2013-PLANNING BOARD •=
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, January 2"1 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313,
130 Washington Street, has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
Salem Planning Board
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
-+
City Mall, Salem, Mass. on ,FQ0G a 3 QO/ 3, � a
at PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, �, o
Sections 18-25.
a
� W
3 N
N 4J
(1�
Knot,wir sights wader the O/xw Mcetorr L awAl.G.L. c 30A 5 I8-25 anal City Orlim a, 2-2025 through g 2-2033.
i, CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2813 DEC 13 A 10: 10
Fil_E #
CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS,
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, December 19`h at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313,
120 Washington Street, has been canceled.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
Salem Planning Board
This notice posted on "Offal Bulletin Board" .
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on -0ec 131 Zoi3
at I b:l0/ NH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Kro)U, our ragbtt under the Open Mee7iq Lan,M.G.L c. 3OA f 18-25 and City Ordinance f 2-2028 thmuob f 2-2033.
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALEACONI
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1013 DEC -2 PYLt58
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 5, 2013 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313,
120 Washington St., Salem, MA
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
• II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• November 21,2013 Meeting Minutes
III. REGULAR AGENDA
Project: Continued public hearing on the Site Plan Review for the conversion of the
existing building to six (6) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
Applicant: RENEWAL VENTURES LLC
Location: 3 WEBSTER ST(Map 36,Lot 0466)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
➢ Review and approval of 2014 Planning Board meeting schedule
V. ADJOURNMENT
ICnomyour rights under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.L. c. 30A J 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through J 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 - WWW.SALENI.COM
Dana Menon
Dana Menon
Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Beth Gerard; Ben Anderson; Ben Anderson; George McCabe; HelenSide s @mOssn.com;
Krieder@hargreaves.com; Mark George (marl otassoc@comcast.net); p p
@msn.com; Randy Clarke (clarkerandy@gmail.com);tfr393@aol.com;yale-
associates@comcast.net
Cc: Lynn Duncan
Subject: December 5th Planning Board meeting
Attachments: 12-5-2013 PB agenda stamped.pdf; PB_minutes 11-21 2013 DRAFT 2.pdf; 2014
PB Schedule-Deadlines_Draft.pdf
Hello Board Members,
I hope you enjoyed your holiday!
Due to the holiday last week, and the fact that the Board didn't receive any new applications, I am emailing you the
"memo" this week.
Please respond and let me know if you will be attending the meeting this Thursday, December 5th.
Please find the following attached to this email:
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Draft Meeting Minutes - November 2151, 2013
➢ Draft 2014 Planning Board Meeting schedule
Materials for the agenda item are included in the packet for the 11/21/2013 meeting. Here is a summation of the
request and background parcel information for each item:
1. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Continued public hearing on the application of RENEWAL VENTURES LLC for Site Plan Review for the property located
at 3 WEBSTER ST (Map 36, Lot 0466). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to six (6)
residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
You received information on this in the packet for the November 21" meeting. I have also requested that the petitioner
provide full-size (readable!) plans, including the additional materials requested by the Board at the previous meeting,for
each board member. The Petitioner will be bringing these materials to the meeting.
We are working on the draft Conditions for this application. I will email the compiled document in advance of the
meeting.
II OLD/NEW BUSINESS
➢ Review and Vote of 2014 Planning Board Meeting Schedule (draft attached)
hank you,
Dana
1
Dana S. Menon
Staff Planner, City of Salem
Department of Planning&Community Development
120 Washington Street, P Floor •
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Phone: 978-619-5685 Fax: 978-740-0404
dmenon(o)salem com salem.com
•
•
2
elaCITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2014 Planning Board Meeting Schedule - DRAFT
Unless otherwise noted, all meetings of the Salem Planning Board are held at 7:00 in Room 313, Third
Floor 120 Washington Street. Submittals should be in by 12:00 noon on the submittal deadline date
shown.
.,• :tom. t e a^rs s a
q
Submittal3Deadlmeh
Form A Deadlline Meeting Date,
s. 6 21 Days Prior s., 7 Days Prior., µK ,. ' . .. .
December 12, 2013 December 23, 2013** January 2, 2014
December 23, 2013** January 9, 2014 January 16, 2014
January 15, 2014** January 30, 2014 February 6, 2014
January 30, 2014 February 12, 2014** February 20, 2014
February 13, 2014 February 27, 2014 March 6, 2014
February 27, 2014 March 13, 2014 March 20, 2014
March 13, 2014 March 27, 2014 April 3, 2014
March 27, 2014 April 10, 2014 April 17, 2014
• April 10, 2014 April 24, 2014 May 1, 2014
April 24, 2014 May 8, 2014 May 15, 2014
May 15, 2014 May 29, 2014 June 5, 2014
May 29, 2014 June 12, 2014 June 19, 2014
June 26, 2014 July 10, 2014 July 17, 2014**
July 10, 2014 July 24, 2014 July 31, 2014**
No meetings are scheduled for August
August 14, 2014 August 28, 2014 September 4, 2014
August 27, 2014** September 11, 2014 September 18, 2014
September 25, 2014 October 9, 2014 October 16, 2014
October 16, 2014 October 30, 2014 November 6, 2014
October 30, 2014 November 13, 2014 November 20, 2014
November 13, 2014 November 26, 2014** December 4, 2014
November 26, 2014** December 11, 2014 December 18, 2014
• **These dates have been modified to accommodate holidays, and do not follow the standard schedule.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - TEL: 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 ' www.SALEM.com
• City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Boardilly �OGc
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
Page of
Dana Menon
from: Michael Sosnowski <michaelsosnowski@verizon.net>
ent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:17 AM
To: Dana Menon
Subject: RE: Planning Board Agenda - December 5, 2013
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dana,
Because this meeting will be held at the same time as a regular council meeting, I will not be able to attend.
For the record I am opposed to the number of units proposed as there is no parking available for that many units.
I understand the difficulties associated with this particular site but the impact on the neighborhood must be taken into
consideration.The number of vehicles that would normally be. used by six units is not in harmony with the character of
the neighborhood.
Mike Sosnowski
Ward Two City Councillor
17 Collins Street
Salem, Ma, 01970
14787450182
• ir - __._.na Meno _ ---1----------""""- __.._. .. ._____ ....... . __ .......... __... __._....__ .
rom: Dan [mailto:dmenon(&Salem.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 1:37 PM
To: City Councilors; Lynn Duncan; Cheryl LaPointe; Dominick Pangallo
Subject: Planning Board Agenda - December 5, 2013
Dear Councilors,
Please find attached the Agenda for the upcoming Planning Board meeting on December 5, 2013.
Thank you,
Dana
Dana S. Meson
Staff FIk rinnr, rite of Salem
Depat n':cmr. of Plarming Rx Community Development
C20 Vlashington Street, .3"` Floor
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Phone: 978 619-5685 ( Fax: 978 740 0404
dmnnon splem.com salem.com
•
1
Dana Menon
Rrom: Helen Sides <helensides@msn.com>
ent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 8:23 PM
To: Dana Menon
Subject: Re: December 5th Planning Board meeting
Hi Dana
I cannot be there Thursday. I didn.t think we were having a meeting. Please submit that I request the sidewalk/garage
apron be concrete not asphalt.
Helen
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 3, 2013, at 3:15 PM, "Dana Menon" <dmenon(d)Salem.com>wrote:
Hello Board Members,
I hope you enjoyed your holiday!
Due to the holiday last week, and the fact that the Board didn't receive any new applications, I am
emailing you the "memo" this week.
Please respond and let me know if you will be attending the meeting this Thursday, December 5"'.
• Please find the following attached to this email:
➢ Agenda
➢ Draft Meeting Minutes - November 21", 2013
➢ Draft 2014 Planning Board Meeting schedule
Materials for the agenda item are included in the packet for the 11/21/2013 meeting. Here is a
summation of the request and background parcel information for each item:
I. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Continued public hearing on the application of RENEWAL VENTURES LLC for Site Plan Review for the
property located at 3 WEBSTER ST (Map 36, Lot 0466). The proposed project includes the conversion
of the existing building to six(6)residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
You received information on this in the packet for the November 21"meeting. I have also requested
that the petitioner provide full-size (readable!) plans, including the additional materials requested by the
Board at the previous meeting,for each board member. The Petitioner will be bringing these materials
to the meeting.
We are working on the draft Conditions for this application. I will email the compiled document in
advance of the meeting.
• II. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
➢ Review and Vote of 2014 Planning Board Meeting Schedule (draft attached)
1
CITY OF SALEM
qwp
PLANNING BOARD
illi nFr 1 q AID 10
FILE 0 .
CITY CLERK.SP LEM. MASS,
Site Plan Review
Decision
12/19/2013
Renewal Ventures LLC
141 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 3 Webster Street, Salem, Massachusetts
Site Plan Review
On Thursday,November 21, 2013, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing
• regarding the application of Applicant under Site Plan Review for the property located at 3 Webster
Street. The proposed plans show the renovation of the existing two-story masonry building to house
six residential units and four parking spaces.
The public hearing was continued to December 5, 2013, and was closed on that date. At the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on December 5,2013 the Board voted by a vote of
seven (7) in favor(Chuck Puleo, Dale Yale, Ben Anderson, George McCabe, Kirt Rieder, Tim Ready,
and Randy Clarke), none (0) opposed, to approve the application as complying with the requirements
of Site Plan Review subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform with the plans entitled: "3 Webster Street Apartments,"prepared by Seger
Architects, Inc., 10 Derby Square, Suite 3N, Salem, MA 01970, dated October 10, 2013, and
revised December 4, 2013, including pages A-1, A-2,A-3, with noted edits and with the proposed
concrete slab apron,proposed curb cuts, and proposed granite curb and curb radii; as well as the
specifications submitted for A/C Condenser Units, the exterior light fixtures, and the letter from
John Seger, submitted December 4, 2013,regarding curb cuts and granite curbs and curb radii.
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.
•
1
i I
• 3. Amendments
Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed necessary by
the City Planner, shall require approval by the Planning Board. Any waiver of conditions
contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board.
4. Construction Practices
All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions:
a. The operation of tools or equipment used in construction or demolition work shall occur in
accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting and between
the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work shall take place on
Sundays or holidays. The Planning Board will agree to changes in the starting time, at the
request of the applicant and if approved by a formal vote of the City Council, as per the
ordinance.
b. Any blasting, rock crushing,jack hammering,hydraulic blasting, or pile driving shall occur in
accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting and be limited
to Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. There shall be no blasting,
rock crushing,jack hammering,hydraulic blasting, or pile driving on Saturdays, Sundays, or
holidays.
c. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations.
• d. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on
abutters. Advance notice shall be provided 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 City Planner, unless deemed an
emergency by the Salem Police Department.
5. Construction Traffic & Phasing
a. All construction will occur on site; no construction will occur or be staged within City right of
way. Any deviation from this shall be approved by the City Planner prior to construction.
b. A construction traffic/phasing management plan and schedule shall be submitted to the City
• Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
c. Any roadways, driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their a
original condition by the applicant. '
2
d. The applicant shall clean construction vehicles before they exit the construction site, and clean
and sweep all streets affected by their construction truck traffic as necessary.
6. Project Delays
The developer, his successors or assigns shall notify the City Planner 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.
7. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.
a) A fire alarm system shall be maintained and functional throughout the entire demolition
• process and rebuilding of the structure, including an exterior horn/strobe to warn neighboring
properties of a smoke or fire condition.
b) Proper signage indicating hazardous conditions shall exist in the building for first responders.
c) The existing sprinkler system can be disabled during demolition and precautions will be taken
to prevent hazardous and/or fire conditions.
d) A set of engineered drawings showing the new fire alarm system to be put in place shall be
approved by the Salem Fire Department,prior to the issuance of the building permit.
e) The plans for the new sprinkler system to be placed in the structure shall be approved by the
Salem Fire Department prior to the issuance of the building permit.
8. Signage
All proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a
sign permit.
9. Building Inspector
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector.
10. Board of Health
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Board of Health, if applicable.
• a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of the
name, address, and telephone number of the project (site)manager who will be on site and
directly responsible for the construction of the project.
3
• 9
b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for this site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, no
structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for the site
certifies that soil and ground water on the entire site meets the DEP standards for the proposed
use.
c. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer.
d. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to
construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's invoice to
the Health Agent.
e. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction.
f. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street
sweeping which will occur during construction.
g. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and removal of
debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during demolition
and/or construction.
• h. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for firefighting.
L Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations, including but not
limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by more than
10 dB(A)above the ambient levels measured at the property line.
j. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material
needed for the project.
k. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operations
in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health.
1. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection
and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
in. The developer shall install grease traps, to contain grease in gray water,prior to it entering the
city sewer system in developments with 10 or more units and in compliance with the
requirements of the City Engineer.
n. Salem sits in a Radon Zone 1 and the risk of radon entering buildings is extremely high.
Therefore, the installation of radon mitigation systems is strongly recommended.
•
11. Office of the City Engineer
The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer.
a. The applicant shall perform a flow test to verify that the flow needed for fire protection is
adequate. Any water service line to be reused needs to be inspected and a Statement from the
4
• Engineer(PE)is required reporting the findings and conditions of the existing water service
line to be reused. This Statement must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of a building permit. Please note separate water service lines are required from the water main
in the street into the property for fire and domestic.
b. If any of the current water services lines will be reused, a Statement from owner/developer is
needed to acknowledge ownership of the water service line from the main at Webster Street to
the property, including the portion that is currently owned by the City because the developer
has decided to reuse the existing line. This Statement must be approved by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The City will not be responsible for any future
repairs needed on this water service.
c. If the sewer service line will be reused, the applicant needs to inspect the service from the
house all the way into the main at the street. A Statement from the Engineer(PE)to report the
findings and conditions of the existing sewer service line is required, and a copy of the CCTV
video inspection must be submitted. This Statement and the CCTV video inspection must be
received and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit.
d. The curb cut plan must be received and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
the building permit.
• 12. Department of Public Services
The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the Department of
Public Services.
13. Utilities
Any utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance '^
of a Building Permit.
14. 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 and the City Electrician for review
and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed by the City Planner,prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
15. HVAC
The proposed HVAC unit located on the roof shall be visually and acoustically screened as shown
on the Plan and hereby approved by the Planning Board.
16. Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the
• applicant.
b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site.
5
• c. Maintenance of any 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-year
period.
17. As-built Plans As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted
to the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Department of Public
Services prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy.
.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.
A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department)and a certification
signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial
compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
the final Certificate of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer.
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 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 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
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 12/05/13
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, December 5, 2013 at
7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:06 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready,Vice Chair, Dale Yale, Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke,
George McCabe and Kirt Rieder. Absent: Mark George and Helen Sides.
Also present: Dana Menon, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
November 21, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
Kirt Rieder noted a correction at the top of page six,second sentence; he was advocating to exclude
contaminated sites.
No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
Motion and Vote: Kirt Rieder made a motion to approve the minutes,seconded by Tim Ready. The vote
• was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo. Mr. Ready, Ms. Vale, Mr.Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr.
Rieder and Mr. McCabe)and none (0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of
these minutes.
Project: Continued public hearing on the Site Plan Review for the conversion of the
existing building to six(6) residential units and associated parking and
landscaping.
Applicant: RENEWAL VENTURES LLC
Location: 3 WEBSTER ST(Map 36, Lot 0466)
Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski submitted a letter in opposition which was read into the record.
Helen Sides also submitted a letter requesting the sidewalk/garage apron to be concrete not asphalt,
which was read into the record.
Dan Ricciarelli, architect, Seger Achitects Inc, 10 Derby Square, Salem, reviewed the project with the
Planning Board and displayed photos of the project. One of the aerial photos showed the location of the
project in relation to the neighbors. He then reviewed the land and the concrete apron in the front of
the building. He described the plans for the front of the site and stated that the sidewalk and front drive
aprons will be concrete. Chairman Puleo pointed out the standard curb radii and curbing. Mr. Ricciarelli
continued describing the area. Puleo asked about the brick in the front of the building, to which Mr.
Ricciarelli explained that due to the settlement of the building the brick looks skewed, but there is
nothing structurally wrong with the building. Mr. Ricciarelli continued describing the floor plan for the
• units and he then showed elevations and the facade; he stated that they will replicate the historic
garage doors as best they can. Chairman Puleo asked if the requirements for the doors will fall under
n
r'
the tax credit requirements. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that everything they are doing falls under federal •
review. They are planning to bring back the hunter green to which Chairman Puleo asked if the colors
chosen fall under federal review as well, and Mr. Ricciarelli responded in the affirmative. He went on to
describe restoration efforts, including re-pointing and the windows, he noted the existing wood sills are
destroyed, so they are looking into costs and options for replacing.
Chairman Puleo focused his question on page A-2 and noted that the first three windows are garage
windows,and that the folks on Spring Street had expressed concerns about the windows on the rear of
the building. He asked them to talk about privacy for those rear abutters. David Pabich, property
owner, clarified which windows face the street and the abutters. Chairman Puleo then asked if they
have an alternative for privacy that would be approved for the historic preservation. He then asked how
they can address the privacy concern of the abutters with no space on the 3 Webster Street property; he
then asked about outside shutters. Mr. Ricciarelli said that they can look at roman shades as an option.
Mr. Rieder asked Chairman Puleo to clarify the motivation of this issue—whether it is to put the
abutters at ease, or the potential residents of 3 Webster Street. Chairman Puleo stated that he was
concerned about the�abutters, particularly the ones that spoke at the previous meeting. Mr. Rieder
then asked where the burden for that lies—is it 3 Webster Street, or is it the abutters? He then
described his home situation, noting the closeness of his nearest neighbor and the tall shrubs he
installed on his own property to provide privacy. He said that he does not want to put an added burden
on a derelict property. Mr. Pabich stated that most of houses in the neighborhood are very close
together. Chairman Puleo asked what their ability is to put stuff on the outside of the building to address
the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that there was pretty much no ability to put things on the
outside of the building (due to the historic preservation tax credit). Ben Anderson noted that the
property hasn't been used for a long time, and now there is going to be a change that the neighbors •
aren't used to. He recommended using something to soften the edge of the building—planting or
something. Mr. Pabich responded that there is a lot of vegetation out there. They can't add much on
their property because there's not space on the lot. He has spoken with a number of the neighbors and
he is more than willing to work with them. Mr. Ricciarelli described the buffer around building—there
are driveways on two sides, and some greenery. Mr. Ready asked if Mr. Pabich had the opportunity to
meet with the neighbors individually, to which Mr. Pabich answered that he has not met with them
individually, he has spoken with them casually while he's been on the property. Mr. Ready then asked if
he has had further discussion with Councillor Sosnowski, to which Mr. Pabich responded that he has not.
appreciates his distaste for the decision that the Zoning Board made, but it is not what we are here to
discuss. Mr. Clarke added that he finds it hard to believe that these luxury apartments are going to be
rented by someone who is not going to put a shade up. Mr. Ready noted that the actions of individuals
relating to privacy is not what the Board is here for.
Chairman Puleo asked about parking, to which Mr. Pabich responded that it was a feat to get four
parking spaces in there,though technically there are three plus one compact space.
Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they spoke with a tax credit consultant regarding acoustic screening of the
compressor units on the roof. The consultant felt that they should focus on keeping as much of the roof
as possible as a built-in acoustic screen. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that the compressor units are completely
screened. They have a noise level of about seven to eight decibels, and with the configuration of the
roof, the sound would be directed upward. Chairman Puleo asked if the only way to see the compressor
units is to be on top of the roof. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that this design will be more pleasing to the
neighbors. Mr.Anderson asked about roof access and Mr. Ricciarelli described the access points. Mr. •
C
• Ricciarelli continued, stated he included decibel measures in the submissions to the Board. Mr. Pabich
described to the Board how one would get roof access.
Mr. Ricciarelli described the outside light fixtures;they will use a retro light design and the four lights
will all be on motion sensors,one over each garage doors and one over each entrance. He noted that
there will be no lighting around the perimeter as it is not needed.
He then showed a graphic of the neighborhood and described the proximity of the neighbors.
Chairman Puleo asked Ms. Menon if they are waiting for comments. Dana Menon,Staff Planner, stated
that the Board of Health comments were standard. Fire department comments were updated; no
comments from the Disability Commission. Ms. Menon read the comments from the various
departments into the record. Fire Department had changes to their original comments. Chairman Puleo
asked if they had sewer service,to which Mr. Ricciarelli responded that they did. Mr.Anderson asked
about fire service,to which Mr. Pabich responded that the existing sprinkler system has been removed
with approval, and he described the new sprinkler system. Mr. Anderson asked if they had a fire alarm
control panel. Mr. Pabich said that there was an existing dry sprinkler system that they had removed
under the blessing of the fire prevention officer. There's a fire alarm system & panel that will remain in
service until they remove& replace it. Then it will be integrated with the new sprinkler system. Mr.
Anderson asked about a Siamese connection. The Fire Department will get plans, keys, etc.
Mr. Rieder asked about plans for the demolition and replacement of the existing strobe light, Mr.
Ricciarelli described them.
• Issue opened to the public for comment
No one from the public was present.
Mr. Ready noted that they had read and acknowledged the letters from Ward 2 Councillor Sosnowski
and Planning Board member Ms.Sides.
Mr.Anderson asked if by-right they are allowed 4 parking spots. Ms. Menon explained that three
parking spaces is below the standard requirement, but the ZBA had approved them to only have three.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Kirt Rieder. The
vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Vale, Mr.Anderson, Mr. Clarke,
Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe)and none (0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part
of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo asked if Mr. Pabich has had contact with neighbors,to which Mr. Pabich responded that
he had contact with almost all of the direct abutters in the last few weeks and they know how to get in
touch with him.
Mr. Clarke noted that every single condition is standard, except on the curb cut. Chairman Puleo
reviewed the curb cuts and aprons. Mr. Rieder clarified the conditions and Chairman Puleo
recommended language. Mr. Ricciarelli shared a document that states exactly what they will do with
regards to the curb cut radii and concrete sidewalk/driveway apron. Mr. Rieder asked about the scale of
the plans to which Mr. Ricciarelli stated that it is 1/8 inch scale.
Chairman Puleo asked about a revised date and the Board discussed the date to be used. Ms. Menon
suggested having Mr. Ricciarelli sign and date a record copy with the current date. Chairman Puleo •
continued his review of the plans. He recommended revising the plans to accurately reflect the correct
number of lights (four). Mr. Rieder also recommended that the language be changed on the strobe light
note to read "new strobe per fire department approval". Continued reviewing plans.
Mr. Anderson asked where the drain leader drains out to and Mr. Ricciarelli responded that it comes out
on grade. Mr.Anderson asked if there are gutters there now to which Mr. Rieder directed Mr.Anderson
to the photograph provided by the applicant. Mr. Pabich and Mr. Ricciarelli also responded in the
affirmative.
Ms. Menon read through the draft decision. Revised date of December 4`h 2013.
Chairman Puleo said that since there is no site, and in the case of multiple contractors being there at
one time,where will they park in order to not impede neighbor parking. Mr. Pabich responded that one
neighbor offered parking in his driveway. National Grid has been doing work in the area as well,without
creating any parking problems. He can't think of a satellite parking site. Mr. Clarke noted that National
Grid has blocked off the street for a month. Mr. Pabich stated that they will be considerate of the area.
Ms. Menon asked if they want to include language about that in the draft decision. Chairman Puleo said
that only if there isn't an on-street parking issue. Mr. Pabich stated that there is no permit parking in
the area. Mr. Clarke.noted that Salem Police will get called if there is an issue. Mr. Ready concluded
that if there isn't an issue, let's not add one. Ms. Menon continued reviewing the draft decision.
The applicant's letter in reference to granite curbing that has been submitted by the architects are to be •
considered part of the approved plan, to which the Applicant must conform.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the draft decision,seconded by George
McCabe. The vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Yale, Mr. Anderson,
Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe)and none (0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and
made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
Dana Menon stated that the Building Department will follow-up on the CVS parking lot lights. Chairman
Puleo reminded the board that the parking lot bollard lights are to be lit along with the rest of the
parking lot as part of the site plan approval. Mr. Clarke recommended that they get a specific date that
CVS will have the lights back on by. Chairman Puleo theorized that shutting the lights off is possibly a
money-saving issue.
Chairman Puleo noted that Trader's Way was not striped as it was supposed to be done, but it was spray
painted. He noted that the Engineering Department said that the striping is farmed out, but he wants to
know why it has not been restriped since it was spray painted in the spring(2013). Discussed the poor
temporary spray painting—it's a double-yellow line with no breaks for people to be turning. Ms.Yale
said that the Mayor spoke at a neighborhood meeting in June and said striping was to happen
imminently.
•
A
• Review and approval of 2014 Planning Board meeting schedule
Ms. Menon stated that she changed the meeting schedule for 3rd and 5th Thursdays in July,and the
January schedule will remain unchanged.
Motion and Vote: Ben Anderson made a motion to approve the 2014 Plannina Board meeting schedule,
seconded by Dale Yale. The vote was unanimous with seven(7)in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Yale,
Mr.Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe)and none(0)opposed. The decision is hereby
incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Adjournment
Motion and Vote: Georae McCabe made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Ready. The
vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Yale, Mr.Anderson, Mr. Clarke,
Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe)and none (0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part
of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:05 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:
htto://www.solem.com/Pages/Salem MA Plan Min/
Respectfully submitted,
. Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 2/20/2014
•
S
r
i
tV ai
._ ( j .. _ ..... 4
1QI3 Nov 15 A II:r IE
53
ENY1 Ctt4 S jLEM1 MASS,
NOTICE OF MEETING
)'oar are herebi notYied that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled rneetb(g
on
Thursday, November 21,2013 at 7:00pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313;
120 Washington St, Salem, MA
Charles Af..Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
This notice posted on "Official Bulletinoard"
I. ROLL CALL City Hall, Salem, Mass. on�` .3 �O/.�
. at /J -577/3/�i}t accordancwwith MGL Chap. 30A
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sections 18-25.
• October 17,2013 Meeting Ivautes
III. REGULARAGENDA
Project Site Plan Review for the conversion of the existing building to six(6)residential
units and associated parking and landscaping. -
Applicant: RENE WAL VENTURES LLC
Location: 3 WEBSTER ST(Map 36,Lot 0466)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Request of PAUL DIBIASE,TRUSTEE OF OSBORNE HILLS REALTY TRUST,for a
vote to approve the tri-partyagreement as surety for Phase IIB,and a vote to release lots 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,32,33,34,35,and 36 in PHASE IIB of the DEFINITIVE
SUBDIVISION PLAN OSBORNE HILLS, 57 MARLBOROUGH RD
Community Preservation Act Plan— Comment/Input
V. ADJOURNMENT
Knu:e'}bur rightsaxin t/xrdlce gLu�:b1.GL. e 304 � IS-25ire!CityDzzni)xc,g 22025tl.oughg 2-2033.
•
CITY OF SALEM
u ]1
PLANNING BOARD
ARD
2113 NOV 1 U A 11: 4U
FILE It
CITY CLERK. SALEM.MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting
on
Thursday,November 21,2013 at 7:00pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313,
120 Washington St., Salem, MA
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
• II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• October 17,2013 Meeting Minutes
III. REGULAR AGENDA
Project: Site Plan Review for the conversion of the existing building to six(6)residential
units and associated parking and landscaping.
Applicant: RENEWAL VENTURES LLC
Location: 3 WEBSTER ST (Map 36,Lot 0466)
W. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
➢ Community Preservation Act Plan—Comment/Input
V. ADJOURNMENT
Know jour rights under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.L s. 30A 118-25 and Ciy Ordinance,Q'2-2018 througb J 2-2033.
This notice posted on "Official�Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on /Vo% 14-' 2013
at // '44&1 in accordance with MGL Chap.30A,
Sections 18-25.
120 WASHNGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - NoNE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 ' 1A1ANV.SA1,FN1f0%!
. City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board pknyw�� Uoo r ,
Date _/
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
Page of
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
City of Salem CITY CLERK,SALEM, MASS.
Planning Board
978-619-5685
Will hold a public hearing under Section 9.5 Site Plan Review of the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinance, at the request of RENEWAL VENTURES LLC for the property located at 3
WEBSTER ST (Map 36, Lot 0466) in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter
40A. The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to six (6) residential
units and associated parking and landscaping.
Said hearing will be held on Thursday,November 21, 2013 at 7:00 PM, 3`d floor, 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for
review at the Department of Planning& Community Development, 3`d floor, 120 Washington
Street, Salem, MA.
• Charles Puleo
Chair
Salem News: 11/7/2013 & 11/14/2013
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Alcv, Lot3
at 2,`33 Ph in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . PHONE 978.619.5685 . FAX 978.740.0404
WWW.SALEM.COM
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 11/21/13
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 21, 2013
at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:01 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready,Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Ben Anderson, Randy
Clarke, George McCabe and Kirt Rieder. Absent: Mark George and Dale Yale.
Also present: Dana Menon, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
October 17, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
On page four, Mr.Clarke that his statement should have read that he recommended not using CPA
funds for municipal or school athletics.
No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the minutes,seconded by Ben Anderson. The
. vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr.Anderson, Mr. Clarke,
Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe.)and none (0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part
of these minutes.
Old Business/New Business
Request of PAUL DIBIASE,TRUSTEE OF OSBORNE HILLS REALTY TRUST,for a vote to approve the tri-
party agreement as surety for Phase IIB, and a vote to release lots 7,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,32,33,
34,35, and 36 in PHASE IIB of the DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN OSBORNE HILLS,57 MARLBOROUGH
RD
Ms. Menon stated that they added lot 7,which is laid out in the tri-party agreement. She also clarified
which of the remaining lots were previously released.
Paul DiBiase,trustee of Osborne Hills Trust, 57 Marlborough Road,cleared up the confusion with Lot 7,
explaining that it was not released in the last phase, as it should have been. He is happy to report that
they have completely constructed the first loop and Osborne Hills drive and Amanda Way now connect
by a paved road. They also converted the bridge to culverts, Masterson Construction, the general
contractor, is putting the roads in. The whole process was viewed and inspected by Fay,Spofford and
Thorndike,who are the Clerk of the Works on this project and have the full reports. They have
pavement down and it is in complete working order, along with the pumping station. He also stated
that the inspection company for the pump station is Weston and Sampson, and they have noted that it
is working well. Mr. DiBiase also stated that sales are picking up a little bit and they are moving forward.
. Chairman Puleo asked if this completes the loop to which Mr. DiBiase said yes,thus they are asking for
1
c
the release of phase IIB. They had to divide phase 2 up into two parts due to financial reasons. They are •
working on the streetscape and are prepared to work on the next phase (phase 3).
Chairman Puleo clarified that the goal is to release the lots,to which Mr. DiBiase responded that they
have a tri-party agreement which has been executed by himself as the trustee and from the bank as
well.
Ms. Menon stated that Jim Rivard from Fay Spofford and Thorndike reviewed the surety bond and found
the quantities and the cost to be reasonable and Dave Knowlton,the City Engineer, agreed. Paul
directed the Board to exhibit A in the informational packet to the Board for the quantities and cost
details.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the tri-party agreement as surety for Phase
118, and a vote to release lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. 15, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 in PHASE 118 of the
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN OSBORNE HILLS, 57 MARLBOROUGH RD,seconded by Kirt Rieder. The
vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr.Anderson, Mr. Clarke
Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe )and none(0)opposed The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part
of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo asked if the walking paths that go around the property will become public property.
Mr. DiBiase explained that the open space will be held by the homeowners association but will be open
to the public, and the path will be constructed in this phase. Mr. Rieder asked for further clarification to
which Chairman Puleo described the location of the walking path.
Project: Site Plan Review for the conversion of the existing building to six(6) •
residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
Applicant: RENEWAL VENTURES LLC
Location: 3 WEBSTER ST(Map 36, Lot 0466)
Dan Ricciarelli, Seger Architects, 10 Derby Square, Salem presented on behalf of the applicant, David
Pabich, and described the site. He added that some years ago there was an approval [zoning board] of a
plan with six residential units and three parking spaces. They are proposing one more parking space
inside the building. Chairman Puleo asked if the plan had been approved for someone else (a different
developer),to which Mr. Ricciarelli responded yes, and they have moved the approval forward through
the years. He then gave a history of the property and described the location, explaining that it is
currently vacant. He noted that the building is on the state and the national historic register, so they are
applying for historic tax credits. He then described their plans with remodeling the facade,stating that
they will open up the former overhead door opening. He described the visuals that he provided and
explained the location of the project in the neighborhood, noting it as a mill building.
Chairman Puleo asked about the location of the building from the lot line. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that
it's less than one foot in some places, and described it. Chairman Puleo then asked about rear access, to
which Mr. Ricciarelli explained that there is one door but it will be abandoned. Dan continued orienting
the Board to the location of the units and described the unit layouts. He explained that they will restore
the interior as they are brick walls. He then described that the units will be around 1400 square feet for
townhouses, 1000 square feet for the flats. Chairman Puleo asked about parking spaces,to which Mr.
Ricciarelli responded that they will not be not assigned. He continued describing the units. •
2
J
• Chairman Puleo asked if there will be a new roof,to which Mr. Ricciarelli responded that they will be
doing some work on the roof in order to conceal the mechanical units on the roof and they showed this
on the graphics. Chairman Puleo then asked about putting [the mechanical] units on the outside. Mr.
Ricciarelli described the location of the mechanical units on the roof and explained that there will be 6
units outside, but they will be recessed into the roofline. Chairman Puleo then asked about sound
suppression,to which Mr. Ricciarelli described the plan including an acoustic screen. Chairman Puleo
asked how close is the nearest building,to which Mr. Ricciarelli described the distances around the
property.
Mr. Clarke asked for further clarification on if these are rentals or condos. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that
they will receive tax credits if they rent out the units for up to five years. Mr. Ricciarelli continued his
presentation describing the engineering to stabilize building. Ms.Sides recommended that Ms. Menon
review and summarize what they are approving. Ms. Menon explained what they are approving will be
for site plan review due to the area of the building. She stated that they came to the Zoning Board for
the appropriate zoning relief,which was granted by the zoning board.. The decision of the zoning board
was appealed, but the appeal was overturned by the court. She then sent the plan out for review from
other departments and she has comments from those departments,which she can review.
Mr. Rieder asked about landscaping. Chairman Puleo clarified that they have been relieved from
parking. David Pabich, property owner, clarified that strictly because it's 6 units, it triggers a site plan
review in the city.They don't have much site for them to approve because of how the building fits on
the site. Mr. Rieder asked how they will finish the ground plane. Mr. Pabich explained that the
"landscape" in question runs along the side yard of the building. Chairman Puleo asked about the
• trench to the front door,to which Mr. Ricciarelli explained that the curb will be cut to reactivate the
second overhead door in the front and to clean up the apron. Chairman Puleo asked about the
condition of the sidewalk, and Mr. Ricciarelli shared a visual to help explain. Mr. Rieder asked if the
surface will be restored as asphalt to which Mr. Pabich responded that in keeping with the
neighborhood,they will make it asphalt. Ms.Sides recommended using concrete and Mr. Clarke echoed
her statement adding that the Board recommends concrete on all projects. Mr. Rieder and Chairman
Puleo recommended providing additional information on the granite curbing. Chairman Puleo asked
how wide is the building is across the front to which Mr. Pabich stated that it is 48 feet.
Ben Anderson stated that he is concerned that he doesn't see a site plan that includes the distance to
adjacent buildings and the proximity of the neighbors. Mr. Ricciarelli agreed to provide that
information. Chairman Puleo asked for clarification on the location and if this is designated R-2. Mr.
Anderson was also interested in the number of units and the potential people in the building as he is
concerned that it is a dense neighborhood. He's thinking about how this will impact on-street parking,
and asked if they are deeding parking to some of the apartments. He then asked who these apartments
are being marketed to. Mr. Pabich said that he can't speak to that at all in terms of who he's going to
rent it to—there are regulations saying that you can't not rent to anybody. Mr.Anderson stated that in
the original decision it was included who it would be marketed to. Mr. Pabich said it would ultimately
be sold as condos. From his experience,what he typically sees is professional younger couples who
don't have cars,who want to be near the train. That's not to say that they definitely won't have cars. In
a recent development he did, several two-bedroom units were bought by single women. But that's just
one snapshot in his experience. Can't define but it will be high end like who is renting at the Salem Jail.
It is exceptionally important to him that he has good tenants. Generally,the higher the rents,the better
• the tenants.
3
ti
V
Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the front exterior lighting and then asked how are they going to •
re-point the brick walls. Mr. Pabich explained that they are allowed by law to do repairs, but he will ask
for permission to go on the neighbors' properties for repairs. Mr. Anderson commented that it seems
like a lot of units and lot of people for the neighborhood, then he asked if they could get one more
parking space with one less residential unit. Mr. Pabich responded that he would not do this with one
less unit as the numbers are tight.
Chairman Puleo requested lighting details at the front of the building, details on the refinishing of the
sidewalk, and the HVAC units-decibel levels and proposed screening,when they return. Mr. Rieder
asked if it is not incumbent upon the applicant to meet the criteria for site plan review and to have a
complete plan. Mr. Clarke asked what's the expected duration of the project to which Mr. Pabich
responded that it will take approximately 9 months.
Chairman Puleo opens the issue up for public comment
Don Tucker, 5 Webster Street,asked where are the air conditioning units going to be located to which
Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they will be located on the opposite side of the building from Mr.Tucker's
property. Mr.Tucker then asked about garbage to which Mr. Pabich responded that there will be a
small dumpster inside the building. Mr. Tucker asked about the locations of the emergency exits. Mr.
Ricciarelli pointed out the emergency exit locations on the graphics. Mr.Tucker noted that historically
the sprinklers are bad and have always been bad. Mr. Pabich stated that they are updating the sprinkler
system.
Mr.Anderson asked if there was a remoteness issue for the exits that had to be met. Mr. Ricciarelli •
responded that there is a criteria, but it is not an issue here.
Ms. Menon read the Fire Inspector's comments.
Tim Ready noted that the comments submitted by other departments are all public record.
Paul Guido, 15 Pleasant Street, recommended that they install a balustrade across it of some nature so
the neighbor doesn't stare at the air conditioning unit. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that they are going to
put an acoustic screen in,to buffer the noise and the view. The Park Service doesn't want to see
anything that changes the original appearance of the building, like a balustrade. They are tucking the
units back into the roof pretty far, at least 3 feet, as they are trying to hide them as much as possible.
Chairman Puleo asked for a sample of the material,to which Mr. Ricciarelli agreed to provide one. Mr.
Anderson stated that there is some elevation confusion, and asked them to submit something larger, so
the notes can be read. Mr.Anderson then asked about the overhead doors for garages. Mr. Ricciarelli
said that they are not designed yet as they are waiting for historic information on the original
appearance of the doors. Mr. Anderson then asked about the design of the garage and the exhaust from
cars in the garage,to which Mr. Ricciarelli explained that it will be like a residential garage, as it will be
sealed from the residential areas of the building.
Mark Verkennis, 17 Pleasant Street, asked about the window design plan over the garages to which Mr.
Ricciarelli stated that they will be keeping all of them. Mr.Verkennis asked about the types of windows
that will be used. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that these will be similar to the Salem Jail building where they •
will have historical details,and be insulated.
4
• Mr.Tucker asked if they are adding windows,to which Mr. Ricciarelli responded no.
Dave Coppola, 9 Spring Street, described where he lives in relation to project and asked about the
exhaust pipe for washer and dryer units. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that they will use brick vents, and they
may do them on the side of the building, or out the roof.
Lorenzo Quinones, 9 Spring Street, asked about the abandoning of the rear entrance,to which Mr.
Ricciarelli explained that they are going to make it a window. Mr. Quinones stated that the windows
stare into their yard, so he would like to know what they're thinking about for extra privacy. Mr. Pabich
discussed how he is contemplating a translucent application on the windows. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that
they have to run it by the Park Service. Mr.Quinones then asked about sandblasting of the building, to
which Mr. Ricciarelli responded that it will be done on the interior only. They will be repointing the
exterior.
Paul Falconer, 17 Pleasant Street,didn't realize with the historic building tax incentive that all units have
to start out as all rental. He asked if there would there be any incentive to offering a rent to own option.
Mr. Pabich responded that it's a model that they have pursued in the past and it doesn't always work
out. However it is certainly something that he would entertain.
Mr.Turner requested that a stipulation be included that during construction they shut the lights off at
night,to which Mr. Pabich agreed. Mr. Pabich stated that they are good landlords and they will
continue to have a dialogue with neighbors and they will have a phone number to call if there are any
• issues. Mr.Turner asked if it would be available during work hours,to which Mr. Pabich said it would be
available whenever the city requires, however no weekend hours. Mr. Ready said that on behalf of this
board, it is important to get the number out there.
Chairman Puleo requested that when the applicant presents again,that they specifically address the
HVAC, site plan, lighting, and locating abutters on Spring Street.
Ms. Sides complemented the developer, noting that it is a beautiful building as it has tremendous
potential architecturally.
Motion and Vote: Ben Anderson made o motion to continue to 12/5/13 meeting, seconded by Tim
Ready. The vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr.Anderson,
Mr. Clarke Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe) and none(0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and
made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
Community Preservation Act Plan—Comment/Input
Ms. Menon stated that she pulled together the comments from the previous meeting and from emails
and she stated that Jane Guy and Lynn Duncan reviewed them for compatibility. There were some
comments that weren't quite clear. Ms. Sides noted that there was good attendance at the most recent
Community Preservation Commission public hearing,with about 35 people.
5
V
Ms. Menon explained that it would be best to not have negatively worded criteria. Ms. Sides stated that •
most of this is in the document already. Mr. Rieder recommended excluding cleaning up contaminated
lands as it is not going to be visible in the future, but it is pivotal. Mr.Anderson said that they could use
up the yearly budget on cleaning up lands. Mr. Clarke commented that contaminated lands could be
tied into other projects. Ms. Menon asked if it is a priority. Chairman Puleo asked if there could be a
certain amount of money allocated. Ms. Sides stated that it is not possible as there are so many things
coming our way at once. At least for quite a while there are going to be projects that fall into several
baskets at once.
Mr. Anderson asked about the application process to get to recommendations. Ms.Sides described a
two step process and said that someone has to be serious about presenting an application and leading
it. Then they have to do a long application form with the true costs associated. Mr.Anderson said that
some will get vetted through that process. Ms. Sides said that there will be something on the website
that everyone can read to understand the process. George McCabe stated that these projects will
ultimately be approved by the city council. Ms. Sides said it could be one big project or several small
ones. Mr.Anderson reminded the Board that the intent of our exercise here is to give you some ideas.
Ms. Sides said that the CPC can look at all of the Boards' recommendations to see if they are missing
something. Ms. Menon stated that the public process is an important piece, and the CPC is getting input
from every board.
Mr. Rieder asked if some of the suggested projects are too specific to which Ms.Sides responded that
the level of specificity is at the discretion of each CPC. She used Gloucester as an example. Mr.
Anderson used an example, asking who would bring the application forward for"Winter Island." Ms.
Sides gave an example of a man who has detailed recommendations for renovating Winter Island. Ms. •
Menon stated that the City can bring forward proposals as well. Ms.Sides and Mr. Clarke offered other
examples,which included the harbor. Mr. Rieder discussed the shoreline connectivity so it is not
specific to just the ferry terminal. Ms. Menon asked about recreational connectivity to which Mr. Rieder
said it was important to focus on pedestrians. Ms. Menon suggested adding bicycle access to that. Mr.
Clarke asked\the Disability Commission has been asked for input on the CPA priorities,to which Ms.
Menon said that she didn't know. Mr. Clarke stated that it is important to include ADA components.
Mr. Rieder recommended adding a reference to universal access. He also noted that on the second
page,there are references to "studies"which concerns him as the City can spend money on studies and
he worries that they may not yield tangible improvements to the City. Ms. Sides responded that Jane
(Guy) looked into this and the money cannot be used to update studies that are the City's responsibility.
Mr. Clarke asked if a non-profit could use funds for a feasibility study. Mr. Anderson noted that there
may be projects that won't get kicked off if there isn't a study done. There may be projects here where
the development team isn't terrifically funded, but it may be beneficial for the city to develop this site.
Mr. Ready stated that he would like to see a proponent of a project to fund a study. Mr. Clarke stated
that it is important to keep the study language strong.
Mr. Clarke asked when the first recommendation will happen. Chairman Puleo noted that it hasn't
come on the tax bill yet. Mr. Rieder recommended language changes and additions. Ms. Menon
recommended more specificity. Mr.Anderson recommended adding language about green and
sustainable initiatives in the general categories. Mr. Rieder recommended that the money should not
be used for strictly vehicular initiatives,to which Mr. Clarke concurred. Mr. Rieder recommended that
money not be spent to pave parking lots. Ms. Menon asked what about a situation where improving the
parking lot would improve access to a recreation area/amenity. Mr. Rieder responded that grinding, •
milling, and repaving is not helping to improve the recreational area. There was continued discussion
6
1
r
about parking and how it impacts the potential proposed projects. Mr. Rieder stated that the projects
• should be about improving universal and pedestrian access,.rather than the most mundane thing. He
emphasized that they not be exclusively for vehicular improvements.
Mr. Ready asked about the process to which Ms. Menon responded that she is bringing it all to lane Guy
who is compiling all of the recommendations. Ms.Sides noted that this is an important part of the
process.
Ms. Menon stated that she will be bringing the draft 2014 calendar to the next meeting as January 2nd
and July 3rd may be challenging.
Chairman Puleo asked Ms. Menon to look into the lighting situation at the CVS. Ms. Menon stated that
the Building department had looked at the Bollards and they are all out. The inspector is guessing it is
due to an electrical failure.
Mr. Rieder asked about the status of lawsuit with the power plant,to which Ms. Menon responded that
they are waiting for the EFSB to make a determination on Footprint's application for an approval by the
EFSB that would override the local appeals.
Mr. Clarke asked that it be noted the Board congratulates Beth Gerard on winning her ward seat on the
Salem City Council.
Adjournment
• Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to adiourn the meeting,seconded by Kirt Rieder. The
vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr.Anderson, Mr. Clarke,
Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe. Mr. George and Ms. Vale were absent.)and none (0)opposed. The decision
is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:32 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/Pages/SolemMA Plan Min/
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 12/5/2013
7
Yt
3
PLANNING .BCARD
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planing Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, November 7 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313,
120 Washington Street, has been canceled.
Comment/input for the Community Preservation Act Plan will be re-scheduled to the next
regular meeting on Thursday, November 21.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
Salem Planning Board
•
Ki7owy00- iglm torler the Open MeetiogLawM.G.L. c 30A � 18-25 arnl Gly Ordir¢ ce 22028 through g 2-2033.
j10711 P !( 1 -. f
•
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, November 7, 2013 at 7:00pnt at City Hall Annex, Rana 313,120 Washington St., Salem, MA
Qtr& m • f coo'/WU
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETINGAGENDA
� o
Cm
� W
r
I. ROLL CALL
s-n
F w
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES r-:3c
• October 17,2013 Meeting Minutes
3
III. REGULARAGENDA n rV
No regular agenda items
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Community Preservation Act Plan- Comment/Input
V. ADJOURNMENT
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on �( v'/, 40/--?
at =3--�2 Vl*v in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Know your rights under the Open Heeting Law, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 3011 Sectionl8-23
and City Ordinance Section 2-2028 (In ough Section 2-2033.
Z113 OCT 10 P S 4b
NOTICE OF MEETING FILE 0
CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS
You are hereby ttoti/ied drat the Salem Planning 6ourrl will hold is regularh;scheduled neetin"On
1,11111-stlaY, October 17, 2013 at 7.00pnt at City Hall Atones, Rowe 313,120 Washinglon St., Salem, JVIA
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGE NDA
L ROLL CALL
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• July 25,2013 Meeting Minutes
111. REGULAR AGENDA.
Project: Endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control (ANR)
Applicant: CITY OF SALEM
Location: RILEY PLAZA EAST AT \VASHINGTON AND DODGE STREETS -
WASHINGTON STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
CorrunututyPreservation Act Plan- Request for Conunent/Input
V. ADJOURNMENT ,
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass on � /Ot ,2 d1
at S rlj, I'M in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Section- 18-25.
knon coir ri;�ltte undrr'tlre Open rllreting Luer, rtlassaclmsots General Lint Chapter 30A SeetiunlS-23
incl Car Orrliruma Section 1-JI11S thruush .Section 2-203 3.
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 10/17/13
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 17, 2013 at
7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready,Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Dale Yale, Ben Anderson,
Randy Clarke, and Mark George. Absent:George McCabe and Kirt Rieder.
Also present: Dana Menon,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
July 25, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
Chairman Puleo asked about the litigation in regards to the power plant approval. Dana Menon, Staff
Planner, explained the litigation process and where the suit is in process. She then stated that the
appeals process will likely not proceed while Footprint Power's application to the EFSB is being
considered.
