and that the grades present a challenge. He then summarized his presentation
and stressed that they are here to answer questions and encourage comments. He says the developer would
pay for the improvements they are recommending. He noted that the site driveways will be under stop
control and they xvill be ht in order to see oncoming cars. In terms of travel demand management, they will
also have transit schedules posted on the site. He feels the area can accommodate the traffic volumes from .
this project.
2
Mr. George stated that there is a great deal of concern at the intersection of Mason and Flint Street,
specifically going north and east,and asked what they forecast the impact will be at that intersection on
Mason St. Mr. Ham said they have calculated less than 20 cars an hour during the peak hours (7:15—8:15 am
and 4:30—5:30 pm),about a car every 3 minutes.
Mr. Clarke asked about how many people would be taking transit, to which Mr. Ham stated that they don't
have those exact numbers,but they are guessing that there is under 10% transit usage based on other
community statistics. Mr. Clarke asked for a walking distance estimate,which Mr. Ham said about 15
minutes. Mr. Clarke stated that he thinks that Salem is doing so well because of the proximity to the public
transit and that is one of the things he likes about this project. Mr. Clarke stated that he is assuming that they
will have a clearer sidewalk accessing public transit.
Mr. Correnti stated that it is 0.9 miles from the center of the project to the train station and he thinks it will
be one of the nicest walks in the city to the train. They are proposing a walkway which will connect with
other projects in the area,including the future Linear Park. They think these projects will attract commuters.
Tim Kavanagh asked about surface improvements to the roadway at Goodhue and Grove Street,and asked if
the striping will change the current traffic flow,and if it would accommodate the flow from the site driveway
at the anticipated development at 28 Goodhue St. Mr. Ham stated that they are not proposing changing the
flow.
Mr. Correnti suggested concluding their traffic presentation to allow members of the audience the
opportunity to ask specific traffic-related questions, and after which time they can resume their environmental
presentation. The Board and the Chair agreed with his suggestion.
• Issue opened to the public for comment
Susan Strauss,29 School Street, stated that she is confused about the 20 cars on Flint Street statistic given,
and asked if that is what exists now or if this is what they are predicting. Mr. Ham stated that currently there
are 400- 500 cars on Mason Street in the morning,and a little more in the evening. This project will add less
than 20 cars. Ms. Strauss then asked how he came to that calculation if there are going to be 141 units. Mr.
Ham explained this further and stated that his calculation was based on what happened during the peak
hours, and in the morning peak hour, they estimated 96 trips, and not all of that is going to go down Mason
Street. Where the site has 2 driveways and some folks are going to go to Route 128,as they do now, 96 was
the estimate that they came to.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that it was Jeff Maxtutis who did the original study and he thanked Ms.
McKnight for providing the traffic study, to which Ms.McKnight said that the documents are through the
Planning Department and they are happy to provide those. He stated that he wants to discuss peak period
traffic. He thinks that the car estimate is low. He addressed Mr. George's question about Main Street in
Peabody,which should be a good thing for Salem. His other problem with this report is horizon year is not
included in their analysis,which he thinks is a flaw. He discussed the state guidelines on TIAs, and thinks the
planning staff should have these guidelines available at meetings. He pointed out that there is a proposal to
have a Salem—Danvers commuter rail line,and this project is halfway between this proposed station and
Salem Station. He would hope that this development would include that in its proposal. He also feels that
there is not enough parking. He noted that another project in the area estimated a 5%use of transit. He
feels that this doesn't respect the North River Canal Corridor plan, as the plan calls for a raised plaza in this
area. The population of this project is approximately 315 people, or another estimate is over 500 people,
which included 40 children, and there is an opportunity to have a school bus route run through the project.
He would love to have the traffic engineers debate the roundabout proposal.
•
3
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street,asked for clarification on the entry points on the project, and where the •
traffic will actually be going on this project. She is concerned about left turns on Harmony Grove. Mr. Ham
stated there are two driveways on this project, and the majority of traffic will be going to Harmony Grove.
In terms of left turns,Mr. Ham explained that they looked at if the driver can see far enough to make left
turns,and their analysis says that they can, and they can make it safely. Ms.Twohey stated that the other
concern of hers is the turn on Grove Street. Mr. Ham stated that the building that they will remove will make
it easier to see cars coming in and out. He explained that they look at things in terms of sight triangles and
they need to make sure it is safe. Ms. Twohey stated that she wants to support the board's comment that
when Main Street goes down to one lane that this will impact the project. Mr.Ready stated that this has been
noted.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey,26 Tremont Street, stated that he is curious in terms of the activities that went
into the traffic analysis. He also asked about other analyses that have been done for other proposed projects
and asked how that shaped their study. He then asked about what type of traffic was analyzed. He also asked
what the formula they used to determine the traffic and are there other data sources that they draw upon to
make these conclusions. Mr. Ham described the traffic stud that was done in March arch 2011 and their
methods. He made some comparisons to the traffic study done for the 2003 NRCC plan. He also said that
they received the other traffic studies from the projects near this site and in terms of the distribution of the
census data and volumes, they used those to make the best estimates. Mr. Prevey then asked for clarification
on how much time was spent on their traffic study. Mr. Ham stated that they study was done for a day but
he has been out there at least 10 times plus they are also relying on the experience. Mr. Prevey asked about
his thoughts on the roundabout. Mr. Ham stated that it is worth looking at further,though in his opinion,he
does not think that it is a very problematic intersection.
Jonathon Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street,asked about the actual speed limit on Harmony Grove Road. Mr.
Ham stated that there is no speed limit posted on that road,but noted that they measured actual speeds of 30 •
—40 miles per hour.
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan,4 Nichols Street,stated that his concern is that Harmony Grove is going to
become a main street into Peabody,just like Marlborough Road. His concern is residents coming out of the
site onto the road, and asked if they considered adding a light and he is concerned about the traffic getting
worse and worse. Mr. Ham stated that they understand the speed issue—if people speed, that is more an
enforcement issue. He also noted that all of the proposed projects in the area have cumulative effects on
traffic.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, asked what day the study was done. Mr. Ham stated that it was done on
March 29,2011.
Jane Arlander,93 Federal Street, stated that Harmony Grove does flash flood from time to time and asked if
the secondary exit,can handle the shut down of the main road due to flooding. Mr. Ham stated that the
manager of the housing development will have a plan in place for those issues,and that in the rare case that
Harmony Grove Rd. was closed due to flooding, the other site driveway could accommodate the cars.
Mr. Ready stated that he is pleased that the traffic engineer is here to hear comments. There being no further
comments on traffic,Mr.Ready discontinued the public comment portion of the hearing to move on to the
environmental status of the property.
Luke Fabbri,Licensed Site Professional from Geological Field Services,briefly gave background on the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan. He gave an overview of the oil and hazardous waste contamination on the
site and explained the property had several Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs), all now tied to their most
recently issued RTN, so people could look up information about all the releases through this one number on •
the DEP website. He reviewed the DEP history of the site,which was to treat leather. He explained that
4
• they heated and sulphenated the leather and there had been releases of chemicals and by products on the site
in the late 80's. He stated that there was another RTN in 2002 due to a spill,and then in 2005 there was a fire
hazard. He summarized the work they have done to clean up the site,which was completed in 2009. He
noted that there are some wastes left on site as there was not a way to get to them safely, thus he described
how the group would deal with them as they develop the site. They have submitted a Phase II application for
investigation, thus they began the field work in October 2011, and they have drafted the report and will have
a final report completed in April 2012. He then described the contaminants of concern,which were limited
to the soil. He then presented the site investigation plan,which included soil samples and monitoring wells.
Mr. Fabbri explained the Phase III feasibility evaluation options,which is expected in the Spring of 2012 once
the redevelopment aspects are finalized.
Mr. George asked if any of the contaminants have gone into the canal during the rains. Mr. Fabbri stated that
none of the contaminants are in the groundwater because the type of chemicals that spilled tend to attach to
soil instead of water. He further explained that the water has tested clean for detection standards.
Mr. Ready stated that Salem is very lucky that MRM has taken this on.
Issue opened to the puhlie for comment
Councilor Jerry Ryan ,4 Nichols Street,asked how they are going to clean the site. Mr. Fabbri described the
extensive clean-up process,which included the careful containing and removal of hundreds of barrels of
chemicals and leather process by-product. Mr. Ryan then asked what will happen when the construction is
taking place. Mr. Fabbri stated that there will be an environmental professional observing the site during the
pre-site work conducting tests such as dust monitoring.
Susan Strauss,29 School Street,asked where the oils were dumped. Mr. Fabbri stated that they went to
• mostly landfills in Detroit and Fall River,and Gordon College also took some of it for biofuel.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that this is a good update. He stated that he has more of a ConCom
issue, but perhaps the Planning Board should have the latest report on the cleanup. He also asked about
utility easements. Mr. Fabbri said there were clean corridors for utilities,rather than easements, so that utility
repairs would not require an LSP. He also said that all submittals are sent electronically to DEP, and all of
their filings will be available on the DEP website. Mr.Treadwell stated that he noticed that the bridge on the
site does not look like it is above the flood plain level.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing on April 5,2012, seconded by Helen Sides.
Approved 6-0.
Approval of Minutes
January 19,2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to accept
the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh.Approved 6-0.
March 1,2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to accept
the minutes, seconded by Mark George.Approved 5-0.Randy Clarke abstained.
Old/New Business
•
5
Randy Clarke made a suggestion to upgrade the Planning Department website to include all documents
related to the Planning Board and other department projects. Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, stated that
she will find out whether this is feasible.
Adjournment
Mark George made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 6-0. Tim
Ready adjourned the meeting at 9:14 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 4/5/12
•
•
6
CITY OF SALEM
i► I PLANNING BOARD
NN FF8 22 P 24
NOTICE OF MEETING FILE #
CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS-
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, March 1, 1012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
CORRECTED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
February 2, 2012 meeting
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO
CONTINUE TO MARCH 15, 2012.
3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72
LORING AVE; 292, 296 &300 CANAL ST; and 399%. &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30& 31,
and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-
Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern
Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS
pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
!-his Mwee Poe" oR oofi ir*i i
City Hain Salem, Mess. on te� .22 10,12
223A 44 All ovvrlvp�
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
a
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASsAciius ETTs 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM1LCON
4
CITY OF SALEM
1 PLANNING BOARD
III? FFR 22 A 1: iS
FILE #
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS,
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, March 1, 1012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
11
February 2, 2012 meeting
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory),for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO
CONTINUE TO MARCH 1, 2012.
3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72
LORING AVE;292, 296 &300 CANAL ST; and 399 Y2 &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31,
and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-
Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern
Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop,Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS
pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment Y1NO"
ow 00 0010418, aI � 1�0 "
118 Man � Salem, Mans. W, ? C. ZZ zviz
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
is
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSF,TTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.S.AI,EM.COM
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
.�!M>Nitoo r
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOWN DUNCAN,AICD
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: February 22, 2012
RE: Agenda— March 1, 2012 meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Minutes from 2/2/12
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239),Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District
Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential
buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office
building, and associated parking and landscaping.
The applicant is requesting to continue until March 1 because some Board members will be
absent. However, I am enclosing a letter from the applicant in response to questions raised at
the last meeting regarding the ownership of 3 Harmony Grove Road.
I am also enclosing a letter from resident Tom McDonald in opposition to the project.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property
located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296&300 CANAL ST;and 399% &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map
32, Lots 27, 29, 30 &31,and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA,for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes
• the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop,Autozone and
Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-
through, including associated parking and landscaping.
Jefferson Avenue Driveway:
In response to Board comments,the applicant has submitted two sketches showing a single •
driveway entrance from Jefferson Avenue. An explanatory memo is also enclosed.
Draft PUD Findings:
Following are suggested "findings" for the Planned Unit Development special permit,to be
incorporated in a decision:
The proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 7.3
Planned Unit Development, as follows:
1) 7.3.1 Purpose—The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD), which incorporates a mix of
retail and automotive uses and provides a new, shared entryway for access to all businesses on
the site, meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan of the City of
Salem.
2) 7.3.2 Applicability—The proposed development parcel is significantly greater than 60,000
square feet in area (the PUD area is 143,748 square feet). The underlying zoning district of the
proposed development parcels is B-2 (Business Highway District), which is an eligible district for
PUD treatment. •
3) 7.3.3 Uses—The proposed retail and automotive uses are allowed in a PUD development.
7.3.3.2 —The Applicant has submitted engineering and architectural specifications,
including drawings, photographs, and photo-simulations of the site development plan and
immediate surroundings. Abutting residential properties are to be protected by means of a
vegetated buffer area. At the Board's request, the lighting plan was revised to show lowered
and more numerous poles, reducing visual impacts to abutters. Architectural details were also
revised in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the property and reduce impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood.
4) 7.3.8 Decision
7.3.8.1 -The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and
intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and it will promote the
purpose of this section by:
a) Providing for shared, improved access to all the businesses within the PUD site through
a new site driveway. The proposed PUD will add one curb cut along Jefferson Avenue, but will
also eliminate an existing one. The plan eliminates the most hazardous curb cut, located
closest to the intersection at Jefferson.Avenue, Loring Avenue and Canal Street.
b) Improving the Canal Street and Kimball Road entrances to the property in order to •
increase safety and improve access.
C) Providing better definition of pedestrian access to and around the site.
-2-
• d) Providing for appropriate economic development on an existing commercial corridor,
thereby generating tax revenue and creating jobs.
7.3.8.2 -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 districts.
7.3.8.3 -The planned unit development would not result in a net negative
environmental impact. Specifically,
a) The proposed PUD is located on an already-developed site on an existing commercial
corridor.
b) The proposed stormwater management plan provides reasonable means to collect,
treat and control stormwater runoff from the site. The stormwater management system
consists of Best Management Practices (BMP's)to collect, pre-treat and control runoff on the
site. Peer review of the Applicant's engineering work shows that it is complete and thorough,
and their analysis and predictions are reasonable.
Draft Conditions:
The following are draft conditions for a decision:
16. Special Conditions:
1. Traffic
Subject to all necessary permitting and approvals from MassDOT and the City of Salem,the
applicant is to make the following improvements to the Canal Street/Loring
Avenue/Jefferson Avenue signal:
a. Install a loop detector that takes into account the double lane approach from Canal
Street to replace the one that was intended to accommodate a single lane.
b. Replace all incandescent lenses with LED lenses.
c. At the Loring Avenue northbound approach, replace the existing intersection lane
control sign with a "RIGHT LANE FOR LORING AVENUE/ROUTE 1A" sign and the
correct lane use sign (113-8 series).
d. Replace the YIELD sign on the Jefferson Avenue eastbound channelized right-turn
lane approach at Loring Avenue with a STOP sign.
e. Post lane designation and destination signs south of the Loring Avenue and Jefferson
venue intersection for the Loring Avenue northbound approach and north of the
Loring Avenue and Canal Street intersection for the Canal Street southbound
approach.
• f. Post a YIELD sign or a STOP sign on the Loring Avenue south-westbound channelized
right-turn lane approach at the intersection with Canal Street and appropriate
-3-
pavement markings; sign is to be determined by the Traffic Division Commander of
the Salem Police Department. •
g. Left turns out of the site to Canal Street are prohibited between the hours of 3:00
and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Turns in and out of this driveway are
otherwise unrestricted. If, within one year of the store opening, the Board
determines that left turns out of the site are problematic, the Board may further
restrict the hours of left turns out, or prohibit them altogether.
h. Developer is to stripe the side lines and center line of Kimball Road from Canal Street
through the Kimball Road site entry.
2. Curbing.
Vertical granite curbing is to be installed throughout the site. The plan is to be revised to
incorporate this change and submitted to the Department of Planning&Community
Development for review and approval, prior to issuance of a building permit.
•
vw�CClq,�2's
• � �� City of Salem — Meeting Si n-In Sheet
`?�,M�Ne_rn�ri4 Board �Q j Nbuci J CX tr
Date arch
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
SNe
Page of
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3/1/12
• A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 7:00
p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanagh, Helen
Sides, George McCabe, and Tim Ready. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and
Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board
Recording Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis, Vice Chair, and Randy Clarke.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:08 pm.
Approval of Minutes
February 2, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Mark George
motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Ready. Approved 7-0.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the
property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 &64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &
239), Salem MA(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site
Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard
• Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-
family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.APPLICANT REQUESTS TO
CONTINUE HEARING UNTIL 3/15/12.
Helen Sides made a motion to continue the public hearing until March 15, 2012, seconded by
Lewis Beilman. All approved 7-0.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC,for the property
located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296&300 CANAL ST; and 399%&401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map
32, Lots 27, 29, 30 &31,and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA,for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes
the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and
Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-
through, including associated parking and landscaping.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Applications for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Drive-
Through Special Permit, all date-stamped 11/10/11, and accompanying materials
➢ Site Plan for CVS/Pharmacy#7109,Jefferson Avenue & Canal Street, Salem, MA 01970,
prepared by R.J. O'Connell &Associates, Inc., last revised 1/9/12
• ➢ Exterior Elevation drawings prepared by BKA Architects, Inc., dated 11/8/11
1
➢ Stormwater Management Study, CVS/Pharmacy#7109, Loring Plaza, Canal Street and
Jefferson Ave., Salem, Massachusetts, prepared by R.J. O'Connell &Associates •
➢ Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed CVS/Pharmacy, Salem, Massachusetts,
prepared by GPI (Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.)