Chairman Puleo pointed out a correction on page 5 regarding Scott Silverstein's clarification that use of
. ammonia is the industry standard, and he was not aware anyone who was using urea instead. Tim
Ready noted that in a previous meeting, Mr. Silverstein stated that ammonia was the industry standard.
Chairman Puleo also noted that there was a typo on Mr. Brooks'final comment on page 6.
No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the minutes,seconded by Helen Sides. The
vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr.
Anderson, and Mr. Clarke)and none(0)opposed.. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part
of these minutes.
Project: Endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision
Control (ANR)
Applicant: CITY OF SALEM
Location: RILEY PLAZA EAST AT WASHINGTON AND DODGE STREETS—WASHINGTON STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Ms. Menon reviewed her memo, explained that the parcel in question was part of the Washington
Street right of way. She further explained that the State used to own the traffic circle on Washington
Street. The State gave a portion of the right of way to the City. She described her handouts which
included two views of the parcel map, showing the areas that were part of the right of way,which are
now used as City-operated parking lots. Previously, the city put out an RFP for development of parcels
. at Washington and Dodge Streets,which RCG won and RCG has since submitted preliminary plans. She
said that RCG is currently in front of the Design Review Board to work those plans out. The parcel being
1
c
proposed in the ANR application will not be sold to RCG until RCG's plans are approved and permitted. •
She has RCG's response to RFP available for review but reminded the Board that the included plans
could change before they are brought before the Board.
Chairman Puleo asked for clarification on the lot lines. Ms. Menon then reviewed the full-size lot plan.
Mr.Anderson asked how much of the right of way the City owns, to which Ms. Menon responded that
she would have to go to the Registry of Deeds to confirm. Mr. Anderson asked what precedent this
might set,and re-iterated that he's not terribly concerned but just wants to understand what the
ramifications would be for the Board and the City. Ms. Menon reviewed the bidding process in relation
to this project and requirements such as parking spaces.
Randy Clarke stated that the City Council has to approve this so it's a political process as well as a city
process. He further pointed out that it has to be vetted by a lot of other people before it gets to the
Planning Board.
Chairman Puleo reminded the Board of when Liberty Street was given to the Peabody Essex Museum,
utility structures had to be removed by the City. He would hope that this time, the responsibility for
moving of the utility structures would be borne by RCG. Mr. Clarke asked what was in the purchase and
sale agreement to which Ms. Menon stated that the sale has not been completed yet. Helen Sides then -
stated that according to RCG's work with the Design Review Board, RCG will be responsible for moving
the city water line that runs across the proposed parcel. Mr.Anderson then asked where the water
line would be moved to, and how it would impact the neighbors, to which Ms. Menon said that she
could not answer that question at this time. Mr. Clarke said that he thought that this would come back
before the Planning Board,to which Dale Yale agreed. •
Ms. Sides noted that RCG is also proposing to realign the entrance to Dodge Street at their cost.
Mr.Anderson asked about the determination on the ANR, and further asked Ms. Menon to explain what
an ANR is. Ms. Menon explained the criteria and further described the way it is laid out in the zoning
code,which is in accordance with the subdivision control law. The proposed parcel already has frontage
on a public way. Mr. Anderson then asked if they are going to require a PUD or if she knew how they
are combining the lots,to which Ms. Menon stated that she didn't know. Mr.Anderson stated his
concern that there could be changes to this lot without having to come back to the Planning Board. Ms.
Menon stated that this approval is just for parcel D. She further explained that this is a separate issue
from a site plan review. They are giving a preview of what the plans are for the lot. If adjacent lots are
owned by the same person,the lots are merged. Mr.Anderson stated that he was worried about
potential changes made to the lot in the future that wouldn't have to be reviewed by the Board. Ms.
Yale explained that if the lots were merged,the owner would have to apply to the Board in order to
subdivide them. . Chairman Puleo clarified the process that they are adjudicating on (the ANR petition).
Ms. Menon said that the city's current plan is to not sell the proposed parcel until RCG's plans are
permitted. The lots at Washington and Dodge would not be merged with the proposed parcel until they
are all under one ownership.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made o motion to approve the ANR, seconded by Helen Sides. The vote
was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. George Mr.
Anderson, and Mr. Clarke)and none(0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of
these minutes. •
J
• There was then discussion as to when RCG's proposal would come before the Planning Board. Mr.
Anderson asked who the project architect is. Ms.Sides responded that she thinks it is a company from
Somerville. She also stated that they are trying to iron out conflict of interest issues, so she may have to
recuse herself from deliberations on the development itself, both with the Design Review Board and the
Planning Board. Ms. Menon answered Mr. Anderson, stating that she thought the architect was Khalsa
Design Inc. Mr. Clarke stated that he thinks it will be an active review when it does come before the
Board. Chairman Puleo talked about how the area (near Washington and Dodge Streets) has filled up.
Ms. Sides noted that the development provides some city parking and also includes a hotel, retail,and a
restaurant.
Old/New Business
Community Preservation Act Plan—Request for Comment/Input
Helen Sides stated that Jane Guy is the city liaison. She has worked with Jane on the historical
commission for many years. The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) has been working hard.She
reviewed some of the CPC's draft materials with the Board. Ms. Sides stated that the taxation structure
is laid out by State legislation. There is no State body to consult with, it is up to the Cities and Towns to
write their own documents. There is a website created by the Community Preservation Coalition (a
nonprofit),as well as precedents from other communities that have implemented CPA. The CPC is
looking for precedents from communities similar to Salem. There are differences,for example-Salem
voted for a 1%surcharge where other cities voted for 3%. She continued reviewing materials and
highlighted the salient issues. One of the key points Ms.Sides highlighted is that funding of
maintenance (incidental repairs) is not permitted with CPA funds. Ms. Sides and Ms. Menon also
• referred to Newburyport's CPA funding criteria as a useful example for a more urban municipality.
Ms.Sides said that the fun thing is seeing the amount of open space that Salem has. Developing the
prioritization criteria for use of CPA funds pulls together different things,and references all the
different plans together. Ms. Menon stated that they are putting together a summary of the priorities
stated in a variety of city plans, so that the Board can see all of the different priorities together. Ms.
Sides shared a document showing how other communities have used these funds. Ms. Menon said that
the CPC has to first establish a set of criteria to evaluate and select certain projects,then they can create
a plan for use of CPA funds, and then use the plan to create an application process that will attract the
types of projects that are addressing priorities. The various Boards and Commissions have been asked
to help create criteria. The Planning Board is supposed to take a broader approach, as Boards with
specific interests are also reviewing their plans and priorities.
Mr.Anderson asked about the timeline,to which Ms. Menon responded that the CPC liaison would like
feedback by November 22nd. Ms.Yale recommended a workshop. Ms.Sides stated that the materials
that will be sent out will help get to the meat of it. She then said that Kirt(Rieder) sent out a list of
projects since he couldn't be here. Ms. Menon recommended that Helen review Mr. Rieder's list of
criteria, which is included as follows:
1. Projects should be accessible to the public(visible to passersby, physically accessible to visitors).
Funding should generally not be applied to hidden utilities, or structural improvements that are not
readily visible to citizens,visitors. In the interest of showcasing the positive impacts of the CPA,
preference should be given to readily visible improvements.
•
2. Projects should be pedestrian focused (funding should not be allocated to vehicular parking or •
roadway improvements, EXCEPT in situations where the improvements are directly related to pedestrian
passage, such as stone or brick crosswalks. Shall not be used for faux stamped asphalt/concrete, for
instance). Traffic and roadway improvements already have a dedicated funding stream, and while not
always adequate, it should not divert CPA funds for these purposes.
3. For discussion ... should CPA funds be available for or restricted from soil mitigation projects?
Splaine Park, Bertram Field, among others have had soil remediation issues that were costly. Should the
City be using CPA funds to dispose of'dirty soil' and buy clean planting soil?
- Pro: it does ultimately allow for a positive community resource
- Con:it does go into what is essentially invisible improvement
4. For discussion ... should CPA funds be limited to public property? Include private, but non-profit,
and if so, does that properly include or exclude very large non-profits such as Salem Hospital, Salem
State, PEM (those with non-profit status but otherwise large budgets)?
S. For discussion ... Should CPA funds be prohibited from application to annual sport field
maintenance (soccer,football, softball, baseball, courts, golf)? Limited to property acquisition for same
athletic use?
Ms. Menon stated that synthetic turf cannot be funded with CPA funds. Ms.Sides stated that she is
impressed by Kirt's recommendations. Chairman Puleo clarified that you could use funds for recreation.
Mr. Ready and Mr. Clarke discussed the McCabe Marina as an example - public bathrooms should be
available there. Mr. Ready noted that there are other facilities in the city that could benefit from CPA
funds. Mr. Clarke noted that his personal opinion was that they should not use CPA funds for municipal
or school athletics--there are a lot of other funding opportunities out there for those projects. CPA •
funds should be used for projects that benefit a wider group of users/residents. He stated that the
unique qualities of Salem are: 1. Historic architecture;and 2. the waterfront, which needs to be
protected. Mr. Ready supported Mr. Clarke by stating that this is a maritime city. Mr. Clarke pointed
out that if we didn't have the National Park Service at the historic waterfront, it would be a disaster.
Ms. Menon asked if CPA funds for open space and recreation could be used for piers and docks, or other
kinds of access that project off of the land. Ms. Sides stated that it depends on who owns it. As long as it
is on city land, it could be applied. Mr. Clarke stated that he was not sure if it's that specific. He noted
that clearly they want to focus on public land, not private, in order to make land more accessible to
walking, biking, boating. Ms. Sides used the House of Seven Gables as an example of something that is
private not public.
Mr. Clarke noted that the annual CPA funds collected is not a lot of money—maybe roughly$300,000
after administrative costs. They have to do things tactically, doing strategic smaller projects each year,
and at the same time saving up money for bigger projects. Ms. Sides stated that the funds can roll over
from year to year.
Ms. Sides said that she is grateful to have the Planning Department to help with this. Mr. Clarke
inquired about matching funds as there could be some value to partner up with non-profits with this.
Mr. Ready said that partnering up with non-profits will be great and he discussed this in relation to
McCabe Marina. He stated that he had a discussion with the company that laid pipeline under there
and noted that it was put in with a little bit of city money. He stated that in regards to that project,for
•
A
Ar
• the city it was a huge positive impact, but for the pipeline company it was a small effort. It created great
access for the public.
Mr.Anderson asked how often the Community Preservation Committee will review applications. Ms.
Sides responded that there will be public meetings. They are still working out the process. Likely there
will be a two-step process,with a preliminary short form. If the short-form application is approved, the
application would proceed to the long-form application. Ms. Sides stated that she believes the final
selection/approval of projects goes to the City Council for review.
Ms. Menon recommended that if they want to continue this to the next meeting, Board members
should send her their recommendations and thoughts on the CPA priorities. Ms. Menon will compile
the recommendations to present at the next meeting.
Mr. Clarke asked if they will see the finished package,to which Ms. Sides responded in the affirmative.
The CPC will arrange a public meeting,which Jane Guy will schedule. Ms. Menon stated that the
Planning Board has two more meetings before Jane's 11/22 deadline.
Tim Ready noted that the power plant review was handled professionally, and it was well-organized,to
which Ms.Sides echoed that it was a very professional and well-prepared presentation. Mr. Ready then
stated that this process was extremely well-handled by everyone and they made the right decision.
Mr. Puleo announced that he has a citation from the Mayor's Office to present to Mr.John Moustakis in
appreciation of his years of service on the Planning Board.
• Adjournment
Motion and Vote: Tim Ready made a motion to adiourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. The
vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor(Mr. Puleo. Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr.
Anderson, and Mr. Clarke.)and none(0)opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part
of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:04 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/PagesISo/emMA PlonMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 11/21/2013
•
c
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-in Sheet
Board bourj
Date 201
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
•
•
Page ' Of
,��ONI7ITq��
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
` DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
• �'�� s �r
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD
DIRECTOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Dana Menon,Staff Planner
DATE: October 11,2013
RE: Planning Board Meeting—October 17,2013
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Draft Meeting Minutes -July 25th,2013
• ➢ Materials for Regular Agenda
Materials for the agenda item are included in the packet for the 10/17/2013 meeting. Here is a summation of
the
requestg and background parcel information for each item:
I. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Discussion and Vote —Application of THE CITY OF SALEM for endorsement of a plan believed
not to require approval under Subdivision Control(ANR) to subdivide the property "RILEY PLAZA
EAST" AT WASHINGTON AND DODGE STREETS — WASHINGTON STREET RIGHT-OF-
WAY.
The applicant is requesting to create a new parcel at the corner of Washington and Dodge Streets. The land
was originally part of the Washington Street right-of-way. It has since been abandoned by the City, by vote
of City Council. The plan is entitled to ANR endorsement, since this would not be considered a subdivision
under M.G.L. c. 41 section 81L. The proposed lot size is 20,448± square feet. The required minimum lot
area,under Section 4.1.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,is 2,000 square feet.
This ANR application is one step toward the future development of the land by RCG. In April 2013, the
City issued an REP for Sale of City Property:Riley Plaza East Parcel B. RCG's Proposal was selected, and a
Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) is currently being drafted by the City Solicitor. Once the LDA is
complete,it will be executed by the City and RCG. RCG currently intends to develop the parcel,along with
neighboring parcels at Washington and Dodge Streets,into a mixed-used development, to contain a hotel,
retail space, office space,residential and parking. RCG is before the Design Review Board with their
conceptual plan.
•
City of Salem: Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—October 11, 2013
Page 2of2
II. OLD/NEW BUSINESS •
The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) is working to develop a Plan, in order to recommend
projects to the City Council for CPA funding. Helen Sides is the Planning Board representative on the CPC.
The CPC is soliciting the Board's input in order to develop the CPA Plan. Please find in Attachment A the
following documents to consider:
• Overview and Implementation Guide
• CPA sample success stories across Massachusetts,
• Examples of evaluation criteria from other communities
• Survey questions
• Taxpayer Information Guide.
Please familiarize yourself with these materials. We will discuss the survey questions at the meeting. The
Board has been requested to come to a consensus, and to record these agreed-upon comments in writing,no
later than noon on Friday,November 22^d.
Attachments
Attachment A—Community Preservation Committee materials
•
•
st Community Preservation Act
FY14 Survey for Boards
(Planning Board, Historical Commission, Conservation Commission, Salem Housing Authority,
• Park& Recreation Commission, Neighborhood Improvement Advisory Committee, Salem
Redevelopment Authority, Bike Bath Committee)
Board: Chair signature:
Following discussion, please provide your Board/Commission's consensus on the following
questions (either on this form or on board/commission letterhead):
1. What would you suggest for guidelines/criteria for selecting projects to fund with CPA
2. What do you see as specific needs?
3. What are the goals to meet those needs?
•
4. What types of projects would your prefer to see funded with CPA rather than the City
budget?
5. Several planning documents have recommendations (i.e. Open Space & Recreation Plan,
Preservation Maintenance Plan for City-Owned Properties, 5-Year Consolidated Plan, North
River Canal Corridor Plan, Bridge Street Neck Neighborhood Plan, Winter Island Master Plan,
Point Neighborhood Historic Resources Survey and Preservation Plan, Salem Point Vision and
Action Plan). Are there any priority projects you would recommend from these plans?
6. Are there any specific projects that you would support funding with CPA?
• 7. Any other comments?
' CONWTq
' 3 City of Salem
Community Preservation Act
• s Overview and Implementation Guide
Rev.1018113
The Community Preservation Act (CPA) was adopted by Salem voters in November, 2012. It established a local
dedicated fund for the purpose of undertaking open space, historic preservation, outdoor recreation and
community housing projects. It is financed by a voter-approved property tax surcharge along with annual
matching funds from the statewide CPA Trust Fund (please see the City of
Salem Assessors Departments Taxpayer Information Guide to learn how the CPC Members
surcharge is calculated). Implementation of the CPA in Salem is undertaken
through the City's Community Preservation Committee (CPC), composed of Helen Sides (Choir)
representatives from the City's Conservation Commission, Historical Kevin Cornacchio (Vice Chair)
Commission, Planning Board, Park & Recreation Commission and Salem , John Boris w
qt
Housing Authority,along with appointees from the Mayor and the City Council. � t'Bark Hoskins, 4 .`"i
Joanne McCrea
The Salem CPC's duties are to: Ed Moriarty ,
• Prepare an annual CPA budget for the City Council Mickey Northcutt tutT
• Develop and maintain a Community Preservation Plan :' Tun Shea.,
• Hold at least one public hearing per year Leslie Tuttle
• Make project recommendations to the City Council
Recommended CPA Budget FY14 Salem's CPA Budget: Massachusetts CPA regulations require that
� /o 1m4A 10 of annual CPA revenues be set aside or spent for housing
Oen ace&Recreation projects, 10% for historic projects and 10% for open space &
Projects
pi
Reserve $40,000 recreation projects. Administration costs are capped at 5%. The
• ' Housing Protects Reserve t ? CPC will recommend how the remaining CPA revenues shall be
$40,000
f - t : divided among the three purposes. For example, the remaining
Historic Protects Reserve .( $40,000 portion of the annual revenue could be designated to one purpose,
Administration Expenses $20,000 'pread evenly among all three, or set aside for future spending.
FY14 Budgeted Reserve $260,000
00The budget must be approved by the City Council before the
$4 ,000 '
a �f. •� -- � annual tax rate is set. In FY14, Salem's CPA revenue consists of
local CPA surcharge revenues only, estimated at$400,000. In FY15, the budget will include funds from the State's
CPA Trust Fund.
Developing a Community Preservation Plan: In order to develop a plan and create criteria for selecting
projects,the CPC has/will:
• Attend a trolley tour of Salem Housing Authority properties (completed 8/21/13).
• Hold a public hearing to provide information and to obtain public input on project selection
guidelines/criteria and Salem's priority needs and goals (scheduled for 11/12/13).
• Review existing plans completed with public input (see http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA DPCD/studies, as
well as other available documents, such as the State ttfFThe Cosmmunity Preservation Commissioner
Register of Historic Places. The CPC will also review
plans from several other CPA communities. maintains a page on the City website
• Solicit input from the Planning Board and httl2://www.salem.com/Pages/`SalemMA CPC/index
'"``�':. w.aa ". Flo er.a °"� ux ;«.WsA §hid.. 'aa 'ramw .1
Conservation, Historical and Park and Recreation °� �
Commissions, Salem Housing Authority, Salem CPC Meetings are held on
Redevelopment Authority, and the Bike Path and . the second Tuesday of each month at 6:OOpm at
Neighborhood Improvement Advisory Committees. 120 Washington St.,3rd Floor Conference Room ••
• Accept public input in writing thru 11/22/13.
Soliciting Applications: Seethe reverse side of this document for a chart illustrating allowable funding purposes.
At this time, the CPC is developing a two-step application process, beginning with an Eligibility Application,a one-
page document that will be used to review eligibility of submitted projects. Proponents of projects deemed eligible
will be invited to submit a Funding Application.
Community 33 Union Sheet,Fourth Floor
Boston,MA 02108
Preservation Coalition Phone:617-36I-8998
Preserving our post. Building our future. Fa.:617-3678788
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION FUND ALLOWABLE SPENDING PURPOSES
OPEN SPACE HISTORIC RESOURCES RECREATIONAL LAND COMMUNITY HOUSING
DEFINITION Land to protect existing Building,structure,vessel or Land for active or passive Housing for low and moderate income
and future well fields, real property listed or recreational use including, individuals and families, including low
aquifers and recharge eligible for listing on the but not limited to,the use of or moderate income seniors
areas,watershed land, state register of historic land for community gardens,
agricultural land, places or determined by the trails,and noncommercial Moderate income is less than 100%,
grasslands,fields,forest local historic preservation youth and adult sports,and and low income is less than 80%,of US
land,fresh and salt water commission to be significant the use of land as a park, HUD Area Wide Median Income
marshes and other in the history,archeology, playground or athletic field
wetlands,ocean,river, architecture or culture of the
stream, lake and pond city or town Does not include horse or
frontage,beaches,dunes dog racing or the use of land
and other costal lands, for a stadium,gymnasium or -
lands to protect scenic similar structure
vistas,land for wildlife or
nature preserve and land
for recreational use
ACQUIRE Yes Yes Yes Yes effective 12/5/2006
CREATE Yes No Yes Yes
PRESERVE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Means protect from injury,harm
or destruction,not maintenance
SUPPORT No No No Yes,includes funding for community's
affordable housing trust
REHABILITATE/RESTORE Yes, if acquired or Yes Yes, if acquired or created Yes,if acquired or created with
Means remodel,reconstruct or created with Community with Community Community Preservation funds
repair(extraordinary,not Preservation funds Preservation funds
maintenance)to make property
functional for intended use,
including improvements to
comply with federal, state or local
building or access codes or with
federal standards for rehabilitation
of historic properties
Chart courtesy of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue
www.communitypreservation.org
CPA SAMPLE SUCCESS STORIES ACROSS MASSACHUSETTS
Paul Revere Bell,Plymouth
Restoration the bell,first cast
Fort Hill Veterans'Housing,
xv" by Paul Revere in 1801 and
Hingham
recast in 1 Funded housing for veterans to for wad done in
make sure veterans have an exchange for the town to gain a
F
affordable place to live.
aperpetual access easementto
the bell[ower of First Parish
Church,where the bell hangs.
r._._ -_ _--- - -- -
I
Thacher Island Preservation
Needham Town Hall Project,Rockport
The project involved
The largest appropriation of
rehabilitation of the Whistle
- . CPA funds for a single project .,%
to restore Needham Town Hall, aloSignal building),
alonngg with
ith other structures on
using$15 million in CPA funds Thacher Island,aNational
z Historic Landmark.
Gillett Cigar Factory, ,;
w Riverwalk Park,Peabody
Southwick
Southwick succeeded in a race CPA funds were used for the
against the clock to save what construction of a park and
is likely the last surviving cigar - - small plaza along the North
factory in the Connecticut
River in Peabody.
". River Valley.
r
--•�,,`°�.�veyr x - School Street Park,Agawam
^ tom y.,.n�at„ases ;rs,.c
Declaration of Independence, $1.68 million in CPA funds to
f '°r f ffXG' Mention the develop this new park,
'n 1,:'�+R';;�ws f�•. � CPA funds were used to restore which features ballfields,senior
ak ..watifly,=:.,..rc.rr", their copy of the Declaration of citizen areas,and a bike path;
Independence.
among other amenities.
11ki
..r
Pilot Grove Apartments,
Windrush Farm,Boxford Stow
and North Andover iiFirestrictions.
Stow used$350,000 in CPA
Protected critical habitat for funds to provide funding to
rare/endangered species, preserve the affordability
e� Ipswich River water quality, restrictions on 37 apartments
and public access to a trail that were at risk due to expiring
network knitting 1,800 acres of
contiguous,conserved land.
155 communities(44%of the state)have adopted the CPA to date
Historic Library • Over$1.2 billion has been raised to date for community preservation
Rehabilitation,Cohasset funding statewide,from a combination of local CPA surcharges and
matching dollars from the statewide CPA Trust Fund(estimate,through end
The unused Paul Pratt Library of FY14)
was repurposed for use by the More than 6,600 CPA projects have been completed statewide,allowing
t� ' Cohasset Historical Society and for:
• funding to contribute to the development of over 7,800 units of
senior affordable housing. affordable housing
w • the protection of nearly 19,700 acres of open space
• more than 3,300 allocations for historic sites and resources
over 1,000 appropriations for recreational facilities
• EXAMPLES OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
Lexington:
Preference will be given to proposals which meet as many of the following general
criteria as possible:
• Are consistent with current planning documents that have received wide scrutiny
and input and have been adopted by the town;
• Preserve the essential character of the town as described in the Comprehensive
Plan;
• Save resources that would otherwise be threatened;
• Benefit a currently under-served population;
• Either serve more than one CPA purpose (especially in linking open space,
recreation and community housing) or demonstrate why serving multiple needs is
not feasible;
• Demonstrate practicality and feasibility, and demonstrate that they can be
implemented expeditiously and within budget;
• Produce an advantageous cost/benefit value;
• Leverage additional public and/or private funds;
• Preserve or utilize currently owned town assets; and
• Receive endorsement by other municipal boards or departments.
The general guidelines stated above apply in combination with category-specific goals outlined
• in the plan.
Acton:
Recommendations for funding will be based on how well the individual projects meet these
criteria, recognizing that all criteria may not apply to every project. The Committee will also
give due consideration to the urgency of the project, with particular consideration given to those
projects whose successful implementation is constrained by scheduling factors not controlled by
the applicant.
• The project is consistent with the goals of the Town of Acton Community Preservation
Plan.
• The project is consistent with the Town of Acton Master Plan Update, the Town of
Acton Open Space and Recreation Plan, Community Development Plan "To Live in
Acton" (2004), 2009 Report "Emerging Vision and Goals of Acton's Future", and other
Town planning documents that have received wide scrutiny and input. These are
available at the Acton Planning Department, the libraries, and on www.acton-ma.gov. In
the case of Historic Resource projects, the work specified is consistent with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation—see Appendix 5.
• The project is economically or otherwise reasonably feasible to implement.
• The project serves a currently under-served population.
• The project serves multiple needs and populations and/or addresses more than one focus
• area of the CPA.
• The project leverages additional or multiple sources of public and/or private funding. •
• The project utilizes, preserves, protects, or enhances currently Town-owned open space,
recreation, historic and/or housing assets.
• The project is consistent with recent Town Meeting actions.
• The applicant/applicant team has successfully implemented projects of similar type and
scale, or has demonstrated the ability and competency to implement the project as
proposed.
• The applicant has site control, or the written consent by the property owner to submit an
application.
• The applicant has given notice of the proposed project to abutters and the neighborhood
where the project is proposed.
Gloucester:
GENERAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
The City of Gloucester Community Preservation Committee gives preference to proposals which
address as many of the following general evaluation criteria* as possible:
• Eligible for Community Preservation Act(CPA) funding according to the requirements
described in the CPA legislation (Chapter 44B of Massachusetts General Laws)
• Consistent with various plans which are relevant to and utilized by the City regarding
open space, recreation, historic resources and affordable housing •
• Preserve and enhance the essential character of the city
• Protect resources that would be otherwise threatened
• Serve more than one CPA purpose or demonstrate why serving multiple needs is not
feasible
• Demonstrate practicality and feasibility, and that the project can be implemented within
budget and on schedule
• Produce an advantageous cost/benefit value
• Leverage additional public and/or private funds (e.g. qualify the project for additional
grants from other sources) or receive partial funding from other sources and/or voluntary
contributions of goods and services
• Preserve or improve city owned assets
• Receive endorsement from other municipal boards or departments and broad-based
support from community members
*Criteria are listed in no particular order.
CATEGORY SPECIFIC CRITERIA
In addition to the general criteria delineated above, there are category specific criteria which
relate to the four program areas: Open Space, Historic Preservation, Community Housing and
Recreation. Category specific criteria are described in each of the sections of this Plan.
•
What are surcharge revenues? Are there exemptions to the
The surcharge is paid by residential and surcharge? Under 60 years of age with annual
commercial property owners. The firstAny residential property entitled to income not exceeding the limit for
$100,000 of taxable residential value is abatement or statutory exemption is your size household:
exempt. On the remaining value, the City automatically entitled to a proportional Household �AnnualIncome
levies a surcharge of 1% (of the assessed CPA exemption. size L'imd
1 'T$52,864 �-
property tax), which is included in real estate 2 ,t� $50416
tax bills. Certain households may be eligible for a 3 $67,968
full CPA exemption. 4x$75,520
How is the surcharge calculated?
The 1% surcharge is calculated as follows 5 x$815626
What are the requirements for full s s $s7,6o3s
(using m assessed valuation C y of Salem's
's CPA exemption? 7
an example and based on the City of Salem's
FY13 tax rate): To qualify for an exemption for fiscal year 8 $99,686
2014, residential property owners must meet:
0 Age and residence requirements as of How do I apply for a full
A. FY 2013 Assessment $296,400.00, January 1, 2013. exemption?
B. FY 2013 Tax Rate :`29$16.38; ry An application for exemption from the CPA
C. FY 2013 TAX RE$4,85503: . Income requirements based on 2012 surcharge (based on income) must be filed
e . 111 '' annually with the Assessors Office.
D. CPA Residential x$10000000' income.
ExemptionNote: The filing of theapplication does not
There are two categories of income limits': 9 PP
- stay the collection of the tax.
E. CPA Taxable Value :$196,400.00: Over 60 years of age with annual
m income not exceeding the limit for If you believe you are eligible for a full
F. CPA Tax Basis d$3.217.03 your size household: exemption, contact:
Household Annual Income
G. CPA Surcharge=1% $32 17, Size Limit Assessors Office
--— $66,080 QC
93 Washington Street
H. TOTAL ANNUAL BILL 110$4,88720` 2 A. =$75,520 Salem, MA 01970
3 ;MkPrgffn,484,9601 W 876-619-5608
The annual tax rate is $16.38 per$1000 of the 4 ,'WWt$94400% -
property assessment (A + $1000 x $16.38 = 5 $101,952t�44 - The Assessors Office is open:
C). The CPA exempts $100,000 (A - D = E). 6 -=*$109;504 Monday-Wednesday:8am -4pm
The tax rate is applied to the CPA Taxable7 99910,$$1177,056 Thursday: 8am –7pm
Value (E _ $1000 x $16.38 = F). The 8 1&M x$124;608__ = Friday: 8am – 12pm
surcharge is 1% of the CPA Tax Basis (F x 1%
=G). C + G = H (the total annual bill). For information about the City of Salem's
For FY13, one half of the annual CPA Community Preservation Act or the established
Community Preservation Committee, visit
surchage will be included in the January 1, wvvw.salem.com/PagesISa/emMA CPC/index
2014 tax bill. The second half will be included
in the April 1, 2014 tax bill. For subsequent t Calculation of Income Limits based on HUD AWMI Rev. 9/26/13
years, the surcharge will be divided equally (Housing Urban Development-Area Wide Median
over the quarterly bills. Income)of$94,400
CITY OF SALEM
What is the Community ASSESSORS OFFICE
Preservation Act?
The Community Preservation Act
(CPA) was adopted by Salem voters =Act
in November, 2012. It established a
pool of funds for the purpose of
undertaking projects involved with Tai XRaYer,/nformationaGide
open space, historic preservation,
outdoor recreation or community
housing. It is financed by surcharge
revenues, along with matching funds �� �1
from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
17'
This Taxpayer Information Guide will
help property owners understand how
the surcharge is calculated and the
requirements for applying for an Fiscal Year 20I4
exemption. July I, 20I3 -June 30, 20I4
CITY OF SALEM
� PLANNING BOARD
FILE N
CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS.
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313,
120 Washington Street, has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items.
C& & /k. �'Ar�OW
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
Salem Planning Board
a
This.notice posted on Otfici Bulletin Board"
City Halt SaWn, Mass. on /z, 2-0/ 6
st 4L'o P /i it►acc ca: U1aL ithap,SOA,
Sections 18-ZS.
Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A§ 18-23 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through 5 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 - WWW.SALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
Ian
` PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning
Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, September 5 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex Room 313, 120 Washington
Street, has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items.
a�
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
.Salem Planning Board n
H ry
C-) W
r y
m �
x
r N
Nm
Y
r
M
3
s 4�
r
cn .D
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall. Salem, Mass. on % O/_3
at -Y 3`J P1,� in accordance With MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Knomyour righty under 6he Open Aleetiq Lip bl.G.L ,: 30.45 I S-25 and City Onlinance If 2-20281hrongh j 2-2033.
120 WAY[IN Sr IRFFI, Se IEM, NIASSAcru;SFrrs 01970 • Piioaxi 978.619.5655 F.vx 978.740.0404 • WW\�.S ILEM.0 0M
I
�o
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
You erre hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a rescheduled meeting on Th ursdrry,
Judy 25, 2013 rd 7:00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313,120 II'a.shington St., Salem M4
Charles 11. PGTao C'11,ui
<M
7 ZZ
4 L
a L
r
MEETING AGENDA N
L ROLL CALL
_o
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• july f8,2013 Meeting Minutes
. III. REGULAR AGENDA
I. Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan
Review and flood Hazard District Special Permit applications for the select demolition and
redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site. It is anticipated that cliscussion will
focus on any outstanding concerns, with the Potential for a vote at this meeting.
Appticaoc footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP
Location: 24 fort,Avemte
IV. ADJOURNMENT
This notice postrt! on "Offici, I Bulletin Board"
CityJ Hall, S.vletn. Mess on ',)CC ( ,:I,/'
at% �/y F/i�l ut ar_cordanc. wit GL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
.know
-i mit-rights under the Open,6leeting Lair, ,Idassaclnusetts General Lair Chapter 30.4 Ser110n18-2 i
mud C'itc Ordinance Section 2-2025[hrough Section 2-2033,
•
?0 4V":NStit\cnw %bSSAc.no,,,:i'ts 0Ic970 , Teti.: 978 —145.9095 F,\<: 974.740 O 10-1 .. ,vu+ta .;ntF:r,t.cuai
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board I �a►�Kln !�a
Date �_/ ZS / l3
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
G°O AIV21f R&T ,l v 5X I-EM g 7g 7qV g 36/
k 3 —ju ( 7j_77 c>�
(/ �<<"YP
(Lk S obih obiJJO Derby St. 5Z5-- 779-0X19
•
�u mi
lAS �SSex�k2 �S2 1 `i ) la �QQticr. �avHica
-)-w.c)-uPai espy�, `b �v�c,;.1-c-�
a
er/ 471-j<ff s;V7
Page of
SALEM PLANNING BOARD
• MEETING MINUTES 7/25/13
A rescheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,July 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready,Vice Chair, Helen Sides,George McCabe, Dale Yale,
Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke, Mark George, and Kirt Rieder.
Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Frank Taormina,Staff
Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
July 18, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
Motion: Tim Ready made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Helen Sides and a unanimous
vote was taken All the members voted in favor, with an 9-0 vote[Mr. Puleo(Chair), Mr. Ready(Vice
• Chair) Ms Sides Mr. McCabe Ms. Vale Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder and Mr. Georael in favor
and none opposed The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorporated os part of these
minutes.
Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,
Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit applications for the
select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site.
It is anticipated that discussion will focus on any outstanding concerns, with
the potential for a vote at this meeting.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
Chairman Puleo read into a record a letter from Ed Moriarty, 29 Winter Island Road.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the applicant Footprint Power, stated that
they felt they have addressed all the outstanding concerns and will be looking to potentially close
tonight. He summarized the discussions from the previous meeting. They have no new presentation;
however they submitted a revised public access plan into the record and distributed it to the Planning
Board Members. He noted that the revised plan shows a short-term plan including the secure
accessway connection to 10 Blaney Street (Salem Wharf property), and a longer-term plan showing
public access to the water's edge once the facility is constructed. This is a conceptual plan as they have
no development plans for the surplus property. He emphasized that Footprint supports public access on
• their site and to the water's edge and will work with the City and State Regulators to provide such public
Page 1 of 11
access. Chairman Puleo asked if this will be part of the submittal,to which Mr. Correnti said yes, this is
part of the project. •
Chairman Puleo asked the SATV cameraman to state his name for the record as he arrived after the
meeting began. Allan MacMillian, of SATV, also stated that he was here with the usual set-up to record
the meeting for SATV and will do so in a manner that will not disrupt or interfere with the meeting.
Randy Clarke asked Attorney Correnti about the completion of Phase I, particularly in relation to the
secure accessway through their site to the dock. Scott Silverstein, COO Footprint Power, responded that
the City has proposed to create a secure accessway from Blaney Street to their site in order to utilize
their deep water dock for cruise ships. He stated that Footprint is not constructing this,just providing
access. Mr.Clarke then asked about other public access areas shown on the plan. Mr. Silverstein stated
that that land is best suited for industrial use; however they don't know what the industrial use will be,
thus they've left blank the areas that they don't know about. Mr. Clarke then asked if they are providing
an easement to the City in Phase 11,to which Mr.Silverstein responded that they have to work that out
with the City. He stated that the City was founded on the harbor,and they want to allow as much
access to it as feasibly possible. Mr. Clarke recommended that for clarification for approval that there is
an easement. Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the Draft
Decision includes a provision for public access which speaks to the easement or whatever would be the
appropriate means to execute one. She explained the City's intent is to have access to Footprint's wharf
before Phase I is completed,which was articulated in the MEPA filing.
Chairman Puleo asked about the area of Webb Street in the plan, and in particular asked if Webb Street
will be extended into the site to the water's edge in the future. Mr.Silverstein responded that Webb •
Street is the natural southern access point into the site and it will likely be extended into their site
however, ultimately it depends on what the use of the surplus site will be.
Chairman Puleo asked David Derrig from AECOM to review their final set of peer review comments.
David Derrig,AECOM, briefly summarized their work since the last meeting. They reviewed the >
remaining outstanding items from July 17`h and stated that they modified the matrix to highlight the
outstanding issues. They had received information back and forth from Footprint Power. He explained
that approximately thirty or so comments were not fully resolved since the last meeting; however those
items have since been addressed by Footprint to their satisfaction. Following that,they summarized the
items that were addressed which are the basis for their recommended drafted conditions. He then
reviewed that document which was provided to the Planning Board.
Chairman Puleo asked if the fire suppression plan was part of pre-construction or post-construction,to
which Mr. Derrig said post-construction. George Wilson, Director of Development Footprint Power,
concurred.
Mr. Clarke asked for clarification on the relocation of the drain line and the pump station. Ms. Duncan
stated that Footprint needs to relocate the 48 inch drain line, which has to be a condition. She further
explained that the City is fairly certain that they need a pump station,with a permanent easement of
about 5000 square feet. The City Engineer may want to make a definitive determination towards that
end which will be discussed as part of conditions. Ben Anderson asked where it would be located to
which Ms. Duncan responded that it is unknown at this time, but it need s to be somewhere along the •
Page 2 of 11
• newly relocated drain line. Mr. Anderson then asked if they will get an opportunity to review the
proposed location to which Chairman Puleo responded that it will be part of the City Engineer's work.
Chairman Puleo then asked about the path it takes now to which Mr.Silverstein responded that the
issue that they are working through with the City is the path that it will take. Chairman Puleo clarified
his response, stating that it is still undetermined. Mr.Anderson asked if this would be part of a future
phase to which Mr. Silverstein responded that they have to work through it with the City Engineer to
figure out where to locate it as it is required to solve the problem upstream. He reiterated that the
drain line needs to be relocated, but it is an opportunity to help solve an existing problem. Chairman
Puleo asked if the drain connects on Webb Street,where there are current flooding issues to which Mr.
Silverstein responded that he wasn't sure of exactly where the connection is, but it is in that area. Ms.
Duncan stated that the city has not priced this out and does not have funding for this so it is not on the
immediate horizon. Mr. Anderson commented he would hate to see it put in a spot that deters from the
rest of the development,to which Mr.Silverstein stated that they all shared his concern.
Katie Flynn, Sasaki Associates, reviewed the third page of the memo.
Kirt Reider recommended that the fence be like a chain link fence but with a one-inch PVC black coated
chain-mesh which will allow people to look through it, but not climb it. He thinks the condition should
be six to eight feet high without barbed wire. He thinks it's important to state the height so it's not four
feet and Ms. Flynn agreed with his recommendation. Ms. Duncan shared a document that Ms. Flynn
had put together depicting different types of fences.
• Mr. Rieder then moved the discussion to the topic of the height of landscaped plantings. He pointed out
that every traffic island in town has a planting and they all exceed two feet. He feels that they are
unnecessarily impacting over time what that final result will look like to specify this. He would prefer
that the restriction be eliminated all together or change the wording to reflect an extension up to four
feet. Chairman Puleo that he recommendation was for one area, so that it would not grow to block the
view. Ms. Flynn explained that it is a historic view that should be preserved and she recommended that
they maintain plantings to four and a half feet to keep the line of sight for drivers and the walkers. The
sum total of the berms cannot be higher than four and a half feet to maintain the sight line. Mr. Rieder
it is not specific enough to the area and he could see this as a misinterpretation. He recommends that
this section should be accompanied by a plan that designates and litigates the square footage of the
area. He realized that he is splitting hairs but it is important.
Mr. Clarke asked about the architectural lighting, specifically asking how do they condition something
that is not tangible. Ms. Duncan responded that they have heard comments from neighbors and Sasaki.
They can certainly condition the plan for Footprint to work on that as an amendment to the PUD and .
they can advertise that as part of the public hearing process. The neighborhood might change their
mind or hear different avenues of support. Mr. Clarke clarified his comments that if they do conditions
that they have to be tangible. Ms. Duncan said that this is fair, but they may want to get more
information from Footprint about their commitment to this.
Tim Ready stated that this is a new design for Salem that they can come back and study. This would be
an opportunity to embrace the study to see how they respond to it. He gave examples in Boston where
light enhances the neighborhood. They should find ways to make iconic lighting appease the neighbors
• that they should not allow to slip away. Mr. Anderson stated that no one is suggesting that light will
Page 3 of 11
extend beyond the property into the neighborhood, and he noted that this is an accent to the structure. •
Mr. Clarke clarified that conditions should be tangible to force behavior.
Chairman Puleo asked for questions from the Board.. Mr. Anderson asked if we now have in the plans
for construction for a fence around the property. Mr.Silverstein responded that they are maintaining a
fence around the site for the certificate issued by the FSB, which was agreed to during the FSB
proceeding. Mr. Anderson then asked about the construction management plan to keep dust from
getting outside the property. He then recommended that this should be included in the construction
management plan and any material on the site during construction stays on the site, so that it doesn't
go into the harbor. Chairman Puleo then asked about a wash down area. Brian Marchetti, Engineer at
TetraTec, stated that it will be included in the construction plan.
Mr. Rieder asked where specifically the 12 foot high sound barrier wall was going to be installed, and if
they could point that out on the plans. Mr. Wilson stated that it will be located inside the existing fence
line, on their property, not on the side of the existing fence where the row of arborvitaes is. It will be
installed along Derby Street and Fort Ave. Mr. Marchetti stated that is not designed yet.
Mr. Clarke asked about comments from the Police Department. Ms. Duncan responded that there are
no specific concerns from them that should be included in conditions as the Police Chief felt that
Footprint would work directly with them. Though she did recommend that where this issued is covered
should be called Police and Safety.
Issue opened to public for comment
Jeff Brooks, 14 Webb Street, stated that he had some concerns about the construction design. He •
referenced the last meeting where someone questioned the use of urea and reviewed Mr. Kinkela's
response. He stated that he knows that urea is available. He is concerned about ammonia being driven
through the neighborhood and he doesn't understand why urea,which is safer, is not being used. Mr.
Silverstein responded that this is a standard in plants for a combined cycle plant and for NOXs control.
He said that the standard in the industry is to use aqueous ammonia in plants. Mr. Brooks said that the
current plant uses urea now,to which Mr. Silverstein responded that the current plant is a different type
of control technology and different type of plant than what they are proposing. Mr. Brooks then said
that he called a vendor that supplies urea and the vendor stated that the cost of urea is the reason why
they are not using it. Mr. Brooks urged them to rethink this and feels that the issue needs further study.
Chairman Puleo noted that last week they questioned the applicant on the transportation schedule, in
terms of when the ammonia is coming in and out of the City, and they are making sure the Police
Department knows about it. Mr. Brooks then asked if urea is a safe option,which is becoming a
standard in the industry, he asked why they wouldn't consider use it to,which Chairman Puleo asked for
clarification on if his concern is regarding transportation or storage. Mr. Brooks responded that storing
is his concern. Chairman Puleo said that urea may not be any safer than ammonia, he doesn't know.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that they have double walled tanks because it is dangerous, and they have to
live next to it. He again urged that further studies need to be done on it. He thinks urea should be
looked at as an option. Mr. Silverstein emphasized that he recalled Mr. Kinkela stating that cost was not
an issue in terms of the relative costs of ammonia versus urea. He stressed that their focus was on
finding the best control technology to have the lowest NOX emissions.
Mr. Ready asked Mr.Silverstein to clarify if he has a combined cycle plant that is more effective with •
ammonia than with urea. Silverstein: not aware of anyone in a combined cycle with this type of control
Page 4 of 11
• technology that utilizes urea. Aqueous ammonia is a standard in the industry. Mr. Ready clarified that
ammonia is the standard in the industry, to which Mr.Silverstein said yes.
Mr. Brooks read from an article from Power Engineering titled, "Selective Catalytic Reduction:
Operational Issues and Guidelines" which stated:
ted:
"At plants in urban areas,community regulations often ban the use of anhydrous ammonia. A
popular alternative is 19 percent aqueous ammonia. This material is safer to handle than the
anhydrous version, but the primary drawback is that the plant is paying to ship 81 percent
water. In some cases,even aqueous ammonia is considered too hazardous and ammonia is
produced on-site by a urea thermal or hydrolysis decomposition procedure. This process, which
is more expensive than anhydrous or aqueous ammonia feed, has the advantage of not
requiring on-site ammonia storage."
This is a black and white fact of current uses of SERs in power plants that it is being used which requires
further study.
Nick Sobin, 110 Derby Street, asked why the chimney stack must be so wide. Mr.Silverstein explained
and described the width of the stack as well as the functionality required for the stack. He also added
that the other part of the reason for the width is due to the function of how close the flues can be to
each other, along with a set of stairs and elevator.
Tim Jenkins, 18 Broad Street, stated that he thinks that the visual lighting is great, but there is a side
effect of light pollution. He said that the neighbors would like it if you could light it without lighting up
their bedrooms. Mr. Silverstein said he was right and the height of the landscape berm will allow the
• light to be directed down. This has been part of the thought process. He recommended that Mr.
Jenkins and other members of the audience look at the monumental decorative lighting, noting that any
lighting scheme is really enhancing that and not impacting.
Linda Haley,43 Turner Street, she would like to emphasize that parking at the site is not the problem,
it's getting the workers to the site. She strongly suggests that this project requires staging of this by ship
or by bus from another community. Carpooling sounds good but most people will not utilize it as they
will want to use their cars. This is an extremely small bottleneck area. It seems very reasonable to ask
this of the applicant. She is thinking about the people who are getting stuck at lights. She thinks that
having the traffic study done before or after the season should be done.
She then moved onto her concerns about the acoustic designs. The noise is going to come from all
around the project site. They currently hear every sound from the plant and asked if they can have an
acoustic wall during construction and demolition.
She states that she doesn't understand the permitting rules. It seems very concerning to her that of the
things they have heard about being reviewed. She asked about what happens in the case of someone
throwing a bomb over the wall as they are talking about one guard for a 64 acre site. She feels that they
are getting information piecemeal. Why aren't they looking at the whole thing when this is a PUD and
they are only looking at one part. Ms. Duncan responded, stating that things are not being negotiated
outside the public hearing process with the Planning Board, and referenced the requirements with the
other departments. She emphasized that the Planning Department does not supersede the Police
Department and Fire Department. Everything that happens on the PUD would have to come back
• before the planning board. The consultants have the most practical methods of seeing this site
redeveloped.
Page 5 of 11
Richard Pabich, 35 Winter Island Road, stated that he is an abutter to the site and he owns an inn on •
Summer Street. He says that he takes about seven minutes to get across town and he has never had the
kind of congestion the Ms. Haley has spoken about. This time of year when they are running at 60%
occupancy,there are a lot of people but not a lot of traffic. This traffic congestion that is being talked
about is a non-issue.
Ed Wolfe, 95 Bay View Avenue, said that he missed out on the noise abatement issues, but he is
concerned about the urea ammonia problem. It has to be addressed.
Andrea Mauburquette, 14 Webb Street,asked what is urea made of,to which Mr. Brooks answered that
it is made of cow urine.
Mr. Brooks asked after today if there are going to be any further comments allowed to be submitted.
Chairman Puleo explained that once the public portion is closed, then no, however if there is any new
information. Helen Sides spoke of open comment from the abutters as part of the complex process.
Chairman Puleo explained further that there will be a planned method to address this. They will have
the city to go to as well as the applicant if there are outstanding issues.
Ward 1 Councillor Bob McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue, said that they started this process a long time
ago, he wants to thank you for all f your efforts on this and thank the public on this. He thinks that this
is an important project as this is one of the biggest redevelopments in Salem's history. He also thanked
the new owners of the plant which speaks volumes to how this plan design has been vetted and
designed. When permitted,there is a whole other level at the state versus what happens at the city •
level. He supports them whole-heartedly through the process. He sat on the reuse study group and
Sasaki works with them really well. He hopes that they can get this worked out.
Motion: Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing,seconded by Helen Sides and a
unanimous vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with an 9-0 vote(Mr. Puleo(Chair), Mr.
Ready(Vice Chair), Ms.Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rieder and Mr.
Clarkel in favor and none opposed The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorporated as part
of these minutes.
Mr. Clarke said that he wanted to acknowledge that the Planning Department has done fantastic work
on this getting done,especially in the last week. Ms. Duncan stated that the Planning Board has to make
specific findings related to the PUD and Flood Hazard Special Permit. She said that the Board was
provided those draft findings.