➢ Revised page C-2 of the site plan, last revision dated March 1, 2012
➢ Photographs of aluminum fence detail
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the applicant and introduced
Paul Beck,Jason Plourde and Phil Henry. He stated that they feel that they have made very
good progress based on suggestions made by all interested parties and this is a project that
everyone should be pleased with. They made a few changes that are small but worth
discussing. They have nothing new to present this evening but will answer any questions that
anyone may have. They have been working closely with Planning staff and their team to
address every issue that has come up. One of the things that they did do is address the issues
of what Kimball Road will look like. Phil Henry, the site engineer and Jason Plourde the traffic
consultant went out to do more work on this area and the outcomes will be discussed. Mark
George stated that he looked at the site with the spray painting which was helpful and asked
what will the final outcome look like. Mr. Correnti stated that the final plan was finished today
and he shared that with the board. Mr. Correnti stated that the driveways are 24 feet within a
40 foot way. He noted that some of the spaces intrude into the layout, but not into the drive
aisles. Mr. George asked how this will be demonstrated to the public. I
Phil Henry, site engineer, stated that there will not be curbing there but there will be striping •
that will delineate the area as a road into the site. Mr. George asked if this will extend into the
ambulance area on Kimball Road. Mr. Henry described the striping layout. Lewis Beilman
asked if this is striping, not curbing, to which Mr. Henry stated yes. Mr. Puleo asked why they
are using white stripes instead of yellow. Mr. Henry stated that CVS uses white lines on their
sites and clarified that the white striping was for the internal site, not the roadway. Mr. Puleo
asked where Mr. Henry is ending the striping to which Mr. Henry described on plan the location
of the end of the striping. Mr. Henry said that this will differentiate between the "sea of
asphalt" currently there, and Kimball Road. Mr. Puleo stated that he was concerned about
parking in the area of the road. Mr. Henry stated that they will have more space than the 24
feet width;they actually have 27 feet and they think that the striping for the access road will
deter people from parking on the road. Mr. George asked how they plan to direct traffic out of
the site in the area of Kimball Road. Mr. Henry stated that most of the traffic to CVS is repeat
and customers will get used to it. Mr. George said that he agrees. Mr. Puleo asked what the
widths of the crosswalks were and Mr. Henry said that they were 8 foot crosswalks.
Mr. Puleo reviewed what the other issues were which included the entrance on Canal Street.
Mr. Correnti said that based on the board's recommendation, they will restrict a left turn on
Canal Street, which includes no left turns between 3 and 6 pm, Monday through Friday, which
they have noted has worked well on Marlborough Road. Mr. Henry described the signage on
the traffic control schedule and the locations of the no left turn signs. Mr. Correnti stated that •
2
they would talk to the city about who is responsible for the striping and maintaining it. He said
• he is not sure if the city allows private owners to paint, so they will work with the city to
maintain it.
Tim Ready stated that he is concerned about the maintenance of the striping, noting that it has
to be maintained for the safety of the site and also for the appearance of the site. Mr. Correnti
stated that they fully understand his concern and will accept that as a condition and want to
make the site safe.
Mr. Puleo stated that another issue was granite curbing. Mr. Correnti stated that granite
curbing has been considered and the developer will put in vertical granite curbing throughout
the site. Mr. Henry then showed Mr. Puleo where the granite curbing will be located on the
site. Mr. Correnti stated that Mr. Henry is pointing to the curb cut on Canal Street, by the Auto
Zone all the way around the site to Jefferson Avenue. Additionally, he said that Mr. Henry took
all of the extruded concrete out of the site.
Mr. Puleo continued his review of the plans. He noted that where the dumpster and the
compactor are located is in the same space and Mr. Henry stated that they are putting up a
stockade fence there. He also reviewed the locations of the bollards around the project. Mr.
Correnti stated that the bollard lighting will be coming in on the Jefferson Avenue side of the
curb cut.
• Mr. George asked about the stormwater and asked to clarify if the stormwater runoff will slow
down and be cleaner, to which Mr. Henry said yes.
Mr. Puleo said that he was down at the site and was looking at the lights and asked if the lights
at other businesses could be coordinated with CVS' lights. Mr. Correnti said that they will
coordinate the lights.
Mr. Correnti said that there is one more major feature that they haven't discussed which is
fencing. He described a black four foot heavy grade wrought iron style fence which will run
from the front of Canal Street to the internal sidewalk to the front of the Eastern Bank building,
and will stop at the interior crosswalk. He noted that this will help to direct pedestrian traffic
by giving some definition to the site and preventing pedestrians from walking through the drive
through lanes, which will then direct traffic to the interior crosswalks. This was suggested to
the team and they liked it, and they hope the Board will like it also. Ms. Sides said that she likes
it. Mr. Correnti stated that the fence would be a four foot aluminum and cast iron fence, and
they will come up with a final design to submit to the Board. Ms. Sides stated that she likes the
double horizontal fence they show in the sample photos. Mr. George asked Mr. Correnti to
show where the fence will be, and Mr. Correnti pointed it out on the plan. He further stated
that as they thought about this, they wanted to make it look open, not like a compound, and
inviting for pedestrians. Mr. George asked that due to the proximity to the crosswalk and bus
stop if the fence could go the there instead. Ms. McKnight, Staff Planner, directed board
•
3
members to the landscaping plan, noting that the fence stops here because this is where the
landscaped area begins; Ms. Sides concurred. .
Mr. Ready stated that the fence looks good but won't look good if it is not maintained and to
maintain it is going to add maintenance costs to the project. Mr. Correnti stated that he is
correct and they will have to maintain it. He further stated that they are not going to make this
kind of investment to make the front door look trashy. The store will have someone pick up
trash periodically throughout the day. Mr. Correnti stated that without a fence, garbage would
all blow into the street, and this can help keep the property clean.
Paul Beck, from CVS, stated that the barrels are cleaned out more often and in terms of
mechanical sweeping, it's done regularly and this can be added to their cleaning processes.
Ms. Sides stated that she wants to comment on the parking and thanked the applicant for the
sketches showing parking alternatives. She agrees the two driveways are acceptable but she
wants to know more about the landscaped edge there. Mr. Henry stated there will be
shrubbery there. Mr. Puleo asked about the driveway they are planning to close, and noted
that this one is where the curbing is in bad shape. He asked if they will match the curbing and
sidewalk to which Mr. Henryaid es. Mr. Puleo pointed out that in the current state the
Y Y p ,
sidewalk and curbing is a liability waiting to happen. Mr. Puleo asked who determines if the
sidewalk looks good. Mr. Correnti stated that they do,they want it to look good but noted that
they can't do anything without a city permit to do so. Mr. Henry said that this is a plan for the
city and once this is approved they will submit the construction plan. Mr. Puleo stated that he •
thought that this driveway is in such bad condition due to all of the delivery vehicles and asked
if they can move Tedeschi's receiving to which Mr. Frank Bertini, 196 Old Burley Street,
Danvers, property owner, said this was done by National Grid, not their delivery trucks. Mr.
Correnti stated that rear door deliveries are probably not possible there.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Jim Rose, 25 Linden Street, asked if the exterior of the building is going to be a hybrid between
slate and brick to which Mr. Henry responded that they would be brick and clapboard. Mr.
Correnti described how they added on features due to public comment. Mr. Rose asked when
all of the enhancements will be available in a pdf. Mr. Correnti stated they won't, but final
plans will be submitted to the Board, and if he would like a copy of them and they will send it to
him.
Mark George made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All
approved 7-0.
Mr. Correnti spoke of some other notes on the plan in regards to the fence on Adams Street
which will be opaque; he also stated that the drainage has been agreed upon as well. Mr. Puleo
asked where the dumpster will be relocated. Mr. Henry said that this is a note that it was re-
located to this specific spot on the plan. Mr. Puleo asked about the existing dumpster on the
•
4
site and Mr. Bertini stated that it is Eastern Bank's dumpster and they will speak with them and
• enclose it. Mr. Henry pointed out that the enclosure to the dumpster is a stockade fence.
Mr. George stated that they spoke of looking back in a year on how the traffic design is working
and Mr. Puleo stated that is part of the draft decision.
Ms. McKnight reviewed the draft decision with the board, which includes the PUD findings and
the conditions. Ms. McKnight noted that C-2, the revised sheet submitted tonight, is dated
3/1/12. Mr. Puleo asked if anything else had been revised and Mr. Henry said that L-1 has been
revised and will also be dated 3/1/12.
Mr. Puleo asked if the only other sign is going to be on Jefferson Avenue, and Mr. Correnti said
yes.
Mr. Puleo asked about the lighting, and Mr. Correnti noted that they will coordinate the timing
of the pole lights on the site.
Mr. Puleo asked at what point the drainage will be inspected. Mr. Henry stated that he goes
out to inspect it as he is responsible to the city and to CVS for this aspect of the project. Mr.
Beck noted that in order to get the certificate of occupancy, everything underground has to be
done according to specifications.
• Mr. Puleo and Mr. George asked about maintenance to the pavement markings and striping, to
which Ms. Duncan said that would be a good thing to include in the conditions, and will be
subject to city approval.
Mr. Puleo asked if there will be a stop sign at the end of Kimball Road to which Ms. McKnight
stated yes and pointed it out on the plan.
Ms. Duncan noted they may want to add a condition that the relocated, enclosed dumpster
servicing Eastern Bank must be shown on the new plan.
Mr. Henry stated that during the construction phase he will go out to the site and delineate the
curbing on Jefferson Avenue.
Tim ready made a motion to approve the application for Site Plan Review, a Planned Unit
Development special permit, and a Drive-Through Facilities special permit, seconded by Tim
Kavanagh and approved 6-0 (Chuck Puleo, Helen Sides, Tim Kavanagh, Tim Ready, Mark George
and Lewis Beilman in favor, none opposed; George McCabe abstained). The decision is hereby
incorporated as part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
Tim Ready stated that he had received correspondence from the city solicitor regarding the
• Lowe's lawsuit, in which he was personally sued. He asked Mr. Puleo to read the letter into the
5
record. Mr. Puleo read the letter which stated that the case was dismissed with prejudice,
including the part of the case that pertained to Mr. Ready. •
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Letter from Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor, to Timothy Ready re: City of Lynn vs. City of
Salem
Adjournment
Mark George made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Lewis Beilman. All approved
7-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the
decisions have been posted separately by address or project at:
http://www.solem.com/Paaes/SalemMA PlonMin/
Approved by the Planning Board 3/15/12
•
•
6
.b�LO}Pypa_
ELIZABETH M. ~ LJ ROBIN STEIN
RENNARD ASSISTANT C17YSOLICITOR
. ' =rte'. 93 WASHINGTON STREET
CITY SOLTCTTOR g SALEM,MA 01970
93 WASHINGTON STREGr Tsc:975.745.9595
SN.6M,MA 01970 CITY OF SALEM -Foix: 978.744.1279
TEL 978.619.5633 EMAIL RSTe1NQSALLM.00M
FAX: 978.744.1279 KIMBERLEY L.DRISCOLL,MAYOR
EMAIL BRGNNARD@.SAI.EM.CDM LEGALDEPAR'IME.NT
93 WASERNGTON STREET
SALEM,MASSACHOSETIS 01970
1
February 2, 2012
Tim Ready
22 Sable Rd.
Salem,MA 01970
Re: City of Lynn,et. al. vs. City of Salem, et al.
ESCV2011-00222
• Dear Mr. Ready:
I am pleased to inform you that in December, 2011, a Stipulation of Dismissal
with Prejudice was filed with the Essex County Superior Court in the above-referenced
case. This case has been dismissed as to all defendants including you,a member of the
Salem Planning Board.
We appreciate your assistance in defending this case and for your many years of
service on the Salem Planning Board.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter,please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
Elizabeth Rennard
EMR/jmr
0
Avg . CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS,
Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit,
and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit Decision
72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399 Y2 & 401 JEFFERSON AVE
March 2, 2012
G.B. New England 2, LLC
CVS/Pharmacy
C/o Joseph Correnti, Esq.
Serafini, Darling & Correnti
63 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: CVS Pharmacy with Drive-Through
On Thursday, December 1, 2011, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing
under Section 7.3, Planned Unit Development, Section 9.5, Site Plan Review, and Section 6.7, Drive-
Through Facilities, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, at the request of G.B. New England 2, LLC
(CVS/Pharmacy) for the properties located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399 % &
401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191). The proposed PUD
project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop,
Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-
through, including associated parking and landscaping.
The Public Hearing was continued to December 15, 2011, January 5, 2012, January 19, 2012, February
2, 2012, February 16, 2012, and March 1, 2012 (no hearing was held on February 16, 2012). The
hearing was closed on March 1, 2012. Board member Tim Kavanagh was absent at the December 1,
2011 hearing, but examined all evidence pertaining to the meeting, including the audio recording, and
signed an affidavit to this effect.
The Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem
• Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 7.3 Planned Unit Development, as follows:
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745 9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI,EM.COM
1) 7.3.1 Purpose —The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD), which incorporates a mix of retail
• and automotive uses and provides a new, shared entryway for access to all businesses on the site,
meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and MasterPlan of the City of Salem.
2) 7.3.2 Applicability—The proposed development parcel is significantly greater than 60,000 square
feet in area (the PUD area is 143,748 square feet). The underlying zoning district of the proposed
development parcels is B-2 (Business Highway District), which is an eligible district for PUD
treatment.
3) 7.3.3 Uses—The proposed retail and automotive uses are allowed in a PUD development.
• 7.3.3.2 —The Applicant has submitted engineering and architectural specifications, including
drawings, photographs, and photo-simulations of the site development plan and immediate
surroundings. Abutting residential properties are to be protected by means of a vegetated
buffer area. At the Board's request, the lighting plan was revised to show lowered and more
numerous poles, reducing visual impacts to abutters. Architectural details were also revised in
order to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the property and reduce impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood.
4) 7.3.8 Decision
• 7.3.8.1 - The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and intent
• of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and it will promote the purpose of
this section by:
a) Providing for shared, improved access to all the businesses within the PUD site through a
new site driveway. The proposed PUD will add one curb cut along Jefferson Avenue, but
will also eliminate an existing one. Safety is increased by closing the curb cut closest to the
intersection. Improvements will also be made to the Canal Street and Kimball Road
entrances to the property in order to increase safety and improve access.
b) Providing better definition of pedestrian access to and around the site.
c) Providing for appropriate economic development on an existing commercial corridor,
thereby generating tax revenue and creating jobs.
• 7.3.8.2 - 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
districts.
• 7.3.8.3 - The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental
impact. Specifically,
a) The proposed PUD is located on an already-developed site on an existing commercial
corridor.
b) The proposed stormwater management plan provides reasonable means to collect, treat
and control stormwater runoff from the site. The stormwater management system
• consists of Best Management Practices (BMP's) to collect, pre-treat and control runoff on
the site. Peer review of the Applicant's engineering work shows that it is complete and
thorough, and their analysis and predictions are reasonable.
2
• At its regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on March 1, 2012, the Planning Board
voted by a vote of six (6) in favor (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanagh, Tim Ready, Lewis Beilman, Mark
George, and Helen Sides), and none (0) opposed, to approve the Site Plan Review, Planned Unit
Development Special Permit, and Drive-Through Special Permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the plans titled, "Site Plan for CVS/pharmacy#7109, Jefferson Avenue &
Canal Street, Salem, MA 01970," prepared by RJ O'Connell &Associates, Inc., pages C-0.1, N-1, C-
1, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, and C-10, dated November 10, 2011 and last revised January 9,
2012; pages SV-1 and SV-2, dated August 10, 2011; and pages C-2 and L-1, dated March 1, 2012.
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. Signage
Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Sign Review Committee in accordance
with entrance corridor requirements, Section 8.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the site
plans does not represent approval of the proposed signage.
• 4. Fence
The applicant shall install a four-foot black commercial grade aluminum fence along the sidewalk
in front of the property, from the Canal Street driveway to the crosswalk in front of Eastern Bank,
as shown on the submitted drawing, "4' Aluminum Fence Detail," and in the photographs titled
"Aluminum Fence," submitted at the March 1, 2012 meeting. The applicant shall submit a revised
plan showing the fence location prior to 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
3
g. All construction activities shall be in accordance with the "Salem Police Station Construction
Management Plan".
• h. All sidewalks, roadways, utilities, landscaping, etc. damaged during construction shall be
replaced or repaired to their pre-construction condition, or better.
i. A Construction and Management Plan is to be submitted to the City Planner for appropriate
distribution to Salem departments.
6. Fire Department
a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
7. Building Commissioner
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner.
8. Board of Health
All work shall comply with requirements of the Board of Health, including but not limited to the
following:
a. No trash is to be stored outside the building except in the designated trash storage area.
b. The trash storage area is to be properly maintained.
c. Applicant is required to obtain a food permit from the Health Department.
9. Utilities
a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
. any Building Permit. The applicant shall have an engineer certify the utility plans for review by
the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit.
b. All electrical utilities for the site shall be underground.
10. Department of Public Services
The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the Department of
Public Services.
11. Lighting
a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way.
b. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the
issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
c. Applicant is to coordinate timing of the pole lights at the driveway to Kimball Road to operate
with the CVS parking lot lights.
10. City Engineer
All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer.
11. HVAC
The HVAC unit located on the roof shall be visually screened as shown on the approved plans.
• 12. Noise
HVAC units shall be sufficiently buffered and the applicant shall take steps to further mitigate
noise emanating from the HVAC units(s) if the Board of Health receives any complaints.
4
• 12. Landscaping
a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans (sheet L-1 revised as of
March 1, 2012).
b. 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.
C. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of the
trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting.
d. Final completed landscaping shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
13. Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, recycling, 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. Developer is to maintain all new pavement markings and striping on and off the site, subject to
City approval.
14. As-built Plans
a. 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 any Certificate of Occupancy.
b. 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 any Certificate of
Occupancy.
c. 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 any Certificate of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City
Engineer.
15. 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.
16. Special Conditions:
1. Traffic
Subject to all necessary permitting and approvals from MassDOT and the City of Salem, the
applicant is to make the following improvements to the Canal Street/Loring Avenue/Jefferson
Avenue signal:
a. Install a loop detector that takes into account the double lane approach from Canal Street
to replace the one that was intended to accommodate a single lane.
b. Replace all incandescent lenses with LED lenses.
5
c. At the Loring Avenue northbound approach, replace the existing intersection lane control
sign with a "RIGHT LANE FOR LORING AVENUE/ROUTE IA" sign and the correct lane use
sign (R3-8 series).
d. Replace the YIELD sign on the Jefferson Avenue eastbound channelized right-turn lane
approach at Loring Avenue with a STOP sign.
e. Post-lane designation and destination signs south of the Loring Avenue and Jefferson
Avenue intersection for the Loring Avenue northbound approach and north of the Loring
Avenue and Canal Street intersection for the Canal Street southbound approach.
f. Post a YIELD sign or a STOP sign on the Loring Avenue south-westbound channelized right-
turn lane approach at the intersection with Canal Street and appropriate pavement
markings; sign is to be determined by the Traffic Division Commander of the Salem Police
Department.
g. Left turns out of the site to Canal Street are prohibited between the hours of 3:00 and 6:00
p.m., Monday through Friday. Turns in and out of this driveway are otherwise
unrestricted. If, within one year of the store opening, the Board determines that left turns
out of the site are problematic, the Board may further restrict the hours of left turns out,
or prohibit them altogether.
h. Developer is to stripe the side lines and center line of Kimball Road from Canal Street
through the Kimball Road site entry.
2. Curbing
Vertical granite curbing is to be installed throughout the site.
• 3. Dumpster
Plan is to be revised to show relocation and enclosure of the dumpster servicing Eastern Bank.
4. Sidewalks
Plan is to be revised to show all limits of curb and sidewalk improvements, including at the
westernmost crosswalk of Jefferson Avenue.
5. The plan is to be revised to incorporate the changes noted above in numbers 2, 3, and 4 and
submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development for review and
approval, 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
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, Chair
6
C
v CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
r
rn
m m
T m �
NOTICE OF MEETING m D
3
R
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly sched*ed megyng on
Cn
Thursday, February 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Wostongton'STreet
n�.y�
Charles M. Puled, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
January 19, 2012 meeting
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
• square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72
LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399 y: &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31,
and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-
Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern
Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS
pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
s' is nWae Pooftd 041 'OfflCW DUO On 80aw
city Hap ) Salem, Ass. on 1'�'6
4 jR,_sf f
23A
now Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACI IUSETFS 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 + WWW.SALF M.CObI
R CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
mJi �E8 13 P tai --
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERKINVLEM.MASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, February 16, 2011 at 7.00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
CPA�w 9,.�.rl�srtiz
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
January 19, 2012 meeting
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60& 64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA(redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
• 3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72
LORING AVE; 292, 296 &300 CANAL ST; and 399% &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31,
and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-
Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern
Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS
pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO
CONTINUE TO MARCH 1, 2012.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
130000" OWdo
cityaN4012-
¢�M het®itf, AliBltS. Fe-b, /3�
am
Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.SAI.EM.COM
i t
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION FILE #
CITY CLERK, SALEM.MAS84'.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's meeting scheduled for
Thursday, February 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has
been CANCELED. The items below will be continued to the Board's next regularly scheduled
meeting on March 1, 2012./ ^A
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
1. Approval of Minutes
➢ January 19, 2012 meeting CONTINUED TO MARCH 1,2012
2. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of
the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
• construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping. CONTINUED TO MARCH 1,
2012.
3. Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72
LORING AVE; 292, 296&300 CANAL ST; and 399%&401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30&31,
and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-
Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern
Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS
pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping. CONTINUED TO MARCH 1,
2012.
4. Old/New Business
5. Adjournment
This OWN 0"M a" 'Ofd
CRY
al o*-PM Salem mass, tib. Z .
23A # = of Muca"Mm va Ch* 30
*now Your Rights Under the Open Meeting law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM,-MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
a DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
?s,M�NE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
N.KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: February 9, 2012
RE: Agenda—February 16, 2012 meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
➢ Minutes from 1/19/12
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Minutes from 1/19/12 are enclosed. The minutes from 2/2/12 won't be ready for your packet;
we will plan to review them at the next meeting.
Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 &64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 &239), Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory),for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District
Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential
buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office
building, and associated parking and landscaping.
At the City Engineer's recommendation, we are entering into contracts with Woodard & Curran
to do the peer review of the project's civil engineering, and with Fay, Spofford &Thorndike for
the traffic peer review.
I am enclosing two letters from Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., about the petition. The first
addresses the amount of residential space on the property and the project's compliance with
zoning regulations that require no more than 50% of the land area of a PUD to be residential.
. Griffin Engineering's response to this issue is also enclosed. The second letter addresses the
property boundaries between 3 Harmony Grove Road and the Harmony Grove Cemetery. An
attached plot plan was also included, also enclosed in your packet.
I am also enclosing the email from Jim Kearney, which was forwarded to you right before the .
last meeting, but which I'm now passing along in hard copy.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property
located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399% &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map
32, Lots 27, 29, 30 &31, and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA,for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes
the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop,Autozone and
Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-
through, including associated parking and landscaping.
I am including a letter from Councillor O'Keefe, which was summarized at the last meeting, but
which I didn't receive in time for your packets, regarding the need to upgrade the signal
equipment.
Stormwater Ordinance
In order to meet EPA regulations, the City has adopted a new stormwater ordinance that
includes requirements for certain developments to obtain stormwater permits. The issuance of
these permits will be done by the Planning Board in cases where the Board is already reviewing
aProject (site plan review, etc.). We are working draft Rules and regulations for
Planning
Board review of stormwater permits, which the Board will need to hold a public hearing for and •
vote to approve.
411
-2-
3 CITY OF SALEM
r
p PLANNING BOARD
?en leu �b �31 04
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLERK SALEM.HASS.
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, February 1, 2011 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313 110 Washington Street
I
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Minutes
January 5, 2012 and January 19, 2012 meetings
2. Public hearing: Request of BARTLETT&STEADMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. for Modification of a Definitive
Subdivision Decision for WITCH HILL(DELL STREET, Assessors Map 14, Lots 30, 31, 33, 34, 53, 54, 55, 144
and Map 9 Lots 259, 260) by waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for completion and establishment of a
schedule of subdivision completion requirements, release of Lots 211, 210, 213 and 214 on Martin Lane, and
acceptance of a new tri-party agreement.
• 3. Request of PAUL DIBIASE for the STRONGWATER CROSSING(AKA OSBORNE HILLS) subdivision off
Marlborough Road for: acceptance of a new tri-party agreement for Phase 2A, release of lots 18, 39, and 41
(in Phase 2A), and confirmation that the remaining lots in 2A will be released upon satisfactory installation
of the Marlborough Rd. traffic signal.
4. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72
LORING AVE;292, 296&300 CANAL ST; and 399%, &401 JEFFERSON AVE(Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30& 31,
and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-
Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern
Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service,and the construction of a new CVS
pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping.
5. Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3 HARMONY
GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former
site of Salem Oil &Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and
Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of
three multi-family residential buildings(total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, a >d,ase 111 ed,o 11111 i'O ftM B *1 aOVd„
6. Old/New Business '±Cl�iilillll!{ 1I1I �a�I�Qs�� sa�elm. MVVaaa. 0f1 /�'/�, � ZO/Z
slid
7. Adjournment _�
*ow Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 1-2018 through 2-1033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, b1ASSAcnuSET7S 01970 9 Tia.; 978745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 . WWW.SA1.F.M.00N1
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
• A DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: January 26, 2012
RE: Agenda —January 5, 2012 meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
i Agenda
• ➢ Minutes from 1/5/12
i Materials for Agenda Items
Minutes from 1/19/12 won't be ready for your packet, but if I receive them before the
weekend, I will send them out separately.
Request of PAUL DIBIASE for the STRONGWATER CROSSING (AKA OSBORNE HILLS)
subdivision off Marlborough Road. The Board will vote on: acceptance of a new tri-party
agreement for Phase 2A, release of lots 18, 39, and 41 (in Phase 2A), and confirmation that
the remaining lots in 2A will be released upon satisfactory installation of the Marlborough Rd.
traffic signal.
Mr. DiBiase is proposing a new tri-party agreement with Eastern Bank for Phase 2A. A draft of
the tri-party agreement is enclosed (it has been revised since the last one you were sent). Fay,
Spofford & Thorndike and David Knowlton have reviewed the items in the agreement and are
satisfied that the amount of surety will be sufficient to finish the phase. Installation of the
traffic signal is not included in the surety, but release of lots 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 37, 38, 40,
and 42 would not occur until the signal is installed. Only lots 18, 39 and 41 would be released
prior to the installation.
Public hearing: Request of BARTLETT& STEADMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. for Modification of
• a Definitive Subdivision Decision for WITCH HILL (DELL STREET, Assessors Map 14, Lots 30, 31,
33, 34, 53, 54, 55, 144 and Map 9 Lots 259, 260) by waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for
completion and establishment of a schedule of subdivision completion requirements, and
release of Lots 211, 210, 213 and 214 on Martin Lane, and acceptance of a new tri-party
agreement.
• The proposal would break the work up into three phases: Martin Lane, Nurse Way to Dell
Street/Good Circle, and the remainder of Nurse Way and Dell Street. Some items in the
phasing plan are proposed to be done on a different schedule from what was originally
approved in the 2004 decision. While I do have a schedule of items to be done in each phase, I
am awaiting a letter from the applicant detailing which conditions of the decision would be
altered by the phasing. I also I do not yet have the draft tri-party agreement or plan showing
the proposed phasing. If I receive this information in time to send it out, I will do so separately.
However, if I don't, the Board will likely not have sufficient time to review the request, and it
may be prudent to continue it.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property
located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399 '/: & 401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map
32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes
the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and
Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-
through, including associated parking and landscaping.
I have reviewed the following outstanding issues/requests with the applicant and requested
they address them to the extent possible at our meeting:
• 1. Show the project's proximity to the Adams Street houses;
2. Present the noise data for the HVAC/mechanicals they are using;
3. Obtain, if possible, information about when the Canal/Jefferson/Loring signal was
last retimed;
4. Address Board comments relating to the proposed new site driveway, including
whether having only one site drive would work, and treatment of the Tedeschi
parking lot;
5. Suggest what improvements they could make/contribute to the signal in terms of
timing, equipment upgrades, etc., to improve its level of service.
6. Suggest better defining the portion Kimball Road from their entryway to Canal
Street.
I received some additional comments from Lt. Preczewski (Traffic Division), who supports CVS's
proposal to close the site driveway on Jefferson Ave. closest to the intersection. (Our peer
reviewer had suggested closing the middle driveway—there are conflicts and safety
implications either way.) He also suggested attempting to encourage use of Kimball Road
where possible. The applicant is agreeable to installing signage on the site that will clearly mark
access to Kimball Road and post any hours of restriction or limited turns for leaving the Canal
Street exit. On that subject, the applicant is also agreeable to a condition that would allow a
trial period, during which the City could determine whether turns out of the Canal Street exit
• were causing problems, in which case additional restrictions could be imposed.
-2-
Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District
Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential
buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office
building, and associated parking and landscaping.
As you know, the hearing was originally scheduled to open on January 19; the applicant
requested to open it instead on February 2. The application and materials were included in
your last packet.
•
•
-3-
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2/2/12
• A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Mark George, Lewis Beilman,Tim Kavanagh, Helen Sides,
George McCabe, and Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,
Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis,Vice Chair, and Randy Clarke.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:00 pm.
Approval of Minutes
January 5,2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Lewis Beilman motioned to
accept the minutes,seconded by Helen Sides. Approved 7-0.
January 19, 2012 draft minutes
Will be reviewed at the next meeting.
Request of PAUL DIBIASE for the STRONGWATER CROSSING (AKA OSBORNE HILLS)subdivision off
Marlborough Road for:acceptance of a new tri-party agreement for Phase 2A,release of lots 18,39,
and 41 (in Phase 2A),and confirmation that the remaining lots in 2A will be released upon satisfactory
installation of the Marlborough Rd.traffic signal.
• Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Correspondence from City Engineer David Knowlton dated 12/21/11 regarding approval of
surety amounts
➢ Plans titled "Intersection Improvements Project, Marlborough Road at Osborne Hill Drive in the
City of Salem, Mass.," prepared by BETA group, dated May 2007.
➢ Tri-Party Agreement to Bond Construction of Ways and the Installation of Municipal Services,
dated 2/2/12
Paul DiBiase,Trustee of Osborne Hills Realty Trust, stated that they started the second phase of the
project and have installed enough road to accommodate 13 more homes which they are calling"Phase
2A". He has put together the cost of Phase 2A,which has been approved by the City Engineer. He
distributed documents which show the schedule of funds. They have come to an agreement with the
Planning Department and the Engineering Department that the three lots will be released which will
bring the lot total to the limit of 20.This was part of the original agreement, until the traffic light at
Marlborough Road and Osborne Hills Drive will be installed. He stated that he is awarding the bid for
the traffic light installation next week.
Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the location of the traffic signal,and clarified that the purpose of this
signal will be for traffic going down Marlborough Road towards Peabody, and turning left,to which Mr.
DiBiase said yes and stated it is also for traffic in and out of Osborne Hills. Mr. Puleo asked if it includes
striping as well, to which Mr. DiBiase said yes. Mr. Puleo asked if that included the pedestrian cycle and
the sidewalk to which Mr. DiBiase said yes and that will replace the current lights. Mr. DiBiase stated
that those plans were done by a consultant hired by the city.
•
1
A member of the public spoke,and Mr. Puleo reminded him that this was not a public hearing, but asked
if he was an abutter. Gregory Kozubek, 60 Marlborough Road, said yes, that he lives adjacent to the •
opening of Osborne Hills and is concerned about his driveway getting blocked by a traffic light. He
noted that Osborne Hills is the biggest road off of Marlborough Road. He is concerned about car
accidents, illegal u-turns and speeding. Mr. Puleo responded that he recalled his concerns during the
public hearings, and stated that the only safe place to put that light would be in the intersection of
Osborne Hills and Marlborough. He thinks that based on Mr. Kozubek's concerns the light will make
people stop and keep them from making illegal u-turns; additionally, anyone who will need to make a
left turn will be able to trigger the signal. He stated that he asked about striping due to the concern of
the width of the road. He noted that this was laid out by a consultant who was hired by the city, and
named this specific spot as the safest place for a signal. He recalled that Mr. Kozubek had a concern
about the noise from the pedestrian signal which really would only be used during the day.
Danuta Kozubek, 60 Marlborough Road, stated that their concern was that the city wants to put the light
directly in front of their house, on their property. She also stated that the light will be coming into their
bedroom. Mr. Puleo stated that it would all be done on city property. Mr. DiBiase responded describing
the location of the traffic arm in relation to the Kozubek's property. Mr. Kozubek asked how he is going
to safely exit his driveway if there is a pole in front of it. Mr. DiBiase stated that it is not going to be right
in front of their house, and that the whole purpose of the light is to slow down traffic. Mr. Puleo stated
that this is not a public hearing and if there is a question about how to alleviate the issue with the light,
they can ask Mr. DiBiase to ask the contractor to look into putting something in your driveway to trigger
the signal. Ms. Kozubek asked how to get in touch with Mr. DiBiase as he did not meet with them when
he was contacted by their attorney. Mr. DiBiase said he did not recall that, but would gladly meet with
them. Mr. Puleo recommended that the Planning Department contact the consultant firm, BETA, to
meet with them to clarify the considerations for the location of the traffic light. •
Roger Leger, 64 Marlborough Rd., stated that he was there in 2007 when the discussion of the signal
came about, and the signal was supposed to be left alone. He stated that he was upset that he wasn't
notified about this meeting. Mr. Puleo reminded Mr. Leger stated that this is not a public hearing and
also noted that the original approval from 2007 is the minutes,which specifically stated the location of
the traffic signal.