Chairman Puleo stated that his feeling is that in regards to the concerns about the ammonia is that this
has been looked at carefully. He noted that if it is the least safe product, he does not know, but they can
make sure that they transport it safely. The safety of this has been well documented and this type of
ammonia is much safer than the other type of ammonia. He stressed that the safety plan has to be in
place.
Dale Yale asked for clarification on the number of truck deliveries. Mr. Wilson responded that it could
be upwards to two, depending on how much the plant is at operating capacity.
•
Page 6 of 11
. Mr.Anderson asked if there is a security issue to which Chairman Puleo responded that in terms of
hauling these materials in and out of the City is our responsibility for keeping the people in Salem safe.
The applicant will be held responsible for maintaining the safety regulations, but as far as going through
the streets we have to be adamant about safety and they should know what route they are taking. Mr.
Anderson asked if is this a current draft condition, to which Ms. Duncan responded yes.
Mr. Ready stated that the fire department is not unfamiliar with these types of chemicals and the fire
chief will be on top of this.They will be aware of the dangers of the ammonia. Secondly there are other
city entities that will be aware of this,such as the Board of Health. Although he may not be up on his
chemistry, he is confident that the right departments are up on these materials as is the proponent.
Chairman Puleo asked Frank Taormina to read the findings of the PUD and Flood Hazard Special Permit
into the record.
Motion: Ben Anderson made a motion to approve the findings,seconded by Dale Yale and a unanimous
vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with an 9-0 vote[Mr. Puleo(Chair), Mr. Ready(Vice
Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rieder and Mr. Clarke/in favor
and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these
minutes.
Ms. Duncan explained and reviewed the conditions and amendments, she also noted any changes.
Mr. Clarke asked about clarifying notification to abutters,specifically asked to include the neighborhood.
• Ms. Duncan stated that the standard for Planning Board special permit notification is abutters and
abutters of abutters, up to 300 feet. Mr. Clarke recommended notifying people beyond that standard.
Mr. Ready asked for the medium by which people are notified,to which Ms. Duncan said by mail. Mr.
Ready recommended notifying the whole city on this. Ms. Duncan stated that there are a number of
different notification processes going on here. She directed people to the www.buildingsalem.com
website, as well as the www.salem.com website. There is also a notification to notify abutters in
writing, which for the Planning Board is 300 ft. Attorney Correnti stated that they agree with the
communications plan. He recommended that they may change it to read that"Footprint shall enter in a
communication plan with the City to satisfactorily notify residents on the construction activities," and
they can work out how wide it will have to be as it is a big project. Chairman Puleo asked if they could
put it on their company website,to which Attorney Correnti responded in the affirmative. Mr. Ready
noted that the City may see it as celebratory event. Ms. Duncan stated that she doesn't want to lose the
standard condition language but agreed to add additional language to the effect of"communications
plan to notify residents to be submitted and approved by the City Planner".
Chairman Puleo asked about adding a provision under street sweeping. Ms. Duncan directed him to
section G,construction management, which addressed his question and she read from that. She
recommended moving that up to section J. They will move Section G over to Section I, under
construction.
Ms. Duncan continued reviewing the conditions and amendments. She noted that the Board of Health
submitted conditions which were reviewed.
•
Page 7 of 11
Chairman Puleo asked about Section I, in relation to noise level, as to if they should reference the noise
study that Footprint Power conducted. Mr. Rieder suggested including language about the same times .
of days.
Ms. Duncan referenced a comment about utility disposition and discussed this in relation to Mr. Derrig's
comments under section C.
Chairman Puleo asked about the bollard lighting on the paths. Ms Duncan stated that it's enough for
safety, but not enough to encourage people at night. Chairman Puleo asked about lighting on the
buildings. George McCabe asked about including wording about that. Chairman Puleo asked Ms. Flynn
if she thought the language was adequate,to which she said yes.
Chairman Puleo asked if this section covers a Clerk of the Works question,to which Ms., Duncan said
that she added this to the conditions. Mr.Anderson asked if the Building Inspector should be included
and Ms. Duncan responded that he has his own requirements for the building and these conditions are
in regards to the site.
Mr. Rieder asked if it is a state or federal law about discharging snow into the harbor, to which Mr.
Taormina responded that it is part of the Clean Water Act.
Chairman Puleo asked if the garage construction should be included in this section of the conditions,to
which Mr. Clarke said that he doesn't think it will impact the project, and will improve traffic flow. Ms.
Duncan clarified that these are all projects that impact the roadways. Chairman Puleo clarified that his
concern focuses on how the amount of deliveries coming in and out of the site will affect the roadways. •
Mr.Anderson added that the construction professionals will impact the roadways as well. Chairman
Puleo asked if this will be included in the conditions,to which Ms. Duncan said yes.
Mr. Ready wanted to make a note that these are special conditions that are specific to this project, and
have come from the participation of the residents of the City of Salem.
Mr. Clarke asked about verbal message signs which could coordinates all of the projects and notify
vehicular traffic each day. Chairman Puleo said that the challenge would be where to put them. Mr.
Clarke continued, stating that his other point is that a traffic management plan should be overseen by
the Salem Police Department. Mr. Silverstein responded that they think that the signs are a great idea,
and they will be happy to be part of figuring out where they go. Attorney Correnti offered to coordinate
that with the BuildingSalem Coordinator so there is a central office where this will come out of as they
want there to be a coordinated effort. Ms. Duncan offered new language, and discussed the section
where they need a traffic management piece that they had referenced in past projects. Number 3 starts
with the applicant providing a traffic management plan to be submitted to Planning Department and the
Police Department. They can say that they agree to provide it. She also recommended that the traffic
management plan be on it's own under number 3. Mr. Clarke stated that the detail management plan is
kind of vague. Mr. Ready asked her to read it back,which Ms. Duncan complied.
Mr. Anderson asked traffic management plans in terms of additional measures and specifically asked if
this can be worded in a way that would encourage them to explore the number of off-site parking. Ms.
Duncan clarified that it's the city that has the right to do this. Ms.Yale offered some additional language
on this issue.
Page 8 of 11
• Chairman Puleo asked to tighten up the delivery conditions, specifically the time of day and route. Mr.
Anderson asked to include the wording"safety management plan".
Chairman Puleo asked for clarification on the Public Access condition in terms of timeframe, to which
Ms. Duncan said that it's based on the conceptual plan that is outside the area of redevelopment.
Chairman Puleo clarified that the applicant would have to come back depending upon what they are
designing,to which Ms. Duncan agreed.
Frank Taormina recommended that the Board consider using the security fence the City used on the
Harborwalk. He stated that it has worked well on the Harborwalk fronting Nation Grid's Electrical
Substation. He described the high security fence option as a black vinyl coated chain link fence with
5/8" mesh; mesh size is small enough that people cannot get their figures or feet into the fence which
makes it unclimbable. Mr. Rieder stated that he still has an issue about the height and recommended
that they do not use barbed wire. Ms. Duncan stated that they will reference the fence spec in the
decision. '
Mr. Rieder recommended adding public access to the far end of the jetty, as it is a goal to have access to
the far end of the jetty. Mr.Silverstein said that he doesn't have an issue with that, and he doesn't think
it belongs in the Community Benefits Agreement. Mr. Rieder said that if the plan says that you can get
to the knuckle of the jetty,then you could get out to the rest of the jetty. Mr. Silverstein said it is not
their intent to cut it off there, and the intent is to go the whole way. They think they already have
included this as they referenced the plan. Ms. Duncan recommended language related to providing
public access out to the end of the jetty. Mr. Rieder said that he referenced the CBA because of the
• wording used to identify the existing port facility. Ms. Duncan said that because this issue, along with
taxes,are two of the highest priorities of the CBA and the CBA has not been executed yet, and where
the approval will be granted by the Planning Board,the Mayor also wanted something in place that tied
Footprint to the use of their wharf. Mr. Rieder asked about access to the end of the stone jetty as well.
Ms. Duncan thinks it's great because they'd like to get people out to the end of the jetty. Chairman
Puleo asked about the format of the CBA. Ms. Duncan said she can provide it when it's ready. Attorney
Correnti referenced the language that states that they are bound to include the CBA or else the decision
is in null in void. He also noted that the CBA will be a public document that will be online and will be
everywhere.
Ms.Yale asked if the decision gets recorded at the Registry of Deeds, to which Ms Duncan said yes.
Mr. Clarke asked who is paying for the pump station,to which Ms. Duncan responded that the City is.
Mr. Clarke then asked if the City is ok with that, and Ms. Duncan responded that the purpose of the
pump station is that it will be serving the adjacent neighborhood.
Attorney Correnti stated that there are a couple of conditions that have to happen prior to a demolition
permit. He stated that they went to the Historical Commission for a demolition delay permit, and they
now have a demolition permit for the steel tanks. They don't want to be in violation of this. Ms.
Duncan said they will revisit this language. Mr. Silverstein recommended new language including "from
this day forward",to which Ms. Duncan said it's a great idea.
Mr. Clarke recommended that the wording on the emergency plan exercise to change to "before",to tie
. to the occupancy permit. He also thinks it would be appropriate that the proponent fund and work with
Page 9 of 11
public safety officials to do public safety drills prior to opening and annual drills. Mr.Silverstein agreed.
Mr. Clarke suggested including language that"will be as deemed by public safety officials". •
Mr.Taormina noted that additional language regarding the exact location of the sound wall should be
included, pursuant to earlier discussion. Ms. Duncan agreed.
Mr. Clarke asked about adding language to notification. Mr. Anderson asked if this could be tied to
traffic notifications to work hours, as he is concerned about work outside of the regular 8 am to 5 pm
work hours. Mr.Clarke recommended that this would fall under the traffic management section, which
would state that all work related to the site has to follow the same conditions.
Ms. Duncan asked when the applicant plans to move forward on the lighting. Mr. Silverstein responded
that it will largely depend on their interaction with the lighting consultant. Mr.Anderson asked if this
could be tied to the building permit. Mr.Silverstein said that on the monumental lighting they want to
do it right the first time. Mr.Anderson then asked about the Certificate of Occupancy, to which Mr.
Silverstein said they can put a time limit on when they need to come back to the Planning Board. Their
hope is to do this sooner rather than later. He doesn't want the ornamental lighting to drive everything.
Mr. Rieder asked if the Planning Board can dictate the timing and any extension. Chairman Puleo
suggested doing it after six months after it is up and going. Mr.Silverstein said he is happy to stick to a
hard deadline, but he thinks it will be far in advance of that. Chairman Puleo said that they can always
extend it. Mr. Ready said that they can accept it and if we have to extend it, we can. Ms. Duncan
recommended adding language that this is part of a special permitting process. Attorney Correnti said
that there is no way we can tie this to the commencement of construction or creating a new permit. He
stated that they may have a neighborhood meeting before we come to you, but that can't be tied to the •
construction of the project. If we condition it as a new special permit would be tying it. He engaged in a
discussion with Ms. Duncan about language. Ms. Duncan noted that she likes the idea of a
neighborhood meeting on this to get feedback.
Mr. Clarke recommended that the fire suppression plans approval will be contingent on the Certificate
of Occupancy. Attorney Correnti wants to understand what is meant here inside the building will be
part of the permitting process,which is all controlled by building codes. Mr. Derrig said that it's a
comment that came up in their review. Mr. Anderson clarified that what he may be referencing is a fire
department hook up. Mr. Rieder asked if the comment came up because it was missing,to which Mr.
Derrig responded that it is part of piping plans. Mr. Anderson discussed the different pipes it could be
referencing and the site plan will reference those items. Based on the discussion, Ms. Duncan stated
that they will take this section out of the conditions and amendments.
Mr. Rieder said he would love to see a web-enabled view of their whole process as this is huge for this
city. Mr. Silverstein said he thinks it is a great idea, but he just has to make sure that it doesn't create
any security issues. Ms. Duncan recommended that if this is possible that they could link it to Building
Salem website.
Motion: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve with the conditions as read and amended, seconded
by Mark George and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 9-0 vote[Mr.
Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready(Vice Chair), Ms.Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Vale, Mr. George, Mr.Anderson, Mr.
Rieder and Mr. Clarkel in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby
incorporated as part of these minutes.
•
Page 10 of 11
• Adjournment
Motion: George McCabe made a motion to adiourn the meeting seconded by Dale Yale and approved
unanimously. All the members voted in favor, with an 9-0 vote (Mr. Puleo(Chair). Mr. Ready(Vice Chair),
Ms Sides Mr. Clarke Mr.Anderson Mr. McCabe, Mr. Rieder, Mr. George and Ms. Yale)in favor and
none opposed The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:01pm.
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/Pages/`S``o/emMA PlanMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 10/17/2013
•
Page 11 of 11
Avg . CITY OF SALEM
r �
PLANNING BOARD
g13 Am - I P W. 66
E ILL #
CITY CL Eftl4„ SALEM, MASS.
Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review,
and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision
24 FORT AVENUE (Map 41, Lot 271)
August 1, 2013
Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP
C/o Joseph C. Correnti, Esq.
Serafini, Darling& Correnti, LLP
63 Federal Street
• Salem, MA 01970
RE: Petitions of Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development, LP for a Planned Unit
Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit
for the property located at 24 FORT AVENUE. .
On Thursday, May 2, 2013, the City of Salem Planning Board 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 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, at the request of Footprint
Power Salem Harbor Development LP, for the properties located at 24 FORT AVENUE (Map
41, Lot 271), containing 60+/- acres (the "Site"). The proposed project includes the select
demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the
construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility
("CCG Facility") on a 20+/- acre portion of the Site.
The Public Hearing was continued to May 16, 2013, June 6, 2013,June 20, 2013, July 18, 2013,
and July 25, 2013. The public hearing was closed on July 25, 2013.
All of the plans submitted in this proceeding were reviewed on behalf of the Planning Board by
the City's engineering consultant, AECOM, Inc. and its subconsultant on architectural and site
design elements, Sasaki Associates.
At a special meeting of the Planning Board held on July 25, 2013, the Planning Board voted
• nine (9) in favor(Charles Puleo, Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke, Mark George, George McCabe,
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 o TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
• Tim Ready,Kirk Rieder, Helen Sides, and Dale Yale), and none(0)opposed to approve the
Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special
Permit,based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
The Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of
Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.3 Planned Unit Development, Section 9.5 Site Plan Review
and Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District, as follows: .
1. 7.3.1 Purpose—The proposed Planned Unit Development(PUD), which incorporates
essential services, municipal,marine and passive outdoor recreational uses,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(60+acres). The underlying zoning district of the proposed
development parcel is Industrial,which is eligible for PUD treatment. The small parcel
zoned R-2 is excluded from the PUD.
3. 7.3.3 Uses—The proposed uses are allowed in a PUD development.
7.3.3.2—The Applicant has submitted detailed engineering and architectural
specifications, including drawings,photographs, and photo-simulations of the means that
will be employed to protect abutting properties from noise and to screen the facility
• visually.
7.3.3.3 —The Applicant has demonstrated that, due to the enormity of the demolition of
the existing facility and construction of the proposed CCG Facility, and the commitment
to bring in and take off as much material by ocean barge as possible, that a construction
lay down area of 20+acres on the Site is necessary. This area is identified on the
submitted plans, and after construction of the CCG Facility is complete, this area will be
developed in harmony with the rest of the Site; subject to further Planning Board review
and approval under the PUD special permit process.
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 a comprehensive,planned approach to commercial,municipal and
recreational development of this waterfront parcel.
b) Providing for appropriate economic development on an existing industrial site,
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 district. Specifically, the project incorporates a mixture of industrial,municipal,
recreational and marine uses,providing substantial public benefit.
7.3.8.3 —the planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental
impact. Specifically;
a) The proposed PUD includes the remediation of the Site under the supervision of a
Licensed Site Professional.
b) The Applicant predicts that the Drainage Plans, as submitted, revised and
reviewed, will improve the existing pre-development condition of the Site in
terms of water quality discharge.
c) The Applicant presented information indicating that the project will no longer
draw water from Salem Harbor and will reduce the amount of potable water used
from the City water supply.
d) The proposed PUD incorporates Low Impact Development(LID)techniques
e) Operation of this facility is expected to reduce regional CO2 emissions, on
average, by over 450,000 tons per year,representing the equivalent of a reduction
of over 90,000 cars annually from the region's roadways. In addition, regional
NOx emissions are estimated to be reduced by an average of 10%annually, while
regional SOx emissions are expected to be reduced by 8%annually. Regional
Mercury emissions are projected to be reduced by 6%annually. These reductions
will result from the displacement of power from less efficient, more highly
• emitting units with power from the proposed facility.
f) The proposed PUD results in publicly accessible open space,privately
maintained, on a waterfront site not historically accessible to the general public.
The Planning Board hereby makes the following findings pertinent to the Flood Hazard District
Special Permit Application:
I. The proposed uses comply in all respects to the uses and provisions of the underlying
district in which the land is located.
The underlying district is Industrial and is an eligible district for PUD treatment under the
Ordinance. The proposed use, anelectric power generating facility, is a continuous legal
nonconforming use of the site. Additionally, the applicant has received a special permit
from the Zoning Board of Appeal to allow for the"essential services"use for this site as
defined in the ordinance.
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.
The Facility will continue to use the existing access at the intersection of Derby Street
and Fort Avenue as the primary entrance to the CCG Facility. The existing gated
• entrance at Fort Avenue at the northern end of the Site will be used as secondary
• emergency access. Internal circulation will be provided via access driveway along the
perimeter of the CCG Facility. Pedestrian circulation will be provided for the workers
between the existing parking lot and the new CCG Facility; there will also be paths
within the proposed landscaped areas but outside of the acoustic landscaped berm. The
existing paved lot will continue to be used for the new CCG Facility. The existing
parking lot,primary and secondary access locations are not located in the flood zone.
3. Utilities, including gas, electricity, fuel, water and sewage disposal, shall be located and
constructed so as to protect against breaking, leaking, short-circuiting, grounding or
igniting or any other damage due to flooding.
All utilities are designed based on standard engineering practices and applicable
standards,including water and sewer lines with watertight joints, encased duct banks, and
pressurized systems with water tight joints.
4. There are no proposed uses within a coastal high hazard area(Zone VE on the FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Maps).
Conditions
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the plans entitled"Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project"
including sheets V-100 through V-102, C-100 through C-120, C-500 through C-504, L-100
through L-106,E-100 through E-103, and A-100 through 104 prepared by Tetra Tech,
• 1 Grant Street, Framingham,MA 01701; Terrain-NYC,200 Park Avenue South, Suite 1401,
New York,NY 10003;CookFoxArchitects, LLP, 641 Avenue of the Americas#8,New
York,NY 10011; and Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc., 800 Kinderkamack Road, Oradell,NJ
07649, dated April 4,2013 and revised on July 1, 2013 and on July 17,2013; the plan
entitled"Demolition Phase Plan"prepared by Tetra Tech dated July 17,2013 and the
proposed site plans entitled"Public Access Plan Upon Completion of New Facility Plan" and
"Conceptual Future Public Access Plan"prepared by CookFox Architects, LLP, 641 Avenue
of the Americas#8,New York,NY 10011, dated July 24, 2013.
In addition,Applicant shall construct the concrete collar surrounding the exhaust flues in
accordance with the conceptual stack design shown on the plans entitled"Salem Harbor
Station Redevelopment Project" sheets A-100 and A-101 prepared by CookFox Architects,
LLP., dated July 17, 2013 in response to the comments of the Planning Board and the
Planning Board's architectural consultant, Sasaki Associates. Such stack design shall include
the ornamental notch at the top of the stack, the vertical textured concrete detailing along the
stack and the observation balconies depicted on the plans.
2. Amendments
Any insignificant changes to the site plan for the CCG Facility 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.
•
• All development of the"north"parcel and "south"parcel bracketing the main CCG Facility,
as well as any improvements to the vehicular pavement connecting these two parcels along
the existing rip rap seawall, shall be subject to further Planning Board review and approval
under the PUD Special Permit process.
3. 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 and abutters to abutters
within 300 feet in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of demolition and
construction of the project. The Applicant is to develop a Communications Plan and
submit it to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any
demolition permit after the date of this decision.
c) Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00
PM. There shall be no drilling,blasting or rock hammering on Saturdays, Sundays,
or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state
regulations.
• d) All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not
leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site.
e) All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of
the Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules,regulations and
ordinances of the City of Salem.
f) All construction vehicles left overnight at the site,must be located completely on the
site.
g) All sidewalks,roadways,utilities, landscaping, etc. damaged during construction
shall be replaced or repaired to their pre-construction condition,or better.
h) A Construction Management Plan is to be submitted to the City Planner prior to the
issuance of any new demolition permits after the date of this decision for appropriate
distribution to Salem departments, which shall include,but not be limited to, contact
information for the point person at Footprint during construction,regular street
sweeping, and dust control measures.
i) Applicant with its contractor to attend a pre-construction meeting with appropriate
city departments.
•
• 4. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. The locations of
all fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of any
building permit.
5. Building Inspector
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector.
6. Board of Health
a) The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of
the name,address, and telephone number of the project(site) manager who will be on site
and directly responsible for the construction of the project.
b) If a DEP tracking number is issued for this site under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan,no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for
the site certifies that soil and ground water on the entire site meets the DEP standards for
the proposed use.
c) The Applicant shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer.
d) The Applicant shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior
to construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's
invoice to the Health Agent.
e) The Applicant shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction.
f) The Applicant shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street
sweeping which will occur during construction.
g) The Applicant shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and
removal of debris,vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated
during demolition and/or construction.
h) The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for firefighting.
i) Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s)generated by operations, including but
not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by
more than 10 dB(A)above the ambient levels measured at the property line.
j) The Applicant shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material
needed for the project.
k) The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its
operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health.
•
• 1) The Applicant shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final
inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
7. 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) The proposed layout of duct banks has not been completed, and the disposition of all
existing utilities must be indicated on revised plans submitted to the City Planner
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. Department of Public Services
The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the Department
of Public Services.
9. 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 any building permit.
C) After installation,lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner,prior
• to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
10. HVAC
If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for
screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to
installation.
11. Maintenance
a) Refuse removal,recycling, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the
responsibility of the Applicant,his successors or assigns.
b) Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site.
12. As-built Plans
a As-built Plans stamped b a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to
> P Y gl g >
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.
13. Violations
Violation 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.
14. Special Conditions
a) Development of the "north" parcel and "south" parcel bracketing the main CCG facility, as
well as any improvements to the vehicular pavement connecting these two parcels along the
existing rip rap seawall, shall be subject to further Planning Board review and approval under
the PUD Special Permit process.
b) Traffic
1. Applicant shall meet weekly, or as deemed necessary by city officials,with the
representatives of the City, as well as representatives of other major construction projects
expected to be ongoing in Salem during construction of the Project including:National Grid
(cable replacement project), Spectra Energy(gas pipeline lateral),the Massachusetts
Department of Transportation(Canal Street resurfacing), and the MBTA(Station and Garage
• Improvement project). Such meetings will ensure communication and coordination of
construction schedules among the four projects in order to maintain safe and efficient traffic
flow in Salem. At these meetings,representatives from the City and each project's
construction manager shall provide a one week"look-ahead" as to what activities are
expected to be undertaken. Attendees from the City of Salem should include, at a minimum,
officials from the Public Works, Engineering and Police Departments. The Applicant shall
consult with and coordinate these meetings with the City's Planning Department and the
Building Salem Coordinator. Electronic signage to be provided by the Applicant,as
appropriate, and as coordinated with the Building Salem Coordinator.
2. To ensure that traffic is functioning adequately,Applicant shall have traffic operations
monitoring performed by a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer(PTOE) during the
construction worker peak periods (6:00 -7:00 AM and 3:00—4:00 PM) at the key signalized
intersections that will provide access to the site. Those intersections are:
• Webb Street at Essex Street/Szetela Lane
• Webb Street at Bridge Street
• Bridge Street at James Ayube Memorial Drive North
s Bridge Street at James Ayube Memorial Drive South
The monitoring shall be performed in the months when a significant change in the number of
workers is expected at the CCG site. It is envisioned that monitoring will occur in the
following months during the 39-month construction schedule:
• s Month 1 (establish baseline conditions)
• Month 13 (first month over the 100-construction worker threshold)
• • Month 17 (first month over the 200-construction worker threshold)
• Month 21 (first month over the 300 & 400-construction worker threshold)
• Month 24(first month over the 500-construction worker threshold)
• Month 28 (first month of maximum construction worker period)
• Month 33 (last month over the 200-construction worker threshold)
Deviations from this schedule shall be made in consultation with the Planning Department in
the event the dates projected for construction worker impacts change. Applicant will
document the results of each observation period in a brief technical report and provide copies
of the report to the City. In addition, City officials shall be invited to join Footprint's
engineers in the field during the observation periods. If the observations indicate that
mitigation measures are warranted,the reports will make recommendations as to what
measures should be implemented. Applicant shall regularly consult with City officials,
including representatives of the Police Department and Planning Department, and shall file
any such agreed upon traffic mitigation plans with the Planning Board. In the event traffic
mitigation plans are not adequately addressing neighborhood traffic concerns,city officials
reserve the right to require Applicant to take additional measures to address traffic
congestion. These options include incentivizing carpooling and rideshare programs, and
coordinating off-site parking for some or all of the construction workers,provided other
options have been explored fust.
• 3. Applicant to provide a Traffic Management Plan to the City Planner and Police Department
for review and approval prior to issuance of any new demolition permit after the date of the
of this Decision. The Traffic Plan will include,but not be limited to,the requirement that
workers on all shifts must follow the agreed upon conditions. In any event, Footprint agrees
to provide a police detail during the construction period, as needed and as determined by the
City Planner in consultation with the Salem Police Department, at various locations and
times during the construction period. The potential locations for police details could include
the intersection of Webb Street and Fort Avenue, Webb Street and Bridge Street, and/or Fort
Avenue main construction gate.
4. Footprint is required to join the North Shore Transportation Management Association(TMA)
during the period of construction and following construction for a minimum of three years to
reduce vehicle traffic on local streets and reduce vehicle emissions in the study area. The
cost for such membership shall be based on the rates in effect at the time of this approval.
Payment for the"construction membership"and three-year membership to be made prior to
the issuance of any new demolition permit after the date of this Decision. Prior to issuance
of the demolition permit,the Applicant will provide the City Planner with an update of
NSTMA programs that it has committed to implement in an effort to reduce construction
worker traffic.
5. Designated truck routes for the delivery of construction materials and deliveries during
ongoing operations will be identified and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
• Footprint shall work with the city to establish these designated truck routes and implement
and use with all contractors, subcontractors and delivery vehicles for deliveries that cannot be
• transported by barge to the site. All deliveries of ammonia will be coordinated with the Fire
Department in regard to route,time of day, and safety measures.
c) Public Access
The Owner consents and agrees to provide public access throughout the PUD (but outside the
secured areas of the Power Plant) in accordance with the proposed site plans entitled"Public
Access Plan Upon Completion of New Facility Plan"and"Conceptual Future Public Access
Plan"prepared by CookFox Architects,LLP, 641 Avenue of the Americas#8,New York,
NY 10011, dated July 24, 2013. It is hereby noted that the"Conceptual Future Public Access
Plan" shows the provision of public access to the end of the jetty. A permanent easement or
similar instrument as agreed to by the City shall be granted to the City,or its designee,for the
specific areas to be agreed to by the parties within two years of completion of the CCG
Facility. Applicant and the City shall work collaboratively with the relevant state agencies
and shall, if necessary,pursue amendments to the Salem Harbor Plan and the Site's
Designated Port Area status to facilitate such public access.
d) Landscaped area
1) Applicant to install signage that states that the landscape area is open from"dawn to
dusk"allowing law enforcement and power plant security personnel to ask visitor to
leave outside these hours.
2) Maintenance Plan -Height of the planting material along the southern-facing side of
•. the landscape berm to be kept low, no higher than 4 %feet in height, including the
berm area. A plan and elevation to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building
permit that shows the view corridor and the specific area in question, as described
above.A landscape maintenance plan to be submitted to the City Planner prior to the
issuance of a building permit that describes how plantings in this area will be kept
low in order to maintain the view corridor from Derby Street to the jetty.
3) Fence—Applicant to install a durable fence that will provide some measure of
screening between the landscape area and the undeveloped remainder of the southern
portion of the site. Fence to be six feet in height, 5/8-inch mesh,black-coated PVC,
with no barbed wire on top,with posts approximately every six to 8 feet.
e) Community Benefits Agreement
The Board's approval is conditioned on the implementation of a Community Benefits
Agreement("CBA")between the City and the Applicant. Applicant and the City shall
negotiate such CBA in good faith. It is understood by the City and the Applicant that any
such CBA shall incorporate at a minimum shared use of the existing port facility on the
site.
f) Storm Water Management
1) Footprint to submit an Operation and Management Plan for the storm water
management system describing the frequency of cleaning (at least twice per year),
and maintenance of the system,clearly defining the responsible parry for
• maintenance, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The final supplemental
narrative to the Stormwater Management Report should include a statement
indicating the length of time that standing water is expected to be present in the
crushed stone area after a storm event.
2) Footprint shall relocate a portion of the 48-inch City drain line currently located on
the Site,to be coordinated with the City Engineer on the design and relocation details.
3) Applicant and City acknowledge the City's potential need to locate a new storm water
pump station on site in a location along the new drain line to assist the City in
alleviating off-site flooding issues in the adjacent neighborhood. If the City
determines that a pump station is needed,Applicant agrees to work with the City to
identify a mutually agreeable location and to provide a permanent easement of no
greater than 5,000 square feet for the pump station and supporting infrastructure, and
to provide reasonable access to the City to construct and maintain said pump station.
4) Footprint shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP), which
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance
of any new demolition permit after the date of this Decision.
g) Construction Waste Management/Soils Management Plan
In conjunction with its selected contractor, Footprint shall submit a Construction Waste
Management Plan and a Soils Management Plan to the City Planner prior to issuance of any
new demolition permit after the date of this Decision.
• h) An Emergency Plan to be in place before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy that is
deemed satisfactory by the Police and Fire Departments. Said Plan to include an emergency
training exercise for public safety officials funded by the owner prior to opening of the facility
and repeated on an annual basis, as deemed necessary by the City.
i) Noise
1) .Prior to the issuance of any new demolition permit after the date of this Decision,the
Applicant will develop an Action Plan to monitor noise levels on a regular basis and to
address noise comments and complaints during construction and operations and submit to
the City Planner for review and approval. The Action Plan will also clearly identify the
appropriate contact person at Footprint Power and the formal method to provide
comments and register complaints.
2) Applicant will construct and maintain during the construction period a temporary 12-foot
high,plywood(or equivalent)construction noise barrier with a Noise Reduction
Coefficient raring of NRC-0.85 or greater to reduce the impact of construction noise on
the neighborhood. Fence to be located along Derby Street and Fort Avenue behind the
existing security fence on the facility side.
3) During construction the Applicant may request approval to work outside the normal work
hours of 7:00 am to 5:00 pm from the Building Inspector provided that(a) the noise level
will not create noise in the neighborhood at levels in excess of the noise from the
• operation of the existing Salem Harbor Station; (b)Footprint will monitor sensitive noise
receptors,as necessary, during second and third shifts; and(c)Notice of second and third
shift work is coordinated with the City in advance in order to notify abutters and abutters
to abutters within 300 feet. It is noted that the City will limit noisy work if previously
established acceptable levels are exceeded.
4) Reference is hereby made to the baseline data in the Noise Study submitted by Footprint
with the Application April S 2013.
PP on on
j) Architectural Lighting
The stack shall be lit with the safety lighting required by the Federal Aviation
Administration. Applicant shall coordinate with the City Planner and Planning Board's
consultant to design a monumental, decorative lighting scheme to accent the stack and
building. Design to be submitted to the Planning Board prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. Installation of decorative lighting is subject to approval of the
Planning Board after a public hearing with appropriate notice to abutters and abutters to
abutters within 300 feet. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be conditioned upon
Planning Board approval of such plan.
k) Clerk of the Works
A Clerk of the Works may be required to oversee certain aspects of the construction work as
determined by the City Engineer. The Clerk of the Works shall be retained by the City, at the
expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision has been filed with the City Clerk and is on file with
the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of this decision bearing
the certification of the City Clerk that twenty(20)days have elapsed and no appeal has been
filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the
Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded
on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant,his successors or assigns, shall pay
the fee for recording or registering.
Charles M. Puleo
Chairman
•
�v CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING F;.S 8
CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS.
(Please note change in meeting location)
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, July 18, 2013 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313,120 Washington St., Salem, MA
Cllr ��
r,
Charles M Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. • June 20, 2013 Meeting Minutes
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan
Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit applications for the select demolition and
redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site. It is anticipated that discussion will
focus on concerns raised by AECOM and Sasaki during their review of the applications, and
the application supplements provided by Footprint, but other topics may be discussed.
Applicant: Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP
Location: 24 Fort Avenue
IV. ADJOURNMENT
This notice Posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hail, Salem, Mass. on C. it ?0125
at 4.`333'M in accordant W1 GL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A Sectionl8-25
40 and City Ordinance Section 2-2018 through.Section 1-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
P o' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/MINE�
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP TELE:978-619-5685•FAX:978-740-0404
DIRECTOR
Memo
To: Salem Planning Board Members
FROM: Lynn Duncan,DPCD Director
CC: Frank Taormina,Staff Planner/Harbor Coordinator
DATE: July 12,2013
RE: July 18,2013 Planning Board Meeting
❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
Board Members,
On July 1st, the City's Department of Planning & Community Development received
responses from Footprint Energy to the last round of comments from the City's Consultants
and four large sets of revised site plans. If any of you are interested in picking up copies please
let Frank know, as they are too large to mail.
Since July 1st, both Sasaki and AECOM have reviewed Footprint's responses and provided
another round of comments on July 9th (see attached). On July 10th, Footprint Energy and
their development team met with the City, Sasaki, AECOM, and Chairman Puleo to review
Sasaki and AECOM's latest comments. At that meeting Footprint redlined the plans
referenced above to address the latest comments.
The City expects that Footprint will address our Consultant's comments at the meeting on July
18th. Additionally we are expecting to receive additional comments from our Consultants on
Stormwater Report review and compliance with permit requirements for Site Plan Review,
PUD, and Flood Hazard District Special Permits.
•
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date
Name M ` )Mai/ling gAddress Phone # Email
3�ti'cnn If^7Cl�eI{7 Ocu 1t. fctw ��y��t Dnot 5-1`6122U-0-7-
2/2-"7-
-1`6C1222-0-72/2-"7-GoX'o ✓ �+fgin-nyc.4Q/—
LILIAbort Z50 aux- acr,-a-3�4
Page of
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES 7/18/13
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,July 18, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in Room
313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
There was a presentation of a certificate to Tim Kavanagh for his years of service on the Planning Board.
Chairman Puleo personally thanked him for his years of service and help on decisions that were made
with his expertise. Tim Ready stated that he was pleased to honor him for his years of service. He
stated that a lot of progress and clean-up within the city can be attributed to his participation on the
Planning Board. Mr. Ready said that he benefitted greatly from working with him. He then read into the
record the proclamation from the Mayor. He also gave him a gift certificate to Opus as a thank you gift.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:06 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, George McCabe, Dale Yale,
Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke and Mark George. Absent: Kirt Rieder.
Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Frank Taormina, Staff
Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
• Approval of Minutes
June 20, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Mark George made a correction to a word,which should be sewer"ejection" on page 1. Under the
motion, Ben Anderson noted that on page 3 he was present for the vote and was in favor. He also
stated that on page 5, the motion should read as an "8-0" vote. On page 8, Mark George said the
correct word should be "sounds" rather than "wounds". On page 9 there was some confusion with the
wording of Chairman Puleo's comment. On page 12, Dale Yale pointed out that the name of the power
plant should be 'Brayton Point". No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board
members.
Motion: Helen Sides made o motion to approve the minutes with corrections, seconded by George
McCabe and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 7-0 vote[Mr. Puleo
(Chair), Mr. Ready(Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Vale, Mr.Anderson and Mr. Georgel in favor
and none opposed. Randy Clarke abstained and Kirt Rieder was absent. The motion was accepted. The
decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,
Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit applications for the
select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site.
It is anticipated that discussion will focus on concerns raised by AECOM and
Sasaki during - their review of the applications, and the application
• supplements provided by Footprint, but other topics may be discussed.
Page 1 of 11
• Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the applicant Footprint Power stated that they
are pleased to report that the issues are narrowing and the topics are being addressed. He provided a
brief update, stating that they had a meeting with planning staff and the chairman joined them for most
of the meeting where they reviewed and responded to the issues in an effort to spare the Board having
to do that. Since then they have had further comments and responses to issues. He said that AECOM
and Sasaki are here this evening and noted that the applicants are pleased with the process to date.
Their goal is to conclude this meeting with a small list of things that need to be continued to be
addressed. They are not presenting this evening but they wanted to make a screen available with past
PowerPoint presentations for reference, if necessary.
Chairman Puleo asked if the most recent responses to the consultants have been made available to
which Attorney Correnti said no.
Chairman Puleo then asked Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development to provide
an update. Ms. Duncan stated that this is a moving target, which includes a 45 page matrix from Sasaki,
where they had an all day meeting to walk through these. There were comments and set of plans
revised. She spoke of a July 17`h memo from AECOM which reflect the current outstanding issues. She
noted that they will have responses to our consultants and will choose a point in time to discuss,then
Footprint can respond. Chairman Puleo asked if everyone on the Board feels comfortable with this as
• what they've seen most recently is from July 10. Ben Anderson stated that he does have questions but
they can be asked later.
Daivd Derrig,AECOM, introduced the rest of the consulting team and stated that they had their working
session going over the plans. They have a new set of revised plans from Footprint that they received
yesterday. They will be looking over those to see how they match up with the matrix. It's up to 55 or 57
pages once the consultants' responses to comments were added. They received these today and after a
brief review, he would characterize them as primarily satisfactory. It appears that in a quick read of the
comments that most of the issues have been addressed. They will then match these up with Footprint's
responses. They had additional questions and most of those responses will be given. They will review
the most critical outstanding concerns in the response prior to comments. He introduced the consulting
team stating that Katie Flynn, from Sasaki, and Kathy Schaeffer from AECOM will review their respective
sections.
Katie Flynn, Sasaki Associates, began reviewing her comments.The first outstanding concern is with
respect to the Height of Berm on Southern Edge of Site. She stated that the plans show a difference
between top of berm and path is 4'.This, coupled with a planting strategy that might reach 3' in height
would prohibit site lines from Derby Street to the water.This poses a concerned with view corridors
from Derby Street to the stone jetty and Salem Harbor and potential security issues as the height and
dense vegetation could be an area that people hide in. She stated that it was her understanding that
based on discussions during the July 10th meeting that the applicant will lower the smaller berms and
their associated plantings along the southern edge of the site to reach no higher than 4%>' in height.This
will be accompanied by a clause in the maintenance strategy that describes how plantings in this area
• will be kept low.
Page 2 of 11
• Randy Clarke asked the Chairman if there would be a more appropriate time to ask about security.
Chairman Puleo directed the question to Attorney Correnti who responded that they would address it
later before the end of the meeting.
Ms. Flynn continued her review of her comments. Her next concern was to ensure that there was public
access to the water's edge at the completion of Phase 1 and understand how the eastern edge of the
site will be treated. She stated that Sasaki would like to see the dimension of the berm minimized on
this eastern edge in order to maximize the distance between the toe of the berm and the seawall. It was
her understanding based on discussions during the July 10th meeting that the applicant will tighten the
dimension of the landscape berm along the eastern edge in order to maximize the distance between the
toe of the berm and the seawall. We understand that the applicant intends to provide public access to
the water's edge at the conclusion of Phase 1 and that the applicant will submit a conceptual diagram of
a phased public access strategy that will help inform our understanding of how the proposed plan fits
into a larger site vision.
Ms. Flynn stated that a Security Plan for Landscape Areas was also a critical outstanding concern. She
stated that it was her understanding based on discussions during the July 10th meeting that the
applicant intends to post signs that indicate the landscape area is open from "dawn to dusk," allowing
law enforcement and power plant security personnel to ask visitors to leave outside of these hours.The
lighting strategy proposed for the landscape area is intended to provide sufficient light for security
purposes but not to encourage night-time use by the public.
Ms. Flynn stated that Sasaki recommends that the Planning Board include a condition to their approval
• that ensures the applicant will continue to develop a decorative/monumental lighting strategy for the
power plant structures including the stack. It is their hope that the applicant will propose a thoughtful,
expressive lighting strategy that capitalizes on the opportunity to illuminate the proposed structures in
an iconic way. We would propose that this lighting strategy be presented to the planning board as an
amendment to this project.
Lastly, Ms. Flynn stated that Sasaki would like to see a drawing that describes pedestrian improvements
along Derby Street. It was her understanding that Footprint was working on a sheet that would show
those details.
The floor was then turned over to Kathy Schaeffer, AECOM,where she would walk the Planning Board
through the critical outstanding comments primarily focused on the site plans.
Ms. Schaeffer started with the Surface Treatment of Stormwater Collection Area.The site plans indicate
that the area adjacent to the crushed stone would be "stabilized surface treatment, (loam and seed or
equivalent)". During the meeting is was indicated that the developer does not intend to loam and seed
the area, since the hope is that the development of the southern portion of the site will occur after the
construction of the new plant is complete. The plans were being revised to indicate a grassy area
adjacent to the southern walkway and the installation of a fence to shield the area from view.
Ms. Schaeffer then moved on to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant has .
indicated that prior to construction a SWPPP will be prepared. The SWPPP should be submitted to the
• City for review and comment.
Page 3 of 11
• Ms. Schaeffer stated that another outstanding critical concern was the City's request to relocate a 48"
Drain Line. Further design is required on the relocation of the 48" line. The City Engineer had identified
the need for a stormwater pump station on the 48" line to improve the drainage in the neighborhood
west of Derby Street. The applicant has indicated that they will provide an area for the pump station, if
it is needed.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that grading in northeast corner of Stormwater Collection Area is a concern. The
existing catch basins are being removed which may create a low area at Derby Street. It was her
understanding that the applicant was evaluating the possibility of revising the grading which would
result in a minimal amount of runoff being routed to Derby Street. If the area could not be regraded, a
drywell may be proposed, as a temporary solution, until the development of the southern parcel
commences.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that coordination with Salem Fire Department is still outstanding. The applicant
indicated that the Fire Department may want electronic lock box at both entrances into the site.
AECOM stated that the exact specifications should be coordinated with the Fire Department.
Ms. Schaeffer then raised the issue about accessible parking spaces at administration building. The
revised plans did not show any accessible parking spaces within 200 feet of the buildings and a drop-off
area was not shown. The applicant indicated that an accessible parking space will be added at the
administration building to satisfy the accessible parking requirements.
Ms. Schaeffer then discussed designated truck routes. It was AECOM's understanding that most, if not
• all, construction and demolition materials will be transported by barge to and from the site. However,
for some typical land-based deliveries, as well as for contingency planning purposes, pre-approved truck
routes should be in reviewed and approved by the City before they are in place.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that a Construction Waste Management Plan/Soils Management Plan is still
outstanding. It was her understanding that these plans will be prepared by Footprint Power in
conjunction with its selected contractors. A clear process for coordination with and review by the City
must be defined to address these activities.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that transportation demand management should be looked at. It was her
understanding that Footprint will be joining and participating in the North Shore Transportation
Management Association (NSTMA). She stated that AECOM looks forward to Footprint Power's work
with the NSTMA in identifying potential remote shuttle parking locations and participation on other
programs that will reduce vehicle traffic on local streets and reduce vehicle emissions in the study area.
Lastly, Ms. Schaeffer discussed Noise Impacts/Action Plan and Noise Control Plan. An Action Plan and
Noise Control Plan should be developed prior to construction and clearly identify the appropriate
contact person at Footprint Power and the City of Salem, as well as the method to provide comments or
register complaints.
Mr. Derrig then concluded the summary of comments from the consulting team.
Chairman Puleo asked Ms. Duncan if they are only looking toward transportation outside of city. Ms.
Duncan responded that it can be within the city as well as Salem is member of TMA. Chairman Puleo
then asked if they have an estimate of the peak time. Scott Silverstein, COO Footprint Power,
Page 4 of 11
• responded that when they did their traffic calculations,they assumed one car per employee. Their
models assumed no carpooling, though they will encourage this.
Mr. Derrig stated that as a member of the TMA, Footprint would provide zip codes of the workers and
the TMA would match them up with carpooling opportunities.
Ben Anderson pointed out that there are going to be several construction projects going on at the same
time. He then asked if any of this been looked at where these projects will be vying for city streets;
particularly in terms of how residents and visitors will get around the city.
Ms. Duncan responded that the City of Salem has created a website called buildingsalem.com so if you
are a resident or visitor,this will be one stop shopping for people to find out what is going on. Mr.
Anderson said that the more information that is available is best so if, in the situation of construction
workers coming into the city, that information may encourage them to do as much carpooling as
possible. Ms. Duncan responded that Beth Debski in the Mayor's office will be coordinating that and
she will share that message. Mr. Anderson concluded stating that he is not sure if there is a lot you can
do, as it is just a concern of his. Mr. Silverstein agrees that it is definitely an issue and he thinks that
there is a lot that they can do. He noted that this same issue came up with the Energy Siting Board.
They are going to do their best to coordinate in real-time with National Grid's and Spectra's projects as
the planning is going on. They have already begun this process with National Grid. Their project
manager is already in communication and has stressed that there cannot be enough communication on
this. Mr.Anderson said that he thinks it's good and it's important to communicate with the city. Mr.
Silverstein concurred, stating that the city is part of it as it has to be a joint process.
• Mr. Clarke recommended sharing information over VMS signs around town to get messages out and he
noted that these are used in construction projects.
Mark George stated that the messaging is critical, as effectively this project could cause gridlock. Mr.
Anderson noted that all traffic corridors will be affected. Mr. Clarke reminded Board members that the
construction workers will be on-site before people are out of bed. The garage project will move people
to other stations. The bigger impact is the National Grid project. Chairman Puleo then asked if the
applicant has established a staggered construction schedule,to which Mr. Silverstein said yes;the plan is
to get everything done on the first shift to keep things from going on later in that day. Mr. Furniss
elaborated further by explaining that the plan is to have the majority of the noisy work done on the first
shift, then have less noisy work on second shift, which could cut down on traffic.
Mr. Anderson recommended that they coordinate with the Bentley school's schedule.
Mr. Ready pointed out that Footprint Power is aware of the issue, but it is important that they take the
leadership role with the Planning Department and coordinate with other developers in the city as their
project is the biggest one since the witches.
Chairman Puleo then turned the discussion to the consultant's recommendation on the noise impact
and asked about recommending a condition to register complaints. Mr. Derrig responded stating that
the only way it is going to be feasible is if it is designed as a formalized process. Chairman Puleo then
• asked if it is the City's of Footprint's responsibility to relocate the 40 inch drain. Attorney Correnti
stated that it's the responsibility of the City but they are taking it on. They are proposing to construct a
pump station as well and the City is investigating if a pump station is necessary as they don't know the
Page 5 of 11
• recommended size yet. Chairman Puleo asked if there is a city drain line going through the property,to
which Attorney Correnti said yes. Mr. Furniss stated that they have had some conversations about it
and they would like to have as many conversations about where the best location should be. They have
identified where would be a good routing. Wherever it goes they will take responsibility for it.
Mr.Anderson asked about Sasaki s recommendation about height of berm, to which Ms. Flynn stated
that they are waiting to review the newest response from the applicant. He then asked about the view
from the corridor, particularly on the path edge to the berm. He is assuming that there is a narrow
section that they will see the water from, thus he stated that he is curious as to how much of a view will
be there. Ms. Flynn then described the view south to the jetty. They discussed the view on the plans.
She described the main berm that shields the power plant all around and showed on the slides the areas
where that are bumps up and down all along the southern edge. She feels that it is a view worth
preserving and from what she is seeing is that the berms are being lowed just a couple of feet so it
doesn't feel like an isolated cavern. Mr.Anderson requested a schematic that would show the view
from that corridor to help people understand the view. Ms. Duncan then asked if he was specifically
requesting this of the applicant to which Mr. Anderson directed his question back to the consultant. Ms.
Flynn then described the view corridor on the plans and described the heights of the berms. Mr.
Anderson reiterated his recommendation of providing pictures to better demonstrate a sense of where
the eye level will be. Ms. Flynn said that they are 2.5 feet high along the path, and demonstrated
through the slides where she was speaking of. Mr. Ready commented that this is in an area that
currently is a non-existent view. Ms. Flynn remarked that there is an opportunity now with this design.
Chairman Puleo said that it is important to maintain plantings.
• Dale Yale asked about a Clerk of the Works for this project. Ms. Duncan responded that there is a clerk
of the works for sewer or water, or subdivisions, but typically there is not clerk of the works on this type
of project. However, she does recognize that we do need a point person who can answer these
questions. Mr. Furniss stated that they will also maintain a hotline that will available 24 hours, 7 days a
week that will be posted on the gate as well as the website and will usually be staffed with a live person.