Tim Ready recommended that when the meeting takes place between Mr. DiBiase and the abutters that
Councilor Jerry Ryan be present for that meeting. Councilor Ryan was in the audience and agreed to be
there as well as review the original decision from 2007. Mr. Ready stated that they would make all of
the needed documents available to Councilor Ryan.
Mr. Puleo then asked about the bank that has the tri-party agreement. Mr. DiBiase said that it is a new
bank, but is the same one that has the tri-party agreement for the first phase, Enterprise Bank, and with
the Board's favorable vote on it tonight he will execute it tonight. Mr. Puleo then asked if the Dave
Knowlton,the City Engineer, agrees with the cost of the remaining items,to which Danielle McKnight,
Staff Planner, responded that he has approved the amounts for the tri-party agreement.
Tim Kavanagh made a motion to approve the release of the lots and the schedule of the costs connected
to it as approved by the City Engineer,seconded by Mark George.All approved 7-0. The decision is
hereby made a part of these minutes.
2
Public hearing: Request of BARTLETT&STEADMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.for Modification of a
Definitive Subdivision Decision for WITCH HILL(DELL STREET,Assessors Map 14, Lots 30,31,33,34,53,
54,55, 144 and Map 9 Lots 259,260) by waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for completion and
establishment of a schedule of subdivision completion requirements, release of Lots 211,210,213 and
214 on Martin Lane,and acceptance of a new tri-party agreement.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢. Request letter of Bartlett&Steadman for Release of Lots and Tri-Party Agreement, dated 2/2/12
➢ "Release of Lots,Witch Hill Subdivision"
➢ "Tri-Party Agreement to secure Construction of Ways and the Installation of Municipal Services,"
dated 2/2/12
➢ "Tri-Party Agreement Itemization," dated June 19, 2009
➢ "Declaration of Easements,Agreements, Restrictions,and Homeowner Association Re:Witch
Hill Subdivision,Salem, Massachusetts"
➢ "Declaration of Trust Establishing Witch Hill Homeowners Association Trust"
Chuck Puleo recused himself from this agenda item and appointed Tim Ready as Chair for the duration
of this item.
Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street, representing the applicant noted that this is a public hearing
as they are asking to amend the original decision. He stated that this is registered land and is subject to
Land Court approval. They also had to ask for an easement from National Grid. Previous Board
members had allowed this project significant time to complete the project and that was when Mr.
• Steadman ran into the recession and the crash of the housing market. They are asking to break the
project into three phases:the first phase is completed and they are asking for the release of four lots;
the second phase is to be to be completed by July 31, 2012; and the third phase is to be completed by
July 31, 2013. He showed the Board the outline of the project that was approved. Martin Lane is the
first phase that they are asking to be released;the second phase ends with/includes Good Circle;and
the final phase goes up Nurse Way. They all include cul-de-sacs. All of the utilities have been installed
on Martin Lane, and have been approved by the City as well as the Clerk of the Works; and they already
have a binder coat of pavement laid down. There is also an approval by the Conservation Commission
as three of the lots are within the wetlands boundary. Mr. Steadman has also completed off-site
improvements,which were part of the original agreement, including the removal of the cul-de-sac at the
end of Durkin Road;there was also some drainage work required on Highland Avenue that has been
completed. He was required to contribute$5000 to the equipment at DiBiase Park. He now is
presenting a list of amendments that are being requested,which includes an extension for the project
completion date. He then explained what is allowing them to do this: Mr.Steadman entered into an
agreement with a local builder who has built single-family houses in Salem that have sold. They want
the lots released to build homes on those lots which will then create a flow of funds and will then allow
for the marketing of this project. They hope this will produce a phase one, rolling into a phase two and
then rolling into a phase three. The next two items are in regards to open spaces and trails and they are
asking to be completed prior to the issuance of the building permits for the third phase. He noted that
the open spaces contain drainage in some areas that will have to be built and they feel this will be
completed by Phase Three. Then they can file a Conservation Restriction will the Registry of Deeds
which will protect the areas as open spaces and trails. Paragraph 19 of the original decision has to be
• changed as it includes stop signs,and they have to go to the Salem Police Department and the City
Council to get that approved, and those are scheduled to happen prior to the issuance of certificates of
3
occupancy for Phase Two. Similarly, the light poles will be installed after the work is done, in order to
protect the poles from potential damage by construction vehicles. He noted that part of the decision
had to do with the land located next to DiBiase Park,which they had to deal with in Land Court, and Mr. is
Steadman agreed to grant that land to the City of Salem for park space.There is also a park that was
requested by the Board as part of the project and they are going to meet with Park& Recreation to
discuss what type of park they would like in that area. They believe they can get that completed for
Phase Two. Finally there is an item of the decision that states that Mr. Steadman will pay$15,000
towards sewer improvement,which they have tied to the Certificates of Occupancy in Phase Two.
Helen Sides asked if Phase One was completed,to which Mr.Atkins said yes except for some minor
things, like light poles and sidewalks,and they are waiting for the houses to be complete before doing
that. Mark George asked to clarify if this is the first cul-de-sac, to which Mr. Atkins responded in the
affirmative. He further noted that the only items that the Board would be approving for release will be
those four lots on Martin Lane,which would constitute Phase One. Mr. Atkins then described the
documents he has drafted as part of this project including a Homeowners Association document, as well
as declarations and easements. He noted that he also has a Tri-Party Agreement to be executed,which
is$500,000 and includes the release of the four lots. This covers itemization of the subdivision through
Phase Three. They are awaiting the City Engineer's approval on these documents. He is specifically
asking for the Board to approve the amendments tonight and to execute the Tri-Party and the release of
the four lots to be held by the Planning Department on the condition that the Homeowners Association
and Declaration are recorded and the City Engineer approves the $500,000 surety. He concluded stating
that if the City Engineer does not think$500,000 is enough then they will re-issue the Tri-Party
Agreement for another amount.
Ms. McKnight stated that the Planning Department does not have any issue with the proposal to re- •
phase. She spoke with Robin Stein who stated that she is reviewing the documents that Attorney Atkins
mentioned and had no substantive problems with it,other than some minor edits.The one remaining
thing with the Tri-Party Agreement and the release of the four lots is that she does not have a
recommendation from Dave Knowlton that the amount of money is reasonable and acceptable for the
remaining items. However, she has only had the list of remaining items and amounts for the last few
days and she does not have an answer from Dave Knowlton regarding whether the money is adequate.
Based on the recommendation she received from Robin Stein, it was recommended that the Board does
not enter into a tri-party agreement unless the surety amount is approved by Mr. Knowlton. Mr.Atkins
responded stating that they feel that$500,000 is sufficient keeping in mind that the completed portions
were not included and noted that this was verbally approved by a City Engineer at one time. He
acknowledged that it was not put in writing and they have not been able to reach him this week. He still
feels that with the approval tonight and the Planning Department holding the documents pending the
approval would be an appropriate way to proceed.
Ms. McKnight asked Mr.Atkins to clarify that he is suggesting that they execute the Tri-Party
Agreement, but hold it and not record it if the amounts are not acceptable to Mr. Knowlton. Mr.Atkins
said yes.
Tim Kavanagh asked Mr.Atkins to confirm his understanding that this will be conditioned upon Robin
Stein's approval for final drafts of the Homeowners Association and the Declaration of Easements for
the subdivision,which is substantially done, and there is some technical/legal wording to be revised.
And the$500,000 would be conditioned upon David Knowlton's approval that this is an adequate sum of
money. Mr.Atkins added one other technical point which would be with the Homeowner's Association •
4
and the Declaration of Easements have to be recorded. Mr. Kavanagh stated that the documents would
. be recorded with the Registry of Deeds and David Knowlton would have to give the Planning Board
formal notification that he accepts a $500,000 surety as an acceptable sum of money to complete all
three phases or whatever remains. Mr. Kavanagh noted that if Mr. Knowlton rejects$500,000 and asks
for$1,000,000 and the bank rejects it, then we are stuck with a $500,000 surety bond and there will be
four lots will have been released that we would be concerned about being released. Mr.Atkins stated
that until they record the documents nothing would be released. Mr. Kavanagh stated that their
decision would not force Mr. Knowlton's hand and he would be free to determine whatever sum is
agreed upon to ensure the proper completion of phases 2 &3, as what they have right now is a
$500,000 surety. He stated that he does not have a problem with accepting a new Tri-Party Agreement
with a sum that Mr. Knowlton agrees is sufficient and for their purposes tonight agrees that$500,000 is
a sufficient amount which is all subject to his approval. And if he disapproves then they are back here
for round two. Mr. Ready stated that he is a little uncomfortable in making a presumption on his behalf,
to which Mr. Kavanagh stated that it is$500,000 already so that does not change anything and there is
even less work to be done. Mr.Atkins showed the document to the Board which showed the
itemization by dollar amount up to$500,000. Mr. George asked if Phase One has been sufficiently
completed to which Mr.Atkins said yes, and noted that it has also been inspected.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street,stated that while construction is going on the street lights should go up
first to protect public safety.
Anthony Pascarella, 27%2 Crowdis Street, asked how this affects the abutters. Mr.Steadman stated that
nothing is different, and they are not moving anything. Mr. Pascarella asked how this will affect the
• wetlands. Mr.Atkins stated that this is the same plan and only what is approved and stated that the lot
abutting his lot will be part of the open space,which will be undeveloped in perpetuity. He noted that
this Board has prohibited the development of the open space,and the conservation restriction will be
recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
Donald Lord, 29 Crowdis Street, stated that there are parts of his land that he doesn't want and asked
what to do with 300 feet of land and he is paying for. Mr. Ready stated that the Board cannot answer
his question, and recommended speaking with his City Councilor.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, stated that she agrees with Polly Wilbert that the lights need to
be built for the safety of the families. Mr.Atkins stated that the lights will be put up before the
residents can move in.
Helen Sides made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 6-0.
Mr. Ready asked Mr. Kavanagh to summarize the phasing issue. Mr. Kavanagh stated that he will frame
a motion then discuss. Mr. Kavanagh made a motion to amend the prior decision in accordance with
the itemization of proposed decision amendments presented here tonight, amending paragraphs 3, 10,
13, 19, 20, 21, and 31 of the Board's decision and in conjunction with those approvals a release of lots
211, 210, 213, 214, and with the acceptance of a new tri-party agreement in an amount of$500,000
subject to the approval of David Knowlton, City Engineer,that is an adequate surety to complete the
remaining construction in the subdivision which is mainly Phase 2 and Phase 3, and should he reject that
• sum of$500,000 as being inadequate and the applicant will come back submit a new request with a Tri-
Party Agreement; and it is his understanding that the Board will hold the documents for the release of
5
lots of 211, 210, 213, and 214 and the new Tri-Party Agreement has been approved by David Knowlton
and at such time that Robin Stein has agreed to the final language of the Homeowners Association •
Agreement and the Conservation Restriction and in addition that those items have been recorded at the
Southern Essex Registry of Deeds and at that point all conditions for the motion tonight will be satisfied.
Mr. Atkins clarified that it is not a Conservation Restriction but a Declaration of Easements required at
this time.
Mr. Ready asked if the Board members are comfortable enough to move forward on this decision. Mr.
Beilman asked if they would usually go to the City Engineer first to get the amount determined. Mr.
Ready stated that they almost universally follow the City Engineer's guidance. Mr. McCabe
recommended changing the language to show a review of the sum. Ms. McKnight re-worded the
motion made by Tim Kavanagh to read that they are voting to approve the re-phasing as proposed by
Attorney Atkins and accept the Tri-Party Agreement which would be subject to final review and approval
by the City Engineer, and release the four lots being requested on Martin Lane and subject to the
technical review by the Assistant City Solicitor the Declaration of Easements and the Homeowners
Association,which was seconded b Helen Sides, all approved 6-0. The decision is hereby made a art
Y PP Y P
of these minutes.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC,for the property located at 72
LORING AVE;292,296&300 CANAL ST;and 399 X&401 JEFFERSON AVE(Map 32, Lots 27,29, 30&
31,and Map 23,Lots 170& 191),Salem MA,for Site Plan Review,Planned Unit Development,and
Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the
existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop,Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service,and the
construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and .
landscaping.
Documents& Exhibitions:
➢ Applications for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Drive-Through
Special Permit, all date-stamped 11/10/11, and accompanying materials
➢ Site Plan for CVS/Pharmacy#7109,Jefferson Avenue &Canal Street,Salem, MA 01970, prepared
by R.1. O'Connell &Associates, Inc., last revised 1/9/12
➢ Exterior Elevation drawings prepared by BKA Architects, Inc., dated 11/8/11
➢ Stormwater Management Study, CVS/Pharmacy#7109, Loring Plaza, Canal Street and Jefferson
Ave.,Salem, Massachusetts, prepared by R.J.O'Connell &Associates
➢ Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed CVS/Pharmacy, Salem, Massachusetts, prepared by
GPI (Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.)
➢ Response memo to civil engineering peer review from RJ O'Connell &Associates, Inc., dated
1/9/12
➢ Response memo to traffic peer review from GPI, Inc.,dated 1/9/12
➢ "Follow-up Civil Technical Peer Review," prepared by AECOM and dated 1/18/12
➢ "Technical Peer Review,Traffic Impact and Access Study," dated 1/17/12
➢ Letter from Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe, dated 1/30/12
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the applicant and introduced Paul Beck,
Jason Plourde and Phil Henry. He stated that they have been working on responses to peer review
comments on traffic and civil peer review,which they will respond to tonight. Generally it seems like
6
the focus has been the ingress and egress from the site on Kimball Road, Canal and Jefferson Streets,
• and closing one of the curb cuts on Jefferson Avenue.
Phil Henry, site engineer from RG O'Connell, began the list with improvements to Kimball Road in terms
of access. He noted that there currently is a retaining wall that separates the gas station from the drive
through site, along with orange cones from the retaining wall to the telephone pole. With
recommendations from AECOM,they are proposing to extend a white edge line extending from the end
of the edge of the retaining wall and wrapping around the existing telephone pole; and to put a stop
sign and additional striping to create more of an entrance for vehicular access.
Mr. George asked what they plan to put in that area to make it look like a road rather than a parking lot.
Mr. Henry stated that it is currently a sea of asphalt, and they feel that if they put down striping and the
stop sign, it will create a visual delineation. Mr. George then asked what they plan to do with those four
or five parking spaces near the restaurant, and how will they delineate that area,to which Mr. Henry
stated that there were no current plans to delineate that area. Mr.George stated that he was looking
for some sort of delineation that this specific area is parking or a road, in order to get rid of the
confusion between what is private and what is public. Ms. Sides noted that the road is a standard two
lane road width and she feels it has to do with grade in so much as there is no built-in curb, and is just a
strip.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Henry to point out exactly which lots are included in this PUD application,to which
Mr. Henry described on the slides. Mr. Correnti stated they don't control the two corners on Canal
Street,and those two properties are not part of the project area. They are trying to pick up off of that
street so it becomes controlled access, but they can't control the two corners in question as those are
• public streets. Mr. Puleo stated that he was at the site today and observed cars parked in specific areas
around the site and was not sure if the are where the cars were parked were part of the site. He asked
the applicant if these spaces were part of the site,where there were 9 vehicles. Mr. Henry stated that
those were spaces used by employees of the ambulance service. Mr. Correnti acknowledged that the
way things were currently laid out in this specific area were wide open and confusing and they are
attempting to channelize the parking and the flow. Mr. Puleo asked if those specific spaces are part of
the PUD then are they planning on leaving those spaces there, and expressed concerns about how traffic
gets in and out of those spaces, as well as the inadequate lighting. He feels that if this is going to be an
access point to the site that these areas need to be addressed more clearly. Mr.Correnti stated that
they can get some answers on Mr. Puleo's questions and concerns in terms of the potential use of those
spaces. He noted that they will be installing more lights that will be appropriate for the site, but not
overpowering for neighbors. He thinks that those spaces in question will continue to be used, but they
will look further at that area. Mr. Henry also responded, stating that the access drive associated with
the specific spaces in question are 24 feet wide at their minimum,which is industry standard. Mr. Puleo
states that he understands that, he is just concerned that there is a lot of traffic flow for that space and
should possibly be restricted for employee use only. Jason Plourde,with Greenman Pedersen, stated
that anyone travelling down Canal Street will use the entrance right on Canal Street,and not right onto
Kimball and left onto the site. Any vehicles that are coming northbound onto Loring Avenue are not
going to turn onto Kimball Road, and most,after exiting the site,will turn left on Canal Street out of
Kimball Road. Thus there is a small portion of the traffic that will use Kimball Road.