Ms. Yale emphasized that it is important to be communicated well to the public.
Chairman Puleo asked how the City ensures that we have what is built on such a huge project. Ms.
Duncan responded that the city will need additional inspectors on board to monitor the project. She
also noted that the Planning Department won't have a Clerk of the Works, but there will be someone
there for this and she will check with the Engineering Department on this.
Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the fence and the grass section and stated that he would hate to
see the fence right up against the walkway. Mr. Silverstein responded that this is exactly what they have
discussed.
Brian Marchetti,TetraTech, described the plan, which includes a temporary construction chain link fence
that's ten feet off of the walkway.
Mr. Anderson asked about gravel on the site to which Mr. Marchetti responded that the majority of it
will be in the lay down area during construction as the intent was to provide some kind of stabilization
during the planning. Mr.Anderson pointed out that based on the timing of the stages of the project,
• dirt and/or sand that may get blown around and it is important to keep the neighborhood clean. He
recommended that they use a stabilized material. Mr. Marchetti agreed and said that there will be a
stabilized plan with temporary layout that includes a grass strip.
Page 6 of 11
• Frank Taormina asked for further clarification about the walkway and the future extension of Webb into
the site. Mr. Marchetti explained that where the fence is being laid out now it is almost a ten foot
space, which is on the north side of the site and will be temporary gravel. Webb Street could be
extended, but hasn't been developed yet. Mr.Silverstein commented that the assumption was that the
access to the site would be an extension of Webb Street and he didn't believe that they thought about
putting anything there until they know more about the access on the site. They didn't want to do
anything that precluded that. He acknowledged that once they have the next phase ready to go they
will need to come back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Anderson asked if the pedestrian walkways are for bikes also. Kurt Martig,Terrain Landscape
Architecture responded, stating that the concrete sidewalk would be five feet wide and the site
pathways vary as you move it along. He then described the walkway widths. Mr. Anderson then asked
them to clarify the noted on the plans about the building slabs to remain, and asked why they are not
being demolished. Mr. Marchetti pointed out the locations of where the slabs will be left, but was not
sure of their exact heights, but referenced them on the plans.
Mr. Anderson then asked about the mechanical and electrical generating houses below the ACC unit. He
is curious about the sound attenuation and is concerned that anything that generates electricity makes a
lot of noise. Ken Kinkela, Bay Shore Services, stated that they are called Power Distribution Centers and
described them.
Mr. Clarke stated that he would like to get more information about the general operations security
• procedures and how the site overall is protected. He then asked if there is any engagement with the
Salem Police Department, and further asked if it makes sense to have input from them. Mr. Furniss
responded that power plants are subject to the requirements of the North American Electric Reliability
Council as well as some Homeland Security requirements because of the wharf. They have worked with
a security consultant, which is the same one that is doing the PEM expansion. The gabean wall was
revisited and described. He explained that it is an 8 foot tall with a special mesh over the wiring to keep
people from climbing over it. They will maintain the non-scalable portion of the wall. They will have
cameras and equipment to make sure they see what's going on there. They have a very close
relationship with the Salem Police department and they have the same kind of relationship with the
Harbormaster. Coordination has always been part of it and will always be part of this project.
Mr. Clarke then asked about the surveillance plan for the park area to which Mr. Furniss responded that
they are planning to have park surveillance particularly between dusk and dawn. They haven't identified
what that security system will look like yet, but the main way to address them will be to call the police.
Mr. Clarke then asked if there will be a guard tour to which Mr. Furniss said yes, as well as operational
staff, and both of these will be 24/7. Mr. Clarke asked if a boat can pull up and get into the site that
way. Mr. Furniss said that the way the site will be laid out they have some distance between where the
boats come in and access to the site. It is obviously possible to approach the property from at least one
side and they currently have cameras. Mr. Clarke strongly recommended having a table-top exercise to
go over this before this opens.
George Wilson, Footprint Power, stated that they always engage with police and fire departments. They
• are directly connected to fire dept in case of a fire. Security 24/7 to get folks to city as quickly as
possible. Mr. Clarke stated that of a facility of this size, there are usually a walk-through. Mr. Furniss
concurred that they do actual drills with the current facility and the time to do it is before the power is
Page 7 of 11
• turned on. Mr.Wilson concluded his response, stating that however they want to do this,they will
know what materials they will be dealing with and they will have tours.
Chairman Puleo asked how many deliveries are they expecting per week in regards to the incoming
ammonia tanks, to which Mr. Wilson responded that thee will be two maximum. Chairman Puleo
recommended a route that vendors should follow and further the scheduling times, along with the route
into Salem, should be shared with the Police Department as well as the Fire Department as they should
know what routes that they are coming in on. Mr. Wilson responded that he already met with the Fire
Chief on this and will review the plans with him.
Mr.Anderson then asked if there is a resident that falls and gets hurt on the property, who will they call.
Mr. Furniss responded that they can call any of the emergency services. Mr.Anderson then asked about
call boxes to which Attorney Correnti responded that it would be the same that they would be in the
public parks in the city, but in this situation the down and injured will be seen quicker than they would
anywhere else.
George McCabe asked about the type of piping on the gas that comes to plant. Mr. Wilson explained
that the pipe is underground and comes into the site. He then described the gas route into the plant.
Mr. McCabe asked about the security for that area in terms of if someone wanted to do something
devious. Mr. Wilson responded that the security plan would be the same throughout the site. There
will be cameras focused on the gas as well as a regularly-manned security guard station. Mr. McCabe
then asked about if someone shot something at the power plant. Mr. Furniss reminded the Board that
the security requirements are different with nuclear plants.
• Helen Sides stated that they go back to the fact that they are complying with the regulations.
Chairman Puleo asked about the water tank, as well as the location of the ammonia tank. Mr. Wilson
described the locations of the tanks and the industrial use on the plant and then showed them on the
slides.
Frank Taormina noted that the Fire Department will be providing future comments and conditions and
he then reviewed comments received from the Salem Health Department. Ms. Duncan stated that
these comments were provided by the Health Agent. Chairman Puleo asked about a remedy for a
situation where odors get windblown into the neighborhood. Ms. Duncan responded that there is a
noise action plan as to who they would respond to but for the odors there isn't one specified.
Chairman Puleo asked if the board has any other questions or commeetns, there none being he opened
up the meeting to public comments.
Andrea Monburquette, 14 Webb Street, asked about the function of the control room operators. Mr.
Furniss responded that the control room operators are responsible for running the plant and the needs
on the grid. They will maintain a security guard booth which will be in the exact same location, and they
will be responsible for handling security on-site 24/7. Ms. Monburquette asked if they are traditionally
responsible for handling the functions of the power plant. Mr. Furniss responded in the affirmative.
Chairman Puleo asked if one would have to go through gate to get there, to which Mr. Furniss
• responded that yes, though he is not sure that they have discussed this. He then showed the location of
the gate, guard house, and 25 foot wall, as well the related access points. Mr. Wilson stated that he met
with the fire chief and Mr.Silverstein stated that they will make the necessary modifications. Mr.
Page 8 of 11
Furniss said there could be situations where they would not be able to open up gates but they will look
• into that and they will get the gates open. Mr. Ready asked if the security plan will be coordinated with
fire and police, to which Mr. Furniss said of course. Mr. Ready stated that they would like to look at the
security plan.
Deborah Lebow, 42 Chestnut Street asked about impacts from super-storms. Mr. Furniss stated that
they are looking at several decades worth of data that could create water events. The site will actually
be raised six feet up so they are above the effects of the major water events. He notes that Salem used
to be a preferred harbor because of how well it is protected, which is natural protection and the
proposed berm also provides some protection form the directions of storm surges. Ms. Lebow asked
what happens if the plant is flooded, to which Mr. Furniss responded that it doesn't work. There will be
some concrete structures that provide some protection. It's fail safe in the sense that you can't have
combustion when it's flooded. There is no danger from the turbines themselves and the ammonia is
very well protected in a steel structure. Ms. Lebow asked about access in terms of an emergency, and
recommended that it might be valuable to have a fire apparatus on site. Mr. Wilson said that in the
event of a fire they don't depend on the city for pressurization and they have their own pumps, one of
which is diesel drivel and holds over 2000 gallons. Ms. Lebow asked if this would be the same with the
police. Chairman Puleo asked for further clarification on she is asking if these are the safety processes in
place during construction or when it's up and running, to which Ms. Lebow responded that she is asking
about both times. Mr. Furniss responded that during construction there will be a lot of people on site;
the point is well taken and will be part of the safety plan.
Ken Harris,42 Chestnut Street, asked about the types of ammonia they are using. Mr. Furniss
• responded that the type of ammonia they use is 98%aqueous. Mr. Harris asked about a spill. Mr.
Furniss responded that the dangers associated with it are not as dangerous as other types of ammonia.
The routings will be chosen to maximize safety. Mr. Harris asked about delivering by water. Mr. Furniss
explained that they would have to bring in more ammonia to utilize the boats and a route by road is the
safest and best way. Mr. Harris then asked about other chemicals that will be used on the site to which
Mr. Wilson said they will use about one thousand gallons of bleach. Mr. Harris if the building has been
rated for tornadoes to which Mr. Furniss stated that they are complying with or exceeding all the
regulations for the foreseeable events. Mr. Kinkela added that the densities are well in excess of
significant winds, and the pipes are low to the ground and most are buried.
Ms. Monburquette asked if it would be safer to use urea, to which Mr. Furniss said not to his knowledge.
Mr. Kinkela described the plants he has built that use aqueous ammonia and noted that they use
aqueous ammonia because urea is not available. He emphasized that it is not a cost issue, it's the
availability. Ms. Monburquette reiterated that her concern is having the ammonia truck going through
the neighborhood. Mr. Furniss responded that the safety of our neighbors is critical to us and they are
working closely with the public safety departments.
Mr. Harris stated that he was pleased with the information on the Footprint Power website and asked
about their stance on fracking. Mr. Furniss responded that they are not opposed to fracking in general;
they are opposed to it in terms of the techniques used. Chairman Puleo explained that this line of
questioning is not under the purview of the Planning Board and moved on to the next public
commenter.
• Linda Haley,43 Turner Street, stated that she was really glad to hear about the changing of the
landscaping as she had thought that rodents and vagrants can hide in the high grasses, so lower
Page 9 of 11
• plantings may be better. She inquired about where the existing fences are and directed a question to
Ms. Flynn about architectural lighting. Ms. Flynn explained that the stack and the power plant should be
appropriately lighted. Their view is that the design of the stack and the plant is very thoughtful and if
there is a way to light the stack and the plant,they would be interested to hear what the lighting
consultants recommend. And in that situation any lighting strategy comes back to the Planning Board.
Ms. Haley feels that the less light pollution coming into their homes would be best. She spoke of
questions that were asked about interior lighting at the Siting Board and she asked for clarification on
minor improvements to the Derby Street sidewalks. Ms. Flynn described her recommendations which
include improving the sidewalk. Mr. Marchetti explained that included in the plan is the
recommendation to replace the sidewalks with the same dimensions and should be concrete sidewalks.
Ms. Haley appreciates all the focus on traffic. She really has a problem believing that all the
communication can help with as much as they believe it will. She talked about the early morning
programs at the Bentley School and how that will affect the actual traffic. She described the current
gridlock in Salem and doesn't understand why they can't offer off-street or satellite parking. She thinks
the community should ask for more and it should be included in the conditions. She was pleased to hear
about the health concerns along with public safety. She would love to see a plan with a clearer timeline
as she described the ferry landing issues, and strongly urged a more clearly laid out plan.
Chairman Puleo inquired about an evacuation plan to which Mr. Furniss responded that it is not part of
the permitting process, but part of a larger discussion on public safety.
Ms. Duncan noted that they are getting very close to wrapping this up. There are very few outstanding
issues, including traffic mitigation issues, which would be conditions.
• Attorney Correnti said they would like to work with the Planning Department staff and they will get
AECOM and Sasaki everything they need.They would like a decision next week in respect of schedules.
He hopes that they are at a level of confidence that these things can be worked out. Chairman Puleo
asked if they can get these issues with the Fire and Police Departments, and others worked out in time.
Attorney Correnti responded, saying that there are comments coming from the Fire Department, and
the Police will be spoken with as well. If the Board chooses to include conditions stating that the
applicant shall work with the City would be one that they will agree to. He noted that they won't have a
security plan by Labor Day as there are not enough details to show it now.
Ms. Duncan stated that while things are very fresh in their minds, she would be concerned if they could
not make a decision until after Labor Day. Thus, if a decision cannot be reached at the next meeting
then she will contact Board Members about holding a special meeting in August.
Motion: RandV Clarke made a motion to continue to July 25th, seconded by Helen Sides and a
unanimous vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote fMr. Puleo (Chair), Mr.
Ready(Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Vale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Clarke)in favor
and none opposed. Kirt Rieder was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted.
Ms. Duncan introduced Dana Mennen, the new Staff Planner, who will be starting on July 291h and
thanked Frank Taormina for his assistance in staffing the Planning Board in the interim.
• Adjournment
Page 10 of 11
Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to adjourn the July 18`h meeting of the Salem Planning Board
seconded by Mr. Anderson, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-
0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready(Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr.Anderson, Mr. McCabe, Mr.
George and Ms. Yale) in favor and none opposed. Kirt Rieder was absent from the meeting. The motion
was accepted.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:22 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
•
Page 11 of 11
JOL� lay 2d ► 3
S
-- 3
QP
W
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Z1I3 PIN 11P 3: 34-
NOTICE OF MEETING FILE #F
CHANGE IN MEETING LOCATION CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS:
You are hereby nary*tlxu the SalemPlarunngBoard will hdd its nW&dysd�turfing on Thursday,June 20,2013 at
7:00 p.m. in tlae Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School at 25 Memorial Drive, Salem,MA
am, s M. Pulte Clxur
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL This notice posted ondofficill, BUlletin Boprd"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on *1 /3Z&Z3
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES at a:34Ph in accordan with MGL Chap. W
➢ June 6,2013 Regular Meeting Sections 18.45.
III. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Discussion and Vote on the requests of PAUL DIBIASE for the partial reduction of the surety bond for
• Phase I and Phase IIA, and approval of an Insignificant Change to the approved subdivision plan to
construct culvert crossings as opposed to bridge crossings over two stream channels for the Osborne Hills
Subdivision located off MARLBOROUGH RD.
2. Discussion and Vote on the request of MetroPCS for an Insignificant Change to an approved Wireless
Communication Facility Special Permit for the property located at 12 POPE ST.
IV. REGULARAGENDA
1. Project: Continued Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation and for approval of a 40-year extension from property taxation under Section 10
of Chapter 121A,with the applicant maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after
the first fifteen(15) years.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE
2. Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan
Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit applications for the select demolition
and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site.It is anticipated that discussion
will focus on concerns raised by AEC OM and Sasaki during their review of the applications,
but other topics maybe discussed.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENTLP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
• V. ADJOURNMENT
AnowYaurRigl&under the OpenMcetiTL=M.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and CityOrtlirx=§ 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
�CONUIT.(,/
. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
y�� Mnuao�% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECFOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner
DATE: June 13,2013
RE: Meeting Packet Supplement—June 20, 2013 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Draft Meeting Minutes -June 6t'
• ➢ Materials for Regular Agenda
Materials for the agenda item are included in the packet for the 06/20/2013 meeting. Here is a summation of
the request and background parcel information for each item:
Discussion and Vote — On the requests of PAUL DIBIASE for the partial reduction of the surety
bond for Phase I and Phase IIA, and the approval of an Insignificant Change to the approved
subdivision plan to construct culvert crossings as opposed to bridge crossings over two stream
channels for the Osborne Hills Subdivision located on MARLBOROUGH RD.
Partial Reduction of Surety Bond
The Petitioner is requesting the partial reduction of the surety bonds for Phase I and Phase IIA of the
Osborne Hills Subdivision. The surety bonds were secured to cover the installation costs of certain
improvements for the subdivision in the event the developer is unable to complete said improvements or the
project.A copy of the Petitioner's request letter is enclosed for your consideration (Attachment A).
Per the Definitive Subdivision and Special Permits approved by the Planning Board on July 20, 2006,
Condition 17c Endorsement of Approval with Bond, Sumty or Tri-ParyAgnement stipulated that the Petitioner shall
retained an additional 10% of the total surety amount to cover the cost of inflation or maintenance for
eighteen (18) months following the completion of the phase and release of surety (Attachment B). According
to the requested surety bond reduction, the Petitioner has maintained the additional 10% retainer for both
phases.
To ensure the subdivision improvements were constructed and installed in accordance with municipal
requirements and the approved subdivision plans,Staff consulted with Fay, Spofford&Thorndike (FST), the
On-Call engineering firm contracted to clerk the project,was asked to review the status of the subdivision. In
• a letter dated June 3, 2013 from Richard Azzalma, FST Project Manager, it was confirmed that the
subdivision items from Phase I and Phase IIA as outlined in the Petitioner's request letter have been
City of Salem:Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—June 13, 2013
Page 2 of 4
• successfully completed (Attachment C). The City Engineer is also reviewing the constructed improvements to
ensure they meet municipal standards. I expect a recommendation from Mr. Knowlton for the meeting.
Insignificant Change
The petitioner is also requesting an Insignificant Change to the approved subdivision plan to allow the
construction of culvert crossings as opposed to bridge crossings over two stream channels in Phase IIB of the
Osborne Hills Subdivision. The Petitioner has a revised set of plans speaking to the requested change that
will be provided in a supplemental memo before the meeting.
In hearing these requests, the Planning Board should be ready to vote on whether to approve the requested
surety bond reduction and take a second vote on whether to approve the insignificant change request.
Discussion and Vote — On the request of MetroPCS for an Insignificant Change to an approved
Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the property located at 12 POPE ST.
Specifically, the requested change seeks authorization to install upgraded antenna on two previously
approved antennas and to relocate three antenna locations that were never constructed.
On May 22, 201�iF I etitioner submitted a request for an Insignificant Change to an approved Wireless
Communication Facility Special Permit(Attachment D).The Petitioner's request,if granted,would allow:
➢ Replacement of the existing Panel Antenna (51.5'x 11.75"x 2.75") attached to ballast canister
with an Air Panel Antenna(54.3"x 12.1"7.9")
➢ Upgrade of two existing Panel Antennas (51.5'x 11.75"x 2.75") attached to penthouse with
two Air Panel Antennas (54.3"x 12.1' 7.9")
➢ Installation of three Air Panel Antennas (54.3"x 12.1"7.9") to the penthouse.The three
• antennas were previously approved,but never installed by MetroPCS.As a result, the relocation of
two antennas will be necessary to accommodate existing wireless communication facilities that were
constructed by other carriers in two of the MetroPCS locations. Specifically, the following approved
antenna locations will be relocated to:
• The southwest penthouse antenna location will be moved 10' to the east on the same wall
• One of the northwest penthouse antenna locations will be moved to the penthouse's northeast
side.
Based on a review of the requested changes and the approved development plans for other approved wireless
communication facilities at this site, Staff is supportive of granting the modifications because they represent
an insignificant change to the Salem Planning Board's decision, dated July 17,2008.
Discussion and Vote — A request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for LORING
TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval
of a 40-year extension from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A, with the applicant
maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the first fifteen (15) years, for the property
located at 1000 LORING AVENUE. Specifically, the requested petition does not propose any
construction of new facilities on the Site.
At the joint public hearing of the City Council and Planning Board, held on May 15, 2013, the application of
Loring Towers Salem Preservation Associates, LP for approval of a 40-year extension of exemption from
property taxation under M.G.L. Ch. 121A � 10 for 1000 Loring Avenue was discussed. The discussion and
vote on this item was continued at the May 16th and June 6th meetings to allow the applicant time to address
the concerns raised at the May 15th joint public hearing.
Copies of the information that Petitioner provided for the last meeting,in response to concerns raised during
• the May 15th, has been attached to this memorandum for the Planning Board to consider, and includes: a
letter outlining their efforts to seek Project Based Vouchers under the Rental Demonstration Assistance
Program (RAD Program) (Attachment E), a letter from Carol MacGown, Executive Director of the Salem
City of Salem: Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—June 13, 2013
Page 3 of 4
• Housing Authority, speaking to their reluctance to pursue the RAD Program (Attachment F), a copy of
Section 2.3.5 Submission Requirements for Retroactive Conversions from the Rental Assistance
Demonstration Handbook (Attachment G) and a letter speaking to their position on the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) signed by Mayor Driscoll and AIMCO on June 14, 2007 (Attachment H).
Additionally, the Petitioner has expressed a willingness to continue to work with the Loring Towers Tenant
Association and the City to address the affordable housing needs of tenants and the residents of the
community at large.
The Planning Board should be ready to vote on June 20'h whether the application is approved, disapproved
with recommendations or disapproved completely. In rendering a decision, the Planning Board must consider
whether the application meets the criteria outlined in M.G.L. Ch. 121A § 6,which include:
➢
Whether blighted open or decadent or sub-standard conditions exist within the proposed pr ject area;
➢ That the project is not in contravention of any Zoning, subdivision, health or building ordinance or by-law or rules and
regulations of the city or town;
➢ fVhether or not the proposed project can flirts with the masterplan of the city or town made by authority of chapter forly-
one, if such a plan has been made, determine whether or not such project would be in any way detrimental to the best
interests of the public or the city or town or to the public safety and convenience or be inconsistent with the most suitable
development of the city or town;
➢ Whether or not the proposed project will constitute a public use and bent;and
➢ The feasibility of the method of relocation and existence or availability of dwellings for displaced families as hereinafter
provided.
• The Planning Board's decision to approve, disapprove with recommendations or disapprove completely must
include findings speaking to the criteria listed above. To facilitate the Planning Board's articulation of the
findings for the Loring Tower application, Staff has enclosed draft findings language for the board to
consider (Attachment I). The decision will then be transmitted to the City Council for their consideration of
the application. Please note, the Planning Board's decision is considered advisory.
Staff is available to answer any questions regarding the M.G.L. Ch. 121A process.
Continued Public Hearing — FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP -
Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special
Permit for the property located at 24 FORT AVENUE (I). Specifically, the requested petitions
concern select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the
construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility on a
20+/- acre portion of the Site.
At the regular meeting of the Planning Board,held on June 6,2013, the Petitioner completed the presentation
of new information regarding the Special Permit applications, and agreed to the continuation of discussion
and action on this item until the June 20, 2013 regular meeting. The continuance of the public hearing was
granted to allow the Petitioner the opportunity to respond to the comments raised by AECOM.
During this meeting, it is anticipating that discussion will focus on concerns raised by AECOM and Sasaki
during their review of the applications. The peer review consultants will also inform the Planning Board of
key ideas and issues that were identified during the MEPA and Energy Facilities Siting Board reviews on the
proposed development.
A 3,d set of comments provided by AECOM, which also included comments from Sasaki, has also been
provided for consideration by the Planning Board (Attachment J). A copy of these comments has been
provided to the Petitioner in advance of this meeting.
City of Salem:Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—June 13, 2013
Page 4 of 4
• To date, no additional comments have been received from the Building Commission, Board of Health, City
Engineer, Department of Public Services, Disabilities Commission, Fire Department, Police Department and
School District regarding this project. Staff is coordinating with these departments and commissions to secure
additional comments for the project.
Attachments
Attachment A—Letter from Paul DiBiase, dated May 28,2013
Attachment B—A copy of the Planning Board Decision for the Definitive Osborne Hills Subdivision,
approved on July 20,2006
Attachment C—Letter from Richard Azzalina,P.E., dated June 3, 2013
Attachment D—Insignificant Change request for 12 Pope Street, submitted by Metro PCS
Attachment E—Letter from Jeffery Sack, attorney for Nixon Peabody,LLP,dated June 4,2013
Attachment F—Letter from Carol MacGown,Executive Director of the Salem Housing Authority, dated
June4, 2013
Attachment G—Copy of Section 2.3.5 Submission Requirements for Retroactive Conversions from the Rental
Assistance Demonstration Handbook
Attachment H—Letter from Jeffery Sack, attorney,for Nixon Peabody,LLP, dated June 6, 2013
Attachment I—Draft findings for Loring Towers Decision
Attachment J—31d set of comments from AECOM, dated June 13, 2013
•
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner ,
DATE: June 17,2013
RE: Meeting Packet Supplement—June 20, 2013 Planning Board meeting
Planning Board Members,
On June 14th, the City's Department of Planning& Community Development received supplementary
information for consideration by the Planning Board for the follow two project requests:
• Osborne Hills Subdivision—Insignificant Change Request
Mr. DiBiase provided a revised set of plans speaking to the requested Insignificant Change to construct two
culverts where bridges were originally approved over two stream channels in Phase 2B of the Osborne Hills
Subdivision (Attachment A).According to the revised plans, the Petitioner has proposed to use the same
roadway alignment for the construction of the two stream crossings. The Petitioner has proposed to develop
larger replication areas to offset the increased disturbance that will occur by constructing the culvert
crossings.
After reviewing the proposed change Lynn Duncan, City Planner, and David Knowlton, City Engineer,have
determined this request to represent a minor alteration of the approved subdivision plan.As such, City staff is
supportive of granting the requested change.
Salem Harbor Power Station Redevelopment Project—Additional AECOM Comments
AECOM submitted comment set 3B,speaking the Site Plan Review Criteria listed in Section 9.5.6 of the
Salem Zoning Ordinance, for consideration by the Planning Board (Attachment B).A copy of these
comments has also been provided to the Petitioner in advance of this meeting.
Attachments
Attachment A—Site Development Permit Plan Revisions for the Definitive Osborne Hills Subdivision,last
revision dated June 7,2013
Attachment B—AECOM comments set 3B,dated June 14, 3013
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date / Zo / z o l 3
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
✓�A f��l _ �'3 luRn �n Si 7�{-7��7
r
Page of
H
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES 6/20/13
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,June 20, 2013 at 7:00
p.m. in the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School, 25 Memorial Drive,Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:07 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready,Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, George
McCabe, Dale Yale, and Mark George.Those absent were: Randy Clarke and Ben Anderson.
Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Daniel Sexton,Staff
Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
June 6, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Chairman Puleo noted that the date was mislabeled and the minutes did not include the meeting ending
time. On page 4, Helen Sides noted that she is Ms.Sides, not Mr.Sides. No other comments or
corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
• Motion:Kirt Rieder made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Helen Sides and a unanimous
vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with an 7-0 vote[Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready(vice
Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, and Mr. Riederl in favor and none opposed. Randy
Clarke and Ben Anderson were absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is
hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Other Business
Discussion and Vote on the requests of PAUL DIBIASE for the partial reduction of the surety bond for
Phase I and Phase IIA, and approval of an Insignificant Change to the approved subdivision plan to
construct culvert crossings as opposed to bridge crossings over two stream channels for the Osborne
Hills Subdivision located off MARLBOROUGH RD.
Paul DiBiase, trustee of Osborne Hills Trust and the developer of the property, stated that the project is
progressing nicely and they have started Phase IIB. He noted that they have completed many of the
improvements and they are at this meeting regarding phase IIA,which has been previously submitted
for reduction. Mr. DiBiase began by presenting the surety for Phase I. He pointed out that they have
finished 95%of curb installation,95%of the sidewalk construction, and 100%of the installation of trees;
and the only remaining item to be addressed is the final lift of asphalt on the roadway. They are here
tonight asking for the reduction in the percentages of those items with 10%of retainage for the
$91,914 in a surety reduction leaving a balance of approximately$64,000. He then asked for any
questions on Phase 1, to which there were none. Mr. DiBiase continued describing where they are in the
construction of Phase 2a,which he noted is half of phase 2. They have completed half of granite
curbing, driveway inlets, along with street tree installation. They are here tonight asking for 100%of the
. balances retained for the front pump for the sewer ejection and emergency generator,for a total of
$125,603 leaving$45,364.50 for the total retainage. Mr. Puleo asked for a clarification on the costs to
1
0
which Mr. DiBiase explained each of the costs. Mr. Puleo read from a letter from Fay, Spofford and •
Thorndike (FST Engineers),which was reviewed by the peer reviewers. He then asked for the need to
vote on this issue. Dan Sexton, Staff Planner, reviewed correspondence from the City Engineer that
concurred with the peer reviewers' findings and they would allow the reduction and maintain 10%of
retainer to cover the installation.
Mr. Rieder asked about the two issues in addition to the bridge. Chairman Puleo responded in the
affirmative.
Motion: Dale Yale made a motion to approve the partial reduction of the surety bond for Phase 1 and IIA.
seconded by Tim Readv and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 7-0
vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair) Ms. Sides Mr. McCabe Ms. Yale Mr. George and Mr.
Riederl in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke and Ben Anderson were absent from the meeting The
motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes
Ben Anderson arrived at 7:17pm.
Mr. DiBiase stated that they are asking for a substitute for the location of the culvert in two locations
and they are proposing to replicate a 6340 square foot area. This process is being overseen by Epsilon
Associates to ensure the optimum result for the wetland area. Part of the process is the identification of
the groundwater for this area. He noted that the Conservation Commission already approved it and
they are here tonight asking for approval, noting that the only infrastructure that changes is the culvert,
which is 8' x 4'. Chairman Puleo asked about the location of the locus, and Mr. DiBiase described it. He .
noted that Phase IIA and B will be increased. Chairman Puleo asked about the reasoning behind the fill
and Mr. DiBiase described the size and the need for it. Chairman Puleo then asked about pre-cast
concrete on site, as there was nothing referencing the size on the plans. Mr. DiBiase stated that civil,
not structural,engineers designed this and the Ameche Brothers out of Vermont will build the bridge.
Chairman Puleo recommended including more of these details for future reference of the work and the
changes.
Mr. Rieder asked for the original design of bridge to which Mr. DiBiase provided the dimensions. Mr.
Rieder expressed concerns about the size in relation to the habitat and the volume of water. He then
asked about the outcome of the Conservation Committee's meeting on this issue. Mr. Sexton stated that
it was approved at last meeting. Mr. DiBiase added that this was engineer-designed.
Ben Anderson asked for clarification on a retaining wall and documents stating that it will be submitted
at a later date. DiBiase said it has been submitted and then described the types of materials they are
using which is a modular block wall that is made of concrete and is interlocking. Gravity wall. Mr.
Anderson asked about the reason for changing to a culvert from a bridge, to which Mr. DiBiase said it
was economical. Mr. Anderson asked about the Conservation Commission's comments to which Mr.
DiBiase explained the water flow in perspective,and described the location as well as the direction of
the water flow. Mr. Anderson asked if he is replicating it 1 to 1, to which Mr. DiBiase responded that it
will be 1.5 to 1.
Helen Sides said it would be better to keep what was originally proposed as it is a shame to not stay with
the original landscape. Mr. DiBiase then explained how this impacts the availability in filling more •
wetlands and noted that this new change will be giving back 1.5 times to what they are actually filling.
2
y
• Mr. Rieder asked if the retaining wall not part of bridge to which Mr. DiBiase responded that the only
difference is the bridge is removed and culvert added. Mr. Rieder clarified that this new change is
affecting a larger area. Mr. DiBiase described the changes which included brush removal.
Tim Ready asked if the Conservation Commission has fully approved the plans to which Mr. DiBiase said
yes.
Chairman Puleo asked if there will be any more of these types of changes to which Mr. DiBiase stated
that there will be more crossings. Mr. Rieder asked for further clarification. Mr. DiBiase said there will
be more bridges, and they will have to be bridges.
Chairman Puleo asked about the construction of the bridges to which Mr. DiBiase said they will be made
of concrete.
Motion: Tim Ready made a motion to approve insignificant change as presented, seconded by Ben
Anderson and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote fMr. Puleo
(Chair), Mr. Ready (vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George ,Mr. Anderson, and Mr.
Riederl in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. The motion was
accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
• Discussion and Vote on the request of MetroPCS for an Insignificant Change to an approved Wireless
Communication Facility Special Permit for the property located at 12 POPE ST.
Sean Connolly, Metro PCS, reminded the Board that they previously received approval to add 6
antennas at 12 Pope Street and they are here tonight because they would like to swap out old antennas.
The plan is to replace with new ones that are 4 inches wider and 6 inches deeper, but they will be the
same color as approved, however he noted that the locations have to be slightly changed. Chairman
Puleo asked if someone installed antennas where you were approved to put them,to which Mr.
Connolly said yes. He shared copies of original approved plans and described the locations of the
antennas. He then explained how the changes will affect the roof, pointed out how each antenna will
change. Ms.Sides asked if everything will be added only to the penthouse to which Mr. Connolly said
yes. Mr. Rieder asked about the color of paint,to which Mr. Connolly said that they will confirm to what
is currently there. Mr.Anderson asked why weren't these originally built out,and Mr. Connolly
responded that they didn't need them originally and he explained the cable requirements. Mr.
Anderson asked about a letter from the City of Salem,as they don't have anything for 27 Charter Street.
Mr. Sexton responded that this was internally approved for this address for insignificant change. Ms.
Sides asked for further clarification on the antenna,clarifying if it is not going any higher than it is now.
Ms.Sides asked about the color and Mr. Connolly said it will be white, to which Ms. Sides recommended
that it be dark, preferably black. Chairman Puleo asked at what point to we set limits on rooftop. Mr.
Connolly stated that they will hand in the structural report when applying for building permit. Chairman
Puleo asked about setting a limitation, to which Ms. Duncan commented about reaching a tipping point
of clutter, but this is part of the discretion of the Planning Board. Mr. Rieder asked about the functional
proximity from antenna to antenna. Mr. Connolly stated that it depends on the type of antennas and he
• explained the limitations with other carriers.
3
Mr. Rieder recommended including a mechanism for adding a color requirement. •
Chairman Puleo asked if the building inspector goes out and inspects this after it is done, to which Ms.
Sexton and Mr.Connolly responded that he does.
Tim Ready asked the applicant to whom he was referring to when he said "you guys". Mr. Connolly
clarified that he was referring to the Salem Planning Board.
Motion:Helen Sides made a motion to approve with a matte finish in the grey to black range, seconded
by Kirt Rieder and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote[Mr.
Puleo(Chair), Mr. Ready(Vice Chair), Ms.Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George Mr.Anderson and
Mr. Riederl in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. The motion was
accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo asked if there were any further business,there none being, he moved onto the regular
agenda.
Regular Agenda
Project: Continued Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter
121A designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-year extension to the 15-year
period of exemption from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A •
for the property located at 1000 LORING AVENUE.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE
Ethan Seplucis, Summer Street, Boston, MA, attorney on behalf of Loring Towers Salem Preservation
Associates LP, stated that additional follow-up was requested as part of the RAD program. They asked
Salem Housing authority to participate in the RAD program, but SHA declined. CTI was reached out to as
well, and they declined flexibility with the vouchers. Chairman Puleo asked where that put us. Mr.
Sexton stated that all members of the Board have the right to vote on this, and they do have the ability
to take input from public to vote to continue this discussion. The Planning Department recommends
that they review the draft findings that they applicant recommends.
Mr. Anderson stated that he understands the City's position on funding,thus he is questioning if they
recommend to approve this, how will they know that the owners of Loring Towers are putting money
back into the facility. Attorney Seplucis responded that there are several income restrictions on the
property and reviewed these. He further explained that the property can't take all of the money out.
And further explained that what this means is that it is not giving full tax abatement, but gives the
certainty of tax payment. Thus if rents go up,taxes will be increased. Mr. Anderson said that he wants
to be assured that tenants will receive the benefits of this and benefits received will be invested in the
property. Chairman Puleo asked if they operate under a set budget,to which Mr. Seplucis responded
that he would have to ask the local property manager about how they do that as he does not put •
together the budget.
4
• Issue opened to public for comment
Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O'Keefe, 28 Surrey Road, requests that this be sent to the City Council for
them to work with the AIMCO and the other interested parties on this issue. He said that these issues.
will be addressed with City Council in more detail. He then introduced the representative from the
Salem Affordable Trust.
Kathleen Burke,Salem Affordable Trust Fund and the Vice President of HUD tenants, said she is leaving
shortly to meet with HUD officials in Washington. She said that a lot of this has to do with asking for
project-based housing vouchers and the people in Washington will advocate to Salem Housing
Authority. They are in agreement with AIMCO to send this to the City Council.
Councillor O'Keefe would like to see these opinions in writing.
Ms. Burke explained that the conflict is because the head of the Salem Housing Authority says that
sequestration is stopping this from moving forward while HUD officials have said that is not true.
Mr. Ready commented on how it seems that this issue has reached a stalemate and then asked
Councillor O'Keefe if he is satisfied with how this is progressing. Councillor O'Keefe responded that he is
happy with how it is progressing but would like to move it back to the City Council to discuss it fully.
Ms. Burke said that the parties have been engaged in a lot more dialog and they are making 100%more
• progress now than they have in the last ten years.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, clarified what was before the Board
tonight as to how they could make their findings to make a Chapter 121A recommendation to City
Council.
Motion: Dale Yale made a motion to close the public hearings, seconded by Ben Anderson and a
unanimous vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote[Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr.
Ready(Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Riederl in favor
and none opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is
hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Councillor O'Keefe acknowledged and recognized the efforts of the Planning Board.
Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner, read into record the drafted findings.
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 2013
To: Salem City Council
From: Salem Planning Board
• Re: Summary of Findings for the MGL Chapter 121A Application of Loring Towers Salem
Preservation Limited Partnership
5
1. The proposed project area is qualified under the statutory definition of a "blighted
open, "decadent" or"substandard" area established in Section 1 of Chapter 121A.
The Salem Planning Board has determined that the Loring Towers development was
constructed in 1973 to address a blighted, open and substandard area on Loring Towers
Road in Salem, on a difficult to develop site with substantial ledge. At the time of the
development, the property remained largely undeveloped and the physical aspects of
the property were both unattractive and made conventional development too costly.
Over the years, the 250 unit multifamily complex on the site has experienced the
degradation of aging, high energy costs, and heavy use from the families who have lived
there over the 40 year period since original construction. Capital needs studies have
shown that the building continues to require substantial investment, for basic
infrastructure as well as for the rehabilitation of the interior of apartment units on
turnover. Due to the inability to raise rents or to increase mortgage proceeds from the
property for capital needs as a result of the multiple restrictions which encumber the
property, it is critical to the preservation of this affordable housing resource and the
prevention of blight and substandard conditions on the site and in the surrounding
neighborhood that the assistance of Chapter 121A be provided to the project. The
owner has diligently pursued public and private sources of affordable housing funds to
address the blight created by inadequate capitalization, but Chapter 121A status is
essential to these efforts to prevent blighted and substandard project conditions.
Therefore, the Salem Planning Board finds that all of the above factors qualify the •
project to meet the statutory purpose and intent of the definition of a "blighted open,"
"decadent" or "substandard" area.
2. The project is not in contravention of any zoning, subdivision, health or building
ordinance or by-law or the rules and regulations of the City of Salem (the "City").
The project is in conformance with local zoning, subdivision, health or building
ordinances, by-law and rules and regulations of the City.
3. The project does not conflict with the City's master plan, or if there is no master plan,
with a local or regional plan,.as appropriate.
The Salem Planning Board finds that the project is in compliance with the planning goals
and objectives of the City, as a much needed affordable housing resource for the City,
and as an anchor of stability to prevent blight and decay in the surrounding
neighborhood. The financial stability of the project will be supported with the
consistency of the payment formula under Chapter 121A agreement;the City will
benefit financially as well, by sharing through the statutory formula in rental increases
permitted by the affordable housing restrictions, and avoiding the need to have annual
negotiations, and, potentially, time-consuming and costly annual appeals of real estate
tax assessments.
•
6
Specifically,The City of Salem Master Plan Update and Action Plan 1996 (the "1996
Plan"), provides on page 31, that a goal of the City is to "preserve the current level of
subsidized housing." The 1996 Plan also indicates on page 8 that "every effort must be
taken to keep up the appearance of neighborhood public spaces and the condition of
private housing."
The City of Salem Five Year Consolidated Plan, published on May 12, 2010(the "Five
Year Plan ), identifies in Section IV.A-6 the high cost of housing as the greatest problem
to homeowners and renters alike." In Section V of the Five Year Plan,the City
promulgates several Housing Objectives, including "Preserving] the City's existing
affordable housing." A key strategy for meeting this objective is the City's ability to
remove barriers to affordable housing, as explained in Section V.E of the Five Year Plan.
The Chapter 121A designation will allow the City to use one of its strategies to meet its
housing objective. By approving a 121A designation,the City will be removing a barrier
to affordable housing, which, in turn, will allow the Applicant to preserve and maintain
250 units of affordable housing. The preservation and maintenance of this privately
owned affordable housing is key to the City as demand for affordable units remains
high.
4. The project is not detrimental to:
• a. the best interests of the public or City;
b. the best interests of public safety and convenience; or
c. consistency with the most suitable development of the City;
The Salem Planning Board has determined that the project will further the best interests
of the public and the City by providing much needed, safe and decent affordable
housing to families, through the support provided by the predictable amount of taxes
payable under Chapter 121A, as well as providing a predictable source of tax revenue
for the City, and participation in any increase in rental income under the statutory
formula of Chapter 121A.
S. The project constitutes a public use and benefit; and
The Salem Planning Board determines that the project meets this criterion by
supporting a much needed affordable housing development, and will benefit the
surrounding neighborhood by enabling the project to address the maintenance and
capital needs of the project notwithstanding the limitations on rental income created by
the affordable housing restrictions held by the City and federal and state governments.
6. No relocation of residents is required since the ongoing maintenance and capital
repairs programs being undertaken by the Applicant are being performed with tenants
• in place.
7
Motion: Tim Ready made a motion to approve drafted findings to be submitted to the City Council,
seconded by Helen Sides and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-
vote fMr. Puleo(Chair), Mr. Ready(Vice Chair). Ms.Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Vale, Mr. George, Mr.
Anderson, and Mr. Riederl in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. The
motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,
Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Public Hearing.
Specifically, the requested petitions concern select demolition and
redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the
construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric
generation facility on a 20+/-acre portion of the Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the applicant Footprint Power stated that the
presentations this evening would be focused on responses to questions and comments. On comment
set 3, and they are working on responding to those. They have the architects and terrain landscapers in
attendance to present tonight. They plan to present on these tonight and probably for the next month
and will do this until everyone is in a comfortable place.
Scott Silverstein,COO Footprint Power, stated that he wanted to revisit the noise questions. Discussed •
the baseline of a no plant being there. The numbers were presented and then there were more
questions about what it sounds like living next door to it. He presented a graphic showing two different
noise studies, one done by them and another done by a previous owner. He reviewed the results of
studies in the form of a side-by-side comparison. He gave an overview of what all of this means,
specifically that Mr. Lipka stated that the human ear can hear a difference between 3 and 4 decibels,
and what all this means is that you won't be able to hear the difference. In regards to the question of if
it will be heard differently,these numbers show that the answer is no.
Chairman Puleo asked if anyone on the Board had questions.
Darin Reynolds,Architect from CookFox, stated that he was here to address some of the comments
form the board previously. First showed proposed versus existing site comparisons,then showed a
graphic comparing stack heights from various directions with overlays of current site and proposed site.
He also showed actual views from different locations, including Derby Wharf,Salem Common,Salem
Willows, and Fort Avenue. He then showed an overlay of current vs. proposed.
Chairman Puleo commented that from Winter Island, it looks like the building is closer to the water. Mr.
Reynolds said that was due to the they way they designed the slide and it will be further back from the
current plant. He continued his presentation.
Ms.Sides stated that his slides are helpful.
8
• Mr. Reynolds then presented on additional responses to previous inquiries. This included a shadow
study based upon June 21't and December 21"throughout the day(lam, 12pm, Spm, 5pm) comparing
the current versus proposed site.
He stated that the stack design is based on functional needs and they thought about how they can make
the stack much more visually appealing. He described the design requirements which included FAA
requirements, aerodynamic needs,and structural requirements. Chairman Puleo asked about if they will
be building the stack in sections to which Mr. Reynolds described the concrete sleeve created by jack
forming, and explained jack forming process. Chairman Puleo asked if this is what it will look like to
which Mr. Reynolds responded that this is a diagram demonstrating what internal part looks like. He
explained that they looked at local inspirations such as other local lighthouses, crow's nests, the view
from current site, and widow's walks. Chairman Puleo asked from which perspective was the image
taken,to which Mr. Silverstein responded that is was taken from the south east corner over the boiler
building.
Mr. Reynolds continued his presentation, describing current stack design. He stated that they wanted to
make something special and did not want to look like just another stack. He then presented and
described new design, which included smooth and textured concrete finishes as well as an observation
balcony and rails in the middle of the stack, creating an axis. The axis points to Salem Old Town Hall and
Misery and Baker's Islands. Chairman Puleo asked if there is lighting on this and Mr. Reynolds
responded in the affirmative. He then showed view from Webb Street with new design of stacks,
including FAA lights. He noted that they can now see the sky through the stack,which results in
softening the edge of the building. He then showed view from the Salem Harbor Station Entrance, and a
• view toward Salem.
Dale Yale asked about the color of FAA lights,to which Mr. Reynolds responded that during the day,
they will be illuminated white, and at night,they will be red. Ms.Sides said that she likes it. Mr.
Anderson said that it is the best looking power plant.
Steve Tupu, landscape architect, began by addressing questions about landscape in southwest corner He
described honey locusts in area on berm. In regards to the existing trees, in the area in question, there
is a national grid easement but they have confirmed that there are no existing trees to be removed, and
Mr. Silverstein echoed that Footprint is not removing any trees.
Chairman Puleo asked about parking lot locations, to which Mr.Silverstein described them. Chairman
Puleo clarified if there is a need to make any changes, unless there is cable work required. Mr.
Silverstein described an inter-station upgrade. Chairman Puleo asked if any changes would need to be
brought back before board under the PUD. Attorney Correnti agreed, stating that this is a fully
proposed landscaped area and if there would be any changes then they would come back before the
board. Chairman Puleo asked about the permanent easement on their property. Mr. Silverstein
acknowledged that this is the nature of permit and easement. Mr. Rieder asked for further clarification
on the easement and asked how do they direct National Grid to come back before board.
Ms. Duncan said that was a good question and that they are going to have to come back to the Board as
it is not easy to track what a utility does on their own site. Mr. Rieder said that in terms of a permanent
easement,this impacts all of us. Mr.Silverstein responded that with respect to the landscaping, they
• have spoken to National Grid's project management and they will be watching what National Grid is
doing very carefully. They discussed setting up system where our project manager and their project
9
manager sit down together and check in with each other. He noted that the Project Manager said it •
would be impossible to over-communicate on this issue.
Mr. Reynolds directed people to the visual 3/16 mscale model and described location on the site plan.
He further explained the design ideas including the louvers. Mr.Anderson asked about color to which
Mr. Reynolds stated that it will be a metallic silver panel. He continued his presentation, describing the
different colors and materials to be used, and noted that this is not a painted product. He then moved
on to discussing the type of materials; and described the facility materials board. Mr. Anderson asked
for clarification on colors,to which Mr. Reynolds described them. Mr. Rieder asked that they do not
match CVS or Walgreens camel color, to which Mr. Reynolds agreed to. Mr.Anderson asked for
clarification on the accent, particularly if it is smooth or textured. Mr. Reynolds explained the proposal
of the colors and they are looking at smooth versus textured. He then discussed renovating the visitors
gate house and also showed a graphic explaining what a gabean looks like. Mr. Rieder asked what they
will use,whether it will be rocks, gravel, or crushed concrete, and Mr. Reynolds responded that they will
use as much as they can recycle from the current site. Mr. Anderson asked for further clarification on
some of the materials to which Mr. Reynolds reviewed them.
Mr. Rieder stated that he is still not clear on the public ability to share space from south to north along
the water, particularly in regards to how they are going to control it as the drawings did not show any
control structure. Mr. Silverstein responded that obviously their goal long term is to bring the public in
to get a view of the harbor. The reason they have not been able to give an answer is that they need to
find the right way to address public access.The idea right now is to give people public access along
southern edge, but not fully while in a construction state. They are trying to figure out how to do that.
Until everything is built out it will be difficult to give a clear answer as to how this will be feasible. Mr. •
Rieder recommended that they make the jetty publically accessible at some point,which will be
fantastic. Mr. Silverstein said that the design team agrees, but they have to figure out how to do that
safely.
Ms. Duncan stated that since they don't know the timing of the entire PUD, it could be an interim
period. She challenges them to find interim safe access. Mr.Silverstein responded that they will work
on that. Mr. Rieder described an example of working wharves in Rotterdam that have public access. Mr.
Silverstein stated that they are looking at that closer, in Brooklyn particularly,and they are trying to
figure out how to do that in context with EPA regulations, and to give maximum access as possible. Mr.
Rieder said that he recommends detailing it for heavy truck axis, but it's operational in relation as to
how to get people through there.