Mr. Ready asked what the striping will look like on Kimball Road. Mr. Henry described the striping and
• the location of the proposed new striping. Mr. Ready then stated that to Mr. George's point,why not
7
carry that center line on Kimball Road out as a double line in order to better define that roadway to
alleviate some of the wide open space. Mr. Henry stated that they can incorporate that into the plan. •
Mr. Correnti stated that the next issue they addressed was the Jefferson Avenue curb cuts,which Mr.
Henry presented on. He stated that they what they have is similar to what they had presented
previously. They took the advice of AECOM and the Board and considered reducing the three driveways
into two which includes a landscaped island with curb. They considered the vehicular access of the
current uses and existing operations,which is how they chose which access point to close—the one
currently in the center. Mr. George noted that the use there today may not be there tomorrow, to
which Mr. Puleo agreed that they don't know what will be there in ten years, in terms of the other lots.
Mr. Plourde stated that they have laid out the plan in a way that will accommodate a tenant change. In
the area where the parking is in front of the building,they feel strongly that they are providing a safe
alternative, which is why the recommended closing this driveway.They chose this driveway due to the
sight distance and the radii of the driveways,which will not cross; and he noted that there are more
than 50 feet between the driveways on Jefferson Avenue. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Plourde if this was on a
state road,would MassHighway allow the applicant to put these driveways this close together. Mr.
Plourde stated that there would be a lot of things to be considered, such as the safest alternatives and
the layouts, and it is a complicated answer. Mr. Puleo continued stating that he and Ms. McKnight had
some information about the traffic lights, to which Mr. Correnti suggested the team focus their next
topic of discussion on traffic.
Jason Plourde,traffic consultant from Greenman Pedersen, stated that Councilor O'Keefe brought up
some issues with the traffic signal where Loring Avenue,Jefferson and Canal Streets meet. As a result of
that, they reached out to MassDOT District 4 to have them do some field checks to make sure all of the
equipment is functioning properly,which includes loop detectors that detect the cars. They checked the •
signal earlier this week and found that everything is functioning properly. They stated that they go out
to check signal functions when they receive a complaint and Mr. Plourde was the first person to call
about this signal. He also looked into video detection in lieu of loop detectors,which have pros and
cons. When construction is being done it can disrupt the functionality of a loop detector, however snow
can disrupt a video detector. The state would take that into consideration due to the mast arms on
Jefferson Avenue; however on Canal Street there are no mast arms thus the video detection will not
work correctly due to the wind. The other issue the state had was on the southbound approach where
there was an exclusive right turn lane onto Jefferson Avenue that the city created prior to 2005 and the
problem is that there is only one set of loop detectors which is not ideal. There should be one loop
detector for each lane. They are also considering replacing lenses on the lights to reduce the glare.
They are working with the City Electrician,John Giardi, and MassDOT to determine the best solutions for
this intersection. Mr. Puleo asked if there are any planned improvements for this intersection, to which
Mr. Plourde stated no.
Mr. Correnti stated that they were asked to look at the Canal Street entrance, specifically if a car wants
to make a left turn into the site if this would prohibit through traffic continuing down Canal Street. Mr.
Plourde displayed through the slides that there was plenty of room for another car to get by a car
entering the site from a left turn on Canal Street. Mr.Correnti stated that AECOM and the Salem Police
Department concurred with their assessment.
Mr. Correnti then addressed the issue on the curb cut in relation to potential restrictions with egress
and ingress from Canal Street. He stated that the left turn in, as noted by AECOM, becomes crucial to .
the project. He also addressed the left turns out of the site onto canal Street could possibly be
8
restricted at certain times, like the CVS site at Highland Avenue and Marlborough Road. This is
. something that could be agreed to, particularly if they want to have up to a one year trial period. Mr.
Correnti further stressed that if a situation arises after two months,then they would not wait a full year
for the trail period before they would come back to the Board to make changes. This concluded the
issues in terms of traffic.
Mr. Correnti then turned the presentation to the issue of units on the roof of the building, and brought
pictures to share with the Board and the public. Kevin Paton, BKA Architects,spoke on behalf of Bryce
Hillman. He described the roof of a similar style building, demonstrating that the roof is essentially a
large bathtub. He stated that the noise measured right at the roof is between 80 to 85 decibels,
however the reading taken ten feet away from the roof unit registers at 42 decibels, which is roughly the
same volume that two people would have a normal speaking conversation standing three feet apart. He
feels very confident that the unit would not be exceeding the state level of 10 decibels over ambient.
They have the ambulance building at the rear with two units, as well as at least two units on top of the
Tedeschi's and the Eastern Bank building, and they feel that their roof structure in combination with the
design of the building,that there would be little to no impact on the neighbors.
Mr. Correnti moved onto the granite curbing issue,which was presented by Mr. Henry. Mr. Henry
stated that there was a recommendation by the Board to extend the granite curbing into the site from
Canal Street. They propose to extend the vertical granite curb on the sidewalk side, to be extended
another 50 feet to the first space at the Auto Zone. Similarly,on the other side,they propose to extend
the granite curbing to the radius tip, which was chosen because pass-by traffic looking into the site will
get that curb appeal. Similarly on Jefferson Avenue,they are proposing to extend the granite curbing.
They noted that pass-by traffic will get the visual granite look. Mr. Correnti stated that this concluded
• their presentation.
Mr. Puleo asked what the rest of the concrete will be,to which Mr. Henry stated that it will be extruded
concrete curb so it is essentially a separate piece which sits on top of the rest of the curb like a tube.
Mr. Puleo then asked if this is the only curbing they are installing, specifically from the entrance to the
site on Canal Street to go around the perimeter,with a break for the drive through at the Eastern Bank.
Mr. Henry described on the plan where the vertical curbing will be installed throughout the site. Mr.
Puleo noted that anything that is set in a binder material is going to move after a period of time and the
Highland Avenue site has held up well with granite curbing. His personal feeling is that it is not a lot of
curbing and this should be looked at again,to which Mr. Correnti agreed to look at it again. He then
discussed the issue of the driveway,where he stated that they talked about eliminating two entrances
and having one opening,which he feels is the safer option. Traffic-wise he thinks it would make more
sense,as well. He also stated that the left-turn restriction entering Canal Street definitely requires a
trial period and noted that at other local CVS sties there are left turn restrictions. He stated that in
terms of delineating the driveway on Kimball Road that he feels it is a safety issue specifically where the
parking spaces are along Bertini s building, and he thinks they should consider moving those spaces.
Mr. Ready stated that he would like CVS to consider how this Board and the city views this site as it is a
very visible site and is part of the long term growth of the city. The other CVS sites in the city have very
nice curbing and have their own traffic issues that have been resolved cooperatively by CVS. He would
very pleased to see more attention given to the granite curbing so that it looks good and is compatible
to the other CVS sites in the city. He also stated that in terms of the location of the entranceways on
• Jefferson Street,the first entrance coming in from Canal Street is as dangerous to the potential
customer turning in as is it for the customer entering from any other direction on Jefferson. He noted
9
that the further away the driveway is from the intersection the higher the risk for a rear-end collision.
He still cannot grasp why the applicant wants the two entrances so close together. Mr. Correnti •
addressed this issue stating that if there is no entry to the Tedeschi's and the Eastern Bank in front of
their building then this project is going to be in jeopardy. Having one entrance for all of the businesses is
not going to work well. The curb cut that was chosen to be closed is exactly for a safety reason. Other
options have been modeled and look at and they do not work. They had peer review look at this and
agree that closing one driveway is better than leaving them all open, and additionally the police and fire
departments have looked at this and while it's not ideal, this is what works for the needs of the site and
allows the development to go forward.
Mr. Kavanagh asked if there was a crosswalk located on the plan where the yield sign is,to which Mr.
Plourde said yes.
Mr. McCabe asked if the red arrows on the plan are solely to go to CVS,to which Mr. Correnti responded
stating that it was a connector to other businesses. Mr. McCabe asked about signage and Mr. Correnti
stated that he doesn't believe there are any proposed changes to the current signage.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Polly Wilbert,7 Cedar Street, stated that she has a number of questions including how the snow storage
works; the location of the handicap spaces in relation to the incline by the bank(she recommended that
handicapped parking on the auto zone side have a deeper buffer from Canal Street,to which Mr.
Correnti stated that is where they are). She also asked about the number of HVAC units needed if they
demolish the smaller building on the site. She also wants to make a point about the outside sidewalk on
the Jefferson that she thinks it's unrealistic as people will be walking with their backs to the traffic to get
into the site, and should be on the inside arc, not the outside arc. Her final concern is in regards to the •
angle of crosswalk, which should be angled to encourage walking through the crosswalk. Mr. Henry
began the team's response by describing the pedestrian route on the slides, and Mr. Correnti then
described the locations of the sidewalks. He continued stating that they agree with Ms. Wilbert's
statement that there is going to be a lot of foot traffic, as that is what they are counting on for this site,
which is why they are putting in a lot of crosswalks and sidewalks. He noted that if this doesn't work
then they are going to have to come up with something else, but they do think this is laid out safely.
Ben Anderson, 10 Adams Street, stated that he understands the economics of the driveways in front of
Tedeschi's and Eastern Bank, but his concern is safety. He does not believe that those driveways are 200
feet apart, as required by Salem zoning laws. He feels that this development is shoehorning a CVS into
the property and there needs to be some accommodation to that. He commends the developer for
going a long way to address his quality of life concerns and he appreciates that. However, he is
concerned about how people will go into that driveway. In relation to the noise, he stated that at the
last Planning Board meeting they were going to test the noise and he wants to make sure that is going to
happen and that the levels don't exceed the levels as required. He then asked if the Board can limit
construction hours on site or if that is for the Building Inspector. Mr. Puleo stated that the Salem zoning
ordinance states that work can be done during certain hours daily(8 a.m.to either 4 or 5 p.m.) and if
any other work needs to be done outside of those hours they have to get approval from the City Council.
Jim Rose, 25 Linden Street, asked about the exterior design of the building. He would like to see a
design similar to the one at 426 Essex Street,the former Crosby's site, or the CVS at the corner of
Rantoul Street and Route 62. Mr. Puleo stating that there is some brick and Mr.Correnti stated that •
they can get him a set of the plans with further renderings of the design.
10
• Ward 5 Councilor Josh Turiel, 238 Lafayette Street, stated that he would like to go back to the traffic
plan on Canal Street. He states that when he spoke with the Salem Police, he said he would like to see
Kimball Road more emphasized as an access point and he received feedback that was supportive of this.
He thinks that the side spaces on Kimball Road could be lost to this project which will help with the
traffic usage on Kimball Road and will lessen the usage on other access points.
Jonathan Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street,states that he agrees that the poured curbing doesn't last and
the striping won't last either.
Anthony Pascarella, 27%: Crowdis Street, commented that he frequents AutoZone a lot and entering
from Canal Street is difficult. He asked if there is a light being proposed. Mr. Puleo said no,that they
are proposing cross hatch painting like what is in front of Riley Plaza. Mr. Pascarella noted that it he
doesn't see that working in front of the fire station. He also asked when the ambulances will be exiting
the site. Ms. McKnight reiterated that 95%of their use during the night originates from the site, and
during the day it's 40%, and noted that most of the time they use the Canal Street exit when leaving the
site.
Jim Kearney, 1% Cambridge Street,stated that the double intersection on Jefferson Street seems
problematic and he sees accidents happening there. He also said that it would be nice if CVS could be
closer to the street to eliminate the sea of cars similar to what happened to Public Storage on Bridge
Street,which is more pleasing from his perspective. His third concern was in regards to noise during
construction. He stated that people get around it very easily and it is difficult to enforce.
• Mr. Correnti stated that they would like to work with the Planning Staff some remaining issues. He
noted that their goal from day one was to give the Board the best project they can in order to have
construction begin in the Spring and have the store open in 2012. He recognizes that they have a couple
of issues left and they would like to get back to the Board at the next meeting on those issues. Mr.
Correnti also noted that there is no new information to present so hopefully at the next meeting the
Board can draft a decision for the next meeting. Ms. McKnight stated that there had been a letter
submitted by Councilor O'Keefe that encourages the Board to explore with MassDOT improvements to
the traffic signal at Jefferson Street, Canal Street and Loring Avenue.
Mr. Puleo then asked about the signage issues that were presented at the first meeting and what has to
be brought before MassDOT, and how they can address those issues in the decision. Mr. Plourde
responded stating that AECOM asked for a formal response from MassDOT to address if they needed an
access permit for the driveways and they have submitted the formal request to MassDOT. As far as the
signs and the traffic signal improvements,that is something that is in the works and they are working
closely with John Giardi. In terms of what the Board can do, he is not sure, but he stated that the state
is aware of the project and the deficiencies identified on the project. Mr. Puleo stated that the signage
is an easy fix. Mr. Correnti said that they will work the issues out with the city so they have an answer
for the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Correnti stated that they are pushing for a draft decision because
they don't know when the next meeting will be due to the loss of voting Board Members.
Helen Sides made a motion to continue the public hearing until February 16, 2012, seconded by Tim
Kavanagh. Alla roved 7-0.
g PP
•
11
Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3 HARMONY
GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236,237&239),Salem MA(redevelopment of the •
former site of Salem Oil &Grease factory),for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special
Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes
construction of three multi-family residential buildings(total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000
square foot commercial office building,and associated parking and landscaping.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Wetlands& Flood Hazard Districts Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/11
➢ Site Plan Review application, date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Planned Unit Development Special Permit application,date-stamped 12/22/12
➢ Plans titled Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development, Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove
60-64 Grove Street &3 Harmony Grove Road,Salem, MA;' dated 12/20/11
➢ Letter from James R.Treadwell, dated 1/30/12
➢ Email message from Jim Kearney dated 2/2/12
➢ Letter from Ward 6 Councillor Paul C. Prevey dated 1/17/12
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the petitioners on this project,stated that
they have a mixed use project that they are very proud to present. They plan to give an overview of the
project tonight. He introduced the owners of the project including Michael and Robin Hubbard from
MRM Project Management, also as a partner is Eric Carlson from the Federated Companies,who is
responsible for the housing components of this project; also part of the team is Bob Griffin, from Griffin
Engineering group in Beverly who is the Site Civil Engineer and Project Manager;and Brian Beaudette,
who is the architect; Giles Ham is the Traffic Consultant; Luke Fabbri is the LSP on the site; and Steve •
McDonagh is our Landscape Architect. Both Luke and Giles are here tonight but their presentations will
come at a later date. This evening they would like to give a background of Federated, and they will
discuss the unique characteristics and challenges of the site. Mr. Correnti noted that in spite of the
challenges of the site they have met all zoning requirements and the site will have plenty of parking.
The proposed project is a mixed use project,though primarily residential,which will be three low-rise
buildings that will mostly be residential apartments.There will also be a 17,000 square foot commercial
site and will include the construction of a public walkway,which will be built along the canal, and will
link to the train station,and link all the way to the Peabody line.
Eric Carlson, Development Manager for Federated Companies, gives a brief profile of Federated.
Bob Griffin, Civil Engineer,stated that the project site is made up of 6.8 acres of land, and described
each parcel of land. Mr. Puleo asked if the property weaves in and out of all of those homes,to which
Mr. Griffin said yes and noted that in the areas where there are encroachments,they don't plan to do
anything about those. He spoke of previous uses of the site including a number of industrial uses and he
shared atlases of Salem from the 1800s. He then showed pictures of the current buildings and discussed
their uses. He also showed pictures of the areas they are utilizing for this project, specifically Beaver and
Grove Streets; and he discussed the challenges of the site with the old industrial buildings as well as the
railroad tracks. He discussed activity and use limitations on the property in relation to the pollutants.
He stated that MRM took over this area in 2006 and have spent thousands of dollars cleaning up the
site, and all of the environmental contamination issues have been dealt with. There are other
environmental issues that have to be dealt with which is why they conducted soil boring tests in the fall •
to advance that portion of the project. They are concerned about protecting the North River Canal and
12
it is his belief that the environmental cleanup work they are doing here is going to be best for the smelt
• fish that swim through the canal in the Spring. They have flood zones in the area and where they are
below the 100 year flood line, that is an engineering challenge for the group. Mr. Griffin states that they
are within the buffer zone of the river,thus they have to get permits from the Conservation Commission
for anything that they propose for this site. A considerable effort has been made by MRM to re-use the
buildings but the structures are in poor condition and were not well maintained,thus the ability to re-
use the site for those industrial uses was not possible. He then presented a slide on the re-
development plan which included saving the 60 Grove Street property for office or storage type uses,
and they think this is an important part of the project. They are proposing three four story buildings
which will have a total of 141 dwelling units,which are 1 and 2 bedroom market-rate apartments and
will have about 250 spaces of parking. Their main interest is on Harmony Grove Road where they will
reconstruct a new bridge as the current one is not usable, and it will be wider and more suitable for the
future use. The roadways will slope up to hit the front of the buildings. The project also includes a
walkway that is intended for public use,and they think that this is an important part of the project that
will connect people to other areas. The project is 0.8 miles to the T station and 1 mile from Peabody
Square. The commercial site also includes 239 parking spaces and they will re-landscape the area. They
also just met with City of Peabody and City of Salem officials and their consultants to discuss the impact
this proposal will have on the Peabody flood improvement plan and the City of Peabody was pleased
with the plan, as was the Army Corps of Engineers,which makes their project more viable. Mr.Griffin
also pointed out that on the Beaver Street side they are going to maintain the mature vegetation. There
will be retaining walls adjacent to the buildings to maintain the mature vegetation between the existing
residences and the proposed development. They feel that by maintaining the mature vegetation that
will naturally screen the Beaver Street side.They will clean out all of the trash in the area as well as
remove the waste water treatment plant that is close to some of the houses. Most of the tall trees on
• Harmony Grove Street will remain.
Mr. George asked how bad the contamination is on this site. Mr.Griffin stated that this needs to be
discussed more in-depth than they can discuss tonight. However, Luke Fabbri, the LSP responsible for
this project, has spent a significant amount of time working on this and knows the types of
contaminants at the site. He states that a lot of what he has seen at the site has been metals.
Brian Beaudette,Architect,will walk the Board through the buildings and their relation to the areas of
the site. He showed the Board the buildings on Harmony Grove and the Grove Street entrance,which is
a commercial building. He stated that where the old grist mill is will be a building with four floors. He
presented another slide that shows the elevations of the site. He explained that on the commercial part
of the site, the idea is to completely renovate the building while keeping the historic shape of the
building. He then showed a slide with an elevation of the buildings and explained that they will use
hardy plank on the buildings. He concluded his presentation by showing the direction of the path and
how it weaves through the site.
Mr. Correnti stated that there are one or two slides left then they will conclude the overview. He said
that this project meets the PUD requirement. He noted that this is an investment of$20 million and is
the type of investment that can spur growth in the neighborhood.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street,asked if this project is going before other commissions. Mr. Correnti
• stated that nothing else has been filed, but they will need to go to the Conservation Commission, the
Historical Commission for a waiver of demolition delay, they will need a Chapter 91 license for the
13
rebuilding of the bridge over the canal, and they are going to file and Environmental Notification Form
with the state. •
Jonathon Reardon, President of the Board of Trustees at Harmony Grove Cemetery, 35 Chestnut Street,
stated that it is his understanding that Harmony Grove Cemetery owns property on Harmony Grove
Road including number 3 Harmony Grove Road as well as that bridge. Mr. Puleo asked him if what he is
saying that part of this project is taking place on property that the Harmony Grove Cemetery owns, to
which he said yes. Mr. Correnti stated that would be a problem, but they don't believe that is the case,
and they will look into it and they will come back with an answer on that.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, stated that she is glad that there is a proposal to use that site but it
seems to her that the density of 141 units are not at all in keeping with the spirit of keeping a historical
flavor. She said that these new buildings are one of the most disgusting things she has ever seen and
she was hoping for townhouses and something with more angles that don't look like railroad cars. She
asked how set in stone is the design of the buildings and can they make comments and
recommendations about changing the buildings. Mr. Puleo said they are just at the beginning.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked what is the total square footage of residential space. Ms.
McKnight stated that it is 135,768 square feet of residential space.
Barbara Cleary, 104 Federal Street, stated that she has been involved in planning on the North River
Corridor for many years and is pleased to see this development; however she is disappointed with many
aspects of it. She said that originally this wasn't part of the five year plan, but with the zoning change
this became a new residential project and she urged the Board to think about the design principles of
the North River Canal Plan. She says this is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood planning •
principles. Under the PUD the Board has the power to really shape this and she urges the Board to
consider that.
Ms. McKnight stated that she had a letter from Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, and asked Councilor
Prevey if he wanted her to read his letter from January 17, 2012 outlining his concerns into the record.
He responded that at some point he would like to speak about it, but as long as it gets included the
record, it doesn't have to be read into the record now. And he will speak about all of his concerns in
later meetings. Ms. McKnight stated that there was correspondence with Jim Kearney with visuals and
asked if he would prefer to have his correspondence read.
Jim Kearney, 1'/:Cambridge Street, stated that so many people live in Salem because of the architecture
and this really seems to violate that. A lot of the buildings that have come,before the Board had
developers that had seen fit to adhere to these architecture standards. He would hate to see this set
the tone for the rest of the area.
Tim Ready made a motion to continue the public hearing until February 16, 2012,seconded by Helen
Sides. All approved 7-0.
Old/New Business
Ms. McKnight stated that as part of the Urban Renewal Plan the consultants on behalf of the City have
filed the environmental notification form. The Planning Board has received a copy and if anyone is
interested in seeing it, it is available through the Planning Department.
•
14
Ms. McKnight also stated that they have to sign the Tri-Party Agreement document for George Atkins.
• Mr. Puleo suggested that the Board get something for Nadine for her retirement from the Board.
Mr. Puleo also said if anyone has any concerns about CVS to please email Ms. McKnight.
New Board Member George McCabe was welcomed to the Board.
Adjournment
Helen Sides made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by George McCabe. All approved 7-0.
Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions
have been posted separately by address or project at:
http://www.salem.com/PagesISolemmA PlonMin/
Approved by the Planning•Board 3/1/12
•
•
15
Cp
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
CITY.CLERFILE`#r�
Decision: Modification to a Form C SubdivistorMl366mMt u.
March 1,2012
George W. Atkins III
Ronan, Segal&Hirrington
59 Federal Street
Salem,MA 01970
RE: Dell Street/etch Hill Subdivision Re-phasing request
Dear Attorney Atkins:
The SalemPlamnung Board met on Thursday,Febmary2,2012 to discuss the request of Ken Steadman to
modify the phasing of the Dell Street/Wrtch Hill Subdivision("the Subdivision'), as described in the
attachment to your letter dated February 2, 2012 ("Witch Hill Itemization of Proposed Decision
Amendments").
• The Board decided by a vote of 6-0 (Tun Kavanagh,Tim Ready, Lewis Beilm n,Mark George, Helen Sides,
and George McCabe in favor,none opposed) to approve the request to re-phase the Subdivision with the
following changes to the original decision dated January 20,2005,as follows:
Time For Completion. Time for completion is hereby waived and extended and the Subdivision shall
be completed in three (3) phases as follows:
a. Phase L Martin Lane is substantially completed except for lighting and sidewalks.
b. Phase II: Nurse Way to Good Circle and Good Circle shall be completed on or
before July 31,2012.
c. Phase III: Remainder of Subdivision shall be completed on or before July 31,2013.
Condition 10- Open Sp1ce. Documentation of recording of a Conservation Restriction and Easement
is to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to the issuance of
any Phase III building permit (this condition was previously required prior to issuance of any building
permit).
Condition 13- Tr-ails. The trail system shall be laid out in the field for the review and approval of the
City Planner prior to the issuance of any Phase III building pernnit (this condition was previously required
prior to issuance of any building permit).
Condition 19- Signaee.
a. Subject to approval by the CityCouncd, the applicant shall install a stop sign at the
intersection of Durkin Road and Mooney Road. The placement shall be reviewed and
approved by the Salem Police Department and the Department of Planning and Comurnmity
Development prior to the issuance of any Phase II certificate of occupancy. (This condition
was previously required prior to issuance of any building permit.)
b. Subject to approval by the City Council, the applicant shall install a stop sign and a stop line
• at the intersection of Flighland Avenue and Mooney Road. The placement shall be
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALF7M.COM
reviewed and approved by the Salem Police Department and the Department of Plamning and
• ComnnmityDevelopment prior to issuance of any Phase II certificate of occupancy. (This
condition was previously required prior to issuance of any building permit.)
Condition 20- Lighting. A final lighting plan for each phase shall be submitted to the City Planner and
the City Electrician for review and approval prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancyfor
homes within that phase (this condition was previously required prior to issuance of any certificate of
occupancy). After installation of lighting within each phase,lighting shall be reviewed by the City Planner
and the City Electrician,prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for that phase (this
condition was previously required prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy).
Condition 21- Parks.
b. The applicant shall provide documentation of the purchase of Lot 38 shown on the Subdivision
Plan prior to the issuance of any Phase II certificate of occupancy(this condition was previously required
prior to issuance of any budding permit).
d. Conveyance and construction of the park referred to in Condition 21. d. is to be done prior to the
issuance of any Phase II certificate of occupancy(this condition was previously required prior to issuance
of any building permit).
Condition 31- Utilities. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to contribute $15,000.00 to the Cityof
Salem for improvements to the sewer system. The contribution shall be submitted to the City of Salem
prior to the issuance of any Phase II certificate of occupancy(this condition waspY required reviousl P rior
to issuance of any building permit).
All other conditions of the original decision dated January 20,2005 remain in effect. The above amendments
do not affect any lot or rights appurtenant thereto in the subdivision conveyed or mortgaged in good faith
and for valuable consideration subsequent to the approval of the subdivision plan (no lots in the subdivision
have been conveyed or mortgaged).
• In conjunction with this re-phasing,the Board voted to release lots 211,212, 213,214 (Phase I of the
subdivision) and to accept a new tri-party agreement in an amount of$500,000 subject to the approval of the
City Engineer.
On February 17, 2012,the City Engineer gave approval that $500,000 would be adequate to complete the
remaining construction on the subdivision.
I herehycertify that a copyof 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.
Sincerely,
Timothy Ready
Vice Chair
Salem Planning Board
���gONUfTq�Q
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
nNFa� Board 80--r�
Date / 2 /
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
vev 7YT USS'
/7)
1�1 N" rf�Ah2lt,R x'71/z^ne2ou�pm5� �7 �y�2r71-( PccRcf/FiXJAm4,
•
//�,��1a h� k-c►�-�o ����I� � � /Y,! R+`-C.fa 0�7 K9lt �� � }�'��-y S - o y� �
U!!41eM WwPLy l00 Mc. I�UIe JgVI K]
�S� �It>,tisS 29 Sctlsa� � �� 8 �y�- 33ob
K. t,J Cod \A LL_44C-57T 78� �3t 3 7Sl
it �rosdw�z
Page of
r cbNotTR� ,
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
�NNW E;1?� Board 00 v
Date / -2– / -
ame Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
Page of
m
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2112 JAN 12 P 3: 4q
FILE #
CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS,
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday,January 19, 2012 at 7.00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
1. Planning Board Officer Elections
2. Approval of Minutes
i January 5, 2012 meeting
3. Request of Paul DiBiase for endorsement of a tri-party agreement and release of lots in Phase 2A of the
Strongwater Crossing (AKA Osborne Hills) subdivision (Amanda Way, off Marlborough Road).
4. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC,for the property located at 72 LORING
• AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399 Y22 &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30& 31, and Map 23,
Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities.
The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food
Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-
through, including associated parking and landscaping.
5. Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3 HARMONY
GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former
site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and
Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of
three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot
commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.
6. Presentation/Discussion: North River Canal Corridor(NRCC)Transportation Study. Overview of the changes
anticipated in the NRCC, identification of key intersections, and a preliminary discussion of potential
transportation improvements.
7. Request for Insignificant Change: Request of Ayoub Engineering on behalf of McDonald's Corporation for a
change of approved color scheme for McDonald's, 1 Trader's Way.
This nodo p0#W on -Of" SuRe n 8088 2"
8. Old/New BusinessNyfthm, mss. on j"w_ _ ;z IZ
at 3 �M
9. Adjournment 2M isNil a4 1A.
rWft" am
• Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
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
• � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
DATE: December 21, 2011
RE: Agenda—January 9,612 meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Minutes from 1/5/12
➢ Materials for Agenda Items
Request of Paul DiBiase for endorsement of a tri-party agreement and release of lots in Phase
2A of the Strongwater Crossing(AKA Osborne Hills) subdivision (Amanda Way, off
Marlborough Road).
Mr. DiBiase is proposing a new tri-party agreement with Eastern Bank for the release of the 13
lots in Phase 2A. A draft of the tri-party agreement is enclosed. Fay, Spofford &Thorndike and
David Knowlton have reviewed the items in the agreement and are satisfied that the amount of
surety will be sufficient to finish the phase, with the exception of the installation of the traffic
signal. We are in discussion with Mr. DiBiase in order to satisfactorily address this issue. As a
reminder, the traffic signal must be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the 215` home. Mr. DiBiase has built 19 homes to date as part of Phase 1.
Public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC,for the property located at 72 LORING
AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST;and 399 36 &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30&
31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development,
and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently
housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance
service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including
• associated parking and landscaping.
In response to AECOM's traffic and civil engineering review, the applicant has submitted revised
plans and response memos explaining the changes. These are enclosed. AECOM has also
received this information and is working to complete their evaluation of the revisions so they _
can present them at our meeting on the 19`n
•
Other issues:
Curbing—The plan detail shows extruded concrete curbing at the new site driveway from
Jefferson Avenue. I have let the applicant know that vertical granite would be preferable here.
Lighting— I sent the revised lighting plan to John Giardi to determine whether there would be
significant impacts to abutters; he responded that the new plan looks fine.
Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60&64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237&239), Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District
Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential
buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office
building, and associated parking and landscaping.
The application has been routed to Fire, Conservation, Building, Health and Engineering. The
School Department, Police Department and Department of Public Services have also been
notified of the filing. We have also shared the plans with Peabody's planning department. •
The proposal is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) located in the Business Park Development
zoning district. A PUD allows a development to depart from certain zoning restrictions, such as
those on parking and density, and allows for a mixture of compatible uses. Certain
requirements must be met, according to Section 7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance:
Size/applicability: The proposed PUD meets the minimum size requirement of 60,000 square
feet (the three parcels equal 296,660 square feet).
Uses: The Business Park Development (BPD) zoning district allows a PUD, but restricts
residential uses and associated improvements to 50%or less of the land area of the parcel (in
mixed-use buildings, only 50% of the gross square footage can be residential). The three
proposed residential buildings and all areas associated with the residences such as parking and
landscaping would therefore need to be less than half the square footage of the parcels.
According to the applicant's calculations, as shown on the Site Layout Plan (C-3),the non-
residential area is 151,202 square feet, which is 51%of the total land area and therefore meets
the requirements of this provision.
Open space:The applicant should address how any usable open space will comply with Section
7.3.5, which requires the space either to be owned by the city for park or conservation use, or
that it be owned by residents of the development with limited provisions for public use. •
-2-
Other considerations:
Gravel path:A path is proposed to run along the south side of the North River Canal up to the
easternmost bridge, then running along the railroad right of way. Consideration should be
given to installing a bituminous path intended for biking and walking, as was approved for the
28 Goodhue Street development, for continuity, since a gravel path would be intended for
different users than a bituminous one.
Traffic: A traffic impact and analysis study is included in the application. We plan to have FST
do the peer review, since they have been working on the NRCC study and are already very
familiar with traffic issues in the area.
As you know, the Planning Department has been working with Fay, Spofford &Thorndike on
developing a transportation study for the NRCC. The first public meeting will be held as part of
this Planning Board meeting. See discussion below.
Conservation Commission:Tom Devine, Conservation Agent, has noted in response to the filing
that the project is within area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and will require submittal
of a notice of intent to the Conservation Commission. The Commission's July 2011 order of
resource area delineation for this property was appealed by residents. Depending on the
outcome of that appeal,the proposed plans may need to be modified to comply with the
• requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act.
Historical Commission:The site contains buildings older than 50 years, which are subject to
demolition delay by the Historical Commission.
Peabody flood mitigation plans:The City of Peabody is undertaking flood mitigation plans
which, in their third phase, include the widening of the North River in the vicinity of Grove
Street. The applicant should address how this will affect the project.
State and Federal approvals: It is expected that the project will need to undergo Chapter 91 and
MEPA permitting, as well as state-level historic review under Chapter 9, sections 26-27C. While
these processes may require changes to the plans in the future, the applicant has chosen to
pursue Planning Board review at this time. Any changes to approved Planning Board plans
would require an amendment or new filing.
I am including with the application materials a memo from Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street,
regarding the project. Mr. Treadwell has included the Final Record of Decision from Secretary
Bowles granting a waiver to the City of Peabody to allow commencement of Phase I of the flood
mitigation project prior to preparation of the required Environmental Impact Report. This
document contains a detailed narrative of the project's three phases.
-3-
Presentation/Discussion: North River Canal Corridor(NRCC)Transportation Study. Overview
of the changes anticipated in the NRCC, identification of key intersections, and a preliminary
discussion of potential transportation improvements.
This is the first of two public meetings to discuss transportation issues within the North River
Canal Corridor (NRCC) area. The City has engaged Fay, Spofford &Thorndike as consultants to
examine the traffic impacts of the redevelopment of key sites and to recommend
transportation improvements for the area. Gary Hebert of FST will give an overview of his
analysis thus far, and will begin a discussion about possible future improvements. Information
used in the analysis includes:
➢ Riverview Place Proposed Residential Development Project—Traffic Impact and
Assessment Study
➢ Gateway Center 401 Bridge Street—Traffic Impact and Access Study
➢ Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor
➢ Functional Design Report— Proposed Trial Court Expansion
➢ Transportation Improvement Study for Routes 1A, 114, and 107, and Other Major
Roadways in Downtown Salem
➢ Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor
For those who are less familiar with the NRCC Master Plan (completed in 2003), links to the
study can be found at the bottom of this page: •
htto://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA DPCD/studies
Request for Insignificant Change: Request of Ayoube Engineering on behalf of McDonald's
Corporation for a change of approved color scheme for McDonald's, 1 Trader's Way.