Steve Tupu continued, discussed their built small sectional model of power plant. He spoke of
opportunities to build out habitat plantings. He then described the landscape models, including the
different layers of plantings and the canopies of trees. He noted that the goal is to create a rich
landscape. Then he reviewed the different types of plantings that they are proposing around the site
including shrubbery and trees, including the plantings around the roads.
Mr. Rieder commended their work and told them not be cowed into not being graphically diverse. He
said that there is no reason to strip out and dumb down what will be an excellent addition to the Salem
landscape.
David Derrig,AECOM, introduced two other members of the team, from Sasaki, Katie Flynn,and James •
Minor and provided comments.
10
• James Minor, of Sasaki, reviewed the initial sketch of berm concept and explained the use of the berm,
noting that he thinks this is an elegant solution to the site. The concerns they raised are in relation to
safety and access, particularly how the site would be programmed for future public use. They are also
faced with the reality that they don't know what the future use of the site will be as they are looking at
the interim condition. They want to talk about the viability of a park and how that site gets used. They
see a path system that is related to the function of a power plant, and further described the proposal,
showing slides that overlaid the uses for the proposed site plan. They requested clarity on how this will
function in the interim use condition. He stressed that the community wants to know about future uses.
He spoke of the introduction of the paths in terms of future uses and spoke further about safety
concerns and the concerns about the proposed use as a wetland domain. He thinks the use of native
vegetation is commendable. He moved on to discussing visitor use at the power plant publically
accessed path system. He asked if they could maximize that dimension on the eastern edge to edge of
berm and they felt this area is defined by needs of access point. Thus they recommend minimizing the
distance of berm and maximize the slope.
He then described the architecture, stating that they are essentially wrapping entirely around the
perimeter in order to make it less of a vertical plane. It is possible that has been achieved. In regards to
the stack, he said that even though it is dramatically reduced, they think about it in terms of how it will
look from other parts of the area.
Katie Flynn, of Sasaki, discussed lighting strategies and stated that they would like to understand lighting
strategies. They see this as an opportunity to make it really beautiful.
• David Derrig reviewed the series of comments that have been provided to the Board and the applicant.
They believe that the three sets of comments constitute the complete initial review. First response to
comments received May 21st which many of them were satisfied. Mr.Anderson asked when do they
expect to get the revised plans. Mr. Silverstein stated that they wanted to make sure that they received
all of the comments from AECOM and Sasaki first; so between now and the next Planning Board meeting
they will have the new plans to the Planning Board members.
Mr. Derrig continued, stating that the second set of comments focused on drainage and stormwater and
they have received the comments today. They provided two sets of comments last week and briefly
reviewed those. Chairman Puleo and Mr. Derrig discussed the effectiveness of reviewing the comments
at this time. Mr. Derrig noted that federal and state processes are running concurrently, along with the
City's EIS. The EFSB filing and MEPA filing has been shared with AECOM. He is not certain that the
Board has had a similar benefit. Some of their comments continue to reflect issues that have been
raised as part of those processes. Follow-up on some of those other comments may inform the review
and the Board's deliberation of the project. He gave an example of the previous meeting where air
quality measurements were questioned. He said that the review of these reports may assist in providing
a more comprehensive picture.
Mr. Anderson asked if the FOR has been submitted,to which Mr. Derrig responded that yes,the final
FEIR has been submitted to MEPA. He noted that the certificate was issued on May 17th and has been
determined that this adequately and properly complies with the MEPA process. He noted that this is
something that helps inform the Board on this. Chairman Puleo asked if they get final comment. Mr.
• Derrig recommended using this as a resource when it is available, and provided an example of the
emissions and stated that there are public documents to review to provide a better understanding of
11
this. He said that the FEIR gave some insight into this. He is requesting that where there is something .
discussed with the Board regarding subject matter,that they share with the Board even though it is not
part of the jurisdiction.
Attorney Correnti stated that they struggle with that as well, and acknowledged that it is all public and
available for review. They are offering to sit down with AECOM and Sasaki to figure out what is relevant,
and said that filtering sessions are essential. Mr. Derrig stated that their comments do not indicate that
there is any holding back of information,just wants to point out that there is a lot of information out
there that can help to make a more informed decision.
Mr. Anderson requested a copy of the FOR.
Chairman Puleo asked if the board had any further comments or questions, there being none he opened
the meeting up for public comment.
Lamont Beaudette,current plant manager, spoke in support of the project. He described the Braden
Point Station in Swansea, near his home, is so much worse than what they are doing here. He has been
in the industry for about 40 years. He is financially indifferent to the plant. He spoke of the character of
the individuals of Footprint Power, of which he can affirm. First he spoke of the commitments of these
folks make, and he gave an example of their commitment to training people. He stressed that they
make a commitment and they keep it. They were recently involved in a plant outage, and in those
discussions the Footprint people said, "when you do it right,you can't be wrong." He then spoke of the
content of Peter Furniss' and Scott Silverstein's character, describing it to be of the highest. In all of the
projects he has been involved in, he has never heard of an owner speak the way Mr. Furniss does, •
especially with his knowledge of the history of the site. He knows of no others who consider the visual
impacts as highly as they do.
Steve Dulong,Woburn, MA, stated that he commends these guys for coming in to do this project and
their honesty with everyone here.
Lou Arak, 12 Abell Avenue, Ipswich, said that he has been in oil fields for many years and has been in
Salem since the 1990s. He feels that there is a huge difference in dealing with these folks as compared
to dealing with others, and the applicant has set a precedence.
Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, her and her husband own a commercial property in Salem. They brought
the developer to Victoria's Station as well as other RCG properties. She has been involved with this
process since learning about the EFSB. She has worked with 3 different owners and until the
administrative order, no one would talk to the Derby Street neighbors about the dust. She has never
done anything like this. She commends the city for hiring the consultants and the complexity of this
blows her away. She thinks this is a game changer. She thinks Salem Harbor is a treasure of the national
landscape and she doesn't want to be compared to other communities that do not have the same site
characteristics. She stated that she is concerned because this is the first time that they are going to
build.and own a power plant. She then moved onto questions about landscaping. She asked how much
will they clean up that corner of the site to the level that they would let their children run a round on.
Mr.Silverstein pointed out that there is confusion on the location of the site. The area that is being
discussed is a different location all together. He referenced a presentation given by Mike Billa at the last
meeting and stated that by and large the site meets S-1 conditions today. He noted that there is a place •
where the two issues come together,where there is a high concentration in the old residential area
12
• which would indicate that it was likely from lead paint. He then reminded the audience that it doesn't
matter how it got here as they own it. Ms. Haley then asked if it is safe for children to walk on all 65
acres,to which Mr. Silverstein responded that it is not safe due to the construction going on, but
environmentally it generally meets S-1 conditions.
Ms. Haley asked about taxes to which Chairman Puleo explained that it does not fall under the purview
of the Planning Board. Ms. Duncan then explained why taxes were an issue with the earlier agenda item
regarding the Chapter 121 statute. Ms. Haley then asked about bonds and Chairman Puleo explained
the bond requirements. Ms. Haley said that the community is concerned about what happens down the
road if the plant closes. Ms. Duncan recommended that it might be something to talk about under the
community benefits agreement. Ms. Haley said that if the plan changes, you need to know so that you
will have a record of what was committed. Chairman Puleo asked her if she was referring to specific
details on another applicant's plans. Ms. Haley responded with another question, asking if they come
up with a final plan for the power plant to which Chairman Puleo explained that yes,there will be a final
plan and if there are changes, they have to apply for another public hearing. Ms. Haley then asked
about inspections. Chairman Puleo said that the applicant will have to meet the specifications, and
recommended Ms. Haley follow-up with the Board of Health who would be more appropriate to
respond to those concerns as he doesn't know if they can go out to do a post survey. Mr. Anderson said
that the design team and City will have opportunity to review in order to get a certificate for occupancy,
which is part of the system of checks and balances. Ms. Haley said that she appreciates their comments.
Councillor at Large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue,stated that he has been a computer technician for
the plant for 30 years. If he didn't believe that this wasn't substantially better for the community then
• he would not be here tonight. He spoke about emissions and burning gas in his home,which gives off
more emissions than anything the proposed plant could ever give off. So much has been said about
everything that has to be read. What hasn't been said is that this is all subject to laws, and will be met if
approved.
Mr. Ready stated that this Board and all of the city departments are extremely active with the largest
development in the city in his lifetime. He's not sure if that puts people at ease, but there are a number
of standards that have to be met and the developer will have to be in compliance before the work can
be done.
Motion: Kirt Rieder made a motion to continue to July 18th,seconded by Helen Sides and o unanimous
vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote Mr. Puleo(Chair), Mr. Ready(Vice
Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Vale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Riederl in favor and none
opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby
incorporated as part of these minutes.
Additional Discussion
Lynn Duncan thanked Dan Sexton for all of his work and wished him luck in his new position.
Adjournment
Helen Sides made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Dale Yale. All approved 8-0. Chairman
Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:10 pm.
• Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
13
CITY OF SALEM
r
PLANNING BOARD
1013 MAY 30 P 5: 03
NOTICE OF MEETING
CHANGE IN MEETINGLOC:ATIONFILE 0
CITY CLUR.K. SALEM, MASS.
Yen are hereby nat d dant the Salem Plane 'T Band gill hold z?W lm so"del nrmrg on Thurs day,June 6,20B at
7:00 p.m. in d)e Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School at 25 Memorial Drize, Salem,MA
O!)a7la M. Pula} Cluir
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ May 15, 2013 Joint City Council and Planning Board Meeting
➢ May 16,2013 Regular Meeting
III. REGULARAGENDA
• 1. Project: Continued Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LP and for
approval of a 40-year extension from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A,
with the applicant maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the fust fifteen
(15) years, for the property located at 1000 LORING AVENUE.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE
2. Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan
Review and Flood I Lizard District Special Permit applications for the select demolition
and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site.It is anticipated that discussion
will focus on Environmental Conditions (Chapter 21E),Air Quality and Noise,but other
topics maybe discussed.
Applicant. FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT _ - - --- ._
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City lj�all 1;.at ,rn Mass. on , , 3e 'V 4i/3
at �. C�� /V accordance with6 L Chap. 30A,
Sections t -25-
• KnowYarrRightszmdertheOpexMcutingLawM.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and Qy Orrinam§ 2-2028 throro 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETN 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 . WWW.SALENT.COM
• City of Salem Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 6, 2013
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School,25 Memorial Drive, Salem,Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:03 pm.
I. Roll Call
Those present were: Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Anderson,
Mr. Clarke,Ms. Yale, and Mr. George.Absent: Mr.McCabe.
Also present: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk.
II. Approval of Minutes
May 15,2013 Joint City Council and Planning Board draft minutes
Mr. Rieder noted that he was in attendance at this meeting. No other comments or corrections were made by
the members of the Planning Board.
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to 4hmve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Anderson and a
unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, With an 8-0 vote (Mr. Palm (Chair) Mr. Ready
• Chair). Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson. and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none 4posed. Mr. McCabe was
absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as Part of these minutes.
May 16,2013 Regular meeting draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by members of the Planning Board members.
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to a rove the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Anderson and a
unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair. Mr. Readj (f�ice
Chair). Ms. Sides. Mr. Clarke. Mr. Anderson. and Mr. Rieder in favor and none opposed. Mr. McCabe was
absent fmm the meeting. The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorporated as4art of these minutes.
III. Regular Agenda
Project: Continued Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L.
Chapter 121A designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM
PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for
approval of a 25-year extension to the 15-year period of exemption from
property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A for the property located at
1000 LORING AVENUE.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE
•
1
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—June 6, 2013
Page 2 of 9
Mr. Sexton stated that staff was asked by Loring Towers Salem Preservation Associates, LP and Councillor
O'Keefe to have the discussion and any action(s) on the application tabled until the next meeting. In advance •
of the next meeting,Mr. Sexton explained that a packet of supplementary information from the applicant was
being provided to the Planning Board for consideration.
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to accept the request for a continuance of the Loring Towers Chapter 121A
4plication till the June 20" regular Planning Board meeting. seconded by Mr.Anderson and a unanimous vote was
taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote(Mr. Puleo (Chair. Mr. Read�(Vice Chair) Ms. Sides
Mr. Clarke, Mr.Anderson. and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none o�4?osed. Mr. McCabe was absent{ram the meeting.
Tlie motion was accepted The decision is hereby incor2orated as part of these minutes.
Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,
Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Public Hearing.
Specifically, the requested petitions concern select demolition and
redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the
construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric
generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
Arty.Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the applicant Footprint Power reviewed what subjects
had been discussed in previous meetings as well as gave an overview of the topics that would be discussed
tonight. He stated that the presentations this evening would be in regards to the air modeling & noise
evaluations,and referenced a study that was done around the project as well as the environmental assessment.
Arty. Correnti described this as a "case in chief'. He continued describing what else has been going on with •
the project. He spoke of feedback they received from city's peer reviewers and noted that they already
responded to first set of comments and questions,and have since received the second set. They will continue
to work with Planning Department staff. He said that the other local permitting is going on and in the past
two weeks, they have filed an application with the Salem Board of Appeals. They have requested a variance
on the height of the buildings and structures on the property; and explained that they are currently not high,
which means that they need relief from the height restriction. They are also getting a special permit for the
use of the property itself as it's not currently part of zoning. They are hoping this will be granted by special
permit from BOA, on the 19th of June. Additionally, they are also preparing a Notice of Intent with
Conservation Commission. They also went to Historical Commission and requested a demolition waiver to
take down all the steel tanks and the middle of the three stacks which is a capped stack that is out of service.
He concluded by stating that the permit was granted by Historical Commission.
Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Power, introduced John Evison of ATCO Emissions Management to
talk about noise mitigation measures.
John Evison, ATCO Emissions Management, founded this company, which specializes in industrial noise
control. He reviewed for the audience some of the previous and current projects. He presented a noise
control plan. He began by describing the equipment involved in this particular project. He described primary
contributors to far-field noise, including transformers, combustion exhaust stacks, combustion air inlet filter-
face, as well as steam piping acoustic insulation and noted that they have dealt with this type of equipment on
other projects. He presented and explained a slide titled "OEM `best' Combustion Inlet System" and
described the related pieces of the system and where they will be located in relation to the community. He
described the acoustic wall assemblies, transformer acoustic barriers, and explained that the drawings are rude
representations of the louvers as they were designed "by a bunch of engineers trying to play architect". He •
also showed slides on combustion exhaust acoustic flue silencer, the ACC without noise attenuation, the ACC
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/20/2013
f City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—June 6,2013
Page 3 of 9
• acoustic baffles, where he described the louvers in greater detail, the ACC ducts, and the ACC Architectural
Louvers.
George Lipka, consulting engineer with Tetra Tech, stated that he is working on air and noise mitigation, and
gave a summary of the analyses for state regulatory processes. He showed a slide on air quality for demolition
and construction and explained that this means that they are basically committing to pre-cleaned structures to
minimize dust. He then explained some of the site requirements which include turning off diesel engines,and
identifying the staging zones for trucks to minimize fumes. He reviewed the operational controls on the
plant, stating that these are highly regulated federally by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the
state. He then showed a slide on Air Quality in relation to operational controls and discussed the best
available control technology they are utilizing which will have the lowest achievable emission rate. He stated
that there is a catalyst to control nitrogen oxides and emissions from this type of facilities are really very low.
He spoke of the use of advanced combustion technology and clean burning natural gas. Mr. Lipka then
showed a slide on the federal new source performance standards and explained that there will be no waste
products from this tank, as the tank will be enclosed in structure and within the structure is a dike with
spheres which restrict evaporation. He presented on operational impacts from plant in regards to ambient air
quality standards; and he explained that new facilities are required to do computer calculations that conduct
dispersion modeling to evaluate future impacts on air quality. For comparative purposes he showed a graphic
representing the standard for Sulphur dioxide,which is listed at 190 micrograms per cubic meter(millionth of
a gram) and closest background for this is in Boston and is at almost 60 micrograms per cubic meter. He
then noted that the Salem Harbor Project is less than 1 microgram per cubic meter. He then described how
they measure nitrous dioxide for the worst hour of the start before catalyst system starts up; but noted that
when the plant is operating normally they are down in the single digits. For the particulates standard he
stated that they are 35 micrograms per cubic meter; the background is less than 20 micrograms per cubic
meter, and the Salem Harbor project will be less than five micrograms per cubic meter. He then gave a brief
• explanation about how the standard was developed and noted that air quality in the whole northeast has
improved with more and more gas plants coming onhne.
Mr. Lipka moved onto his noise presentation. He began by reviewing acoustic impacts and discussed the
construction hour restrictions on the project, as well as enforcement of on-site speed limits. He stated that
they are going to put up temporary twelve foot high sound barrier. During operation they have an ambient
noise policy/regulation which states that the increase in sound noise is no more than ten decibels. He gave a
steady squeal as an example. He stated that they measure background noise levels and calculate how noisy
machinery is and must demonstrate that they will meet this standard. In his research, he found that plants do
much better than the ten decibels requirement and their target is 6 decibels.
Chairman Puleo asked a question about construction hour restrictions, where there is a city ordinance that
work can't start before 8 AM. Arty. Correnti stated the he is referencing city limits. Mr. Clarke asked if they
are asking for a waiver from noise requirements to which Arty. Correnti responded that they will probably ask
for a waiver,which is another process.
Mr. Lipka continued showing a graphic on noise measurement sites,which highlighted predicted noise levels
around the site during facility operation and was measured above ambient. Kathy Karsh, 76 Memorial Drive,
asked when the studies were done, to which Mr. Lipka said sound study was done in April and November.
Mr. Lipka continued describing the conditions and explained how to calculate decibels using logarithms. He
stated that the general rule of thumb for determining if you hear decibels is about a change of three decibels,
and concluded by stating that with these types of facilities,people don't know it's there.
Mr. Clarke stated that the chart is confusing and asked for clarification on the chart; specifically asked if every
single place identified on the graphic has an increase in sound over what is there today to which Mr. Lipka
• said yes and noted that this was done without the plant running. Scott Silverstein, COO Footprint Power,
stated that the existing Salem plant was not running when they need to get rates as required by state. Mr.
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/20/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—June 6,2013
Page 4 of 9
Clarke stated that it would be better to have a comparison with the existing conditions versus future sounds
as this is what people care about. Mr. Lipka stated that this question was also brought by the Siting Board in •
about November or December. Mr. Clarke asked when it was presented. He stressed that it is important to
measure what was there as compared to what will be there in the future.
Peter Furniss, CEO Footprint Power, stated that they tried to be as conservative as possible with the plant
being gone, so that they can see what the worst case scenario would be. Everyone knows that the plant is
shutting down. The ambient noise,with not plant in operation,was used as the baseline for noise testing,and
they are happy to share the additional information. This was done to paint the facility in the worst possible
light. Mr. Clarke asked if the numbers went down when they painted themselves in the worst possible light.
Mr. Lipka responded that some went down, some didn't and described areas where things went down and
where they didn't change.
Mr. Ready asked for further clarification as comparison of what the decibel level of regular speech. Mr. Lipka
stated that he brought a sound machine and stated that it was calibrated and the room currently measures
around 43 decibels when it is completely quiet;he then noted that with him speaking it measures into the 60
decibel range. Mr. Ready asked what an MBTA bus is, and Mr. Lipka said it would be in about the 70 decibel
range;and Mr. Ready then asked about a train, to which Mr.Lipka said it would be in about the 90s.
Mr. Rieder stated that there are a number of people in the room that are concerned about the quality of the
sound and noted that a lot of people have a problem with understanding the numbers and appreciates the
meter. Mr. Silverstein offered to submit the response to the Siting Board. He then noted that the chart shows
how the plant will be much quieter than the sound generated on site with the current plant shut down.
Mr. Sides asked how it will sound on a boat on a hot summer night and would be concerned about how it
would sound on the water. Mr. Lipka responded that a person would have to be slightly up against the plant •
for it to get any louder. Mr. Silverstein noted that the Winter Island measurement site is quieter than it was in
the room. Chairman Puleo noted that the condenser is closer to water.
Mike Billa, stated that he works on remediation for client services with TetraTec then presented an
environmental evaluation and management of hazardous materials. He described the initial site
characterization and noted that there are no reportable concentrations in the water. He described this as a
blood pressure test for the site. He stated that there were no big ticket issues such as asbestos and PCB's that
were found there and noted that only things that were expected on this types of site was found there. He
then described the demolition activities, which includes remediation and noted that this is typical of
construction of that time. He then gave a brief history of the site, noting that the southern two-thirds of site
formerly was water. In his experience, it is a rare occurrence that this site wasn't developed until this
particular need was developed. He went on to describe previous uses of the site as well as current uses of the
site, including remediation projects. He then reviewed the historic releases on the site, beginning with
previously closed releases, and those that have been closed under the Mass Contingency Plan. He said that
everything else has been evaluated by Licensed Site Professionals. He showed a graphic with sampling
locations and evaluated areas of known releases. Mr. Silverstein clarified that all of the blue dots on the
graphic represented a test boring and there were a large number of boxings on this site.
Councilor O'Keefe, 28 Surrey Road, asked for clarification on the types of tanks, as he thought he heard the
word "diesel", to which Mr. Silverstein responded that the four tanks are D Series tanks, not diesel.
Councilor O'Keefe responded that state regulations differentiate because of flash points, so there is a
difference between diesel and ethanol.
Mr. Billa corrected himself and continued his presentation. He stated that there were tens of thousands of
data points that were run for this, and again he reiterated that there were no groundwater exceedances, no •
PCBs, no asbestos in soil across the whole site. They find these results to be encouraging and manageable.
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/20/2013
/ City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—June 6,2013
Page 5 of 9
• He then moved on to discuss Nickel and Vanadium, and said that they were found in the former oil ash
blending area, which is why they found the exceedances in some small sites. They are not finished looking
under the coal piles, but thinks those are non-volatile materials. He then showed a map of the areas where
nickel, vanadium and lead were found slightly elevated, but pointed out that they were well below standards
and levels typically found in similar sites.
Chairman Puleo noted that the testing under current building not yet done, and asked if they will do it when
they tear down the buildings. Mr. Billa said that they don't expect a lot of material there based on what was
done there and also the buildings are on bedrock which is close to the surface. They will take confirmatory
samples, but not sure if floors are going to be demolished.
Mr. Billa continued his presentation, stating that moving forward, there will be filings done with Mass
contingency Plan (MCP) timeline, they are continuing their investigation of the site,and they continue to have
close communication with DEP with respect to the site evaluation. The big issue will be remediation efforts
that can't be done until after demolition which have to be done in coordination with construction planning.
He noted that this is largely a construction project. He concluded, stating that because site was managed
extremely well,he not surprised at how clean it is. ,`
Chairman Puleo asked about the fill above grade to which Mr. Billa responded that the details for the design
will be worked out by EPC. He guessed that it will be on pilings rather than excavate it out. He spoke of
excise materials,noting that they would not remediate it, except for the excavation. He noted that it is part of
contract documents to get it done right.
Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Evison if the insulation material is a specific material for sound attenuation, to
which Mr. Evison responded in the affirmative and described how they determined the density. Mr.
• Anderson then asked if there are more complicated panels than what is shown to which Mr. Evison said yes,
but they didn't need them. Mr. Anderson asked where are the thicker assemblies, to which Mr. Evison
responded that they are west-facing and south-facing walls,and explained the logic behind those choices. Mr.
Anderson then asked what the difference is between the different louver systems.Mr. Evison explained that it
was an architect decision, and explained the thickness of them. Mr. Anderson recommended that the more
done around the ACC unit would be helpful. He then asked how often those run. To which Mr. Evison said
that they run very slowly. He pointed out the benefits from the west side from the building and described
how the steam generation blocked from building towards the north. Mr. Anderson then asked about sounds
going out towards the harbor. Mr. Evison recommended considering the reflections of sound, which will
make the wall absorptive. Mr. Anderson recommends that they consider the harbor-side as it is a benefit of
living in Salem and doing attenuation towards harbor-side. Mr. Evison stated that they can submit back to
the Board the levels that they are expecting and he feels that the ACC will do a great job of blocking out the
sound. He noted that the modeling shows that they don't need to treat the east-facing side. Mr. Anderson
then moved on to an air quality question and how that will be related to the stack. Mr. Lipka responded that
it's the main thing that they look at, but they also look at diesel fire pump, which only runs in the event to
pump water,as well as the auxiliary cooling tower. Mr.Anderson asked about how the height of stack has an
impact on air quality. Mr. Lipka explained that the taller a stack is the more dilution down to the ground.
Mr. Anderson then asked why the stack is not being designed to be higher. Mr. Lipka stated that the
emissions are so low; there is no need to make it higher. Mr. Anderson asked how quickly emissions are
dispersed for impact, to which Mr. Lipka responded that it will be about half a mile to a mile where max
ground levels will occur.
Dave Derrig, AECOM, peer review consultant, stated that in terms of air quality, they have the FEIR
certificate,and there are many favorable comments from DEP. He remarked that there was one item of note
in regards to a dispersion analysis of PM and NOCs, and asked how will until that will be addressed. Mr.
• Lipka explained the significant impact level guidelines and they have to include other sources to meet
compliance. They are finalizing documents to the DEP looking at comparisons around the area. Mr. Derrig
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/20/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—June 6,2013
Page 6 of 9
asked that in terms of mitigation elemental concerns, particularly with construction vehicles, if they look at •
vehicles that will be coming back and forth to the construction site. Mr. Lipka responded that it is not
something that the state has them look at. Mr. Derrig said that the noise report review indicated that all of
the measures are appropriate and effective, but asked for background aspects at noise levels. Mr. Lipka stated
that it will be included in a supplement that will be filed with Mass DEP.
Issue opened to public for comment
Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, stated that she has a lot of questions; in regards to noise, she said that
neighbors have been told that air cooling plants are louder than water cooling plants. She asked if there are
going to be times during the day that it will sound like a jet taking off. Mr. Evison responded by describing
the reasons for implementing a steam pipe. Ms. Haley then asked if assuming that attenuation doesn't work
correctly, is there something that can be part of the regulations. Mr. Silverstein answered that they are
working on long term communications and they expect to be part of the community benefits agreement.
Their goal is to make sure that there is a process set up where neighbors and the power plant are sitting at the
table and they will work to set that up. Ms. Haley then asked the Board to consider a community benefits
agreement that the city can make with neighbors as a contingency of the decision, which is a model that is
more common with these types of projects. Ms. Haley then moved on to her concerns regarding the health
effects of the plant. She asked how many pollutants will be added to the air, to which Mr. Silverstein stressed
that this will lower the emissions significantly across the region. He continued, stating that as to what this
plant alone will emit, there are regional issues not local issues. Mr. Lipka said that he could look at a chart of
annual emissions, and would recommend looking at the amounts in terms of the micrograms rather than
tons. Ms. Haley stated that she is concerned about theories in regards to the pollutants being added to the
community,which with diseases like asthma there is a compounding of health impacts. Mr. Silverstein stated
that Dr. Balberg testified that these impacts are minimal. Ms. Haley responded that the Conservation Law
Foundation disagreed and she is concerned that people living within a thousand yards are going to be •
breathing in dangerous pollutants. She also concerned about cooling tanks. Mr. Lipka stated that a cooling
tower with water not treated properly can get bacteria growing in it. This small industrial site will have water
treated and checked regularly. The plant will be staffed 24/7 and there is no risk of Legionnaires Disease.
Chairman Puleo stated that it is a good time to bring up their plan to go before the Board of Health. Mr.
Anderson asked about the reduction in admissions in Salem, to which Mr. Lipka stated that for the purposes
of the state requirements, they didn't take credit for local reductions. He would have to look at the original
filings.Mr.Anderson asked him to provide the local reductions.
Ms. Haley asked about PUD plans,where they didn't have plans for the other parts for the site, they said they
didn't really have plans but upon further questioning showed that they do. She thought that it seemed like
they had ideas for the Turbine Building and asked why that isn't part of the plan. Mr. Silverstein responded
that Ms. Haley is right, as they do have a lot of ideas but they don't have final plans. The reasons are very
simple: they need the space to do the demolition, lay down space, for the build-out of the other portions of
the site. They weren't precluding uses of the site. The answer is that they have a lot of great ideas and as they
go through the phases of the plant and they will flesh out those ideas to amend the PUD.
Karen Kahn, 17 Sutton Place, asked how are noise issues averaged; and then asked what are the loudest
sounds that they will hear and particularly at night. She also asked if comparable other plants are as close to
neighborhoods. Mr. Silverstein stated that they looked at quietest times now as compared to the noisiest time
at full operation. Mr. Lipka described it as a steady state operation. Mr. Evison stated that it is pretty close to
what he looked at requiring acoustically insulate materials.
Chairman Puleo asked if the start up and shut down of plant is done on demand. Mr. Silverstein explained
that it is a decision that ISO New England makes, and went on to explain the bidding process and economics. •
They are expecting this plant to operate at 80% for the fust ten years, though on any given day this plant
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/20/2013
f City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—June 6,2013
Page 7 of 9
• could have to shut down. They expect that the early years they had a handful of starts. There is the unknown
to the extent of what the next ten years of renewable penetration will bring,which,he noted, this plant would
support. Chairman Puleo asked how long does a start-up take, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that a
warm start-up in quick start is about ten minutes; though a start-up with the full plant,when it is not in quick
start, is about 2 hours. Currently the coal plant takes about 16 hours to start up, and he compared that to
Mystic which is a 6 hours start. Chairman Pelee, asked when start up would begin and Mr. Silverstein stated
that there would be a peak in the morning and then an afternoon peak.
Mike Turello, 4 Blaney Street, asked if they have done any testing with the run-off pond Mr. Billa stated that
it is inaccessible right now without risking compromising the integrity of the pond. When that is no longer in
use it will be cleaned out and if there are contaminants, they will be tested. They don't expect a major
problem. No, they haven't tested it yet, but they will. Mr. Turello asked what the noise of 6 decibels would
sound Eke to which Mr. Lipka described different areas in the room. Mr. Turello then asked about the
prevailing winds to which Mr. Lipka described the winds as typically northwest in winter and southwest in
summer, which is favorable for propagation. He noted that the model is more conservative. Mr. Turello
asked about gas supply issues, specifically in terms of if they need storage facilities to which Mr. Silverstein
said no, and this is due to the feedback from the community. They reviewed history of the issue in question,
and then met with ISO,where they hit on 4 of 5 parts of ISOs goal. They asked if they would consider fuel
diversity, such as adding ultra-low sulfur diesel, but the community was not willing to accept. There is not
going to be diesel storage on this site, and they heard loud and clear that the community does not want the
tanks on the site anymore. By and large they are dealing with gas storage. He spoke of the LNG gas storage
tank in Collins Cove, and stated that in order to have gas storage on site, they would need a lot of space and
truck delivery of gas. In discussions with community members and the Mayor, they are not interested in
having an LNG facility on the site. There is an option to contract for firm gas supply. The challenge in New
England is the way the electricity is set up there really is no mechanism to recover for fixed costs. He
• explained that bidding based on adjustable costs. Everybody else other than two in the state operates on an
interruptible gas supply,and particularly on cold days this causes problems without firm delivery. The Boston
area has had problems getting gas, having bottlenecks in Connecticut and New York, which have been
improved but not that much. So they will be the southern end of gas coming from Canada rather than gas
coming form the south which puts them in a better position to receive the gas without the bottlenecks.
Dick Babick, 35 Winter Island Road, suggested utilizing methane from SESD to be used to power the power
plant. Mr. Silverstein said he would think about anything. They have been talking with them for quite a
while,but anywhere where they can find synergies with local facilities they are open to.
Kathy Kush, 76 Memorial Drive, asked if there are other chemical components that will be used besides
ammonia. Mr. Lipka said ammonia is the principal one then Mr. Silverstein said that ammonia is the only
chemical that will be stored in bulk.
John Finnegan, 4 Settlers Way, asked if this is going to sound like a compressor in a refrigerator. He stated
that he would like to be assured unequivocally that this plant will be less noisy than the current plant. Mr.
Silverstein said that they are going to get more comparable numbers but in most locations it will either be the
same or less noisy. The key is that it will be on the meter but it's more important to show what it's going to
sound like. He feels very comfortable saying that, but it's going to depend on where you are standing. Mr.
Finnegan asked if will there be a situation where it can be remediated. Mr. Silverstein responded that if they
go beyond the permits, then yes they will find a way to fix it and make the neighborhood happy. Mr.
Finnegan then asked if it is a low pitched or high pitched sound. Mr. Lipka thinks it's going to be very
difficult to pick out. Mr. Finnegan asked for further clarification on what type of sound it will be to which
Mr. Lipka responded that it will be lower frequencies. Mr. Silverstein said that they are going to make sure
that they will work with neighbors. Mr. Finnegan asked if there will be water vapor clouds, to which Mr.
• Lipka responded no. Mr. Finnegan then asked if it will make more noise during shut down and start up. Mr.
Silverstein responded that the equipment makes more noise, but with the sound attenuation it will be much
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/20/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—June 6,2013
Page 8 of 9
improved. Mr. Finnegan then asked where the gas route will run. Mr. Silverstein stated that Spectra Gas will
run the line and he knows where the interconnect is, but it is up to them to come up with the site selection. •
Mr. Finnegan asked if that process has started at all, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that they have to go
through an extensive regulatory process.
Jeff Brooks, 14 Webb Street, asked about the size of main gas line. Councillor O'Keefe responded that it is
20 inches and 30 inches to the Kernwood Bridge then 20 inches to 16 inches. Mr. Brooks stated that there
are concerns about problems with gas lines. There have been a lot of explosions with gas lines due to aging
fines which carry larger than regulated gas and asked how they will address that with the gas company itself.
He is concerned about recent gas line explosions that have occurred due to numerous defects in old lines.
Mr. Brooks then asked about the age of the lines to which Mr. Silverstein responded that the 20 inch line was
built in 2002, and the 30 inch line came in around the same time; and both of these have been subject to
Department of Transportation guidelines. He noted that this new line will be brand new. Mr. Brooks asked
about the location to which Mr. Silverstein said that Spectra is doing the engineering on the fines so they are
making the decisions, but they will share that once they know. Mr. Brooks stated that he is concerned that
there is a new power plant being built that people don't know about. Chairman Puleo asked Mr. Brooks to
focus on questions about power plant, not gas line. Mr. Brooks stated that he has concerns about the use of
ammonia. Mr. Silverstein said that they are using aqueous ammonia which is 80%water. He emphasized that
safety is number one, and then he reviewed the ammonia storage tank, as well as the dike system. He
explained that the first issue is evaporation,which is mitigated by several layers of protection for the highest
degree of safety. Mr. Lipka said there is not going to be anything higher than 25 ppm. Mr. Brooks asked
about the ammonia transport levels to which Mr. Lipka responded that it will be a 19% solution. If it leaks
from trucks then it goes into same dike. The ppm level in solution in trucks is 19,000. Mr. Lipka spoke of
the safety procedures and DOT requirements.
Mr. Clarke asked if this is a City of Salem issue, to which Chairman Puleo responded that this is an issue in •
terms of what goes over our streets that he has asked about. He noted that as a Planning Board, they have no
control over safety issues and are managed by whoever inspects the trucks.
Mr. Brooks continued his questions, asking about the air cooling tower size, and specifically how many BTUs
it rejects. Mr. Silverstein stated that 145,000 includes cooling tower but is not all of it. Mr. Brooks said that
he is concerned about lower stack and asked for clarification, noting that regionally it's going to clean it up
but in the City of Salem it is going to affect everyone. Mr. Lipka responded that this type of power is very
clean. Mr. Furniss explained that the current plant has credits associated with it, that they are retiring so they
can be sure that everything that is upwind will not get the NOCs credits. The other thing that Mr. Furniss
pointed out is that regional emissions are critical in figuring out emissions; it's ozone, not NOCs, which this
reduces. Our benefits extend system wide, regionally, and locally. This is an environmentally beneficial
project and they are looking out for the safety of Salem.
Karen Kahn, 17 Sutton Place, asked if there has been a study done looking look at particulate matter and
asthma cases. Mr. Silverstein responded that yes there have been, and they will submit those studies to
Planning Board.
Ms. Haley asked what is the purpose of the Planning Board to which Chairman Puleo explained the purpose
of site plan review and read from the ordinance and explained what the Board is able to regulate when the
project is allowed. He pointed out that this already fits the zoning requirements. Board of Appeals deals with
those issues only for the stack. Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner, explained the role of the Board of Appeals and
what the applicant is applying for. He noted that in respect to the siting of the power plant, this is one of
those aspects of the permitting process.
Dave Derrig, of AECOM, summarized the AECOM memos. Mr. Derrig reviewed the two sets of the •
comments provided to the Planning Department. He said that they have received the initial response from
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/20/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—June 6,2013
Page 9 of 9
Tetra Tech which they will address. The second set of comments was provided last week and they expect to
hear back from the applicant. Chairman Puleo directed a question to Tetra Tech as to when the questions
will be addressed. Mr. Correnti responded that they are trying to make these cohesive presentations. They
have gotten a Fust set of comments back and what they discussed with planning staff and based on the size of
the project they will keep a tally of changes and make them at a later date with the revisions. The meeting on
the 20th will be devoted to answering questions, then between June 20th and July 1&h, they will work with
Planning Department staff and that may be the time to give the revised plans, which is how they have
discussed it with the Planning staff. Mr. Derrig said that work for him, and they expect to have their next set
of comment in the next week or so, which will wrap up most of the civil comments and will include the
Sasaki comments.
Motion: Mr. Raeder made a motion to continue the public hearing of Planned Unit Development Special Permit.
Site flan Review and Flood Hazard District S,�edal Permit for the redevelotment of the Salem Harbor Power
Station Redevelopment miect until the regular meeting on Tune 20 2013 seconded by Ms Sides and a unanimous
vote was taken All the members voted in favor, witb an 8-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair). Mr. Kead�(Vice Cbair). M.
Sides Mr. Clarke Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder in favor and none o�.Posed. Mr. McCabe was absent from the
meeting. The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorborated as Pad of these minutes.
IV. Old/New Business
Chairman Puleo asked about striping on road in front of the CVS on Canal Street and noted that it didn't last
long. Mr. Sexton said he would look into that.
Mr. Sexton informed the Planning Board that he is leaving the Planning Department at the end of June.
Frank Taormina will be taking over in the interim. Planning Board members congratulated Mr. Sexton on his
• new job.
Chairman Puleo asked if there were any further old/new business, there being none he asked for a motion to
adjourn.
V. Adjourntnent
Motion:Mr. Clarke made a motion to adaourn the June 6' regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board seconded
by Mr. Rieder, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, witb an 8-0 vote (Mr. Palm
(Chair, Mr. Ready (Vice Cbair, Ms Sides, Mr Clarke, Mr. Anderson. and Mr. Rieder in favor and none
opposed Mr. McCabe was absent fmm the meeting. The motion was aceeted. The decision is hereby incor,borated as
Part of these minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk
•
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/20/2013
tib t CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2
NOTICE OF MEETING
L CHANGE IN MEETING LOCATION
You are lxreby notal tlxu dv Salem Plam&g Bcanl ud hccld is mgrfkmy sdxrb&l nesting on Thun clay,June 6, 20D at
7:00 p.m. in dx Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School at 251Vemorial Drize, Salem,MA
C!-tarfa M. Prrleq Chair
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ May 15, 2013 Joint City Council and Planning Board Meeting
➢ May 16,2013 Regular Meeting
III. REGULARAGENDA
• 1. Project: Continued Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LP and for
approval of a 40-year extension from properly taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A,
with the applicant maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the first fifteen
(15) years,for the property located at 1000 LORING AVENUE.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE
2. Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan
Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit applications for the select demolition
and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site. It is anticipated that discussion
willfocus on Environmental Conditions (Chapter 21E),Air Qualityand Noise, but other
topics maybe discussed.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
• Krm Yutr Rights uakr the Open kfatbng Lawtl'l.C.L. c 30A § 18-25 aril City O"l 7anx§ 2-2028 thrtxt�i;2-20.33.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSErrs 01970 . TEL: 978.7459595 FAx: 978.740.0404 . WWW.SALF.M.Co;aT
:�oNo1Tf
tti 9 ,
° CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• �'' '' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
Mnveu� COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
DIRECTOR '
STAFF MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board Members o
FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Plana z �7h
DATE: May 31,2013 '��
RE: Planning Board Meeting-June 6, 2013
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
i
Planner's Memo
➢ Draft Meeting Minutes - May 15th and May 1611,
➢ Materials for Regular Agenda
Materials for the agenda item are included in the packet for the 06/00/2013 meeting. Here is a summit on of
the request and background parcel information for each item:
III. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Discussion and Vote — A request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for LORING
TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval
of a 40-year extension from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A, with the applicant
maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the first fifteen (15) years, for the property
located at 1000 LORING AVENUE. Specifically, the requested petition does not propose any
construction of new facilities on the Site.
At the joint public hearing of the City Council and Planning Board, held on May 15, 2013, the application of
Loring 'Powers Salem Preservation Associates, LP for approval of a 40-year extension of exemption from
property taxation under M.G.L. Ch. 121A 9 '10 for 1000 Loring Avenue was discussed. The discussion and
vote on this item was continued at the May 161h meeting to allow the applicant time to address the concerns
raised at the May 15,h meeting.
The Planning Board should be ready to vote on June 0h whether the application is approved, disapproved
with recommendations or disapproved completely. In rendering a decision, the Planning Board must consider
whether the application meets the criteria outlined in D.G.L. Ch. 121A � 6, which include:
➢ I Wether bligbled often or deardent or suh-strurdarrl orrdiliour evict iuilhin the proho,,edP1r jeer aura;
➢ 7fiat the/Ted if rrot in contravention of any tioonrg, .,uGdiei.�ion, heallh a'hrrildnr�ardinmrm G}'-1 no
regalaliolu of the aty or lonot a or aile.r and
City of Salem: Planning Board
Staff Memorandum— May 31, 2013
Page 2 of 2
➢ l e'hether or not the proposed project conflicts wilb the master plan o/the city or town made by authority of chapter%ry-
one, it sruh a plan has been made, determine whether or not such project would be in any way detrimental to the best
interests of the public or lbe city or ton n or to the public safety and convenience or be inconsistent with the most.suitable
development of the city or town;
➢ lVhether or not the proposed project will constitute a public me and benefit;and
➢ The feasibility o/the method o/relocation and existence or availability of dwellings for displaced frmilies as hereinafter
provided
The Planning Board's decision to approve, disapprove with recommendations or disapprove completely must
include findings speaking to the criteria listed above. While draft findings are not included in this meeting
packet, Staff will provide this information to the Board prior to the meeting. 'Ihe decision will then be
transmitted to the City Council for their consideration of the application. Please note, the Planning Board's
decision is considered advisory.
Staff is available to answer any questions regarding the M.G.L. Ch. 121A process.
Continued Public Hearing — FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP -
Plaftned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special
Permit for the property located at 24 FORT AVENUE (I). Specifically, the requested petitions
concern select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the
construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility on a
20+/- acre portion of the Site.
At the regular meeting of the Planning Board, held on May 16, 2013, the applicant agreed to continue •
discussion of this item until the June 6, 2013 regular meeting. The public hearing was continued to allow the
Petitioner the opportunity to have different members of the Footprint Team present information on different
aspects of the redevelopment project. During this meeting, the Petitioner is anticipating that discussion will
focus on Environmental Conditions (Chapter 21E), Air Quality and Noise, but other topics may be
discussed.
The Petitioner has submitted supplementary information in response to the 1^t set of comments submitted by
AECONI for the project applications. For reference, a copy of the 11" set comments from RECON[ is
provided in Attachment A. The response From the Footprint Team is provided in Attachment B. As follow
LIP to the meeting discussion at the May 16th meeting, AECOM has also provided a 2"d set of comments For
consideration by the Planning Board (Attachment C). A copy of the 2"a set of AECON1 comments has been
provided to the Petitioner in advance of this meeting.
Representatives from RECON[ are available to respond to comments or questions that Planning Board may
have.
To date, no additional comments have been received from the Building Commission, Board of Health, City
Engineer, Department of Public Services, Disabilities Commission, Fire Department, Police Department and
School District regarding this project. Staff is coordinating with these departments and comnussions to secure
additional comments for the project.
Attachments
Attachment A— AECOM P,Set of Comments dated May 161h
Attachment B—A letter from Tetra Tech in response to AECOM's 1,1 Set of Comments dated May 2l't
Attachment C:— :AECOM 2^1 Set of Comments-dated May 2911,
City of Salem
Joint City Council and Planning Board Public Hearing
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 15, 2013
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
in City Hall Chambers, Second Floor, at 95 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts.
Those present were: Tim Ready (Vice Chair), George McCabe, Dale Y4 ,and Helen Sides. Also
present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development and Beth Gerard,
Planning Board Recording Clerk Absent: Chairman Chuck Puleo and Mark George.
City Council President Jerry Ryan.opened the meeting at 7:06 pm Acknowledged Tim Ready, Vice
Chair, who introduced the Planning Board. '
Approval of Chapter 121A designation for Salem Heights Preservation As's&o sates, Limited
Partnership, located at 12 Pope Street, Salem,MA1 y
4�# �x`�Y
Council President Jerry Ryan turned the floor over to Lynn. can, Director of Planning and
Community Development to review the agenda items with members of the City Council and the
Planning Board. "
• Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community"Development, explained that 40 years ago
Salem Heights received the 121A designation and because it,isld-for renewal is wh the are here
tonight. She stated that once theCity Council votes'to move the'decision to the Planning Board, the
Planning Board will review and`make a decision at the next meeting. In rendering a decision, the
Planning Board willfinakecertain.fiiidings and decision that will be reported back to the-City
Council before their next meetin ;;She thanked the',Cit Clerk for scheduling g� x� ty doling this meeting of both
the Planning Board and Ory Cou ricil " r
Atty. Katharine Bachman,".represe ting Salem Heights Preservation Associates, LP, described the
location of the property and the type of project, as well as reviewed the application. They are before
the CityCouncil this evening toseea renewal of the Chapter 121A status, where they will continue
to be requured'to pay taxes under Chapter 121A She explained that the project was developed, in
spite of being a>bard to develop' formally site, in 1974, under the program foally known as 236 which was
enacted to create affordable housing. She noted that there are challenges at the location to this day.
The original owners sought'to``sell property in 1990s, where at that time the property was conveyed
to current owner "Preserve Affordable Housing" and was part of agreement to provide affordable
housing for 100 years:'Over the past ten years they have tackled many challenges like energy
improvements and upgrades, structural maintenance, and sought and obtained grants for the project.
Their continued goal is to make it a safe and affordable place to live and to have a good future.
They are challenged by affordable housing restrictions, such as how does one balance unexpected
cost increases with an income that is capped. She pointed out that the property pays taxes to the
communityas part of the state formula for 121A. They have worked closelywith cityand noted that
their taxes are what average taxes are.
• C wxdon Si*, and OWe joins-1 the ranting
City of Salem Planning Board a ,
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes-May 15,2013
Page 2 of 7
Councilor McCarthy asked about the reason for the extension. Arty. Bachman explained that for
affordable housing, the ability to finance is constrained by capital gains. Councilor McCarthy then
asked about the agreed on value, to which Arty. Bachman said the Assessor can respond with
further detail. Councilor McCarthy asked a follow-up question about the gross income and revenue.
Arty. Bachman responded that it is S% of the gross income of the resident.
Kiat Rieder asked about the staircase in relation to the process of investing, specifically how the
staircase could be brought into compliance. He noted that this may b, the only opportunity to
provide residents easy access to Splaine Park and this may be the right to do this if they have
the ability to invest in it. Arty. Bachman stated that it is a difficult srt111"u1r as the staircase is closed
off due to extreme slope of the site and in order to be compliant,wrthaAmericans with Disability
Act they would need a series of ramps and to have that len g of infrast, cture for a affordable
housing project is a huge monetary challenge. Mr. Rteder,:state that as�a,-Tandscape architect he
understands the constraints, but feels that it is difficult t-"'bypass this oppos i. Atty. Bachman
responded that they did look at it and a lot of it is city 'caned, and there axe haUili issues, plus the
property owners would have to pay taxes. It is a�yery eep dro and a wooded ateal{u's it is not
easy to police. She concluded stating that she understan._ why*ha tazses it, but it separate from
the subject matter of this evening's application.
Councilor O'Keefe asked if the petition has,,been reviewed as"the din
g is not proper for Loring
Avenue, even though this is Salem Heightould be amendss 'd thfsa hAt Bachman responded
. . ,
that everything can be reviewed and if somet g ca&befi4ed they,..
r
Debby Jackson, Assessor, stated,, at the woxdii c, the appli Eton may be a little confusing and
read from the document. ouneilo 0 Keefe state that the proper documents weren't presented.
Arty. Bachman state that the applica on reflects th 4,0--year status of 121A which expired in March
of 2013. They have a newaplicatio rt they ackn` vledged the expiration, which is why they are
coming here as a neucprolect; ,e tat
elaws..,
Charlie's-e tis, 20 AmerrcfrvrWay,readtabout both applications and is confused by both. They both
expired}an\\� if they are expire then thq�,Iiave to show, according to the law, an open, blighted and
decadent n e for the city, fo a stabi0ed taxability to be economical. He stated that he was the
advisor to the' ston Redevelo"ment Authority and discussed his previous experience with Chapter
121A apphcatioriprojects: He has no problems with the sites and supports affordable housing.
Usually at the endo a 40 'ear period, usually they go back on the tax rule and they can get
subsidies. :,pry
Arty. Bachman said that she holds him in the highest regard, and has previous experience with him.
As a real estate expert they cannot anticipate everything that is going to happen. The original owner
of Salem Heights said they were all set and this would go back to private housing when the City of
Salem fought to keep it private. She went on to speak of housing cycles and changes to the housing
market, where housing is seen as a community asset. The theme of the application is that this is a
project to prevent blight and the goal is to keep it safe affordable and decent.
Councilor Legault asked about the 100 year designation. Arty. Bachman explained the guidelines of •
the program and where the funding comes from to which Councilor Legault asked if this is new
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013
Page 3 of 7
ground that is breaking. Atty. Bachman explained that it was first used for Prudential Center, and
talked about Great Society programs in Massachusetts, concluding that this is the way they were
written because 40 years seemed long. Councilor Legault asked if there are any other housing
developments like this to which Arty. Bachman this would be the first. She noted that there is no
prohibition to go forward, they just need the approval this evening. She concluded by stating that
the application first went to the state.
Councilor Turiel asked why the 15 & 25 year restrictions expired. In terms of if the application could
have been submitted as an extension rather than a new application to which Atty. Bachman
responded that this was exactly what she thought, specifically no stiNlibr equipment and no
prohibition. tt"
Councilor Siegel stated that he is concerned about breaking und, 'an asked if approving this
would open the City up to potential lawsuits. Atty. Bachman*ares' onded no r�Gouncilor Siegel stated
that his concern was that this doesn't follow the statut x as 'IG's�not bhghredd whether doing
something could cause future law suits for the City_ "ty, Bachman stated that' is a real estate
lawyer, and she doesn't want this to get into court. Llus,' what tR��,,yy have to workivrdhe further
stated that what they are asking for is the ability to`ha , a baseline for taxes. liey have new.
circumstances with the statue that is designed to take hardl, phie to make ends meet.
Mr. Speliotis stated that as the housing dtr"e"2tcir of BRA he thrnk this is a perplexing problem as
renewal is not in statute. He had previouslypon t the legislature'to regbest legislation that would
include renewal in the statute, but it did noto crier . He concluded stating that he is all for
• affordable housing, but he is not sure if a Cha ter
already built. � 12 t\:"sta s is ppropriate for projects that are
"� � ""�'
a
Councilor Turiel statedr�A t he case ee the conte:-� in Salem being the test case, but asked who
would have standing to chall nge this who would beiha ed. r\try. Bachman concurs.
a
Mx. Anderson askedhowthcse ajor unp ovemc is to the facility would benefit a tenant. Atty.
_.x
Bachman stated il& a Po has on into dealing with the energy issues and there are continued
investment. "t
Alexandra ey Preservation; f or able Housing, 40 Court Street Boston, stated that the issue
01 1
is of deter Yltion. They havelready one major work at the property and added a cogeneration
plan, as well as'seed additional funding to put in new windows. Recently, they put up a solar
panel on the south='side of tie budding. The code dictates that air has to circulate through the
building, so they se ant through TD Banknorth to help meet that code requirement. She
stated that this is a larF"e physical plant, where the average annual costs are x$250,000 per year, and
with the pipe replacements, it will exceed $330,000. Yet they are constrained due to the income and
rent restrictions through program. They have spent the last ten years soliciting grants to make
improvements to the property to help control the cost. She explained that the organization buys
older properties and they find financing to rehabilitate the properties into good shape. It is not a gut
rehab, but a moderate rehab, which is why they pay$250k per year.
Councilor Siegel asked if the insides of the property has been rehabilitated, to which Ms. Dailey
responded yes, specifically stating that they have completed upgrades to some kitchens, baths,
hallways, a new air handler, and new boilers. Councilor Siegel asked about the repair schedule to
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes-May 15,2013
Page J of 7
which Ms. Dailey said they were done during turnover replacements, which happens routinely and is
part of the $250,000 annual costs.
Michael Kane, stated he was the one originally who worked to find the restriction to save building
and to keep the tax rate low. He said that Salem Heights is an example that should be preserved and
the other precedent is in Boston where their affordable housing helps the city. Councilor O'Keefe
asked Mr. Kane if he supports Salem Heights to which he responded in the affirmative.
Councilor Furey stated that when he was growing up he and his family lied in Salem Heights and
he feels that affordable housing is critical to any city. Without Salem Height he would not be here,
thus he supports this.
Councilor McCarthy stated that he supports affordable housingw ut as 'e at the cash values of
the property will be, based on how the restrictions written.,,. a scenan here the state keeps
the rents at one rate, while the property taxes continue to�,,r+i� fse` n asked howl city would afford
something like that. Arty. Bachman stated that the trulli of the matter is that th'I 's ssor will only
assess it at what the rents it can get for the property so hile it's beautiful propeenot worth
that much because it is valued by rental income. T
Mr. Anderson asked a question about taxation and read form sec on 6a. of the code. He then asked
if the rates are required to be negotiated n r at a later date,t 'ch Atty. Bachman stated that
these rate would be negotiated going fonvarc{� rtderson clarified ' would have to be decided
now to which Arty. Bachman said that this is'[h�e ey use fytr come certainty.
Ms.Jackson stated that she is currently negonatrng-, other pro try that does not want to continue •
as 121A, where their ex nsesate about equal;;o income, and the values are less than what is
proposed. Mr. Anderso asked what s it now for Salem Heights, to which Ms.Jackson said they are
higher.
Councilor Siegel aske for a figur on ho�u'much Ysbuadiruy costs the city to which Ms.Jackson
�< y�
responded. m diat"she doesz t have it d not sure how she would calculate that.
Tim Ready rated that he w n ac S five opinion, and asked Ms.Jackson if this is a good thing
for the city�,t which Nis.Jacks n resp9ted in the affirmative.
Councilor Siegel.tn4,ved to clog hearing and moved that hearing be moved to the Planning Board
for their recommendation. One opposition.
j tv
Approval of Chapter,121A designation for Loring Towers Salem Preservation Association
Limited Partnership,"located at 1000 Loring Avenue, Salem, MA
Lynn Duncan, Director of Community Development and Planning, introduced people to speak on
Loring Towers.
Dodge McCourt, from AIMCO real estate investment trust in Denver, CO, stated that they have
several,properties in the Boston area and in Salem and they want to stay here. They are requesting
the Chapter 121A to continue providing affordable housing.
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes—May 15, 2013
Page 5 of 7
Atty. Jeff Sacks, representing applicant, added that they have discussed the application with the
Department of Housing, and they are seeking stability and certainty to maintain affordability of
project.
Councilor O'Keefe stated that they have been very cooperative but he is concerned about the
agreement.
Michael Caine, from the Loring Towers Tenant Association, stated that the problem with AIMCO is
its noncompliance with the City's affordable housing requirements. He ex lained the history of the
building along with t1IMC0's involvement and issues that have arisen.me their ownership of the
building. He pointed out that a number of the tenants who paid rent, ave seen their rent increasing
when AIMCO could have helped tenants get enhanced Section 8yvou vers to cover the increases;
this would have helped the owners as well as the tenants to maxtuze the 1 ng-term affordability of
the project. He explained that project-based vouchers assist,.,„ mamtainirig a rdabili[y and without
the enhanced vouchers, they have seen an exodus of 8 'vncies, Whthe caused mortgage
concerns. He said that the bottom line was that AIM < didn't follow covenan"'5' hehad with the
city to provide affordable housing and he read £roto tkovenant, specifically citurgaw `ere it states
,. 4 'e
that the purchaser will make all efforts to get protect based voucliers. He pointed'' that due to
the Merkley-Brown amendment, which allows for a provis on up to 60,000 affo dable housing
units, AIMCO could apply for enhancedtouchers. They belieuo AIMCO is legally bound to apply
for the maximum vouchers, which would`06"anently preserve af �dable housing at a deeper level
of housing for 50 years. They have urged IIV to do the nghtthg and AIMCO has done
absolutely nothing. They are convinced [hau to s the x�t forces Al CO to do this as a condition
of the 121r1, then they will not do this. If the did du�srirwout e..beneficial to the town, better for
. the tenants, and make AIMCO,-look good and tkey fed thesat,gport of the Planning Board and the
City Council to make this happen
Councilor Legault a"'of at wo I be the maxi. number of enhanced vouchers needed to
which Mr. Cane responded t13 t�theeie, �unutti85 are left and there are a number of tenants
who are payiggovex 01/( F"'ome me, whowolie willing to convert to an enhanced Section 8
voucher.. �
Councilor Keefe asked Mrk,Caine h wlie wants them to handle this. Mr. Caine said that this is a
big company$ased in Denve,- d he,�c�'commended that they get some firm commitment from the
company be them 1.b eak. He had hoped that they would make a commitment tonight to
do this as they ace ery difficul o deal with. He concluded by recommending that they do not vote
on this tonight and getqhe Planning Board to discuss it at their next meeting.
Councilor Tunel remirnded the City Council members that the only outcome of this hearing is for
this process to go to the Planning Board who can address some of these matters.
Councilor Sargent asked about the time frame after public hearing closes, and suggested keeping this
topic open.
Mr. Dodge responded that AIMCO is not opposed to leaving project based voucher, and they will
move forward with the application, though they are very difficult to get and are a scarce resource.
He suggested that they could work out a schedule and they will move forward with that.
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013
Page 6 of 7
Mr. Ready asked Mr. Caine if he could have something for the Planning Board in writing for their
next meeting tomorrow to which Mr. Caine stated that he would be tied up with a rally tomorrow.
But he said that there are administrative things that could be done, such as obtaining vouchers
through CTI. He said that there is a specific request for an internal waiting list and separate
agreement through 8 units, and they should get them converted. Mr. Dodge stated that they are
prepared to move forward on voucher-based details, but can't make commitments on those.
Councilor O'Keefe recommended not jumping on this so quickly and asking the city solicitor to
comment on this issue. He questioned why they are here now if this expired in March. He wants to
see this worked out and recommended adding language to the agreemeist fhs� reflects that this will
be taken care of He concluded stating that there are poor people inhe building that he is looking
out for them.
Ms. Duncan addressed the question on timeliness as sheA�ar people ax . confusing this with
zoning requirements. She thinks that the is no time coonstra Council Pres nt Jerry Ryan read
from ordinance and Mr. Dodge said they can work wi thus.
Randy Clarke left at approximately 8:45pm. '° w a
Mary Dennison, 12 Pope Street, stated that they did away w' 236s, enhanced vouchers, so now
some residents are paying 90% of their income towards red 'S� is concerned that AINICO is
making promises they don't follow-throug\c�"'tn
' `and urged the Ci -6uncil to keepthe public
hearing open. y t -`.'
O'Keefe reviewed documents and questioneb;;;Iin'docut1A'ts- Ms. Duncan stated that if they •
..
are incorrect, then they X,'
6rka6.',6x the issues
Rayna Jezzini, 1000*'L�tin venue`, stated that sheyissoncemed about people who are paying of
90% of income, as theseire, ,eople who desperateely need project-based vouchers. She described
other problems art oxing Towers-ttcludtngi'ong`0 issues with the elevators, as well as needing new
k C
washers an8vdryers and becausegof these ongoing issues, she questions where $5 million in
xenovntto s went. She des'bed a sttu3t'on�where the playground was shrunk for dog park and now
there is n where for cl e to play~ Shie also expressed concern for the high turnover rate for
security 1nd=tna tenance peopl�. They need a lot of work done at Loring Towers, and she doesn't
think a lot of'peo le axe happ74-
Cou
ith how it is run. She stressed that a lot of people need the project
based voucher."
nc O'Keefe ac kno ledged that in most instances they've been cooperative when speaking
with the councilor, exce t for the elevators. He asked for patience on this issue.
V,
David Gerard, Loring Towers, stated that he is a 52 year old man on disability and recently received
a notice to quit, which he finds a frustrating and intimidating tactic. When he first moved in, he
received a limited voucher. Prior to the funding running out he went to Loring Towers to ask for
assistance and was told that they could do nothing. He asked if he could be on an internal waiting
Est, and he was informed it didn't exist. He is here today to put a face on this. It is very difficult for
him to do afford his rent without a project-based voucher, and while he is looking to move due to
the rent burden, he would prefer to remain where he is. However, it is not possible to continue
living there without assistance. He pointed out that they are slow to provide assistance to tenants
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013
Page 7 of 7
with a rent burden and he would like to have legal statements from AIMCO to fulfill this need. He
described his situation of having only ,$200 left over to pay for food and necessities after rent is
leaving him barely afloat. He recommended that they should be giving a break to tenants if they are
getting a break.
Kathleen Burke, 205 Bridge Street, stated that she just finished a term of Salem Public Tenants,
Mass Alliance of tenants, and she is tired of hearing landlords and companies saying that they need
tax breaks. They spent a long time hashing this agreement out, and where the agreement is not
being honored, she wants the Council and the Planning Board not to do anything until these things
are worked out. When they made an agreement for people who left Loowers that they were
going to get help, some were honored and some were not. They hada.een working with Jason Silva
and they didn't know that he left. People need help and everyone wan their piece. She described
this as low income housing not affordable housing. She asks* e Couri" o not do anything until
AIMCO steps up to the plate. *
Councilor McCarthy asked what it takes to get a %� d
t-based voucher to <w 'ch Atty. Sacks
responded stating that the Salem Housing Authoritgthe Department of H�ousiBg both have
vouchers that they can make project based vouchers , pared to go fgryWard into the
program to get mote vouchers.
Mx. Caine stated that he approached th�eem Housing 1uthty fox many years about the
vouchers and they said if AIMCO would asor kthey would give e He described the rental
assistance demonstration as a major initiative" aretroaCti a converst fox residents needing rental
assistance as to statute was written so that yo, couldj&bac.: `emphasized that this building is
eligible to apply for these vouc ers. He state 4 the Of i of Multi-family Dwellings wants
people to come in for appphcahon" d there have not been many and he has been informed that if
AIMCO came in they ado d get the
a*
Ms.Jackson reviewed the amo nts o£taxes received,' orE m Loring Towers, and prospective amounts.
'
She stated thathe tai dollars Al un
ar approxatel�?clje same, meaning that the amounts are equal to
.? v $ `
what they would t pay;:r�t�r come,rek ted.
Cou cal argent asked f0 tbargam,ru ood faith and pointed out that an approval of one thing
that w sup .osed to help "item that3didn't help. He is also concerned about them having to
foreclose due'to to construntsf 121t1.
Councilor O'I{eefe asked if�the Planning Board and City Council have your commitment to work
with the people to helpvre�solve this matter, as he wants this addressed. Mr. Sacks responded that
they want to work wit }us and all to interested parties.
Bet Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk, read into record a letter from Eleanor M. Lynn, 18-2
America's Way.
O'Keefe moved to close the public hearing and matter moved to Planning Board. All approved.
Adjourned at 9:11 pin
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
i
City of Salem Planning Board
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 16, 2013
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 16 2013 at 7:00 .m. in
g g g Y� Y P
the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School, 25 Memorial Drive, Salem, Massachusetts.
Vice Chairman Ready opened the meeting at 7:02 pm.
I. Roll Call
Those present were: Tim Ready, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Kirt Rte tn Anderson, Randy Clarke
e McCabe.Absent: Dale Yale
and George Pule
o,Chuck Pulo, Ch atr, an' axk'G re.
g
Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Co muriity Developrn t, Daniel Sexton,
Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recor " g Clerk. ,
Councillors Legault, Turiel, Sargent, McCarthy and Fux Y resenc@rhe acknowledge'
I. Approval of Minutes
May 2, 2013 draft minutes ,
4 bti.:
Mr. Rieder noted a couple revisions on page tcludin
• • Restating that , I in Rieder seemed to s ggesti rl t ootpxirt is removing trees rather than
the original owner doing this, would hke s, -omment'tokbe
• The word"shooting shoul'dbe reworded'as "percolating";
• Clarified that h'e s not Sugg sting that the move the building back, rather use the berm as
`tzti"�4..
a buffer.
u.
No further comments or�ire 'or were made by Planning Board members.
Wfi41
Motton N :`Clarke m&de a okoir to'abbmve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Rieder and a unanimous
vote was t en..A//the memhern voted en%ivo, with a 6-0 vote ([Lfr. Ready (Bice Chair). Mr Sider, Nlr. Mifahe
Mr. Clark Mr. Anderson, edet)til favor and none opposed The motion ivas accepted The decision is
herehv incoipoi'ated as part of these rn}irutes
II. Regular Agend
Mr. Ready introduced th` first agenda item.
i
Project: Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation for SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 40-year extension from
property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A, with the applicant
maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the first fifteen (15)
years, for the property located at 12 POPE STREET.
Applicant: SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LP
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 2 of 12
Location: 12 POPE STREET
Lynn Duncan, Director of Community Development and Planning, stated that the public hearing
was closed last night and this is the opportunity for the Planning Board to discuss the findings and
it's up to the Planning Board to deliberate. Dan Sexton, Staff Planner, stated that the Board needs
to adopt findings and make a recommendation in order to approve the application. Mr. Sexton read
some draft findings for consideration by the Planning Board into the record. The findings read by
Mr. Sexton stated:
1. The proposed project area is qualified under the statuto ANOB, tion of a "blighted
open," "decadent"or "substandard"area establishedirttion 1 ofChapter 121A.
`
d
The Salem Planning Board has determined that the alem Het hts development was
constructed in 1974 to address a blighted, open�2n substandardlie . on Pope Street in
Salem, on a difficult to develop site with subsr�tttal ledge. Over they s, the 283 unit
multifamily building on the site has experieg eke degradation of aging, to dept ate original
4
systems, high energy costs, and heavy use from th`e vho have lived the over the 40
year period since original construction. Capital needsF"s dies have shown that the building
continues to require substantial°�n estment, for ba all frastructure as well as for the
rehabilitation of the interior of aL Ie t,,, nits on tumoveP.. Due to the inability to raise
VVI
rents or to increase mortgage proceed from tliepr�operty for�yea ital needs as a result of the
multiple affordable housing restrictions whichreutnbe. „te property (including a 100-year •
restriction held by thq,6i of Salem) •rt i critic tEie preservation of this affordable
�,.
housing 4 PF
resourceJand thepr ention of b ' ht and substandard conditions on the site and in
the surrounding%q g hborho�'-d that the as, 'stance of Chapter 121A be provided to the
project. The pro ecf has e perienced mortgaefault and workout status. The owner has
t, ism
diligentl} pursued aIII v. ' abl&pub *'c an nvate sources of affordable housing funds to
addtess the b creat'ed+b madequate capitalization, but Chapter 121A status is essential
t, these efforts to''4 reven abs te- and substandard project conditions. Therefore, the
er Su
a% Planning Boazd.finds tha„`all of the above factors qualify the project to meet the
state purpose and'j inten of the definition of a "blighted open,” "decadent" or
"substa d" atea
2. The proleciis,.n°G m contravention of any zoning, subdivision, health or building
ordinance or b' law or the rules and regulations of the City of Salem (the "City').
The project is in conformance with local zoning, subdivision, health or building ordinances,
by-law and rules and regulations of the City.
3. The project does not conflict with the City's master plan, or if there is no master
plan, cvith a local or regional plan, as appropriate.
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16, 2013
Page 3 of 12
The Salem Planning Board finds that,the project is in compliance with the planning goals
and objectives of the City, as a much needed affordable housing resource for the City, and as
an anchor of stability to prevent blight and decay in the surrounding neighborhood. The
City has made a major commitment to the viability of this multi-family apartment
development and the families who live there, through the lawsuit brought to block the
conversion of Salem Heights to market rate housing in the late 1990s, and the 100-year
affordable housing restriction the City obtained as a result of that lawsuit. The financial
stability of the project will be supported with the consistency of the payment formula under
Chapter 121A agreement; the City will benefit financially as,,N eY by sharing through the
statutory formula in rental increases permitted by the afforda le housing restrictions, and
avoiding the need to have annual negotiations, and, potentially, e-consuming and costly
annual appeals of real estate tax assessments.
4. TheI Pro ectis not detrimental to.
a. the best interests ofthe public ��
b. the best interests ofpublic safety and co enie c ;nor
c. consistency with the most suitable deve.10" nt of the City;
The Salem Planning Board has derexrn d that the prolee ill further the best interests of
the public and the Ci -`�
p ry by provtdtrimu�needed, safe and�d�cent affordable housing to
� � •rvi
families, through the support provide by the pYedictable amount of taxes payable under
• Chapter 121A, as well as providing a p edit moble saiu ca df tax revenue for the City, and
participation in any met in rental tnco under the ieft ory formula of Chapter 121A.
5. The project con tures 4p blit use and nedt;and
The Salem PlaIS& _ d NeYmitiethaV`ee project meets this criteria by supporting a
muelirii ed&c� affordable. sing develop ent subject to a 100-year restriction held by the
r
C�',ty, and will bee the so"' unhding neighborhood by enabling the project to address the
q maintenance and cap tal needssaot the project notwithstanding the limitations on rental
incom created by the affordable housing restrictions held by the City and federal and state
governments. k""
6. No relocaitoit,-of residents is required since the ongoing maintenance and capital
repalrs progt tris being undertaken by the Applicant are being performed with
tenants in pla e.
Motion:Mr. McCabe made a motion to accept the lindinns as stated b staff and recommend approval o the Salem
Ffeigbts Chapter 121A application for 12 Pape Street seconded by A4r. Clarke and a rneinimous vote was taken
Ail the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vale (Y(r Readv (Vice Chair) Ms Sides Mr. XfiCabe Mr. Clarke
N(c Anderson, and Mc Rieder) in favor and none opposed The motion was accepted The derision is hereby
incorporated as part of lbese rrnnutes
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 16, 2013
Page 4 of 12
Mr. Ready introduced the second item.
Project: Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION
ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-year
extension to the 15-year period of exemption from property taxation under
Section 10 of Chapter 121A for the property located at 1000 LORING
AVENUE.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE a
Mr. Sexton stated that staff was asked by Loring Towers Sale Prese tion Associates, LP and
Councilor O'Keefe to continue this item to the next meetin so they m p e time to resolve the
issues raised during the joint public hearing.
Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to acre t the re nest- o' a continudn e of the Loan Tou :,C h ter 121A
gPplication till the Jane 6" reeulirr Planning Board meelij seE'»"Aded by M ,Clarke and a aoanfmous vote was
taken. All the memr.members voted in-favor, with a 6-0 vote Read i"e'CLah Ms. Sides �Ir. McCabe Mr.
Clarke,Mr.Anderson and Mr. Riederj in�rvor and none opposed T1ie otion was accepted The decision is bereb�
incorporated as part of these minutes
Project: Continued Public Hearing", �i the=:Pla ed Unit D" elopment Special Permit,
Site Plan Review and Flood azardiDistri S cial Permit Public Hearing. •
Specifically, ,th requested, peflttons cocem select demolition and
redevelo tmentof the Salem:klarbor Power Station Site to include the
const,t,"', of a , ew state-of be-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric
generation cility;o a 20+/- acie42 pftion of the Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRI `r ,POWER-SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: y24,EORT
t\ttorney, oseph Corte �,FederaUStree representing the applicant Footprint Power, said that
this:ts the second in the seii of meee gs that they are presenting the proposal for Footprint
Power Heyre�iewed the pxes'en�tanon"from the previous meeting. This evening they are going to
continue theii',ptentation on.<new materials. As they continue to present this, and as questions
come up, the specified consult`nt will respond to those issues. He introduced Scott Silverstein,
COO of FootprmtPower dj
A member of the audience asked if they could film this presentation, to which the Vice Chair said
yes. Mr. Ready reminded the audience that there is an official audio recording of the meeting which
is available through the Planning Department.
Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint, stated that in the discussion regarding the minutes that the
trees in question are not scheduled to be removed, which he also confirmed with National Grid.
The other issue came up in the meeting in regards to concerns about the plant in Everett. The
concern that was raised were about explosions and gas coming out to the stacks. They looked at the
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting.Minutes.-May 16,,2013
Page 5 of 12
new reports which stated that National Grid was doing maintenance on the line and they did the
flaring on the Mystic site which was not related to the plant, and was a safe and controlled event.
The other point that he wanted to make was about the scope of the project, specifically the kind of
inner workings of the site as well as what they have gone through on the permitting front. They
have gone through the Siting Board hearing over ten days, which included thousands of documents
and testimonies. Others will be vetted before the Department of Environmental Protection, as
there is an ongoing MEPA process, and they expect the Secretary of Energy to issue a certificate on
the process. Many of the issues are being vetted elsewhere. They hopefu�ly have answers to all the
questions that will be asked as they have spent a great deal of time th nkingaabout this project. The
city has been involved in each of these proceedings and these issues lve been seen by others. He
e'
concluded by stating that there is a packed agenda tonight, alon wtth,shdes that will demonstrate
their plans. ,,��
&P.
Brian Marchetti, TetraTec, is the civil engineer on the prgl�ct,'focused on stormy ater management
and facilities. He reviewed the size of the project and explained how it current! operates under
EPA multi-sector general permit. He then described sh es that'showed the cur enG and proposed
outfalls on the site and the direction of the stormwater floe He spdke of the treate "wastewater on
the facility and how that impacts day-to-day functions He st_t`�d that it was important to note that
currently, on the entire facility, there are no drainage connech'on , to the city's 48-inch drain line and
they are not proposing that. He then showed a slide of the p, kosed stormwater management
system, noting that none of the storm, atet•'r noff will be di.Abted' or discharged into the
surrounding streets. He described the plan•for thekneev stormwatecollection area and said that
• there would only be 7 itches of water in the, asm,rv,a d w>hdtsc `tge in process stormwater into
Salem Harbor. Oil water se aratin technology gas# escnbed`"�Tlie northeast part of site will largely
pt a $ F
remain unchanged, but they will replace catclnsir�t the beginning of the parking lot, and will add
catchbasins up the drive, ay, along th water qua units. Additionally, in that same section they
proposed some dernofi'sl `" at the site, but the sla s,�,:•will remain. Catch basins will be there to
. , .
collect ��..�
drainage before ou flll 11 outfalls are bemg.9posed to remain to clean stormwater runoff
from the property �
� 4 ,
wm
abPw23. �} t ✓ yL
He then described the`t"000ftb design nd discussed harvesting rooftop runoff Mr. Marchetti then
s oke oEch route of the x1tn from th ftop.
P
ra
Nl
Then reviewed the drain line eT"cation, and said that they are working with the City and peer review
consultants for the final destgri',' s they would like to relocate portion of drain line.
,'\aIn terms of water qua'li"j!,>ltilr. Marchetti stated that they need to meet DEP requirements in order to
promote groundwater i' tration which will be cleaner as part of the proposed development. Based
on the DEP standards they expect to have a net decrease in paved area of approximately 15 acres.
He then reviewed standard DEP stormwater requirements and explained how the development of
the site will conform with those requirements. Explained that this site has some obstacles, but just
in the fact that they are reducing the paved areas by 15 acres, the direct result reduces a significant
amount of rainfall runoff. He noted that the water quality units will be tested by third parties; they
have been tested and have been found to be at manufacturers requirements, which would allow
them to use them on the site. They are treating a 1 inch water quality volume that is required by the
standard. He described this as a significant improvement over what is currently on the site. This
site is considered a critical site due to shellfish on the site. They are a re-development project and
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 6 of 12
while they are required to meet certain standards, they are meeting all of the standards beyond what .
is required. There are no illicit discharges proposed and there are no illicit discharges known on site.
If there are any then the connection will be immediately shut off. '
Mr. Marchetti then showed a slide on the amount of fill that is being brought to the site and
described the elevations that will be changed on the site due to the additions of the flu.
He then showed and explained a slide on the conceptual gas line routing plan.
Another slide showed the domestic water and fire water services on the5 i I rently. He noted that
they are not proposing any changes to those lines, but will add line- supply the water tanks with
water to facilitate the fire service needs.
He concluded his presentation by showing a slide on the se we co nections "
Kenny Kinkela, Bay Shore Services, reviewed the floods and assoct ted': ligations. He
'
reviewed the effect of 100 year flood zones and the i d ty zones under the FENT 1 ina in9, which
is zoned at 12 feet. He said that they need to addles , how,�" o gZrotect these sites and to his
knowledge, there has only been one hurricane in 1950s whi h,(bfeeched hurricane food elevations).
He showed and described proposed elevations on the site. They roposed raising the elevations of
the site to 16 feet, at a minimum, particulq. onn the main part oe site. He acknowledged that
while this isn't a significant change on the 6644m' eas of the sne;it _ilYbe a significant change at
the southern parts of the site. The current F flood> one is setgf5?F10 feet, and the new facility
will give them a safety factor of 4 to 6 feet.
Mr. Kinkela then discussed=Iccltmate an and sta ed that fro an observational methodology over
a 40 year period, theyxc' e up wit a 15 year rising,,which is how they came to that estimation. He
explained that they too`kith mean high level water and,;then added in sea level rise. He presented
the NOAH storm surgemod for`Sale Harbor, �dluch showed a potential of 6 feet in sea water
rise during a nor easter. He then: ded'ur=some.addiuonal buffer, and that's how they came up with
16 feet. el!
He th'6nraddressed how fill;is oing to'"A ect a person's home. Mr. Kinkela stated that the site is
protectedty well from the orth and northeast as large wave actions get dampened by the
topogrlphy tY x wave actio' at comes in from a storm will be interrupted by the breakwater,
which is what h1pp'.e s currently
�� may.
Mr. Kinkela then presente on construction phasing describing each of the stages. He stated that
preliminary staging will in e place between August 2013 and March 2014, and at that time they will
be removing tanks, as yell as electrical systems to try to grade this site down to smoother profile.
He then showed a graphic with the demolition area. Stage 2 will take place between March 2014
and July 2015, which includes the coal handling conveyer and the stacks. For this stage, the emphasis
is on getting demolition done as soon as possible. Stage 3 is the beginning of the actual site
destruction which will take place between July 2014 and December 2014 and at this time access to
site will not be much different. They will limit it to delivery trucks and overall this will make a
significant difference to the community. The construction workers will come in from the arterial
roads and they will build as much parking as necessary for their workers.
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 7 of 12
The actual construction will consist of the installation of foundations for the buildings and auger
• cast piles He noted that the geotechnical work is ongoing right now. After pile work is underway
they will do general slab work followed by underground piping, which will take place between July
2014 and December 2014. Above ground construction will take place between December 2014 and
January 2016; and finally the facility operations will begin in 2016. He emphasized that the peak of
work will only be over the course of a few months.
Mike Hall, TetraTec, gave the traffic study presentation and stated that he oversaw preparation of
the traffic project. He provided a summary of findings and began by stating that during operational
phase, there will be a net benefit of traffic during construction phase.to Eject with construction
workers. Workers will show up before peak hours of traffic, which., y found to be 7:30 — 8:30am
and 4:30 — 5:30am. They did find that most of the roads have d'e' J e capacity to handle traffic.
t
One exception Derby and Webb Street, which is where mitigaho is being roposed. In 2012, they
did traffic counts in the area, and observed how and when the c come and out of the site.
Currently, there are almost 300 vehicles on a daily basis,,,�nd'tAey are expec'tuigbout 100 vehicles
per day which is a net benefit. The traffic study then' "cused on the constructiori,,base if there is
going to be an impact on the traffic. They looked.aC t total ot"16 intersections. CVeB and Derby
Streets, Essex and Webb Streets, both ends of Aytibe Dny Foxtenue and the siteway, and
Bridge and Webb Streets. They looked at peak times of-'t h ys as well as traffic signals. They
asked if these signals can function and handle the traffic and=t y tested what if scenarios. They
anticipate that 98% of traffic will come thio"trg Webb and Bridge eets.
They looked specifically at July- September 2,, 5vlie e, most workefs will be coming to the site.
• They conducted rigorous testing of if the B eets c hap the traffic, taking into account a
workforce this size and they cool be coming froa; 'further4disn e. The analysis they did showed
everyone coming fromthe oivr't• They looke at numbeAU lanes, traffic signal timings, etc. to
determine how well a tra fic signal is going to func 'on. Mr. Hall then explained the rating system
and showed that allot the ccess o ds function be een level of service rated A through D. He
noted that there were two fo 'tu s thaedUnot functioat those levels, which were Webb and Bridge
fin. :s
Streets, rated levehE,-,, ebb and erby Streets!!ai:O level F. The mitigation they are recommending
t - .
there is a pcisittontng oE, officer g the morning and afternoon, which will move it up to level
C. Footpru�it is wilting tock with'tk, city to mitigate the light. Mr. Hall then reminded the Board
and�t e mi nce that this is g a tl tee month period only. They want to be a good neighbor
and want to.w, rk with the city mak9; s work for all. He concluded, by saying that there may be
some miscellarie us trucks coming to from routes 114, 107 and 1A.
rsM tfr �w$
Scott Silverstein ac, wledge that it is a complex and difficult project. Mr. Ready echoed his
t-.
sentiments and also iticed the Peet Reviewers from AECOM, Kathleen Schaeffer and David
Deming. ,-
Ben Anderson stated that he heard a fair amount about materials coming in on barges but would like
to know about materials leaving the site. He asked about the plan for them to queue in the site, and
not on the city streets. Mr. Silverstein stated that everything that is going to off by barge will by able
to go by barge. He specifically stated that they will sort on site, demolish on site, anything that can
be reused will be the best option and will be used on site. Anything that can go off by barge will go
off, as they don't want to add congestion to the streets. Mr. Anderson asked how that is determined
to which Mr. Silverstein stated that in terms of thins being shipped, there are no major issues with
g g sPP l
things going off by barge, to which Mr. ICinkela added that no materials are leaving the site by truck.
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular,Meeting Minutes—May 16,2013
Page 8 of t2
They have been in discussions with the demolition contractors, and they have concluded that •
loading materials onto barge is easiest and quickest. Truck queuing at each of the entrance gates will
be set back into the site so trucks will be queued off the city streets. Mr. Anderson asked about the
frequency of deliveries to which Mr. Kinkela stated that he believed them to be as many as one a
day, which is about the same size of the coal loading ships now. He said that it will be aggregated
elsewhere and brought in, so it should be a pretty controlled and well planned delivery system.
Randy Clarke asked about trucks going to the site. The assumption was how where they would go,
can it be a requirement that the trucks take Routes 114 and 107 as Derby is a single point failure.
This is a minor detail but it would do a lot to help the neighborhood N1161trikela agreed and added
that they can specify arterial routes.
Mr. Rieder would like to enter into the record a set of red-lined drawin reflecting many of the
comments from the last meeting in graphic format to help tl;5a, ;,hcant under and. Tim Ready will
accept them and the applicant does not object. Mr. Ready'theni reminded th applicant and the
audience to stand up so everyone can hear. A
Mr. Rieder questioned the markings on the cherry trees'in, gards>t , removal. Mx,`Silverstein said
that he checked with National Grid and they are not planni g,ctaking out trees. Mr. Rieder stated
that they would be well suited to makez�tes that they do;q remove trees based on previous
lawsuit.
Mr. Rieder asked why stone slope is needed a oppos °e t loam and e d.. Mr. Marchetti responded
:
that as it is designed now the central portion the;�b sin w
.Ian
aped with loam and seed and
the stone surrounding the res ou. The thg `ft'is tha[''the fresh stone could be used as a •
construction lay down. t earhasre ough volume` that will prfeet trucks and materials in the area
from heavy rains. Mr, eder con ued his que dons, stating that he felt that something was
squirrely with the coou , and ask.. what is thew}point as opposed to the high point. Mr.
Marchetti described the inner-- ev i6rr aai9 stone atfid holds the same elevation 9 up to the center
e ' ?"
to the collection NIr Rieder recommend6d''IRat tlirey clarify the drawings. Mr. Marchetti said that
the Elevntioi 'l0'is iv re.. hey vaa�,,to keep elevation. Mr. Rieder asked about location of fence by
Derby Street to which`NElr i kela s°°a�i',,d that he does not know the answer to the question but the
intent is,-tq keep it in the area, IF the chaipllink fence. The site does slope up. Put it near the chain
link fence.- Ur. Rieder reco ' ended a�web-enabled camera for the residents for everyone to see
what is gotng-o eyond the 12': oot high wall. Mr. Silverstein said that he thinks it would be great
to do that, it's`sometlun that. e need to discuss with the city and the Coast Guard to make sure
g Y
they are not running a.f�oul, lady it is a great idea. Mr. Rieder said that demolition would be a great
thing to see as it goes(N�vay, to which Mr. Silverstein said that they would like to continue the
discussion, keeping se
cutity concerns in mind.
Mr. Rieder asked what section of PUD is this project on to which Attorney Correnti stated that they
have shown all 65 acres of the site which is what encompasses the whole PUD and as this site
continues to develop this will become more clear. By applying in this manner, this gives the
Planning Board ultimate control as to how the site will be developed, and noted that there is no
other site or project like this in Salem. He said that because they have to demolish and build within
the fences there is a sequencing of this. Throughout their presentations they will continue to
address how the traffic, drainage, curb cuts, they will continue addressing those with the Board. Mr. •
Rieder said that there is some concern that some sort of housing will be shoe horned into this
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 16, 2013
Page 9 of 12
development, to which Mr. Correnti responded that because it is zoned industrial and it's not a
permitted use; they don't want anyone to stress about this. Mr. Silverstein added that they know
they can't do a high density development; that cannot happen here and everyone knows it. He
described the northern portion of site, as industrial, and then moving southerly to light industrial.
.The site kind of lays itself out, and it should put some fears aide. Mr. Correnti said they have been
having a lot of discussions elsewhere and explained that they have asked for this as a PUD, so if in
the future something comes along, then they will ask to amend the site. If other uses do come in
then they will come back before the Planning Board.
Mr. Ready recognizes that future plans will be back before us.
Ms. Duncan asked a follow-up question in regards to storm water,,, e'et'n area, how does it affect
the future development of site, to which Mr. Silverstein resp06d$d thit does not impact it. They
+>
have to have storm water in place and they need to use Illo€tliat% They need,,to stabilize that until
rle g Y �
they are ready to do the next phase of construction. The net the don t�oaut to do on the site
is preclude future uses for marine industrial uses. Tlwant two make sure tkia gland is safe and
secure. Mr. Marchetti added that any future developme that occurs on the site nee -t�be raised.
The basin is significantly oversized with more than enoug_ capacltthan what it c" handle. Ms.
Duncan recommended keeping that in mind as they contuitio"tlimk about where to place the city's
48 inch drain line, and the increase in the impervious area,Atcecommended that the team be
prepared to articulate that response Mr. Sl$v xstein agreed andsiti ,,they would work with her office
to figure out where to put the drainage pipes
• George McCabe stated that he looked at th'e studymchatwone and use that as a uide for
conditions which will put the pr j in good sh1 ee s`o
g
3
Mr. Anderson askedJ` clarifica on the laaauage for Planned Unit Development (PUD)
ordinance, specificall on _ tions and 7.3.3, a i e read from those two sections. He stated
that the key items for him uic ded,ttm�;litntis and complete property. Attorney Correnti stated that
they have pxovrded«the total plant ox the who e safe and recommends looking at what is proposed as
this is the,.... the lz e pres en d it He acknowledged that there is the possibility for future
developme t, whtch tey wi have k ED back to the Planning Board again to present, but they
still have-,,,rtt�orepresentatrons v gtveB they have given a good answer of how this site will be
designed 1n`d oted that open^space is art of the plan. He emphasized that the PUD is what you
have to frontyou. As far as hat's going to come down the road in terms of future development,
they don't know=n but it wibe something that fits in the Designated Port Area (DPA). He said
that having open space�does disqualify it from the PUD and they think a PUD from the city's
perspective gives thet'A3n mg Board more power to review. He concluded by stating that they
could have gone a diffet t route, but they wanted to come this way.
41
Mr. Rieder said that there are still some blurry areas and would only like to take the opportunity to
recommend a site circulation route, as he sees a big horseshoe as a problem. Mr. Silverstein
responded that it is problematic as the site has marine-related industrial uses and the challenge is
communication issues, specifically between the northern industrial parcel and the wharf.
Issue opened to publicforcomment
• Hans Weedon, 1A Daniels Street Court, asked if they have taken the National Grid project into
account, to which Mr. Silverstein responded in the affirmative that they have been in discussion with
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 10 of 12
the city, and the city has asked them to work with the three other projects and have the project •
managers communicate with each other.
George Smith, 6 White Street, asked if they were able to restrict coal distribution times to which Mr.
Silverstein responded that they haven't gotten to that level of detail yet. He continued, stating that
this should not be an issue as these will just be a container coming off a barge. He said that they will
vet this with the city, in terms of bringing the fill in and if they need to have the same timing
restrictions, then they will do that.
Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, noted that traffic study was done in Ap. AN.d sked if there has been
a traffic study done during the tourist season. She is concerned tha �e pipeline is being brought
down through the city and is asking that the project not be Brough o city, and recommends a
staging area. She is concerned about anyone who tries to get of�the f y o the willows and other
events will have problems getting through the city due to this Sli does notk a person in charge
can manage that. She has looked at other watersidegptojecis and askedabt workers being
carpooled from a ferry across the way and thinks they should do this in Salem Sl so asked about
the timeline for the removal of the tanks, which iis'J rtant to her. She askedif &posing of
turbine buildingis art of the plan, and when can theec_t ` bear about thah She also has
P P y ,-14
concerns about the fill they will be using and if it will b, ontammated soil. Mr. Silverstein
responded that they will have someone fr TetraTec at ano'11e eeting who can address this, but
the short answer is that it has to be clean fill BMs. Haley then askew if they will use contaminated fill
on the site to which Mr. Silverstein responded thatrthe DEP will de"l�w remediation, particularly
kit .�. '
what stuff needs to be taken off and what needs to"re on sne H stated that the short answer
is that it will be addressed under current reguons sf asT,t rbine Hall, the intent is to take •
down all the buildings that will not be re-usedr n noted that there is an architectural interest in
structural steel. In terms of th ssTsonality of'' affic study Mr. Hall stated that they recognize
tourist season and so tlei�are a ceoup e of things to Chink about- the timing of construction workers
and tourist arrmalsTMsr ses th` question of �o�31a happens if Webb Street is beingtorn u
p.
Trenching could be expected a id the eo= be situ a ons where cars will not be allowed to get n
road at cextaitia
timesIn that srtifation�the ci 'ean
nge issue what times work can be done on Webb
k
Street Mx Svexsteiti:disusseazthhalleof parking options as the site does not have
sufficiention-site parking He said.tthat with off-site parking, then clock starts earlier which will
extendtth umber of months the pros will take and means that they need to add more workers
or mote time Wsd
Lester Smith, 10,N emonalDn , stated that they will have traffic problems in October, particularly
the last 3 weeks ir O tober from Tuesday through the weekend. He then asked about how a high
powered gas line will bese�yrilred; as well as how is a fence going to stop sound on Fort Avenue and
asked for more detailon the construction and demolition timelines. He specifically asked if
homeowners in the im111
mediate area will be compensated if thee is damage to their foundations due
to the demolition. Mr. Silverstein responded, stating George from TetraTec will answer these
questions in more detail when he presents. He also said that they don't anticipate any blasting and
they've heard the concerns loud and clear, so they will direct demolition crews not to implode the
structures. As for the pilings, there is no anticipation for blasting. In terms of the sound wall on
Derby Street, they are speaking colloquially as the whole length of the site which includes both
Derby Street and Fort Avenue and he apologizes for imprecision. In terms of the gas line, Spectra •
will construct that line, as this is what they do throughout the country. He noted that this is a fairly
small line for them, but recognizes that this is a large line for community. This will be a whole
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 16, 2013
Page 11 of 12
• separate process and lines will be interior to plant, which he emphasized will be better addressed at
spectra part of process.
Ilir Korriku, 47 Fort Ave, stated that he is concerned about dust issues and in the past he has made
phone calls regarding dust. He asked if there will a point of contact with issues that arise during the
renovations and requested that there be an assigned point of contact who will be available to
respond to issues. Mr. Kinkela responded, stating that in terms of dust mitigation, they will use dust
abatement measures,including watering down trucks. Site measures are very clear and they will have
people on site conducting monitoring. Mr. Silverstein added that they w,a t to make sure they have
a hone set u and route it to the right erson as the are putting eve cess in lace to make
P PP Y • P g �P ° P
sure everything goes smoothly. The important thing is that there will`l�e someone who can address
issues and fix problem. Ms. Duncan said that there are people [he"���tayor's office, as well as on
salem.com, or on the city's Facebook page where these issues cane addressed.
** �
Mr. Sexton asked if, based on the scale of the site, is therealiaticipation of a 'tional taps on city
water supply. Mr. I{inkela responded that the existing`cnections will be suffici'en and they are in
the process of developing a storm water prevention p s part of-that process.
Theodora Sobin, 110 Derby Street, stated that she is cone, �ed�about fumes, emissions during
normal maintenance, plant safety, and an �overall huge pile ofs, ues in regards to the relative risk
neighborhood. She x
around the nei
g ecommend* scussmg this sooner. ather than later. Mr. Silverstein
acknowledged that every topic feel like it egd t t:6hit the most an. s plant is beingbuilt and
safety is primary concern. It's important tooth m that*rev eryone get there and gets home
• safely. The will have future meetings withmorg det�comtttg 0,
n. He then reviewed what they
.,�
have presented thus far to term& the state of th t etmsstons which are going to be 2 parts per
million carbon dioxide,_�ammon4 ,, and nitrous o de, which exceeds every standard. The stack
height will be optimized, nd he sires ed that this plartt is safe and is being engineered to ensure it is
safe.
Rinus Oosthock, Salem Cham beri�f ComtnerceF eked them for their work on this project. He is
concerned about thd" txa c i's,es, and stresse the importance of good communication. He
recomme ds talking to'Deation S r fqx traffic plans, as well as utilizing Route 62. he said that
thereaaieays to addxess [l at m Oct ler as well. Mr. Silverstein said that they alluded to
carpooling, in they will encourage it as` they are also planning for the worst. Past projects indicate
that they willae this, but they%ire assuming the worst. Ntx. Hall pointed out there are going to be
two Octobers wtth. , lot less wo>kers. Ms. Duncan said that the city requested that they should work
with the North Shorex ranspo cation Management Association, to which Mr. Silverstein agreed.
Jeff Brook, 14 Webb Sixeet, stated that health and safety issues are a concern. Last week he spoke
to many neighbors who were not aware of what was happening on the site, and asked about what
the city is doing to let people know what is going on here. He is especially concerned about the
conversion of tons of emissions and he is concerned about the health of people who live around
the site. He hopes the city will do due diligence in getting message out. Mr. Silverstein explained
the parts per million conversion and stressed that the key for them is to find technology that will
reduce emissions for the region. TI-ds plant's efficiency will reduce emissions in the whole area. Mr.
Brock emphasized that while they are happy they are shortening the stack but the reality is that the
. emissions are going to be coming out closer to people. Mx. Silverstien responded that an air
modeling expert will be at a future meeting to address this issue and he understands his concern and
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 16,2013 . '
Page 12 of 12
the local concerns. Ms. Duncan would be happy to discuss better ways to get the word out about
this in addition to the cmails, city news, email blasts, city website, and they meet with various
neighborhood associations. She would be happy to hear any other specific recommendations. Mr.
Ready stated that the board is uniquely aware of the concerns of the citizens of Salem which is why
the meetings are conducted in such detail.
Ms. Haley recommended SATV to film this. She is concerned because they had email blasts from
Councillor McCarthy on other issues but nothing was about this.
Attorney Correnti provided some closing remarks. He stated that the ..ilLhave other upcoming
presentations, where they will provide you new information first as well as answering questions from
the public. He said that future topics will include noise, air modelk .i g` ,4 ecific filings, landscaping
and architecture. w"
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the next ' riiiltg oard meetir on June 6, 2013,
seconded b Helen Sides. ° g
y s All approved 6-0. � �..
,:.
III. Old/New Business '
Community Preservation Committee Appointment
Dan Sexton explained that the'comrssioniNq recently establish and he included information
about it in the packet. The Planning Boardthas bee asked by the lv i3x and the City Council to
nominate a member. Helen Sides was no`s ate-d$liy Ralidy Claxk�e {irt Rieder seconded. All •
approved 6-0.
Randy Clarke recommen shorter meetings in order to get the public out to them.
Vice Chairman Rel y aske f[here ere any further:,old/new business, there being none he asked
fora motion to adjourn. w`
IV. Adjournment
Randy C' ke made a mo ho to adjourn,the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 6-0.
Vice;CTian Ready adjourned the mt g at 10:07pm. .