The McDonald's renovations, approved by the Board in the fall, are underway. The local
owner/operator is requesting to use a "New England Gray"scheme instead of the "Terra Cotta" shown
in the approved plans. I am enclosing color renderings of both.
Old/New Business
I am enclosing a copy of the dismissal of the Lowe's appeal, which I received from Beth Rennard
and sent out by email on Monday.
The Planning Board has received notice of the filing of a Chapter 91 application for a beach
debris removal project near Collins Cove. Approximately 600 cubic yards of debris will be
removed over a 10 year period. If anyone would like to see more information about this, I will
have it at the meeting.
-4-
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
•
Board Pia-A&A-ky-4
Date / / ' Z .
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail
GIA'Mus f:goCAJ-q)NST. .WLSC1,_VoD -3341S �Y.+es•GIAZRVyp��i,MCp,COv)
ut, R7r?71 - (1 n� r
s l WAAC",\ S/
8 Lee Street (978) 74125,93 Thana,-Yicfo99-Wllcom
E`An r1kA 3 (C",) Ar/1
v v 9
0
1qr,w7,9cm1M 7 f 2
r
uc " SR L15-W 79
ed 9).f- 744-7 few
r
Page ` of-
�COND1Tgq
�t t
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board11 � nv� ��lPcuc�
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail .
f 6 15 1/a-h7cor_� St,
L�, ; do � �C S+ V F—F_ S v Jeri�m
(—:A R'A L', ("14 ( `hr2 w,44 c✓�>� S ew
K ' hW
37ay.-��51
yY �-7s-fos^
/zz 7 ;4
}5'J- 111'7
Page of
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1/19/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,January 19, 2012 at 7:00
p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Randy Clarke, Tim
Kavanaugh, Helen Sides, and Tim Ready. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and
Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board
Recording Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis,Vice Chair
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:04 pm.
Approval of Minutes
January 5, 2012 draft minutes
Will be reviewed at the next meeting.
Request of Paul DiBiase for endorsement of a tri-party agreement and release of lots in Phase
2A of the Strongwater Crossing(AKA Osborne Hills) subdivision (Amanda Way, off
Marlborough Road). CONTINUED TO 212112.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC,for the property
located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 &300 CANAL ST;and 399%&401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map
• 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31, and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA,for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes
the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and
Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-
through, including associated parking and landscaping.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Applications for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Drive-
Through Special Permit, all date-stamped 11/10/11, and accompanying materials
➢ Site Plan for CVS/Pharmacy#7109,Jefferson Avenue & Canal Street, Salem, MA 01970,
prepared by R.J. O'Connell & Associates, Inc., last revised 1/9/12
➢ Exterior Elevation drawings prepared by BKA Architects, Inc., dated 11/8/11
➢ Stormwater Management Study, CVS/Pharmacy#7109, Loring Plaza, Canal Street and
Jefferson Ave., Salem, Massachusetts, prepared by R.J. O'Connell &Associates
➢ Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed CVS/Pharmacy, Salem, Massachusetts,
prepared by GPI (Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.)
➢ Response memo to civil engineering peer review from RJ O'Connell & Associates, Inc.,
dated 1/9/12
➢ Response memo to traffic peer review from GPI, Inc., dated 1/9/12
➢ "Follow-up Civil Technical Peer Review," prepared by AECOM and dated 1/18/12
• ➢ "Technical Peer Review,Traffic Impact and Access Study," dated 1/17/12
1
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the applicant and introduced •
Paul Beck,Jason Plourde and Phil Henry. He stated that at the last meeting they had responded
to the issues brought by the peer reviewers, and since then they have provided a formal written
response to the review. There have been numerous changes made to the site plan;the
revisions incorporate many of the suggestions made at previous meetings. They will forestall
any presentation right now to allow the peer reviewers to present.
Danielle McKnight introduces peer reviewers Paul Carter and Jeff Maxtutis from AECOM, who
are here to discuss their response to the applicant's revisions. Mr. Carter says they have
spoken with the applicant about the comments and stated that the majority of the comments
have been addressed, though there are still minor issues. As noted previously, the soil boring
results have been requested as the side of the hill was blasted out at one point, and there will
need to be some excavation for the retention basin, and it's possible there will be a little bit of
ledge. They noted that the soil borings and/or auger borings didn't go down that far. Mr. Puleo
asked if in considering that they can't go that deep, does that impact how much water that can
get absorbed into the ground. Mr. Carter stated that the test showed that there was five feet
of material that they can excavate, noting that they need to be a minimum of 2 feet above
groundwater or bedrock. It was his understanding that the applicant would be putting in some
sandy organic soil to treat the stormwater. They are going to excavate the depth they are
required to and the additional two feet to provide the offset.
Mr. Carter continued his presentation with a discussion of the area around Kimball Road noting •
that it is wide open pavement needing better definition, and they have added pavement
markings as well as an edge line. They spoke to Phil Henry about putting curbing along the road,
but there are problems with this, including obstructing the Mobil station entrance. They also
had concerns about the drive through. They recommended a four way stop and can do that by
moving the stop sign and the stop line over so that they are located before the intersection and
not in it. Mr. Carter noted that all of their comments about water were addressed. He pointed
out that at the last meeting the applicant showed closing off the easterly driveway in front of
Tedeschi's where they are showing a landscaped area. One comment they had about that it
would impact the drainage and recommend some kind of edge control in the form of a curb or
a berm, and if possible install a catch basin.
Mr. Puleo asked for a further description of the single lane drive through —he noted that it still
looked like there were tandem lanes. Phil Henry, site engineer with R.J. O'Connell, confirmed it
was a single lane with a bypass—there is no functionality for a second drive through. Mr. Puleo
asked if it will be marked with arrows. Mr. Henry said yes.
Mr. Carter continued his presentation noting that they had minor drainage comments, which
the applicant has responded to. In making the drive through a single drive through, they
changed some of the grading and the location of the catch basin. The plans currently show it
being connected to a roof drain system and they recommend that the C62 should be connected •
2
to the drain manhole rather than the storm drain. In general they addressed most of the
comments.
Mr. Puleo said they had a question at the last meeting from the public about the grading on the
sidewalk and asked if they looked specifically at that. Mr. Carter said that it was his
understanding that they aren't changing the grading much in the front, so there will still be a
grade differential, and at the corner where Eastern Bank is. Mr. Carter stated that the applicant
needs to look at that further to determine if they need stairs or a ramp there.
Jeff Maxtutis, traffic consultant for AECOM, stated the applicant provided adequate responses,
though there are still some issues. The main issues were that they have questions and concerns
about the access as they feel that the applicant understated the queuing at Loring and Canal,
going southbound, at the site driveway. The sensitivity test analysis that AECOM conducted
showed cars would go beyond the driveway and further. The concern is that the driveway will
be blocked at peak times. There are safety concerns at the driveway locations, particularly
about operations and safety. They noted that the applicant came back and created a "do not
block" box similar to the one near Riley Plaza, but for that to be effective, it relies on driver
courtesy and it's best not to rely on that. The most critical turn is left hand turn to exit to Canal
St. The sight distance issue makes it difficult to turn, so they recommend prohibiting left turns
at that access point. He said he understands prohibiting left turns in would be problematic for
the site, and that allowing them is probably acceptable, but they still have problems with
• allowing left turns out.
Mr. Puleo asked if he agreed that the trip generation analysis was done correctly. Mr. Maxtutis
stated that they did the calculation correctly, but because average trip generation rates are
used, it's difficult to predict exactly what will happen at the site. He recommended monitoring
the driveway 6— 12 months after the store is occupied and operating. Mr. Puleo asked Mr.
Maxtutis if he thought that they should limit the left turn at certain hours of the day as they do
at the Highland Ave. location,to which Mr. Maxtutis stated that is certainly an option, but is
hard to enforce. He would recommend a follow-up study.
Mark George asked if there is enough room for a car to make a left turn driving northbound on
Canal Street and cars can get by. He then asked how to control cars making a left turn onto
Canal Street. Mr. Maxtutis said it could be done physically by adjusting the driveway to make it
geometrically almost impossible to force right turns. Mr. George asked how does one govern
the traffic going northbound. Mr. Carter stated that signs and markings are passive means of
controlling the traffic, and again they will have to rely on the courtesy of drivers this way.
Randy Clarke stated that they should recommend AECOM to do a PM peak traffic study and
asked Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, if they can require a condition to do an analysis in a
year. Ms. McKnight responded that it is a possibility. Mr. Clarke then noted that it would be
problematic if a study was done a year later and they were doing the wrong thing—what would
• they do about it?
3
Mr. Maxtutis continued his presentation. He noted access problems on Jefferson Avenue,
specifically stating that the two access driveways that are 80 feet apart should have more space
between. He suggested leaving the easternmost driveway open and making it right only access.
He then offered another idea about redesigning the parking area. Mr. Puleo asked if he would
see a problem with moving entrance closer to the main entrance. Mr. Maxtutis said that he
thought that is a good option to consider. Mr. Puleo asked if they can move it to maintain
spaces and serve other businesses. Mr. Maxtutis said that it's a good idea, access-wise. Mr.
Puleo stated that this design would allow for a wider green space between the site and the
nearest resident, and asked also if having a greater distance between curb cuts would be better
traffic-wise. Mr. Maxtutis said yes. Mr. Puleo then asked about the internal traffic flow, in
terms of the drive through and moving the dumpster as well as the compactor. Mr. Maxtutis
said that the flow functions okay and recommended moving the stop sign to make it a more
typical 4-way stop. Mr. Puleo said asked if that area is enclosed does that give enough sight
distance towards Jefferson Avenue. Mr. Henry stated that the enclosure is going to be a 6 foot
stockade fence. Mr. Puleo asked if there will be enough sight distance when a car wants to take
a left turn into the site. Mr. Henry described the area as concrete and flatwork, and stated that
there will be nothing to block the line of sight. Mr. Puleo asked if there would be no parking in
front of building,to which Mr. Henry said correct. Mr. Maxtutis stated that there are no fatal
flaws. Mr. Puleo said part of his comment was in terms of the treatment of Kimball Road as
well, and further stated that the street line goes right over the driveway. Mr. Puleo then asked
if short of putting down some sort of curbing, if there were any suggestions other than striping
to keep people from parking along there now. Mr. Maxtutis said curbing would work, but is •
not sure if there would be parallel parking allowed. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the
width of Kimball Road. Mr. Henry confirmed it's a 40 foot layout, although there is no curb
there currently.
Tim Ready asked Mr. Maxtutis if he was comfortable with emergency vehicles maneuvering the
interior traffic flow. Mr. Maxtutis responded that it generally looked okay to them, noting that
they have a comment from Lt. Griffin. Ms. McKnight stated that Lt. Griffin is comfortable with
the site revisions. Mr. Ready asked if he had any concerns about pedestrian interior traffic
flow. Mr. Maxtutis stated that there will be more pedestrians. Mr. Henry then showed on the
slides where the two challenging areas are on Loring and Jefferson Avenues due to grading. Mr.
Maxtutis concluded his presentation.
Helen Sides described the traffic situation at the CVS on Essex before Highland Avenue and
noted that there is no way for someone to make a left in traffic. She further stated that this site
will have a similar situation to the CVS on Essex Street, near Highland Avenue. It is there during
high traffic times that one cannot make a left turn in or out of the site easily. Mr. Ready echoed
her comments. Mr. George stated that some of it might be enhanced where Kimball Road is
more public and to alleviate that flow.
Jason Plourde, Greeman Pedersen, discussed site access and the calculations they used to
determine the vehicle increases, and noted that they used average estimates. He also stated
that although there are a wide range of data points, the average is the right one to use. They
4
talked about enhancing the striping, which enhances the safety of the intersection; he spoke
particularly of using MUTCD signage to make motorists more aware of this intersection. He
said that the importance of this type of signage is it brings attention to motorists. He stated
that he wants to make sure that the board understands that it's not a lot of traffic, specifically 1
vehicle every 2—6 minutes. Mr. Clarke asked of the numbers how much of that is weighted at
PM rush time and noted that in his understanding, in the entire scheme, it's not very much. Mr.
Plourde clarified Mr. Clarke's question and went on to describe the slide that shows the rush
estimates which showed 11—29 vehicles per hour; this equates to one new vehicle every 2—6
minutes. Mr. Clarke asked if they eliminate the PM peak, then is the impact almost negligible,
to which Mr. Plourde said yes.
Mr. Plourde continued his presentation by describing three current curb cuts. He also
identified safety concerns specifically with the access point closest to traffic signal, and noted
that safety is subjective. He stated that while the data doesn't support there being a safety
concern there, if you drive it then you know that it's a safety concern. The other two driveways
are in the same spots that they currently are and they are trying to stay away from the traffic
signal.
Mr. George noted that if drivers are in acceleration mode then that does create a problem,
which is the only drawback that he sees. Mr. Plourde agreed with Mr. George's statement and
stated that they are trying to incorporate recommendations. Mr. Ready stated that as he
• understands it that the purpose is to move the traffic flow away from the lights, and by
movement away from lights it increases traffic flow. Mr. Plourde said that assessment is
correct.
Ms. Sides asked about the advantage of having the residential driveway. Mr. Plourde explained
that it allows access to the whole site. Mr. Ready asked why not move it to the middle to pull
traffic from the intersection and improve circulation. Mr. Plourde responded that these two
driveways are not generating a lot of traffic currently. Mr. Clarke said that he thinks they need
to address it more. Mr. Henry addressed it, stating that the only issue with this is that it forces
the whole parking layout to be changed so that there wouldn't be as much parking. Mr. Clarke
said that it would be perfect and the applicants said it would not be, noting that they heard
from residents who said they needed more parking.
Mr. Puleo said that Ms. McKnight spoke to Dennis Cataldo about ambulance traffic usage. Ms.
McKnight stated that she asked about the hours they sent out ambulances from the site rather
than from elsewhere in the city,to which Mr. Cataldo's site manager said that about 95% of
their trips originate from there during the night, and during the day it's 40%. Most of the time
they use the Canal Street exit when leaving the site.
Mr. Henry stated that they have two renderings of the proposed basin and landscaped area,
specifically the back of the site. Mr. Puleo asked if the transformer will remain to which Mr.
• Henry said it would be relocated. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Henry to describe the types of curbing.
He stated that at the request of the board and a resident they wanted to show the perspective
5
entering the site form the side and noted that they added bollards. He then explained that
typically they would follow the current curbing and then when the curbing moved into the site, •
it would be extruded concrete. He then showed another slide which showed that they would
provide a guardrail and a trench with stone to pre-treat water. Mr. Ready asked if he had a
slide to contrast the back of the building. Mr. Henry said he did not, but he has an aerial which
should show the expanse of concrete. Mr. Ready asked if this is what the neighbors would look
down on. Mr. Henry said that they would see that after 20 feet of vegetation.
Mr. Puleo asked about the plantings in terms of what would be seen from Adams Street. Mr.
Henry stated that they propose to not touch the back as it's beyond their site but they will plant
some trees that will mature to the 20 foot height. A neighbor requested opaque slats in the
fencing they will be putting up, and they will do that.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, stated that he is concerned about left turns.
Ben Anderson, 10 Adams Street, stated that he is still concerned about the double driveway on.
Jefferson Avenue and likes the suggestion of the single entrance. He said that while he's
pleased about the slats in the fence, he's still concerned about the noise. He's concerned that
the quality of life will be impacted. Mr. Puleo asked which noises he is concerned about. Mr.
Anderson stated that he is concerned about the drive through, and general noise from a retail
site. Mr. Puleo asked about the location of the HVAC system. Mr. Beck stated that there is a •
well in the center of the roof for it. Mr. Henry said that the top of the building is a bathtub
design. Mr. Puleo asked if they will be seen from the street. Mr. Beck and Mr. Henry said no,
it's hidden behind the dormers and the gables. Mr. Beck said that they can bring sound data for
the equipment they use.
Ward 5 Councilor Josh Turiel, 238 Lafayette Street, stated that he is looking at the usage and
the parking, and wants to know if they can be combined in a way that will positively impact the
flow. He recommended that if some of the traffic flow can be redirected to Kimball Road, that
could help things. He also suggested moving things farther away from the choke point which
will help mitigate the problems.
Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, stated that she is still concerned about pedestrian safety as CVS
wants college students and neighbors to walk to this site. She pointed out that if a pedestrian
walks across Loring Avenue, she believes that they are going to end up walking through the
drive through of the Eastern Bank, and it's unrealistic to expect pedestrians to walk around.
She asked how will they get to the ATM safely. She feels that they would be safer if there were
sidewalks on both sides of the driveway as the inner walk is the shortest distance between two
points. She said that there really isn't any safe point as a pedestrian onto this site. Mr. Puleo
stated that he didn't know if there is a back entrance to the Eastern Bank,to which Ms. Wilbert
said that there is not one now. Mr. Henry said will provide a crosswalk from the Eastern Bank
to the CVS which will address these concerns.