�.
W
Respectfully subrtiitted, $
Beth Gerard, Recordui Cler
z
AECOMAECOM 9789052100 tel
250 Apollo Drive 978 905 2101 fax Q
Memorandum Cbelmsford,MA 01824
www.aecom.com ,N
l
Q�
E
s
U
fd
Q
To Daniel Sexton, Salem Staff Planner Page 1
Lynn Goonan Duncan, AICP, Director Salem Planning& Community
Development , David Knowlton, PE, Salem City Engineer, Nick Rubino PE,
cc AECOM
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review -Review Comments Set 1
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project
Subject Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP
From Kathy Schaeffer, P.E. and Dave Derrig,AICP .
Date May 16, 2013
This memorandum presents the initial results of the preliminary civil technical peer review of the Site
Plans issued 4/4/13 and Stormwater Management Report dated 4/4/13 for the Salem Harbor Station
Redevelopment Project located at 24 Fort Avenue in. Salem, MA. The documents were reviewed for
compliance with standard civil engineering practice, with the applicable requirements of the City of
Salem Zoning Ordinance: Planned Unit Development, Flood Hazard Overlay District, Site Plan
Review, and applicable requirements of the Salem Revised Subdivision Regulations and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Storm Water Management Policy.
The following materials were submitted and are in the process of being reviewed:
1. Site Plan set for the Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project located at 24 Fort Avenue
in. Salem, MA, compiled by TetraTech and dated 4/4/13;
2. Stormwater Management Report for the Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project
prepared by TetraTech dated 4/4/13;
3. Environmental Impact Statement, Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project, prepared by
TetraTech, dated 4/8/13;
4. Noise Study Excerpts from DEIR and FEIR prepared by TetraTech;
5. Traffic Impact Study, Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment, prepared by TetraTech,
submitted 11/19/12.
This memo focuses on the preliminary review of the Site Plan set for conformance with the Site Plan
Review criteria and the preliminary review of the civil site plans and the stormwater report. Additional
review comments on the site plans and stormwater report are anticipated as the review process
continues. Review comments on the landscape plans, the lighting plans and the building plans will be
provided at a later date. Review comments on the Environmental Impact Statement, the Noise Study
and the Traffic Impact Study will also be provided at a later date.
i
ACO/M
Comments on the Site Plans-
The Site Plans were reviewed for conformance with section 9.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
following information is to be provided on the plans:
1. "Location and dimensions of all buildings and other construction";
2. "Location and dimensions off all parking areas, loading areas, walkways and
driveways";
3. "Locations and dimensions of internal roadways and access ways to adjacent public
roadways";
4. "Location and type of external lighting";
5. "Location, type, dimensions and quantities of landscaping and screening";
6. "Location and dimensions of all utilities, gas,telephone, electrical, communications,
water, drainage, sewer and other waste disposal";
7. "Location of snow storage areas';
8. "Location of all existing natural features, including ponds, brooks, streams and
wetlands";
9. "Topography of the site,with two-foot contours";
10. "Conceptual drawings of building to be erected, including elevations, showing
architectural styles".
General:
1. The layout of the plans makes the plans difficult to follow. Key plans on sheets would be
useful.
2. An overall site plan, showing the full extent of the site should be provided.
3. The following information required under Section 9.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance is not
provided on the plans:
a. Dimensions of the proposed parking areas, loading areas, walkways and driveways;
b. Locations and dimensions of proposed telephone, electrical and communications
services
4. Site Preparation Plans/Demolition Plans/Phasing Plans would be beneficial to more clearly
define the extent of demolition in each phase of the work and the interim conditions during
each phase.
5. The disposition of the existing utilities is not clearly defined.
Site Plans:
1. Sheet V-100 Record Conditions Plan of Land
a. The scale of the plan makes it difficult to read. Cut sheets(at 1"=40') would be
useful.
2. Sheet V-101 Record Conditions Plan of Land Utility Plan
a. The scale of the plan makes it difficult to read. Cut sheets(at 1"=40')would be
useful.
3. Sheet V-102 Wetland Resource Areas
a. No comments at this time.
4. Sheet C-100 General Arrangement Plan West
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review—Review Comments Set 1 Page 2
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/Footprint Power May 16, 2013
i
AECOM
• a. Dimensions should be added. (See general notes above.)
5. Sheet C-101 General Arrangement Plan East
a. Dimensions should be added. (See general notes above.)
6. Sheet C-102 Surfacing Plan West and East
a. Dimensions should be added. (See general notes above.)
7. Sheet C-103 Layout and Materials Plan Southwest
a. No comments at this time.
8. Sheet C-104 Layout and Materials Plan Southeast
a. No comments at this time.
9. Sheet C-105 Layout and Materials Plan Northwest
a. Additional layout information for the access road should be provided.
b. How will emergency vehicles gain access to the secondary emergency access road if
the road is gated?
10. Sheet C-106 Layout and Materials Plan Northeast
a. Additional layout information for the access road should be provided.
11. Sheet C-107 Grading and Drainage Plan West
a. The finish floor elevations of the proposed buildings should be indicated.
. b. The elevations at the top and bottom of the gabion wall should be noted.
c. The proposed catch basin to catch basin connections is not the preferred way of
laying out the proposed drainage system.
12. Sheet C-108 Grading and Drainage Plan East
a. See notes for C-107
13. Sheet C-109 Grading and Drainage Plan Facility Outside of Berm West
a. CBs G, I, K and L cannot be gutter inlets.
b. Elevations should be provided for the top and bottom of the gabion wall and for the
low landscape wall.
c. WQS-C appears to conflict with existing water lines.
14. Sheet C-110 Grading and Drainage Plan Facility Outside of Berm East
a. CB's M and N cannot be gutter inlets.
b. Elevations should be provided for the top and bottom of the gabion wall and for the
low landscape wall.
15. Sheet C-111 Grading and Drainage Plan Southwest
a. The washed stone stormwater collection area is level. It is not clear how this area
will drain.
16. Sheet C-112 Grading and Drainage Plan Southeast
a. See comments for Sheet C-111.
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review—Review Comments Set 1 Page 3
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/Footprint Power May 16, 2013
A=COM
17. Sheet C-113 Grading and Drainage Plan Northwest .
a. No comments at this time.
18. Sheet C-114 Grading and Drainage Plan Northeast
a. Proposed contours should be provided in the areas of the building demolition.
19. Sheet C-115 Piping Plan Utility West
a. Provide 10' separation between water and sewer lines
b. Inverts should be provided for the proposed sanitary lines.
c. Flow arrows should be provided for both the existing and proposed sewer lines.
d. A compiled utility plan (showing existing utilities to remain and proposed utilities)
should be prepared to confirm that there are no conflicts.
20. Sheet C-116 Piping Plan Utility East
a. See comments for sheet C-115.
21. Sheet C-117 Piping Plan Fire Protection Yard Loop West
a. Not reviewed
22. Sheet C-118 Piping Plan Fire Protection Yard Loop East
a. Not reviewed
23. Sheet C-119 Utility Plan Outside of Berm West
a. Inverts should be provided for the relocated 48"drain line. Calculations should be
provided for the relocated drain line. The new drain line is over 240 longer than the •
existing line. Will the new drain line have enough capacity to handle the existing
runoff?
b. The relocated drain line should also be shown on Sheet C-109.
c. The proposed utilities should not be screened.
24. Sheet C-120 Utility Plan Outside of Berm East
a. See comments for sheet C-119.
i 25. Sheet C-500, C-501 and C-502 Civil Details
a. Not reviewed
26. Sheet C-503, C-504 Civil Details Outside of Facility
a. Was a beehive style grate considered for the catch basins located in the landscape
areas?
27. Sheet L-100 Landscape Grading Plan West
a. The contours along the access drive do match the contours on Sheet C-109.
28. Sheet L-101 Landscape Grading Plan East
a. Not reviewed.
Planting plans, lighting plans, and building elevations and sections have not been reviewed yet.
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review—Review Comments Set 1 Page 4 •
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/Footprint Power May 16, 2013
� f I
J
AE`/1
®M
Comments on the Stormwater Management Report
At this time, only a very preliminary review has been completed on the Stormwater Management
Report. The approach to stormwater management appears to be consistent with DEP Stormwater
Standards. For this first phase of construction, the project appears to reduce the total stormwater
runoff from the facility. As the remainder of the site is developed, stormwater management for those
redevelopment areas will need to be addressed.
General Comments:
1. The stormwater report does not include a detailed stormwater management plan for the
construction period. The report notes that a plan will be prepared and provided prior to
construction activities beginning.
2. Larger scale plans should be provided for the watershed plans.
3. A larger scale plan showing the test pit and boring locations would be easier to read.
The following comments based on a review of Site Plan Review Criteria listed in Section 9.5.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
9.5.6.1 "Adequacy of parking facilities and number of parking spaces proposed for each
development'
Page 3 of the"Brief Narrative"includes the following comment regarding Parking and Loading: "The
new plant will reuse the existing parking lot located to the north of the access driveway. Loading
operations will occur throughout the Facility as necessary during plant operations." Page 34 of the
"Environmental Impact Statement"includes the following discussion of the location and number of
parking spaces proposed: "There are no new parking spaces proposed. The existing paved lot will
continue to be used for the new Facility."
• The only reference to parking in the Plan Set is on Sheet C-105. There is a note pointing to the
existing parking area between the two Fort Avenue access drives that states the following: "Existing
parking lot to be restriped as required to accommodate proposed access road: maintain existing
pavement."
While it is expected that the existing paved parking areas are sufficient to accommodate employee
and visitor parking during operations, there is no plan or description that indicates the number and
location of parking spaces expected to serve the project. Slides 52 and 53 from the Applicant's
powerpoint presentation, located on the City of Salem website, come closest to indicating the number
and location of proposed parking spaces expected to be provided.
9.5.6.2 "Adequacy of loading facilities"
Page 3 of the"Brief Narrative"includes the following comment regarding Parking and Loading: "The
new plant will reuse the existing parking lot located to the north of the access driveway. Loading
operations will occur throughout the Facility as necessary during plant operations."
Other than the"Aqueous ammonia storage tank/unloading area', the Plan Set does not identify the
location or number of loading areas or loading docks at any of the proposed buildings.
9.5.6.3 "Adequacy of traffic circulation system"
The on-site circulation system appears to be adequate to address the low-volume operations
conditions expected to occur on the site. However, it should be noted that the entrance to the
proposed project (westernmost access at Fort Avenue closest to Memorial Drive)does not appear to
accommodate a WB-40 truck turning radius, causing entering truck traffic to extend into the oncoming
exit lane (Sheet C-105). It is recommended that the Applicant identify the design vehicle most likely
• Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review—Review Comments Set 1 Page 5
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/Footprint Power May 16, 2013
V
aeons
to be making deliveries during operations, and subsequently confirm that the on-site roadway can •
accommodate turns associated with that vehicle.
Furthermore, the Plan Set would benefit from a separate Parking and Circulation Plan. Specific
parking areas, sidewalks, pavement markings (such as crosswalks)and both directional and
informational signing should be identified in order to confirm that the on-site traffic circulation system
is indeed adequate.
9.5.6.4 "Adequacy of access points and routes to and from the land parcel to adjoining streets
and ways"
The"Traffic Impact Study, Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment, Salem, Massachusetts' prepared
by TetraTech and submitted to Footprint Power, LLC, on November 19, 2012, addresses both Phase
1 operations and construction traffic impacts.
Once constructed, the proposed natural-gas fired electric generation plant will operate with fewer
employees than under current conditions. Intersection capacity analyses included in the traffic impact
report indicate that acceptable operating conditions are expected for both AM and PM peak hours.
From an operations standpoint, access points and routes to and from the land parcel to adjoining
streets and ways are adequate.
Further detail is requested for two items:
• Crash rate analysis(Traffic Impact Study, page 8)indicates that the Bridge Street/Webb
Street intersection exhibits a crash rate higher than both the state and highway district rate.
A discussion of potential safety improvements to alleviate this condition should be provided;
• Identification of a designated truck route for deliveries to the plant should be provided.
Review of construction traffic impacts will be addressed at a later date. •
9.5.6.5 "Adequacy of type and amount of external lighting to be provided on the parcel"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.6 "Adequacy of type,quality and quantity of landscaping to promote an aesthetically
pleasing environment and to properly screen the development from adjacent land uses"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.7 "Adequacy of type, quality and quantity of vegetative screening to protect adjacent
and nearby land parcels from structures not aesthetically pleasing or wholly compatible with
such parcels"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.8 "Adequacy of the methods of disposal of sewage, refuse and other waste"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.9 "Adequacy of the method of surface drainage across and from the site"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.10 "Adequacy of the method of water distribution to and from the parcel and its
structures"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.11 "Adequacy of pedestrian circulation systems to and from parking areas and
structures" •
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review—Review Comments Set 1 Page 6
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/Footprint Power May 16, 2013
A=COM
Page 34 of the"Environmental Impact Statement'includes the following discussion of the proposed
pedestrian circulation pattern: 'Pedestrian circulation will be provided for the workers between the
existing parking lot and the new Facility; there will also be paths within the proposed landscaped
areas but outside of the acoustic landscaped berm."
As noted earlier, the Plan Set does not identify pedestrian connections between parking areas and
buildings: therefore,e, the adequacy of pedestrian circulation systems to and from parking areas and
structures cannot be determined at this time.
9.5.6.12 "Adequacy of protection or enhancement of natural areas"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.13 "Compatibility of the architecture of structures with architecture of
surrounding or nearby buildings"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
•
• Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review—Review Comments Set 1 Page 7
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/Footprint Power May 16, 2013
m
RECEIVE r
CJ
.,c
DEPT. OF PL ,;tNWG U
'OAMUNITY DEVELppp
May 21, 2013 Q
City of Salem
Planning & Community Development
120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project
Response to Comments by AECOM Dated May 16, 2013
Dear Planning Staff:
This letter provides responses to Review Comments Set 1, dated May 16, 2013, prepared by
AECOM in conjunction with their review of the Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project
Plans and Stormwater Management Report, both dated April 4, 2013. Note that a final set of
plans, herein referred to as "the plan set" will be prepared to address all peer review,public and
Planning Board comments prior to the close of the public hearing.
• General: (Annotated as "G" series)
1. The layout of the plans makes the plans difficult to follow. Key plans on sheets would be
useful.
GI Response:Key plaits will be added to each sheet
2. An overall site plan, showing the full extent of the site should be provided.
G2 Response:An overall site plan, showing the fall extent of the site, vi be added to the plan
set.
3. The following information required under Section 9.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance is not
provided on the plans:
a. Dimensions of the proposed parking areas, loading areas, walkways and driveways;
b. Locations and dimensions of proposed telephone, electrical and communications
services.
Gia. & b. Response:Dimensions of the existing parking area (there are 'to proposed parking
areas), loading areas, walkways and driveways will be added to the plan set. Locations and
dimensions of proposed telephone, electrical and communications services ivill be added to the
plan ,ret as ivell.
1
r
EJTETRATECH
4. Site Preparation Plans/Demolition Plans/Phasing Plans would be beneficial to more clearly
define the extent of demolition in each phase of the work and the interim conditions during each
phase.
G4 Response:A demolition phasing figure will be provided.
5. The disposition of the existing utilities is not clearly defined.
G5 Response: The disposition of eristing alilities will be shown on the plan set.
Site Plans: (Annotated as "S" series)
1. Sheet V-100 Record Conditions Plan of Land
a. The scale of the plan makes it difficult to read. Cut sheets (at 1"=40') would be useful.
2. Sheet V-1,01_ Record Conditions Plan of Land Utility Plan
a. The scale of the plan makes it difficult to read. Cut sheets (at 1"=40') would be
useful •
SI & S2 Response: Both Sheet V 100 and V-101 will be provided at I"=80, each on a single,
legible plan sheet.
3. Sheet V-102 Wetland Resource Areas
a. No comments at this time.
4. Sheet C-100 General Arrangement Plan West
a. Dimensions should be added. (See general notes above.)
5. Sheet C-10l General Arrangement Plan East
a. Dimensions should be added. (See general notes above.)
6. Sheet C-102 Surfacing Plan West and East
a. Dimensions should be added. (See general notes above.)
S4,S5& S6 Response: Plan Sheets C-100, C-101 and C-102 will be revised to include
dimensions as described in Response Gia &b.
7. Sheet C-103 Layout and Materials Plan Southwest
r
TETRATECH
a. No comments at this time.
8. Sheet C-104 Layout and Materials Plan Southeast
a. No comments at this time.
9. Sheet C-105 Layout and Materials Plan Northwest
a. Additional layout information for the access road should be provided.
b. How will emergency vehicles gain access.to the secondary emergency access road if
the road is gated?
Response S9a: The majority of the secondary access road will be located within the eeisting
pavement, and no regrading is proposed. In those locations where an existing building is
located within the future access road, the building will be demolished and the area will be
repaved to acconhmodate the road. The roadway limits will be striped to delineate the travel
route.
Response S9b: The plant will be staffed on a 24-hour basis and plant securitypersonnel will
• be available to allow access to emergency vehicles. In addition, afire department lock box will
be provided at the gate.
10. Sheet C-106 Layout and Materials Plan Northeast
a. Additional layout information for the access road should be provided.
Response S10: The roadway limits will be striped to delineate the travel route.
11. Sheet C-107 Grading and Drainage Plan West
a. The finish floor elevations of the proposed buildings should be indicated.
Response Slla:Plait Sheet C-107 will be revised to include the finish floor elevations of the
proposed buildings.
b. The elevations at the top and bottom of the gabion wall should be noted.
Response Sllb: Plan Sheet C-107 will be revised to include the elevations of the top and
bottom of the gabion wall
TETRATECH
c. The proposed catch basin to catch basin connections is not the preferred way of
laying out the proposed drainage system.
Response Sllc:All Plant area runoff(frau the paved access perimeter roadway,gravel
surfaces and grassed area), )Pill be collected in a series of catch basins, and routed through
water quality structures prior to discharge into Salem Harbor(via the existing discharge
channel). Due to the extensive buried utility systems required for a heavy industrial Plant of
this type, a catch basin to catch basin arrangement is the preferred method of storntwater
collection. With respect to the Plant's unction: the introduction trodrrction o trunk lines s(where all
catch basun drain
directly into manholes) would increase the number
and length of pipe runs,
and the number of drainage structures )which would
b , !unit the available space for required
buried services ands systems. The addition nt ofmmthole trunk lines would increase head losses
through the drainage system and increase tail water elevations, resulting in a more comple_r
drainage system. For the Salem Harbor Project, the limited available area within file Platt
perimeter berm system farther complicates both the buried utility system design and Plant
arrangement, expansion of the stormwater drainage system to include trunk lines )would
innpaet the overall Plant design.
12. Sheet C-108 Grading and Drainage Plan East
a. See notes for C-107 •
Response 512: Plait Sheet C-108 will be revised to include the finish floor elevations of the
proposed buildings.
13. Sheet C-109 Grading and Drainage Plan Facility Outside of Berm West
a. CBs G, 1, K and L cannot be gutter inlets.
Response S13a:CBs G,l,K and L are drop inlet structures with frames atgrade as shown on
Detail Sheet C-503.
b. Elevations should be provided for the top and bottom of the gabion wall and for the
low landscape wall
Response 136:Plan Sheet C-109 will be revised to include elevations for the top and bottom of
the gabion and low landscaped walls.
c. WQS-C appears to conflict with existing water lines.
a
TETRA TECH
Response S13c: The existing water lines will be relocated as necessary,in order to avoid a
conflict with the proposed water quality structure. Plan Sheet C-109 will be revised to note the
relocation.
14. Sheet C-110 Grading and Drainage Plan Facility Outside of Berm East
a. CBs M and N cannot be gutter inlets.
b. Elevations should be provided for the top and bottom of the gabion wall and for the
low landscape wall.
Response S14a: CBs M and N are drop inlets as shown on Detail Sheet C-503;sizing to
accommodate the 24 inch drain pipes will be provided on the plan set.
Response 146:Plan Sheet C-110 will be revised to include elevations for the top and bottom of
-the gabion and lore landscaped walls.
• 15. Sheet C-I 11 Grading and Drainage Plan Southwest
a. The washed stone stormwater collection area is level. It is not clear how this area will
drain.
Response 515: The washed stone collection area is a 6"deep stone reservoir designed to store
and infiltrate all storm events up to and including the 2 year storm event. There are no
discharges proposed from this basin until the water level reaches the spillway elevation of 9.51,
which 'Pill only occur(hiring the 100 year storm event.
16. Sheet C-112 Grading and Drainage Plan Southeast
a. See comments for Sheet C-I 11.
Response 516:See Response 515.
17. Sheet C-I 13 Grading and Drainage Plan Northwest
a. No comments at this time.
18. Sheet C-114 Grading and Drainage Plan Northeast
a. Proposed contours should be provided in the areas of the building demolition.
5
I
' , l
TETRA TECH
Response 518:Sheet C-114 will be revised to include the proposed contours in the areas where
buildings will be demolished
19. Sheet C-115 Piping Plan Utility West
a. Provide 10' separation between water and sewer lines
b. Inverts should be provided for the proposed sanitary lines.
C. Flow arrows should be provided for both the existing and proposed sewer lines.
d. A compiled utility plan (showing existing utilities to remain and proposed
utilities) should be prepared to confirm that there are no conflicts.
Response S19a: The water and server lines are existing City owned infrastructure, and will
remain in place. The project will tie into both the domestic and fire water lines and the sewer
line.
Response Sl 9b:Plan sheet C-115 will be revised to include invert information for the
proposed sanitary lines.
Response S19c:Plan sheet C-115 will be revised to include flow arrows for the eristing and •
proposed sewer lines.
Response SIM. A compiled utility plan will be prepared and added to the plan set.
20. Sheet C-116 Piping Plan Utility East
a. See comments for sheet C-115.
Response S20:See Responses S19a through S19d.
21. Sheet C-117 Piping Plan Fire Protection Yard Loop West
a. Not reviewed
22. Sheet C-118 Piping Plan Fire Protection Yard Loop East
a. Not reviewed
23. Sheet C-119 Utility Plan Outside of Berm West
a. Inverts should be provided for the relocated 48"drain line. Calculations should be
provided for the relocated drain line. The new drain line is over 240 longer than the
existing line. Will the new drain line have enough capacity to handle the existing runoff?
4 •
r
I
• TETRA TECH
b. The relocated drain line should also be shown on Sheet C-109.
c. The proposed utilities should not be screened.
Response S23a: The relocation, configuration and size oj'the existing 48 inch drain line
traversing the site will be coordinated with the City Engineer. At a minimum, the pipe size
world be replicated in-kind.
Response S23b:Plan Sheet C-109 will be revised to include the relocated drain line.
Response S23c: Plan Sheet C-119 will be revised to show proposed utilities.
24. Sheet C-120 Utility Plan Outside of Berm East
a. See comments for sheet C-119.
Response S24: See Responses S23a through S23c.
25. Sheet C-500, C-501 and C-502 Civil Details
• a. Not reviewed
26. Sheet C-503, C-504 Civil Details Outside of Facility
a. Was a beehive style grate considered for the catch basins located in the landscape
areas?
Response 526: A beehive style grate was not considered due to lawn maintenance
considerations. The landscaped area will be maintained and the grates will be kept free of
vegetation and debris.
27. Sheet L-100 Landscape Grading Plan West
a. The contours along the access drive do match the contours on Sheet C-109.
Response S26: The proposed contours on Skeet L-100 will be adjusted to match sheet C-109.
A rote will be added to Plan Sheet C-109 for clarification purposes.
28. Sheet L-101 Landscape Grading Plan East
a. Not reviewed.
Planting plans, lighting plans, and building elevations and sections have not been reviewed yet.
Comments on the Stormwater Management Report:
TETRA TECH .
At this time, only a very preliminary review has been completed on the Stormwater Management
Report. The approach to stormwater management appears to be consistent with DEP Stormwater
Standards. For this first phase of construction, the project appears to reduce the total stormwater
runoff from the facility. As the remainder of the site is developed, stormwater management for
those redevelopment areas will need to be addressed.
General Comments:
1. The stormwater report does not include a detailed stormwater management plan for
the construction period. The report notes that a plan will be prepared and provided prior
to construction activities beginning.
Response 1: Confirmed, aStornnwater Pollution Prevention Plan, including temporary
measures to manage stormwater during construction, will be prepared prior to construction
activities.
2. Larger scale plans should be provided for the watershed plans.
Response 2:Larger scale plans will be provided for the watershed plans.
3. A larger scale plan showing the test pit and boring locations would be easier to read. •
Response 3:A larger scale plan showing the test pit and boring locations will be provided.
The following comments based on a review of Site Plan Review Criteria listed in Section 9.5.6
of the Zoning Ordinance:
9.5.6.1 "Adequacy of
parking facilities and number of parking spaces proposed for each
development'
Page 3 of the "Brief Narrative" includes the following comment regarding Parking and Loading:
"The new plant will reuse the existing parking lot located to the north of the access driveway.
Loading operations will occur throughout the Facility as necessary during plant operations."
Page 34 of the Environmental Impact Statement" includes the following discussion of the
location and number of parking spaces proposed: "There are no new parking spaces proposed.
The existing paved lot will continue to be used for the new Facility."
The only reference to parking in the Plan Set is on Sheet C-105. There is a note pointing to the
existing parking area between the two Fort Avenue access drives that states the following:
"Existing parking lot to be restriped as required to accommodate proposed access road: maintain
existing pavement."
While it is expected that the existing paved parking areas are sufficient to accommodate
employee and visitor parking during operations, there is no plan or description that indicates the
A
TETRATECH
number and location of parking spaces expected to serve the project. Slides 52 and 53 from the
Applicant's powerpoint presentation, located on the City of Salem website, come closest to
indicating the number and location of proposed parking spaces expected to be provided.
Response 9.5.6.1: The existing parking lot contains over 200 spaces;of this, approximately 75
spaces are provided in the vicinity of the guard house and used by the workers and visitors.
The remaining spaces to the north will be coordinated with the access road location and there
will be more than adequate parking for employees, visitors and vendors. The revised plan set
will indicate the parking areas to be retained and used during operations.
9.5.6.2 "Adequacy of loading facilities"
Page 3 of the "Brief Narrative" includes the following comment regarding Parking and Loading:
"The new plant will reuse the existing parking lot located to the north of the access driveway.
Loading operations will occur throughout the Facility as necessary during plant operations."
Other than the "Aqueous ammonia storage tank/unloading area", the Plan Set does not identify
the location or number of loading areas or loading docks at any of the proposed buildings.
Response 9.5.6.2: The location of loading areas and(locks will be labeled on the plan set
• The raw materials and the products of manufacturing are delivered by pipeline(natural gas)
and by electrical cables(electricity) respectively. As such there are no routine day-to-day
loading and unloading operations for materials of manufacture required at the site except for
minor materials as follows:
1. 19%aqueous annnonia delivered by truck to the designated unloading area not to
erceed one truck per day.
2. Miscellaneous chemicals for water treatment in portable tote containers will be
unloaded by fork lift The current planned delivery point will be at a door to be
situated at the northeast corner of the Steam Turbine Generation Building. There will
be approximately one or tivo such deliveries each week.
3. Spare parts, consumables, office supplies and erpress mail services will be delivered to
the warehouse doors at the Administration Building. Daily receipt of e-rpress mail
deliveries and infrequent unscheduled deliveries ofparts, consumables and other
supplies.
9.5.6.3 "Adequacy of traffic circulation system"
The on-site circulation system appears to be adequate to address the low-volume operations
conditions expected to occur on the site. However, it should be noted that the entrance to the
• a
6
TETRA TECH •
proposed project(westernmost access at Fort Avenue closest to Memorial Drive) does not appear
to accommodate a WB-40 truck turning radius, causing entering truck traffic to extend into the
oncoming exit lane (Sheet C-105). It is recommended that the Applicant identify the design
vehicle most likely to be making deliveries during operations, and subsequently confirm that the
on-site roadway can accommodate turns associated with that vehicle.
Furthermore, the Plan Set would benefit from a separate Parking and Circulation Plan. Specific
parking areas, sidewalks, pavement markings (such as crosswalks) and both directional and
informational signing should be identified in order to confirm that the on-site traffic circulation
system is indeed adequate.
Response 9.5.6.3: Currently large trucks make daily entrances and exits from the site without
issue and the intersection is very large for THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL OF TRUCK
DELIVERIES. Tracks entering and leaving the site take ONLY the route defined it
r our
access plan which is along the arterial to Fort Avenue. There are no trucks turning off of or
on to Derby Street or to Fort Avenue to the northeast. As such, the trucks do not have to turn
into opposite lanes of travel due to a restricted turning radius.
A pedestrian circulation network for the facility will be delineated and shown ort the Layout
and Material Plans and Landscaped Plans in the final Plan Set. The revised plan set will also •
indicate the parking areas to be retained and used during operations.
9.5.6.4 "Adequacy of access points and routes to and from the land parcel to adjoining
streets and ways"
The"Traffic Impact Study, Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment, Salem, Massachusetts"
prepared by TetraTech and submitted to Footprint Power, LLC, on November 19, 2012,
addresses both Phase 1 operations and construction traffic impacts.
Once constructed, the proposed natural-gas fired electric generation plant will operate with fewer
employees than under current conditions. Intersection capacity analyses included in the traffic
impact report indicate that acceptable operating conditions are expected for both AM and PM
peak hours. From an operations standpoint, access points and routes to and from the land parcel
to adjoining streets and ways are adequate.
Further detail is requested for two items:
• Crash rate analysis (Traffic Impact Study, page 8) indicates that the Bridge
Street/Webb Street intersection exhibits a crash rate higher than both the state and
highway district rate. A discussion of potential safety improvements to alleviate this
condition should be provided;
TETRATECH
• Identification of a designated truck route for deliveries to the plant should be
provided. Review of construction traffic impacts will be addressed at a later date.
Response 9.5.6.4(x): The intersection of Bridge Street and Webb Street was recently
reconstructed and the signal equipment upgraded Field observations did not reveal any
obvious geometric, signal or sight line issues that could affect safety. It is important to note
that the crash data indicates that 7 of the 15 crashes at the intersection occurred between the
/tours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., which may be indicative of street lighting issues. If the
crashes that occurred in the overnightperiod were discounted from the crash rate calculation,
then the intersection would be below the state-wide and district rates. As noted in our study,
the Footprint Power construction workers will be travelling during daylight hours and
generally outside the time period when nearly half the crashes at this intersection have
historically occurred.
Response 9.5.6.4(b):It is anticipated that as mud: demolition and construction materials as
possible will be brought in and out of the site by ocean-going vessels. However,for those
construction truck trips that may be made via land, it is evpected that those vehicles willfollow
the sante routes as the construction workers, taking advantage of wider, appropriately
designed arterial roadways in the area. Those roadways include Webb Street, Bridge Street
(Route IA) to the north, Bridge Street to the south, Route 107 or Route 114. Footprint Power
is willing to work with the city to establish designated truck routes for the project and to
instruct the contractor and subcontractors that the designated truck routes must be used by
their trucks when accessing or egressing the site.
9.5.6.5 "Adequacy of type and amount of external lighting to be provided on the parcel"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.6 "Adequacy of type, quality and quantity of landscaping to promote an aesthetically
pleasing environment and to properly screen the development from adjacent land uses"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.7 "Adequacy of type, quality and quantity of vegetative screening to protect adjacent
and nearbyland
parcels from structures not aesthetically pleasing or wholly compatible
with such parcels"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.8 "Adequacy of the methods of disposal of sewage, refuse and other waste"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.9 "Adequacy of the method of surface drainage across and from the site"
TETRATECH
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.10 "Adequacy of the method of water distribution to and from the parcel and its
structures"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
j 9.5.6.11 "Adequacy of pedestrian circulation systems to and from parking areas and
structures"
i
Page 34 of the"Environmental Impact Statement" includes the following discussion of the
Proposed pedestrian circulation pattem: "Pedestrian circulation will be provided for the workers
between the existing parking lot and the new Facility; there will also be paths within the
proposed landscaped areas but outside of the acoustic landscaped berm."
As noted earlier, the Plan Set does not identify pedestrian connections between parking areas and
buildings: therefore, the adequacy of pedestrian circulation systems to and from parking areas
and structures cannot be determined at this time.
Response 9.5.6.11:Although not currently indicated in the plan set, enough space has been
allocated within the equipment general arrangement to accommodate pedestrian circulation
between parking areas and buildings.A pedestrian circulation network for the facility will be
delineated and shown on the Layout and Material Plans and Landscaped Plans in the final
Plan Set.
.9.5.6.12 "Adequacy of protection or enhancement of natural areas"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.13 "Compatibility of the architecture of structures with architecture of surrounding
or nearby buildings"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these comments.
Very truly yours,
Brian R. Marchetti, P.E.
Project Manager
PA621171127-62117-126011Docs\Reporls%ocallPlanning Boud)AECOM CommentslResponse to AECOM,Commcnts Ldocx
12
9'
A=TOM AECOM 978 905 2100 tel
250 Apollo Drive 978 905 2101 fax �
Memorandum Chelmsford,MA 01824
w aecom.com
RL�—y
BE"M""NE S
9 n fV0
11AY 2 Cc, 201; Q
DEPT.OF PLAN"
,OMMUNiTY DEVELO
To Daniel Sexton, Salem Staff Planner Page 1
Lynn Goonan Duncan, AICP, Director Salem Planning & Community
Development , David Knowlton, PE, Salem City Engineer, Nick Rubino PE,
cc AECOM
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review - Review Comments Set 2
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project
Subject Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP
From Kathy Schaeffer, P.E, Dave Derrig, AICP, Thomas Herzog
Date May 29, 2013
This memorandum provides continued technical peer review of the Site Plans issued 4/4/13 and
Stormwater Management Report dated 4/4/13 for the Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project
located at 24 Fort Avenue in. Salem, MA. The documents were reviewed for compliance with
standard civil engineering practice, with the applicable requirements of the City of Salem Zoning
• Ordinance: Planned Unit Development, Flood Hazard Overlay District, Site Plan Review, and
applicable requirements of the Salem Revised Subdivision Regulations and the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection Storm Water Management Policy.
The following materials were submitted and are in the process of being reviewed:
1. Site Plan set for the Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project located at 24 Fort Avenue
in. Salem, MA, compiled by TetraTech and dated 4/4/13;
2. Stormwater Management Report for the Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project
prepared by TetraTech dated 4/4/13;
3. Environmental Impact Statement, Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project, prepared by
TetraTech, dated 4/8/13;
4. Noise Study Excerpts from DEIR and FEIR prepared by TetraTech;
5. Traffic Impact Study, Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment, prepared by TetraTech,
submitted 11/19/12.
This memo focuses on the continued review of the Site Plan set for conformance with the Site Plan
Review criteria and the continued review of the civil site plans and the stormwater report. Review
comments on the Air component of the Environmental Impact Statement and the Noise Study are
also provided within this memo. Review of other components, including the 21 E /Hazardous
materials discussion that will now be among the topics at the June 6, 2013, Planning Board meeting,
will be provided in subsequent review memos.
•
A_GOM
General:
We have not yet received responses to the previous set of comments. For clarity, the previous
comments have not been repeated below.
Site Plans:
1. Sheet V-100 Record Conditions Plan of Land
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
2. Sheet V-101 Record Conditions Plan of Land Utility Plan
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
3. Sheet V-102 Wetland Resource Areas
a. No comments at this time.
4. Sheet C-100 General Arrangement Plan West
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
5. Sheet C-101 General Arrangement Plan East
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
6, Sheet C-102 Surfacing Plan West and East
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
7. Sheet C-103 Layout and Materials Plan Southwest
a. No comments at this time.
8. Sheet C-104 Layout and Materials Plan Southeast
a. No comments at this time.
9. Sheet C-105 Layout and Materials Plan Northwest
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
10. Sheet C-106 Layout and Materials Plan Northeast
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
11. Sheet C-107 Grading and Drainage Plan West
a. Proposed contours are not provided. The proposed grading scheme would be easier
to follow if contours were provided.
b. Proposed grades should be provided along the edges of pavement.
c. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
12. Sheet C-108 Grading and Drainage Plan East
a. See comments for Sheet C-107
13. Sheet C-109 Grading and Drainage Plan Facility Outside of Berm West
a. The north portion of the project area (adjacent to Derby Street) is not shown.
b. It is difficult to differentiate between the proposed contours and the proposed •
walkway. Consider making the walkway lines thicker than the contour lines.
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review— Review Comments Set 2 Page 2
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/Footprint Power May 29, 2013
J
A_GOM
c. Proposed grading between the proposed walkway and Derby Street is not provided.
d. A spot grade should be added inside the 10-foot contour adjacent to the driveway to
ensure that a low point is not created.
e. A 10-foot contour is needed between the 11-foot contour and CB-E. (The rim
elevation of CB-E=9.5.)
f. 10-foot contours are needed adjacent to CB-C and CB-D. (The rim elevations of the
basins are 9.9.)
g. Sheet C-107 indicates the driveway HP elevation is 16.0. This plan implies a slightly
different HP elevation.
h. All the existing drainage system should be shown. (The existing catch basins in the
driveway are not shown.)
i. The proposed relocated 48" drain line should be shown.
j. There are numerous existing ductbanks located southwest of the driveway. It is not
clear if these ductbanks will remain. If the ductbanks are to remain, there is
significant fill proposed over some of the ductbanks. Has the impact on the additional
fill over the ductbank been evaluated?
k. It appears that some runoff from the landscaped berm will by-pass the catch basins
located at the perimeter of the facility. Additional spot grades will ensure that the
runoff is directed to these structures.
I. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
14. Sheet C-110 Grading and Drainage Plan Facility Outside of Berm East
a. The proposed relocation of 48"drain line should be shown on this plan.
b. Pipe segment CO-78 is not included in the pipe schedule.
c. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
. 15. Sheet C-111 Grading and Drainage Plan Southwest
a. The existing on-site drainage system is not shown. There are two existing catch
basins (CB 42 and 43) located within the project area, across from Webb Street. Are
these basins being removed? If the basins are being removed, what will happen to
the runoff from this area?The grading plan indicates runoff from a portion of the site
will be directed onto Derby Street. The drainage calculations do not include any
information on the drainage system in Derby Street. An outlet pipe is not shown for
the catch basin in Derby Street. If runoff from the site is going to be directed to Derby
Street calculations should be provided.
b. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
16. Sheet C-112 Grading and Drainage Plan Southeast
a. A new berm is shown along the south and south east portions of the site. How will
the construction of the berm impact the flooding on the adjacent properties?
b. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
17. Sheet C-113 Grading and Drainage Plan Northwest
a. No comments at this time.
18. Sheet C-114 Grading and Drainage Plan Northeast
a. The inverts for WQS-B do not appear to be correct.
b. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
. 19. Sheet C-115 Piping Plan Utility West
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review— Review Comments Set 2
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/Footprint Power Page 3
May 29, 2013
A_COM
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
20. Sheet C-116 Piping Plan Utility East
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
21. Sheet C-117 Piping Plan Fire Protection Yard Loop West
a. Not reviewed
22. Sheet C-118 Piping Plan Fire Protection Yard Loop East
a. Not reviewed
23. Sheet C-119 Utility Plan Outside of Berm West
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
24. Sheet C-120 Utility Plan Outside of Berm East
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
25. Sheet C-500, C-501 and C-502 Civil Details
a. Detail 5, Sheet C-500: suggest providing 5' of cover over the water lines.
b. Gabion Wall Underdrain, Sheet C-501:
i. Grate elevation is noted as 14.0. Based on the 2' distance and the 2:1 slope
noted, the elevation at the base of the wall should be 15.00, not 15-6"as
noted on Sections A-A, B-B, C-C and D-D.
ii. Dimensions should be provided for underdrain inlet structure.
iii. Type of grate should be indicated.
c. Pipe Schedule, sheet C-502: pipe CO-25 is indicated as 15" in the pipe calculations
and is noted as 18" in the pipe schedule. Please clarify.
26. Sheet C-503, C-504 Civil Details Outside of Facility
a. WQS-2 is indicated as model 450, however the calculation indicate the structure shall
be model 450i. Please clarify
b. Tide gate manhole detail: Wall and top slab thicknesses should be provided. Based
on the rim and invert elevations, the frame and cover may need to sit directly on the
structure for MH-N.
c. How will the removable bar screen be maintained/replaced?
d. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
27. Sheet L-100 Landscape Grading Plan West
a. No additional comments at this time. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1.
28. Sheet L-101 Landscape Grading Plan East
a. Not reviewed.
Comments on the planting plans, lighting plans and building elevations and sections will be provided
at a later date.
Comments on the Stormwater Management Report
The Stormwater Report is being reviewed for compliance with Salem Planning Board requirements. .
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review—Review Comments Set 2 Page 4
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/ Footprint Power May 29, 2013
A_COM
J
General Comments:
1. Waiting for responses to Comment Set 1. (Comment Set 1 included the request for larger
scale watershed plans and boring/test pit plan. The larger scale plans are needed to
complete the review of the stormwater report.)
2. The HydroCAD model should use the dynamic routing option to better account for
downstream backwater conditions.
3. Test pit and boring logs should include the ground elevations.
Existing Watershed calculations:
1. During the Planning Board meeting on 5716, it was indicated that under certain existing
conditions the runoff from the coal pile runoff pond is pumped to a storage tank and routed to
Outfall No. 6. This routing is not discussed, nor modeled in the stormwater report. The only
outlet identified for the coal pile runoff pond is the spillway.
2. Subcatchment areas 2 and 10—the calculations for Tc include routing through an existing
closed drainage system; however the closed drainage system is not clearly indicated on the
plans. The calculations for subcatchment area 2 include pipe segments with assumed pipe
sizes.
3. The outfall pipes should be included in the HydroCAD model.
Proposed Watershed calculations:
1. The outfall pipes should be included in the HydroCAD model.
2. Calculations should be provided indicating how the infiltration rate was determined for the
Stormwater Collection Area.
3. The HydroCAD model should include tidal information so that backflow can be more
accurately determined.
• WQS Calculations:
1. The summary sheets for WQS-A and WQS-B appear to be mislabeled.
2. The flow rates included in the summary sheets is slightly different than the flows provided in
the pipe summary calculations. Please revise.
3. If the water quality structures are impacted by tidal conditions, the structures shall be
designed for submerged conditions.
StormCAD calculations:
1. Some pipes have less than 2-feet of cover. If vehicle traffic is expected over these pipes, a
different pipe material should be considered.
2. The hydraulic grade line exceeds the rim elevation in a few locations for the 25-year storm
event and the spring high tide. How will the system function under higher tides and larger
storm events?
The following comments based on a review of Site Plan Review Criteria listed in Section 9.5.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
9.5.6.1 "Adequacy of parking facilities and number of parking spaces proposed for each
development"
Contained in previous comments— no new responses.
. 9.5.6.2 "Adequacy of loading facilities"
Contained in previous comments—no new responses.
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review— Review Comments Set 2 Page 5
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/Footprint Power May 29, 2013
i
=COM
9.5.6.3 "Adequacy of traffic circulation system"
Contained in previous comments—no new responses.
9.5.6.4 "Adequacy of access points and routes to and from the land parcel to adjoining streets
and ways"
Contained in previous comments—no new responses.
9.5.6.5 "Adequacy of type and amount of external lighting to be provided on the parcel'
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.6 "Adequacy of type, quality and quantity of landscaping to promote an aesthetically
pleasing environment and to properly screen the development from adjacent land uses"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.7 "Adequacy of type, quality and quantity of vegetative screening to protect adjacent
and nearby land parcels from structures not aesthetically pleasing or wholly compatible with
such parcels"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.8 "Adequacy of the methods of disposal of sewage, refuse and other waste"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.9 "Adequacy of the method of surface drainage across and from the site"
This item has not been reviewed yet. •
9.5.6.10 "Adequacy of the method of water distribution to and from the parcel and its
structures"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.11 "Adequacy of pedestrian circulation systems to and from parking areas and
structures
Contained in previous comments—no new responses.
9.5.6.12 "Adequacy of protection or enhancement of natural areas"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
9.5.6.13 "Compatibility of the architecture of structures with architecture of
surrounding or nearby buildings"
This item has not been reviewed yet.
Environmental Impact Statement—Air Component
The City of Salem Subdivision Regulations include a "Checklist for Review of Environmental Impact
Statement' (Appendix A). As part of the Natural Environment section, the Applicant has provided
responses to the five Air-related checklist items. The following review comments offer a
determination of whether the responses are "Not needed or complete," or"Missing or not complete."
a. Possible sources and duration of odors smoke and dust: Complete,with one comment to •
be acknowledged. The Applicant has identified potential sources during Construction
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review— Review Comments Set 2 Page 6
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/ Footprint Power May 29, 2013
A=GOM
r
(impacts associated with diesel emissions from construction equipment, and impacts from
fugitive dust generated by construction activities)and duringOperation P eration (emissi ons from the
burning of natural gas).
One(temporary)source of emissions during the construction period that was not included in
the Applicant's response is emissions from hundreds of construction worker vehicle trips each
day.
b. Precautions to Prevent odors smoke and dust: Complete, with one comment to be
addressed. The Applicant has summarized measures to prevent or minimize Construction
and Operation impacts associated with odors, smoke and dust. In regard to construction
equipment,the Applicant agrees to have its contractors comply with the MassDEP Clean Air
Construction Initiative. In regard to demolition and dust, the Applicant will employ several
specific dust control measures
One measure to address the temporary impact of emissions from construction worker vehicle
trips is the provision of a single or dual remote parking facility(or facilities) that will
intercept workers on their way to the construction site and will shuttle workers to and from
the construction site. Given the location of.the construction site, there are limited travel
route options to and from the site, meaning that workers would not necessarily be required
to divert out of their way. It is recommended that the Applicant work with City staff and the
• local TMA to conduct a serious and sincere analysis of this measure, which will also address
traffic and congestion concerns.
This issue has been raised in previous public meetings. Dismissal of consideration of remote
parking lot(s)has included the ability of the construction site to easily accommodate parking
(which does not address emissions)and the net reduction in the construction work day by
re uirin
q g workers to use such a facility(questionable,since workers would likely drive by
candidate sites).
c. Location of Project with regard to nearby residences businesses recreation areas and
prevailing wind Patterns: Complete. The Applicant has identified the general direction of
prevailing winds in the vicinity of the project site and indicated that prevailing wind patterns
are primarily directed away from nearby residences, businesses and recreation areas
(although the harbor itself should be acknowledged as a recreation area).
d. Burning brush and trees during site Preparation subject to appropriate state and local
permits: Not needed. The project will not include the burning of brush and trees during site
preparation.
e. Incineration effects: Not needed. The project does not include the incineration of refuse.
•
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review— Review Comments Set 2 Page 7
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/ Footprint Power May 29, 2013
A=COM
Additional comments provided below are based upon recent determinations regarding State filings
related to air quality permits needed by the Applicant.
The Applicant is required to complete, secure and otherwise comply with a Major Comprehensive Air
Plan Approval, PSD Review, Non-Attainment New Source Review, New Source Performance
Standards, and an Air Operating Permit from MassDEP. The recent EEA Secretary's Certificate on
the Final Environmental Impact Report(May 17, 2013) indicates the following:
• MassDEP comments did not include requests for analysis of additional alternative
technologies, processes or fuels necessary to demonstrate compliance with regulatory
standards, suggesting that the measures proposed by the Applicant are acceptable;
• Design and operation of the facility meet stringent standards and is consistent with the
goals of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, along with other state and federal
programs;
• Best Available Control Technology, advanced design and practices, and fuel choice are
expected to satisfy all state and federal emissions requirements;
• Continuous emissions monitors will be in place to provide sampling reports to regulators
and to alert plant operators when emissions approach or exceed regulatory limits.
One item noted in the Certificate indicates that dispersion modeling analysis results reported levels of
PM and NO2 that exceeded Significant Impact Levels, requiring additional evaluation of background
emissions and project emissions. The Applicant is requested to provide an explanation of how these
reported exceedances have been addressed.
Environmental Impact Statement—Noise Component •
The City of Salem Subdivision Regulations include a "Checklist for Review of Environmental Impact
Statement" (Appendix A). As part of the Natural Environment section, the Applicant has provided
responses to the three Noise-related checklist items. The following review comments offer a
determination of whether the responses are "Not needed or complete," or"Missing or not complete."
a. Time, duration and types: Complete. The Applicant has identified potential sources during
Construction (impacts associated with construction equipment, demolition, excavation,
foundation,steel erection and other construction activities, including pile driving) and
during Operation (facility elements such as the exhaust stack, air-cooled condenser, gas
turbine,transformers and other elements).
b. Effects on humans and wildlife: Complete. The Applicant has reported that project sound
levels will be in full conformance with the Salem Noise Ordinance. The Applicant has
commented that, within what is described as an urban marine industrial setting, the project
is not expected to have any effect on wildlife.
c. Controls: Complete. The Applicant has identified measures expected to be employed during
Construction and Operation that will serve to minimize noise impacts and maintain levels
within regulatory limits.