6
• Ward 7 Councilor Joseph O'Keefe, 28 Surrey Road, asked the applicant to clarify how many
entrances there would be. Mr. Puleo says they are still proposing two. Councillor O'Keefe
notes the traffic situation is difficult there. He applauds the board for taking an interest in the
intersection. He wants to point out that there are cracks in the sidewalks by Tedeschi due to
large truck deliveries—how could they make these turns? He asked to see the rendering
showing the single family dwelling and the site entrance. He asked how wide the sidewalk is;
Mr. Henry to said that the sidewalk is 4%to 5 feet. Councilor O'Keefe said he's not opposed
the the project, but he is concerned about traffic, pedestrian access and the signals at the
intersection, which need to be adjusted and asked if they have spoken to Mass Highway. Mr.
Puleo stated that as previously discussed,this is currently below Mass Highway's radar.
Councilor O'Keefe feels that Mass Highway is wrong in terms of the signage that is posted
approaching the intersection. He salutes the board for discussing traffic and pedestrian
concerns. He thinks there should be more study to get the project done. He asked how
someone from the college would get to the CVS from Canal St. walking across Loring Ave. Mr.
Henry showed on the slides where the existing sidewalk is and explained the sidewalk area will
be re-graded and will be within acceptable handicapped limits.
Mr. Puleo stated that Councilor O'Keefe made a good point about the traffic signal and noted
GPI had brought this up at their first meeting. He said perhaps this could be addressed at the
next meeting. Mr. Plourde described the different types of access permits required and stated
that they are awaiting a response from MassDOT about what they would need, and they will
. provide this information to the City. He noted that at the first meeting they identified lots of
different concerns with the signage, and also wanted to make sure they had a full package of
improvements to bring to MassDOT instead of addressing them piecemeal. He says once they
have agreed with the City about improvements to be made,they will then move forward with
MassDOT. Mr. Puleo asked if they can ask MassDOT if they can look when the timing of lights
was last redone. Mr. Plourde said that they would absolutely look into that.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing until February 2, 2012, seconded by
Helen Sides. All approved 7-0.
Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3
HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 &64 GROVE ST(Map 16, Lots 236, 237& 239), Salem MA
(redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review,
Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District
Special Permit. The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential
buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office
building, and associated parking and landscaping. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO
2/2/12.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing until February 2, 2012, seconded by
Helen Sides. All approved 7-0.
•
7
Presentation/Discussion: North River Canal Corridor(NRCC)Transportation Study. Overview •
of the changes anticipated in the NRCC, identification of key intersections, and a preliminary
discussion of potential transportation improvements.
Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ PowerPoint presentation: North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study—
Introduction —Options Evaluation, dated 1/19/12, prepared by Fay, Spofford &
Thorndike
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, gave an introduction to the
project. She stated that the catalyst for this study was that the Planning Board has been
reviewing a number of proposed projects in this area and for each project they are reviewing
traffic mitigation as it relates to each specific project, while this is a more comprehensive look
at the area and potential traffic mitigation measures. She further noted that the study is
supported by the Mayor. Gary Hebert of Fay, Spofford and Thorndike (consultant for the City)
is going to present an overview of the study, his initial findings, pros and cons associated with
possible solutions, get feedback from the public, and then present recommendations at a
second public meeting.
Mr. Hebert presented his overview of the study stating that the purpose of the meeting is to
get the public's input. He presented an overview of the study, and described the five
development areas, which are the Gateway Center, Riverview Place, North River site (28 •
Goodhue), Legacy Apartment site (Salem Oil & Grease), and the Flynntan site (information is
preliminary). He noted that the developments without direct access off Boston or Bridge Street
present more difficult challenges, which he will discuss later in the presentation. He described
the purpose of the study, which is focused on traffic impacts, transportation mitigation
measures, and costs of those measures. He noted that this study is not starting from scratch, as
FS&T looked at the studies and plans from 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009. Part of his study
included daily trip generation associated with each of the sites and pointed out that the highest
trip generation is from the Gateway Center, followed by Legacy Park Apartments. The compiled
data shows there will be 650 vehicle trips per hour added to the system during the AM peak
hour, dispersed among the various streets. He showed graphics demonstrating expected AM
peak growth. He pointed out that Bridge Street between Boston and Flint Street has a lower
volume with the four lane cross section than the two lane cross section that has higher volume
—this explains some of the congestion north of Flint Street. He says the proposal to widen
Route 107 is valid when you look at what else is going on in the area. He also noted that Flint
Street is carrying more traffic than it should for a local street. Other slides showed safety
congestion, hot spots, as well as crash rates, and the last slide of his overview showed future
projections of potential safety and congestion areas. He then reviewed potential options,
including adding traffic lights, new connectors and creating roundabouts, as follows:.
• He reviewed the pros and cons for changes at the intersection at Mason Street and
Tremont Street, including a brief discussion about the installation of a traffic signal. He
discussed some of the problems associated with having a signal control on that street.
8
• • The next slides focused on creating a connector between Commercial and Mason
Streets and the pros and cons associated with that solution.
• Additionally he discussed creating a connector between Commercial and Flint Streets
and the pros and cons were reviewed, which, he said, may have potential impacts upon
Leslie's Retreat Park.
• He identified previous alternatives discussed for Flint Street, including making Flint
Street one way southbound to the Riverview entrance near Oak Street. He pointed out
the high crash rates in this area, and noted that there are not a lot of options for making
this better. Another option proposed the relocation of on-street parking and keeping
Flint Street as t a two way street.
• Another roadway connector was proposed between Bridge and Goodhue Streets, noting
that in this area,flood compensation would be needed. This new roadway would
facilitate a change to the existing intersection of Goodhue and Bridge.
• One concept was to modify the intersection of Boston and Bridge Streets to make it
more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, which was conditional upon the roadway
connector between Bridge and Goodhue. In thinking about pedestrian access, he stated
that nothing would be accomplished in terms of pedestrian safety to make Goodhue a
two-way street.
• He discussed the possibility of building a road from Hanson Street to Goodhue Street;
however, there are significant grading and slope issues. He noted possible modifications
to Aborn Street such as signalization.
• • At Harkin Square, where Grove and Harmony Grove Streets intersect, he said we could
consider a roundabout, but we need to determine what would be an appropriate size of
a roundabout as well as a truck's ability to get around this area.
At this point Mr. Hebert concluded his initial presentation.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Gavin McCauliffe, 11 Prescott Street, asked Mr. Hebert to first describe the location of
Commercial Street and then describe the proposed changes to Commercial Street. He then
asked about how the additional traffic and parking from the future MBTA garage will impact the
study areas and other plans. Mr. Hebert said that the garage is south,traffic using it is
generally coming from the north. In terms of adding new traffic, the whole idea of these
garages is to reduce traffic, not add it. This will remove some cars who are now heading all the
way into Boston. 1%growth is assumed up to 2016.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, stated that the courthouse traffic study has been
completed and they never saw the data from that study. He asked if that traffic study had been
taken into consideration for this study. Mr. Hebert stated that his counts were done this year,
after the courthouse was in place, and there are also the counts taken by Salem Oil & Grease.
Ms. Duncan said that the courthouse traffic study is a separate issue, but she would made a
note to get this information.
•
9
Lisa Joubert, 70A School Street, asked how traffic from North Street was taken into account for •
this project. She asks how overflow and cut through traffic has been factored into this study, as
well as traffic from proposed development projects in the area. Mr. Hebert explained that he
looked at data from North Street. He focused on this area because it's further to the south and
while they aren't yet sure what they will be recommending, if the possible improvements have
other impacts on this area, he will identify them. Ms. Joubert said that it would be helpful to
have the study be more comprehensive;there is a lot of cut through traffic going to 128 and
back. She recommended there be more thought put into where the traffic will then flow after
these projects are completed. Ms.Joubert said that it would be nice to restrict traffic through
neighborhoods during certain hours and noted that backups that occur on North Street are a
serious problem. She concluded, stating that with the new developments, people are going to
look at new ways to avoid North Street.
Charlie Newhall, 131 Federal Street, stated that they want to keep neighborhoods safe, and
new developments may come at the expense of the neighborhoods. The Federal Street
neighborhood has people flowing through there very fast, and asked how to encourage people
to stay on the main roads we want people to drive on, rather than using cut throughs.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, asked if they are late in holding this first public meeting, since the
scope of work indicates the public meetings were to be held sooner. Mr. Hebert responded
that there was a delay in the study. Ms. Duncan then explained further that the city was
waiting for the Salem Oil & Grease project to come in so that they could use more accurate •
figures. She says Mr. Hebert had to make estimates for the Flynntan site because they don't
have a real, proposed development plan. Mr. Treadwell continued, stating that the
transportation committee for the Mack Park Neighborhood Association wanted Bridge, Boston
and North Streets to be acknowledged as access streets. They would have liked the City to
coordinate with the consultants doing the traffic analysis for the T. He says their comments are
getting in after some of the primary decisions have been made. He was on the working group
for the North River Canal Corridor plan, and one of the great things it has is traffic calming
measures for the Franklin St. neighborhood. He feels that traffic calming would be of great
benefit to these five developments as part of the improvement package. He recommended the
city should have a peer review done of this study.
Peter Coklis, 40 Lawrence Street, stated that he felt that the study didn't address how Salem
handles Boston Street and is surprised that it isn't part of the scope of the project. Mr. Hebert
explained that he did a study of Aborn, Hawley and Boston Streets for the city which will be
presented separately. Mr. Coklis noted that this hasn't been discussed. Ms. Duncan pointed
out that the geographic boundaries tend to expand when discussing traffic, noting that Boston
Street is one of the city's roadway improvement priorities. She said that it is outside the scope
of this study, but not outside the city's priorities.
Ward 2 Councilor Mike Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, asked if this plan is included in the peak
with or without the developments, to which Mr. Hebert said it was with the developments. He •
then asked how the new courts were taken into account. Ms. Duncan said that the court system
10
• wasn't taken into account because the courts just moved in in December. Mr. Sosnowski said
that he had spoken with someone who stated that the courts in Salem are not fully up to speed
and other courts in Gloucester and Ipswich are closing and more traffic will be coming here—
these need to be taken into account. He then asked if they had thought about extending
Commercial Street to cross Bridge Street, could that take pressure off North St.? The railroad is
not used that frequently. Leaving the new MBTA garage, what if you went parallel to North St.,
come out by Franklin re-intersect with North again —would that help the traffic on Bridge St.?
He also asked if Goodhue Street would be coming toward the intersection with Boston,
Goodhue and Bridge Streets, to which Mr. Hebert responded no, it will remain one way as it is
today. Councilor Sosnowski stated that he thought Public Storage was supposed to put a
turning lane in at that intersection. Ms. Duncan explained that it there was an easement
included in their plan that would allow the city to build the lane if needed. He then asked if, for
the Gateway development, had they considered a turning lane onto Bridge Street? It's not
shown here. This would be a 3'd lane westbound. Mr. Hebert explained that from a traffic
perspective, a third lane was not needed. Councilor Sosnowski then asked a question related
to traffic safety, specifically about adding a 3 way stop on Flint Street and asked if any changes
on Mason Street are being considered. Mr. Hebert said that's promising. You'd just have to
make sure people were using it correctly. He says they are looking at everything.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, stated she was intrigued by the possibility of a roundabout at
Harmony Grove but felt that the rest of it was like pushing 10 pounds into a 5 pound bag. She is
• concerned about the conclusions Mr. Hebert has reached. Mr. Hebert says he has not yet
reached any conclusions. Ms. Twohey stated that Riverview Place was supposed to have 50%
density that was approved. They have twice the density at Goodhue. She says they have taken
rules in the city and broken them for developers and hurt other people—we are paying with
the traffic. She says they need more input to arrive at something that really works. Ms. Duncan
asked what type of input is she thinking of. Ms. Twohey said she thinks that a small citizen
group should work with Mr. Hebert. She then asked if they can get a copy of the presentation
and think about it, and make comments,to which Ms. Duncan said absolutely. Ms. Duncan
reminded the audience that the purpose of the meeting is for public comment, and she will
look into additional opportunities for citizen input. She asked Ms. Twohey what was a
reasonable amount of time for public comment on the presentation after it was posted. Ms.
Twohey stated two weeks and Ms. Duncan agreed. Ms Duncan then addressed the issue of cut
through traffic. She noted the Court Traffic Committee and the recommendation of the City's
traffic consultant to eliminate cut-through traffic on Federal Street. Everyone had agreed that
the recommendation would work; however, it would have a negative impact on residents of
River Road. She said we need to keep in mind that when we make a change, it may help some
people but hurt others. Ms. Duncan then reminded the audience that the scope of this project
is focused on this specific area because of projects being proposed there. The Planning Board
wants to be able to have perspective on the whole area, rather than just individual
developments.
. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., says there should be a peer review by AECOM. He refers to the
Salem/Beverly Transportation Plan—from the overpass to Flint— making Bridge St. a four lane
11
right of way. He says they can't figure out where and when this will be done. He says he •
wouldn't do a traffic plan without knowing what the capacity of Bridge Street will be after its
improvement. Ms. Duncan said this is a five year plan — looking until 2016, and that Bridge St.
improvement would not be constructed before then. Funding is extremely constrained for
transportation improvements. The State's priority was to undertake the Court project first,
then the MBTA garage project, and then the last phase of Bridge Street, from Washington to
Flint Street. She asks if Mr. Hebert assumed the four lane road; he said no because he assumed
it would not be done in the five-year period. Mr. Treadwell said he thinks five years is a short
period.
Councilor Sosnowski asked if Councilors Prevey, Ryan and himself could be kept informed of
meetings about this project because they and their constituents are directly impacted by this,
and Ms. Duncan said yes. Mr. Sosnowski also noted that CIPS completed "Journey to 2030" to
look at transportation needs and asked if they are thinking beyond 5 years. Ms. Duncan
responded that they are being very pragmatic and trying to identify traffic mitigation for this
area that may not have been identified because we've been looking at individual projects. In
addition, the objective is to determine ballpark costs for these mitigation measures. She noted
that they are very focused, on a five year time horizon, and limited to this corridor for the time
being.
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, said he appreciates this project and asked if they
have thought about a crosswalk from Dunkin Donuts to Proctor Street. Mr. Puleo said he •
thought that the pedestrian phase for the crosswalk is being done as part of the Gateway
Project. Mr. Hebert suggested thinking about this in the bigger picture. When all the
developments are constructed, pedestrians will have another option to cross further up.
Additionally, they are also looking at the possibility of incorporating bike lanes according to the
city's master plan.
Lorene Scanlon, 77 Mason Street, stated that last week a truck slammed into guardrail near her
house at the corner of Mason and Flint Streets. She states that she is concerned that the city
needs to protect the citizens.
Councilor O'Keefe thanked Mr. Hebert on the work he's done for the City of Salem. He noted
that Mr. Hebert lives in Marblehead and he brings local knowledge to this.
Tina Stoner, 1 Buffum Street, stated she is very concerned about Flint Street. She remembers a
time when the road was unilaterally changed and went into effect without advance notice.
Thomas Costagliola, 51 Lafayette Street, would like to see comments in a blog format on the
web, to which Ms. Duncan stated that it's not the usual protocol or technology the City uses,
but she offered to look further into it.
Request for Insignificant Change: Request of Ayoub Engineering on behalf of McDonald's •
Corporation for a change of approved color scheme for McDonald's, 1 Trader's Way.
12
• Documents & Exhibitions:
➢ Photographs of construction in process, no date
➢ Renderings showing terra cotta scheme and New England gray scheme, last revised
1/11/12, prepared by Ayoub Engineering
Tony Guba, Ayoub Engineering, introduced Tom Giarusso, from McDonalds, and Larry
Kimmelman and stated that they had expected to use a terracotta finish on the building. Mr.
Kimmelman preferred to use the hardy plank color of New England grey and noted that other
than the color there are no other changes. He concluded by stating that he hopes the Board
sees this as a very insignificant change.
Mr. Clarke asked if it's already up,to which Mr. Guba said yes. He explained that the owner
wanted the color change and they didn't get to the Board in time to make the request prior to
the color change. Mr. Giarusso stated that they used the same material in a different color.
After showing the Board the pictures via Mr. Kimmelman's Wad, Danielle McKnight asked them
to provide copies of the pictures to her for the record. Mr. Kimmelman then emailed the
pictures to her.
Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the request for the insignificant change, seconded by
• Helen Sides. All approved 7-0.
Planning Board Officer Elections
Tim Kavanaugh made a motion to approve Charles Puleo as Chair,John Moustakis as Vice Chair
and Tim Ready as alternate Vice Chair, seconded by Mark George, all approved 6-0.
Old New Business
Adjournment
Mark George made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded b Chuck Puleo. Alla roved
g 1 g. Y pp
7-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:13 pm.
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the
decisions have been posted separately by address or project at:
http://www.solem.com/PagesISalemMA PlanMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
• Approved by the Planning Board 3/15/12
13