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review—Review Comments Set 2 Page 8
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment I Footprint Power May 29, 2013
A=C'OM
Environmental Impact Statement— Noise Appendix
40 The following comments are offered with respect to the Noise Study included as part of the submittal
package.
The noise report in general was prepared in accordance with industry standards and there are no
obvious errors or omissions. That is to say that the assessment included all of the required
components including a baseline monitoring program, a prediction assessment of all future major
sources of noise, an evaluation of impact using applicable noise criteria, a mitigation evaluation and a
construction assessment.
Based on the report's findings, no exceedances of the only applicable noise criteria from the MADEP
are predicted based on the proposed design option. In order to achieve compliance with the MADEP
criteria, this design option would include several noise control measures including noise attenuators,
relocation of the loudest equipment indoors, equipment shrouds and enclosures.
One of the issues identified in our initial comments (on the EFSB and DEIR filings) is that most of the
findings and conclusions presented in the report are not substantiated with actual data. For example,
although the future equipment and facility sources are identified, their respective reference noise
levels and operating parameters are not provided. In the absence of these data, the reader(or
reviewer) cannot verify the validity of the report's conclusions. In other words, the report claims
control measures are required, but it does not indicate what the actual facility noise levels would be
without controls for comparison with the MADEP criteria and what they would with the recommended
control applied. This comparative data should be provided to substantiate the conclusions that noise
standards will be satisfied.
• For construction, an indication of the potential for noise impacts is presented with some control
measures identified, although the City of Salem does not have absolute noise limits. However, as
indicated in our previous comments (again, on the EFSB and DEIR filings), the MassDOT has
construction criteria that could be considered applicable especially for large construction projects,
particularly those that involve pile driving.
An action plan and noise control plan as recommended in the report's findings will be necessary to
address both construction and operation noise complaints from residents.
Site Plan and Special Permit Peer Review— Review Comments Set 2 Page 9
Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment/ Footprint Power May 29, 2013
V�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
'�'ciyinieoa
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Daniel Sexton, Staff Plann��i
DATE: June 6,2013
RE: Meeting Packet Supplement—June 6,2013 Planning Board meeting
Board Members,
On June 5th, the City's Department of Planning&Community Development received supplementary
information from the Petitioner of the Loring Towers Chapter 121A application. According to the
supplemental information, the Petitioner provided a letter outlining their efforts to seek Project Based
Vouchers under the Rental Demonstration Assistance Program (RAD Program) (Attachment A),a letter
• from Carol MacGown,Executive Director of the Salem Housing Authority, speaking to their reluctance to
pursue the RAD Program (Attachment B) and a copy of Section 2.3.5 Submission Requirements for Retroactive
Conversions from the Rental Assistance Demonstration Handbook (Attachment C). Copies of these documents
are enclosed for your consideration.
The Petitioner also submitted,on June 6�,,a letter speaking to their position on the Memorandum of
Understanding(MOU) signed by Mayor Driscoll and AIMCO on June 14,2007 (Attachment D).According
to this letter, the Petitioner believes they have complied with the letter and spirit of the MOU.The Petitioner
also expresses a willingness to continue to work with the Loring Towers Tenant Association. At this time,
Staff has not received any correspondence from the City Solicitor regarding the merits of AIMCO's
adherence to the MOU.
In addition,email correspondence have been enclosed from Councilor O'Keefe and the Beth Rennard, City
Solicitor,requesting the Salem Planning Board take no action and continue discussion on this petition
(Attachments E and F).
Based on the above and the lack of input from Mr. Kane,it is recommended that the Planning Board take no
action and table discussion on this petition.
Attachments
Attachment A—Letter from Jeffery Sack,attorney for Nixon Peabody,LLP,dated June 4,2013
Attachment B—Letter from Carol MacGown,Executive Director of the Salem Housing Authority, dated
June4,2013
Attachment C—Copy of Section 2.3.5 Submission Requirements for Retroactive Conversions from the Rental
Assistance Demonstration Handbook
Attachment D—Letter from Jeffery Sack, attorney for Nixon Peabody,LLP,dated June 6,2013
. Attachment E—Email correspondence from Councilor O'Keefe,dated June 6, 2013
Attachment F—Email correspondence from Beth Rennard, City Solicitor,dated June 6,2013
Attachment A RECEIVE®
• - - JUN 0 5 2013
100 Summer Street DEPT. OF PLAiyNtNG&
Boston,Massachusetts 02110-2131
(617) 345-1000 :OMMUNITY DEVFLOPMEM
Fax: (617)345-1300
Direct Dial: (617) 345-1056
Direct Fax: (866)439-3852
E-Mail: jsacks@nixonpeabody.com
June 4, 2013
Via Email
Lynn Duncan
Department of Planning & Community Development
City of Salem
120 Washington Street, Third floor
Salem, MA 01970
RE: M.G.L. c. 121A Application of Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited
Partnership
Dear Lynn:
• I am writing to provide a summary of AIMCO's actions following the Joint Public
Meeting of the Planning Board and City Council on May 15, 2013. At that meeting, AIMCO
agreed to do the following: (i) to submit an application to retroactively convert existing
Enhanced Vouchers to Project Based Vouchers under the Rental Demonstration Assistance
Program(the "RAD Program"), and (ii) to work with Community Teamwork, Inc. ("CTI") on
greater flexibility with respect to unit types and waiting lists on the eight existing Project Based
units at Loring Towers.
According to the relevant portion of the HUD Notice governing the RAD Program,
Section 2.3.5.A. of PIH-2012-32 (HA) Rental Assistance Demonstration—Final Implementation,
a copy of which is attached, the owner must first request the consent of the housing authority
which administers the existing Enhanced Vouchers in the Project in order to commence a
retroactive conversion pursuant to the RAD Program. The administrator for Loring Towers is
the Salem Housing Authority. Without this consent, the owner is ineligible to participate in the
RAD Program. AIMCO has had several discussions about participation in the RAD Program
with Carol McGowan, the Executive Director of the Salem Housing Authority(the "SHA").
SHA has declined AIMCO's request to participate in the RAD Program. AIMCO has requested
a written confirmation of this position and will forward that to you when it is received. AIMCO
remains interested in participating in the RAD Program and would welcome the opportunity to
work with SHA if, in the future, the SHA is willing to participate in the RAD Program.
AIMCO has also discussed greater flexibility with respect to unit types and waiting lists
• on the eight Project Based Vouchers administered by CTI. AIMCO had previously made these
requests to CTI and ,at this time, CTI has reiterated its position that these revisions to the
program are not within its contract authority. We have requested a letter from CTI confirming
and explaining this position. AIMCO remains interested in working with CTI on increased
flexibility, and would welcome the opportunity to make the suggested revisions in the Project
Based Voucher Program if permitted by CTI.
We have enclosed with this letter a draft summary of findings related to the M.G.L. C.
121A Application. We are prepared to attend the Planning Board Meeting on June 6, 2013, and
to answer any additional questions that the Planning Board may have.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey aeks
cc: Dodge McCord
Michael Kane
Joseph O'Keefe
Ethan Ceplikas-- ----- --------- — --- — -
Enclosures
•
14492132.1
Attachment B
Jahn A.Boris,Chairman
Peter K.Stroup Vice Chairman
• - - ,Frank J•Milo,second Vice Chaumaa.
Maureen Catl,Treasurer
SALEM HOUSING
Carol A.MacGown Executiveire
D «ot
A U T . H O R I T .Y CC g�
June 4,2013 RLCE4 VED
Dodge N.McCord,Vice President
AIMCO JUN 05 2013
4582 S. Ulster Street Parkway, Suite 1000 pEp% T o> PLANNING
Denver, CO 80232 -OMMUNITY b -LOPMcN
Re: Request to Project Base Vouchers at Loring Towers, Salem, MA
Dear Dodge:
I am writing in response to your equestthat the Salem Housing Authority project base Section 8
Housing Choice Vouchers at your Loring Towers development in Salem,Massachusetts.
As we discussed by telephone the primary reason that the Salem Housing Authority does not wish to "
project base vouchers is'that due to theinability of Congress to reach a deal on balanced deficit
reduction to avoid sequestration,the President was:required,by law to issue a sequestration order on
March 1,2013. This order caneelled approximately$85 billion in budgetary resources across the
federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year.
• This action o as resulted in serious budgetary cuts to the Salem Housing.Authonty sSection 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program; Some of the actions which we have had to undertake were to rescind all
vouchers issued which had not been successfully leased up as well:as recouping vouchers either
voluntarily or through program default. Unfortunately,this method of attrition is still not sufficient for
the SHA to make up the shortfall of cuts in,funding. We have projected that additionally we will need
to usexeserve funds to support the costs of the existing program. The SHA will continue to take other
measures such as declining to absorb.vouchers from other communities in the hope that this will help .
to mitigate thesecircumstances.
Since the SHA.as well as the Department of Housing and Urban Development have noway to predict .
the duration of this shortfall,the.SHA is unable to commit to entering into any contractual agreement
Which would bind us to a financial obligation which we would be unable.to fulfill to at this time.
I hope that you can appreciate our position and thank you for your interest. Should you require
anything firther,please do not hesitate to contact me.
( Since ly,
diol A.MacGown
Executive Director
• AM:dat ^
dc: dtAIMCOproject basedmiluest 27 CHARTEkSTREET - SALEM MA 01970-3699 '(uT
978.744.4431 ' FAX 978,744.9614 , EMAIL: info@satemha:org
Equal Opporauniry,Employer.
RECEIVED
JUN 0 5 2013 � � Section 11:Moderate Rehabilitation Projects
DEPT.OF PLANNING& -
�MMUNITY DkVELC f?" Submission Requirements for Retroactive Conversions
A Mod Rehab owner may submit a request to convert EVs that were previously issued to assisted
households of the former Mod Rehab project to PBV assistance,provided that the EVs were
issued to eligible residents of the project following a contract expiration that occurred after
October 1, 2006. For such retroactive conversions, the processing requirements are stated below.
A sample resident notification letter for retroactive conversions is attached to this Notice
(Attachment 213).
A. Submission of Request to Administering PHA
For retroactive conversions the owner must first contact the administering PHA and make a
preliminary request to assess whether the PHA is interested in administering the PBV contract,
copying HUD through RADPhud.gov. The administering PHA has 15 days to consent or
decline the owner's preliminary request. If the PHA consents to the preliminary request, the
owner may proceed with household notification (paragraph B under this Section). If the PHA
declines the owner's request,the owner may not proceed with household notification and the
PHA must submit to the owner and HUD (at RADghud.gov), a letter describing its reasons for
its decision to decline the request. Such reasons may include lack of capacity to administer a
PBV program, inconsistency with PHA plan, or other reasons. If the administering PHA declines
the owner's preliminary request to convert assistance pursuant to this Section, the owner is
• ineligible to participate in RAD. (The RAD statute requires the consent of the "administering
PHA."If the actively-administering PHA does not consent to the long-term conversion of the
contract to PBV assistance, HUD would have no legal basis to transfer the voucher assistance
provided on behalf of the residents of the Mod Rehab project to another PHA.)
B. Household Notification
The owner is required to notify residents in writing of its request to convert EV assistance to
PBV assistance for eligible families (see Attachment 213). The notification letter, which must
include the date and time of resident briefings the PHA will perform (discussed below), must be
delivered to all project residents, including each Mod Rehab-assisted household, as well as
posted in the project office or other common area,the PHA's office, and at no fewer than three
prominent locations on the project site.
1. The notification letter must include a description of the anticipated conversion, the units
that are affected by the conversion and the units that would be covered under a HAP
contract for PBV assistance. A sample resident notification letter is attached to this
Notice as Attachment 2B.
2. If temporary relocation of households will be required due to rehabilitation, the
• notification letter must state the owner's plan for relocation, including the expected
PIH-2012-32(HA)Rental Assistance Demonstration—Final Implementation 112
r
NIXON PEABODYLLP RECLIVED
• ,. JUN 0G 2013
100 Summer Street DEPT. OF PLANNING$
Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2131 —OMMUNITY DEVELOPMEV-
(617)345-1000
Fax: (617)345-1300
Direct Dial: (617) 345-1056
Direct Fax: (866)439-3852
E-Mail: jsacks@nixonpeabody.com D
r+
r+
June 6, 2013 n
S
3
Via Email
r+
Lynn Duncan
Department of Planning & Community Development I
City of Salem
120 Washington Street, Third floor
Salem, MA 01970
RE: M.G.L. c 121 A Application of Lorine Towers Salem Preservation Limited
Partnership
• Dear Lynn:
I am writing regarding the Memorandum of Understanding dated as of June 14, 2007, by
and between Loring Towers Associates, Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited Partnership
and the City of Salem (the "MOU"). AIMCO acknowledges the MOU and believes that is has
complied with the letter and spirit of the MOU since its execution. Pursuant to AIMCO's
obligations under the MOU, AIMCO previously obtained eight units of Project Based Vouchers.
At the present time, and as explained in our letter to you dated June 4, 2013, AIMCO is
unable to obtain additional Project Based Vouchers. The Salem Housing Authority denied
AIMCO's request to participate in the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, which consent
is required to participate in the program. As also explained in our letter, AIMCO remains willing
to continue to work with the Salem Housing Authority and other agencies to obtain additional
Project Based Vouchers, if such resources become available.
We look forward to continuing to work with the Loring Towers Tenant Association to
enhance the affordable housing resources available to residents at Loring Towers and in Salem.
Please call me if you would like to further discuss this issue.
Sincerely,
�4 ..z"5�
• Jeffrey W. Sacks
14495863.1
cc: Daniel Sexton
Dodge McCord
Robert Deemer
Michael Kane
Joseph O'Keefe
Ethan Ceplikas
•
•
14495363.1
NIXON PEABODY LLP
Daniel Sexton Attachment E
From: Fire Marshal (Ret'd) <fmokeefepe@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:34 AM
To: Lynn Duncan; Beth Rennard; Daniel Sexton
Cc: jsacks@nixonpeabody.com; michaelkane@saveourhomes.org; ranadavid2002@yahoo.com;
Jerry Ryan; Cheryl LaPointe
Subject: Petition MGL c.121A 1000 Loring Avenue-Salem MA
Salem Director of Planning Lynn Goonin Duncan: Yesterday, June 5, 2013, have received numerous documents
concerning the above captioned petition heard at a recent public hearing conducted by the Salem City Council
and the Salem Planning Board on the above captioned petition. I have forwarded these documents to Mr.
Michael Kane and the Rana Jezzini-Loring Towers Tenants Association for their review and comments to me.
In a un-dated'Summary of Facts for the MGL Chapter 121A Application Loring Towers Salem Preservation
Limited Partnership'prepared for the Salem Planning Board's review by the petitioner's counsel, Any Jeffrey
W. Sacks (NixonPeabody), I learned that no reference is made whatsoever to the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) signed by Mayor Driscoll and AIMCO on June 14, 2007 which I believe is part of any
final decision on this petition by the Salem Planning Board, Salem City Council and Salem Mayor Kimberley
L. Driscoll. I request the Salem Planning Board take no action on this petition at the evenings meeting June 6,
2013 and continue discussions on this petition. VR Joseph A. O'Keefe Sr. Councillor Ward 7
On 06/05/13, Lynn Duncan<LDuncan@Salem.com>wrote:
Oam out of the office on June 6th and 7th, returning on June 10, 2013. Please call 978-619-5685 if you would
like assistance during this time and your call will be forwarded to the appropriate staff person. Thank you.
•
i
Daniel Sexton Attachment F
From: Beth Rennard
gent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:21 PM
'To: Daniel Sexton
Subject: Loring Towers 121A
Dan, Councillor O'Keefe asked me to email you to formally request, on his behalf, that the Planning Board be asked to
delay voting on the abvove referenced matter until such time as the MOU in question is addressed by the City Planner. I
have placed a call to Attorney Sacks to advise him of this request and ask if there is timing problem with such a
delay. Thank you
Elizabeth Rennard, Esq.
City Solicitor
Salem City Hall
93 Washington St.
Salem, MA 01970
978-619-5633
978-744-1279 fax
this message and the documents attached to it,if any,are Intended only for theuse ofthe addressee and may contain information that Is PRIVILEGED and
CONFIDENTIALand/or may contain ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are notthe intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination ofthis
communication is strictly prohisited, if you have received this cominunication in error,please delete all electronic copies of this message and attachments thereto,if
any,and destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me,immediately.1 hank you
•
•
1
Daniel Sexton
Rprom: Ceplikas, Ethan <eceplikas@nixonpeabody.com>
ent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:51 PM
o: Lynn Duncan
Cc: Daniel Sexton; 'McCord, Dodge (Denver)'; Robert.Deemer@aimco.com; Joseph O'Keefe;
Sacks, Jeffrey; 'michaelkane@saveourhomes.org'
Subject: RE: M.G.L. c. 121A Application of Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited Partnership
All,
Thank you for your continued cooperation. At this time we are working to address a few questions that have been
raised. We believe that these questions can be addressed well in advance of the June 201h Planning Board meeting, and
request that we are rescheduled for that meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Kind Regards, Ethan
Etban J Ceplikas
:associate
Nixol,N I}'FABODY,
� . _ r . �: � � ,.
100 Summar Street
Boston,MA 02110-2131
(617) 345-1.173
0566) - -246 I
ccepfikas@nixonpeabody.com
www.nixonpeabody.com
The preceding e-mail nussa(ge Con Iairis infbrmatior, that is confidential and was be proicmed by the attornev%client or
other applicable privilege;. Thc: intorm ition is intended to lie Conveyed only to the designated recipient(s)ol'the message.
Tt ran beliccc dl'l: you are not an I�lcntled recipient of this message, please niurfy the ser:der at (617) :?4z-1173.
I lnaathor;zed us,% di serninattion. d:stnbutittn or repro iuction of'tl 1s message by other th.ni the in Lei recipient is
sirii tly pr<ihlbiwd and may bei unlmvffil.
----------- ..........._
From: Ceplikas, Ethan
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:13 AM
To: I d u nca n(asa lem.com
Ce: dsexton(@salemxom; McCord, Dodge (Denver); Robert.Deemer(&aimco.com; fmokeefepec&verizon.net; Sacks,
Jeffrey; michaelkane(&saveourhomes.oro
Subject: M.G.L. c. 121A Application of Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited Partnership
Lynn,
Attached please find a letter related to Loring Towers and the Memorandum of Understanding dated June 14, 2007.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
'fcind Regards, Ethan
Ethan J Ceplikas
t
Associate
NixoN f'EABODY0,
. a eve n i �, r o t ,E .
100 Summer Sheet
Boston, MA 02110-2131 •
(617) 345-1173
1(866) 741-2461
ecepIikas cDnixonpeabody com
www.nixonpeabod com
I lus email 111c5,nr e and any amscinnents amt confidential. If you tires not t`he intended recipient, hiease immed,ately reply
to tnc ticnder and (klete thc. messagc from your emuil system. Thank you..
•
s
•
2
Daniel Sexton
rom: Ceplikas, Ethan <eceplikas@nixonpeabody.com>
ent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:51 PM
o: Lynn Duncan
Cc: Daniel Sexton; 'McCord, Dodge (Denver)'; Robert.Deemer@aimco.com; Joseph O'Keefe;
Sacks, Jeffrey; 'michaelkane@saveourhomes.org'
Subject: RE: M.G.L. c. 121A Application of Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited Partnership
All,
Thank you for your continued cooperation. At this time we are working to address a few questions that have been
raised. We believe that these questions can be addressed well in advance of the June 20t6 Planning Board meeting, and
request that we are rescheduled for that meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Kind Regards, Ethan
Ethan J Ceplikas
Associate
Nixo,\a PFABODK
A t 1 , C I k Y s M1 ti , v,,
100 Summer Street
Boston,.NL1021 t0-2131
>>(617) 345-1173
*560)741-2461
ec ep l i kas@n i x o npeabody.corn
www.nixonl)eabody.com
The orcceding i-mail mc. yaae cuntii75 info!mation thatis Confidcutial and may be protected by the xttonwy.- henl,or
ollwr t,pplicalli i7:rvttecc,. The intormation i, intended io be conveyed only to the designated recipical(s) of the message.
I(}ou belic C rhat%ou are not an inlcadcd recipient o!,his mcs5acc, please rioti.iy the sender at (617) :345-11'73.
fna�ttnorireiJ a dissemination, diwibi111011 or rc^produ6on of t i message by other then tt.e intcndc cl reciptcni is
strictly prol0ited stud nnay be unlawful.
From: Ceplikas, Ethan
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:13 AM
To: I d u nca n(&sa le m.com
Cc: dsexton(&salem.com; McCord, Dodge (Denver); Robert.DeemerCalaimco.com; fmokeefepe(�bverizon.net; Sacks,
Jeffrey; michaelkane(&saveourhomes.org
Subject: M.G.L. c. 121A Application of Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited Partnership
Lynn,
Attached please find a letter related to Loring Towers and the Memorandum of Understanding dated June 14, 2007.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Pind Regards, Ethan
Ethan J Ceplikas
t
Associate
Nixo 1'EAI:,),ODY.,
100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110-2131 •
(617) 345-1173
(866) 741-2461
eceplikas(Jnixonpeabody.com
www.nixonpeabody.com
I"hies email n�i�s,aG>e ,.tnd any If you are tim l'hte intended recipient, pleaw immedi iiely reply
to the tender dild drleFe the nlc sa.gc from your email s stem. llxank Voll.
•
•
2
Daniel Sexton
rom: Ceplikas, Ethan <eceplikas@nixonpeabody.com>
ent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:51 PM
o: Lynn Duncan
Cc: Daniel Sexton; 'McCord, Dodge (Denver)'; Robert.Deemer@aimco.com; Joseph O'Keefe;
Sacks, Jeffrey; 'michaelkane@saveourhomes.org'
Subject: RE: M.G.L. c. 121A Application of Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited Partnership
All,
Thank you for your continued cooperation. At this time we are working to address a few questions that have been
raised. We believe that these questions can be addressed well in advance of the June 20`h Planning Board meeting, and
request that we are rescheduled for that meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Kind Regards, Ethan
Ethan J Ceplikas
Associate
NIXON h'EABODY ,
100 Summer Street
Boston. MA 02110-213 1
k,(617) 345-1173
*866) 741-2461.
ecep ti kas(&n ixonpeabody.com
www.nixonveabody.co
The preredin.tf e-mail me sage contain; info_nmtion that 79 confidential :tnd way be prof etcd by the attc�tnev ChCI!t or
other applicable privilege, The inibrination is intended to be conveyed only to dw desigmited reutpieut(s)o the nlessa e.
lk you believe liar you are not an intended recipient of this mes age., please notify the xendcr at(617) 345-1173.
tJ;rauthorized Usc. diSICntinatMn, dl4tribtl11011 or rc:prodL[GIion of U li.s mcseage by other tl tut IIie intended rmipient is
strictly prOhiliited and vnay he unlawffil.
From: Ceplikas, Ethan__. .... _.
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:13 AM
To: I d u nca n(alsa lem.com
Cc: dsexton(alsalem.com; McCord, Dodge (Denver); Robert.Deemer(o@aimco.com; fmokeefepe(olverizon.net; Sacks,
Jeffrey; michaelkane(alsaveourhomes.org
Subject: M.G.L. c. 121A Application of Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited Partnership
Lynn,
Attached please find a letter related to Loring Towers and the Memorandum of Understanding dated June 14, 2007.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
41nd Regards, Ethan
Ethan J Ceplikas
r
Associate
Nrxo 1 PEAB)ODYip
100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110-2131 •
:,(617) 345-1173
r(866) 741-2461
eceplikas(Jnixonpeabod .corn
www.nixonpeabody.com
This email nx�slq.'e and any attachments are. confidential. WP oa are: noC the uitcnded recipient, please imnied,ately reply
to die sender and delete the me3sat e. from y-oui-email systITI. `I'htrnk.you.
•
2
!* City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date (0
fame Mailing Address / Phone # Email
Page of
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board AA-" OlnA
Date �o /�( _/ 2-0 l 3
Name MailiWddress Phone # Email
Anda kC y3 /uR.y�t Si 498 7 1 - 8 77
7'6G1 6 /N ww S`l �ec�Pi �9I-Sz� 'ID3I
lr�ro2ba rladb�i/kU /y "a S2`
Page of
0
»�v m CITY OF SALEM
t PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
CHANGE IN MEETING LOCATION
You ate hereby natift�l tdxa the Salem Planning Bard uill hold its 7Waa71ysdasUbJ mxiin8 on Thursday,May 16, 20L3 at
7:00 p.m. in dx Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School at 25 Memorial Dri�alm,,JIA !�3
Clazrla M. Pu1,04 stir
MEETING AGENDA
CORRECTED
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ May 2 Meeting Minutes
III. REGULARAGENDA
1. Project: Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation for SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LIMITED
• PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-year extension to the 15-year period of exemption
from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A for the property located at 12
POPE STREET.
Applicant: SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LP
Location: 12 POPE STREET
2. Project: Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 40-year extension from property taxation under
Section 10 of Chapter 121A,with the applicant maintaining an option to terminate such
exemption after the first fifteen (15) years,for the propertylocated at 1000 LORING
AVENUE.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE
3. Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site
Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Public Hearing applications for the
select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
➢ Community Preservation Committee Appointment
V. ADJOURNMENT
Know Yxtr Rights=r r the Open M&tingLawM.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and City Ordinatxe 4 2-2028 thraergb 2-203.3.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 wWW.SALEM.COM
o
CITY OF SALEM
t PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
CHANGE IN MEETING LOCATION
Ycu are hereby mtfW Ll ut the SalemPlarvdng Board mill hold its regt&4 sdxdadal awing on Thur day,May 16, 2013 at
7:00 p.m. in the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School at 2SMemorial Dr m, Salem,MA
Charles M.Parrs (1x it
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
r
➢ May 2 Meeting Minutes
III. REGULARAGENDA
1. Project: Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
• designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 40-year extension from propenytaxanon under
Section 10 of Chapter 121A,with the applicant maintaining an option to terminate such
exemption after the fust fifteen(15) years,for the property located at 1000 LORING
AVENUE.
Applicant: SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LP
Location: 12 POPE STREET
2. Project: Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation for SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-year extension to the 15-year period of exemption
from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A for the property located at 12
POPE STREET.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE
3. Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site
Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Public Hearing applications for the
select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
➢ Community Preservation Committee Appointment
V. ADJOURNMENT
Know Your Rights amaer-the Open M&,tingLawM.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and City 0riz'name§ 2-2028 tlmxagh 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.SAI,EM.COM
S CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
�\ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
`�c�y gpotj COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-74o-0404
DIRECTOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner ,� <
DATE: May 9,2013
RE: Agenda—May 16, 2013 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
➢ Planner's Memo
• ➢ Draft Meeting Minutes -May 2,2013
➢ Materials for Regular Agenda
Materials for the agenda item are included in the packet for the 05/02/2013 meeting. Here is a summation of
the request and background parcel information for each item:
III. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Discussion and Vote — A request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for LORING
TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval
of a 40-year extension from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A, with the applicant
maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the first fifteen (15) years, for the property
located at 1000 LORING AVENUE. Specifically, the requested petition does not propose any
construction of new facilities on the Site.
At the joint public hearing of the City Council and Planning Board, held on May 15, 2013, the application of
Loring Towers Salem Preservation Associates, LP for approval of a 40-year extension of exemption from
property taxation under M.G.L. Ch. 121A § 10 for 1000 Loring Avenue was discussed.
The Planning Board should be ready to vote on 5/16 whether the application is approved, disapproved with
recommendations or disapproved completely. In rendering a decision, the Planning Board must consider
whether the application meets the criteria outlined in M.G.L. Ch. 121A § 6,which include:
➢
Whether blighted open or decadent or rub-standard conditions exist within the proposed project area;
➢ That the project b not in contravention o`any Zoning, subdivision, health or building ordinance or by-law or r des and
regulations of the aly or town;
City of Salem: Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—May 9, 2013
Page 2 of 3
➢
Whether or not the proposed pmject conflicts with the masterplan of the city or town made by authority of cbapter forty- •
one, i'such a plan bas been made, determine whether or not juch prjecl would be in any way detrimental to the best
interests of the public or the arty or town or to the public safety and convenience or be inconsistent with the most suitable
development of the city or town;
➢ Whether or not the proposed project will constitute a public use and benefit,-and
➢ The feasibility of the method of relocation and existence or availability of dwellings for displaced families as hereinafter
provided.
The Planning Board's decision to approve, disapprove with recommendations or disapprove completely must
include findings speaking to the criteria listed above. The decision will then be transmitted to the City Council
for their consideration of the application. Please note, the Planning Board's decision is considered advisory.
Staff is available to answer any questions regarding the M.G.L. Ch. 121A process.
Discussion and Vote - A request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for SALEM
HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-
year extension to the 15-year period of exemption from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter
121A for the property located at 12 POPE STREET. Specifically, the requested petition does not
propose any construction of new facilities on the Site.
At the joint public hearing of the City Council and Planning Board, held on May 15, 2013, the application of
Salem Heights Preservation Associates, LP for approval of a 25-year extension to the 15-year period of
exemption from property taxation under M.G.L. Ch. 121A § 10 for 12 Pope Street was discussed.
The Planning Board should be ready to vote on 5/16 whether the application is approved, disapproved with •
recommendations or disapproved completely. In rendering a decision, the Planning Board must consider
whether the application meets the criteria outlined in M.G.L. Ch. 121A § 6,which include:
➢ Whether blighted open or decadent orub standard conditions exist evt?h
en the proposed project area;
➢ That the project it not in contravention of any Zoning, subdivision, health or building ordinance or by-law or rules and
regulations of the city or town;
➢ Whether or not theproposedpmject conflicts with the masterplan of the city or town made by authority of chapter forty-
one, iif etch a plan has been made, determine whether or not such pmject would be in any way detrimental to the best
interests of the public or the city or town or to thepublic safety and convenience or be inconsistent with the most rentable
development of the city or town;
➢ iP hetber or not the proposed project will constitute a public use and benefit;and
➢ The feasibility of the method of relocation and existence or availability of dwelk'ngr far di placed families as hereinafter
provided
The Planning Board's decision to approve, disapprove with recommendations or disapprove completely must
include findings speaking to the criteria listed above. The decision will then be transmitted to the City Council
for their consideration of the application. Please note, the Planning Board's decision is considered advisory.
Staff is available to answer any questions regarding the M.G.L. Ch. 121A process.
City of Salem: Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—May 9,2013
Page 3 of 3
• Continued Public Hearing — FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP -
Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special
Permit for the property located at 24 FORT AVENUE (I). Specifically, the requested petitions
concern select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the
construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility on a
20+/- acre portion of the Site.
At the regular meeting of the Planning Board, held on May 2, 2013, the applicant agreed to continue
discussion of this item until the May 16, 2013 regular meeting. The public hearing was continued to allow the
Petitioner the opportunity to have different members of the Footprint Team present information on different
aspects of the redevelopment project. The Petitioner has not submitted any supplementary information as
follow up to the public comments provided during the May 2, 2013 meeting. During this meeting, the
Petitioner would like discuss the following aspects of the project:
➢ civil details
➢ construction plans
➢ site grading and fill
➢ stormwater management
➢ flood hazard prevention
➢ traffic
Depending upon the amount of discussion and public comment, some of these discussion items may need to
• be moved to the next Planning Board meeting.
Representatives from AECOM are available to respond to comments or questions that Planning Board may
have. While comments from AECOM are not part of this meeting packet, Staff has been information that a
Summary Memo will be provided to the City no later than close of business on Tuesday, May 14, 2013. This
memo will be transmitted electronic to the Planning Board once it is received.
Additionally, no comments from the Building Comm ssion, Board of Health, City Engineer, Department of
Public Services,Disabilities Commission, Fire Department,Police Department and School District have been
received for this project. Staff is coordinating with the other City Departments to secure additional comments
for the project.The deadline for comments to be submitted is May 15,2013
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
Community Preservation Committee Appointment
Recently, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a Community Preservation Committee. This
committee was established in accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 44B Massachusetts Community Preservation Act, and
requires a member of the Planning Board to be appointed to the committee.According to Section 2-1011
11emberrbip and Terms, a member of the Planning Board as designated by the Board will hold an initial term of
one year,and thereafter for a term of three years. The appointment must be made by the Planning Board
before June 1,2013.As reference a copy of the ordinance establishing this committee is provided in
Attachment A.
Attachments
• Attachment A—A copy of the Community Preservation Ordinance
D
. Section I. Chapter 2 is hereby amended by adding a new division within Article IV Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Authorities as follows: S
"ARTICLE IV. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND AUTHORITIES M
DIVISION 15. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE 3
r+
Sec. 2-1010. Established D
There is hereby established a Community Preservation Committee, in accordance with the
Massachusetts Community Preservation Act, M.G.L. Chapter 44B, consisting of nine (9) voting
members.
Sec. 2-1011. Membership and Terms
The composition of the committee,ttee, the appointment authority and the term of office for the
committee members shall be as follows:
(1) One member of the Conservation Commission as designated by the Commission for a term of
three years.
(2) One member of the Historical Commission as designated by the Commission for an initial
term of two years, and thereafter for a tern of three years.
(3) One member of the Planning Board as designated by the Board for an initial term of one year,
and thereafter for a term of three years.
(4) One member of the Park and Recreation Commission as designated by the Commission for
an initial term of one year and thereafter for a term of three years.
• (5) One member of the Housing Authority Board as designated by the Board for an initial term
of two years and thereafter for a term of three years.
(6) Two members appointed by the City Council, two of the general public or in the alternative
one member of the City Council recommended by the Council President and one member of the
general public, to be appointed for a term of one year and thereafter for a term of two years for
appoints from the general public.
(7) Two members of the general public to be appointed by the Mayor, confirmed by majority
vote of the City Council, one member to be appointed for a term of one year and thereafter for a
term of two years and one member to be appointed for a term of two years and thereafter for a
term of three years.
(8) All members of the Committee must be Salem residents.
The Commissions, Boards, Council and Mayor who have appointment authority under this
Division shall appoint such representatives within 45 days of the effective date of this ordinance.
Should there be a vacancy or resignation in any of the Community Preservation Committee
positions, the Commissions, Boards, Council or Mayor who have appointment authority under
this Division shall appoint a new representative within 45 days of the first date of a known
vacancy or resignation.
As a prerequisite to appointment to the Community Preservation Committee, a Commission or
Board appointee must be in good standing, meaning that the member's term of appointment from
the Board or Commission shall not have lapsed. In the event that a Committee member who is
• appointed by a Board or Commission has term of appointment to the underlying Board or
Commission that lapses while he or she is a member of the Committee, that appointee shall be
ineligible to vote on any matter before the Committee until the member is back in good standing •
or replaced.
Should any of the Commissions or Boards who have appointment authority under this Division
be no longer in existence for whatever reason, the appointment authority for that Commission or
Board shall become the responsibility of the City Council.
Should the Mayor fail to appoint a committee member into his/her two allotted spots within 45
days following adoption of this Division or a known vacancy, the appointment authority for that
position shall be the City Council.
Should the City Council fail to appoint a committee member into their two allotted spots within
45 days following adoption of this Division or a known vacancy, the appointment authority for
that position shall be the Mayor.
Should any of the Commissions or Boards who have appointment authority under this Division
fail to appoint a representative within 45 days following adoption of this Division or a known
vacancy, the appointment authority for that position shall be the Mayor. In the event the Mayor
appoints following a Commission or Board's failure to do so, the individual chosen must be a
current member in good standing of the Commission or Board and whose appointment shall be
subject to approval of the City Council. In the event 45 additional days have lapsed since the
Mayor was to appoint a member to the Committee from a Board or Commission and the Mayor
fails to make such appointment, the City Council shall them become the appointing authority for
thatp osition. •
See. 2-2012. Powers and Duties
(1) The community preservation committee shall study the needs, possibilities and resources of
the city regarding community preservation. The committee shall consult with existing municipal
boards, including the City Council, the conservation commission, the historical commission, the
planning board, the park and recreation commissioners and the housing authority, or persons
acting in those capacities or performing like duties, in conducting such studies. As part of its
study, the committee shall hold one or more public informational hearings on the needs,
possibilities and resources of the city regarding community preservation possibilities and
resources, notice of which shall be posted publicly and published for each of two weeks
preceding a hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The committee may, after
proper appropriation, incur expenses as permitted by state law using funds from the community
preservation fund to pay such expenses.
(2) The community preservation committee shall make recommendations to the City Council for
the acquisition, creation and preservation of open space; for the acquisition, preservation,
rehabilitation and restoration of historic resources; for the acquisition, creation, preservation,
rehabilitation and restoration of land for recreational use; for the acquisition, creation,
preservation and support of community housing; and for the rehabilitation or restoration of open
space and community housing that is acquired or created with Community Preservation Funds. •
With respect to community housing, the community preservation committee shall recommend,
wherever possible, the reuse of existing buildings or construction of new buildings on previously
731
'
• developed sites. With respect to recreational use, the acquisition of artificial turf for athletic
fields shall be prohibited.
(3) The community preservation committee may include in its recommendation to the City
Council a recommendation to set aside for later spending funds for specific purposes that are
consistent with community preservation but for which sufficient revenues are not then available
in the Community Preservation Fund to accomplish that specific purpose or to set aside for later
spending funds for general purposes that are consistent with community preservation.
Upon approval of any rule or regulation by the committee, a copy of the same shall be filed with
the City Clerk and become effective as of the date of filing thereof unless the specific vote of the
committee establishes a later effective date.
Sec. 2-2013. Amendments
This Division may be amended from time to time by a majority vote of the City Council,
provided that the amendments would not cause a conflict to occur with MGL, Chapter 44B.
Sec. 2-2014. Severability
In case any section, paragraph or part of this division is for any reason declared invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of last resort, every other section, paragraph or part shall continue
in full force and effect.
• Section II. This ordinance shall take effect as provided by city charter.
•
• City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board Eoa_,F-1
zr
Date S / 1 ( Z013
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
'I��Ib ����/ fdi s7�z sA� �i�•3�s8- (��� 1�,���`{Lc�M� l�1-
rl "A e_L L-cn 2 Je�^yS } c'5� 1�� 47874E-4BaS p J
A
( h Jpb S (Zlac SI� f�bS h7K
��u � �2SSa ''�
18 LeaVi*Y Sf, Sa Qe u-r (Q78)Z1°`I QG 0 aVi It ar& -kcf. cek
ev{r
laz L •�Cv.��;a i'
P'(_
Rn Obl VJccA S6)n yr! 00"9
�inhe� �arletice— ebb St. 9�� 968'. 6�5'l/- • . ad ai,?.ean�v
Jas � Cr Ojjro 25"eKI` 'N5 a — 9?6 7y5/Dy7
��� /y r.✓Il3g �7" 7$l —S21I 103/ R�w6r�,�•BDY�'G���
8 ' fn1 TQC
,.nye I . eM e 3 ( �rI`� C/�3VF `�7f7a- 71,6'1' ?7/01
• � vl LGQ , q� aJ3 , ✓ qIO 2L,f IYJ r lei oc/ L2 '%7
Page of
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date
Name MailinAddress Phone # Email
J�p Ste- u' e Sj -44S
�w4F S l u e &,� S i
qI ; T�� S� rte'' 7'�l '7�'??
7 � Fov-:- By�m �-
• V '
•
Page of
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
LanQ _ T B 10 Venw_KL�� 6��Sv o
l heodacQ �d„� r 10 a-6N #j X75 77 FQV� -t�oaann e�JwtS�bCOHt
Page of
Ico
v CITY OF SALEM
j PLANNING BOARD
May 21, 2013
Salem City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem,MA 01970
RE: Planning Board Designee to the Community Preservation Committee
Mayor Driscoll:
At the regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board held on May 16`h, 2013, the Board met to
discuss the appointment of one of its members to the Community Preservation Comututtee.
In accordance with the City of Salem's Community Preservation Committee Ordinance, the Board
voted unanimously to appoint Helen Sides as its designee to the Community Preservation
Committee.
• If you require further information,please contact Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner, in the Department of
Planning &Community Development at (978) 619-5691 or by email at dsextona,salem.com.
Sincerely,
Tim Ready, g Actin Chair
Salem Planning Board
Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
�o
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1013 NA-Y 7n
MEMORANDUM FILE q
Date: May 20, 2013 CITY CLERK, SALEM,
MASS,
To: Salem City Council
From: Salem Planning Board
Re: Summary of Findings and Recommendation for the MGL Chapter 121A Application of
Salem Heights Preservation Associates, Limited Partnership
On May 15, 2013 a joint public hearing of the Salem City Council and Salem Planning Board was held to consider the
application for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION
ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-year extension to the 15-year period of
exemption from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A for the property located at 12 POPE STREET.
The Salem Planning Board deliberated and voted on this application on May 16,2013.
In consideration of the findings below, the Salem Planning Board voted to approve the Chapter 121A application. All
the members present voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote in favor (Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Mr. Clarke, Ms. Sides, Mr.
McCabe,Mr.Anderson, and Mr.Rieder) and none opposed.
• Pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 121A S 6, the Salem Planning Board, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at
the public hearing,and after thorough review of the application submitted,makes the following findings:
L The proposed project area is qualified under the statutory definition of a "blighted open," "decadent"
or"substandard"area established in Section 1 of Chapter 12M.
The Salem Planning Board has determined that the Salem Heights development was constructed in 1974 to
address a blighted, open and substandard area on Pope Street in Salem, on a difficult to develop site with
substantial ledge. Over the years,the 283 unit multifamily building on the site has experienced the degradation
of aging, inadequate original systems, high energy costs, and heavy use from the families who have lived there
over the 40 year period since original construction. Capital needs studies have shown that the building
continues to require substantial investment, for basic infrastructure as well as for the rehabilitation of the
interior of apartment units on turnover. Due to the inability to raise rents or to increase mortgage proceeds
from the property for capital needs as a result of the multiple affordable housing restrictions which en
the property(including a 100-ycar restriction held by the City of Salem), it is critical to the preservation offthis
affordable housing resource and the prevention of blight and substandard conditions on the site and in the
surrounding neighborhood that the assistance of Chapter 121A be provided to the project. The project has
experienced mortgage default and workout status. The owner has diligently pursued all available public and
Private sources of affordable housing funds to address the blight created by inadequate capitalization, but
Chapter 121A status is essential to these efforts to prevent blighted and substandard project conditions.
Therefore, the Salem Planning Board finds that all of the above factors qualify the project to meet the statutory
purpose and intent of the definition of a"blighted open,' "decadent" or"substandard" area.
2. The project is not in contravention of any zoning, subdizision, health or building ordinance or by-law
or the rales and regulations of the City of Salem (the "City").
The project is in conformance with local zoning, subdivision, health or building ordinances, by-law and rules
and regulations of the City.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALFM.COM
Salem Planning Board
May 20,2013
Project: 12 Pope Street
Page 2 of 2 •
3. The project does not conflict with the City's master plan, or if there is no master plan, with a local or
regional plan, as appropriate.
The Salem Planning Board finds that the project is in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of the
Gty, as a much needed affordable housing resource for the Cry, and as an anchor of stability to prevent blight
and decay in the surrounding neighborhood. The Gty has made a major commitment to the viability of this
multi-family apartment development and the families who live there, through the lawsuit brought to block the
conversion of Salem Heights to market rate housing in the late 1990s, and the 100-year affordable housing
restriction the City obtained as a result of that lawsuit. The financial stability of the project will be supported
with the consistency of the payment formula under Chapter 121A agreement;the Cry will benefit financially as
well, by sharing through the statutory formula in rental increases permitted by the affordable housing
restrictions, and avoiding the need to have annual negotiations, and, potentially, time-consuming and costly
annual appeals of real estate tax assessments.
4. The project is not detrimental to:
a. the best interests of the public or City;
b, the best interests of public safety and convenience;or
c. consistency with the most suitable development of the City;
The Salem Planning Board has determined that the project will further the best interests of the public and the
City by providing much needed, safe and decent affordable housing to families, through the support provided
by the predictable amount of taxes payable under Chapter 121A, as well as providing a predictable source of
tax revenue for the Cry, and participation in any increase in rental income under the statutory formula of
Chapter 121A. •
S. The project constitutes a public rise and benefit,and
The Salem Planning Board determines that the project meets this criteria by supporting a much needed
affordable housing development subject to a 100-year restriction held by the City, and will benefit the
surrounding neighborhood by enabling the project to address the maintenance and capital needs of the project
notwithstanding the limitations on rental income created by the affordable housing restrictions held by the City
and federal and state governments.
6. No relocation of residents is required since the ongoing maintenance and capital repairs programs
being undertaken by the Applicant are being performed with tenants in place.
Tun Ready,Acting Chairman
Salem Planning Board
Cc: . Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk
• City of Salem Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 16, 2013
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School, 25 Memorial Drive, Salem, Massachusetts.
Vice Chairman Ready opened the meeting at 7:02 pm.
I. Roll Call
Those present were: Tim Ready, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke
and George McCabe. Absent: Dale Yale, Chuck Puleo, Chair, and Mark George.
Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Daniel Sexton,
Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Councillors Legault,Turiel, Sargent,McCarthy and Furey presence were acknowledged.
I. Approval of Minutes
May 2 2013 draft minutes
Mr. Rieder noted a couple revisions on page 7 including:
• • Restating that , Kirt Rieder seemed to suggest that Footprint is removing trees rather than
the original owner doing this,would like his comment to be
• The word"shooting" should be reworded as "percolating";
• Clarified that he was not suggesting that they move the building back, rather use the berm as
a buffer.
No further comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to arove the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Rieder and a unanimous
vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Mr. Read (flice Chair),Ms. Sides,Mr. McCabe,
Mc Clarke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder in favor and none 4t)osed The motion was accepted The dniezon is
hereby incorporated as- art of these minutes.
II. Regular Agenda
Mr. Ready introduced the first agenda item.
Project: Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation for SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 40-year extension from
property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A, with the applicant
maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the first fifteen (15)
years, for the property located at 12 POPE STREET.
. Applicant: SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LP
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 16,2013
Page 2 of 12
Location: 12 POPE STREET
Lynn Duncan, Director of Community Development and Planning, stated that the public hearing
was closed last night and this is the opportunity for the Planning Board to discuss the findings and
it's up to the Planning Board to deliberate. Dan Sexton, Staff Planner, stated that the Board needs
to adopt findings and make a recommendation in order to approve the application. Mr. Sexton read
some draft findings for consideration by the Planning Board into the record. The findings read by
Mr. Sexton stated:
1. The proposed project area is qualified under the statutory deFnition of a "blighted
open,""decadent"or "substandard"area established in Section 1 of Chapter 1214.
The Salem Planning Board has determined that the Salem Heights development was
constructed in 1974 to address a blighted, open and substandard area on Pope Street in
Salem, on a difficult to develop site with substantial ledge. Over the years, the 283 unit
multifamily building on the site has experienced the degradation of aging, inadequate original
systems, high energy costs, and heavy use from the families who have lived there over the 40
year period since original construction. Capital needs studies have shown that the building
continues to require substantial investment, for basic infrastructure as well as for the
rehabilitation of the interior of apartment units on turnover. Due to the inability to raise
rents or to increase mortgage proceeds from the property for capital needs as a result of the
multiple affordable housing restrictions which encumber the property (including a 100-year •
restriction held by the City of Salem), it is critical to the preservation of this affordable
housing resource and the prevention of blight and substandard conditions on the site and in
the surrounding neighborhood that the assistance of Chapter 121A be provided to the
project. The project has experienced mortgage default and workout status. The owner has
diligently pursued all available public and private sources of affordable housing funds to
address the blight created by inadequate capitalization, but Chapter 121A status is essential
to these efforts to prevent blighted and substandard project conditions. Therefore, the
Salem Planning Board finds that all of the above factors qualify the project to meet the
statutory purpose and intent of the definition of a "blighted open," "decadent" or
"substandard" area.
2. The project is not in contravention of any zoning, subdivision, health or building
ordinance or by-law or the rules and regulations of the City of Salem (the "City').
The project is in conformance with local zoning, subdivision, health or building ordinances,
by-law and rules and regulations of the City.
3. The project does not conflict with the City's master plan, or if there is no master
plan, with a local or regional plan, as appropriate.
•
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
LCity of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 16,2013
Page 3 of 12
• The Salem Planning Board finds that the project is in compliance with the planning goals
and objectives of the City, as a much needed affordable housing resource for the City, and as
an anchor of stability to prevent blight and decay in the surrounding neighborhood. The
City has made a major commitment to the viability of this multi-family apartment
development and the families who live there, through the lawsuit brought to block the
conversion of Salem Heights to market rate housing in the late 1990s, and the 100-year
affordable housing restriction the City obtained as a result of that lawsuit. The financial
stability of the project will be supported with the consistency of the payment formula under
Chapter 121A agreement; the City will benefit financially as well, by sharing through the
statutory formula in rental increases permitted by the affordable housing restrictions, and
avoiding the need to have annual negotiations, and, potentially, time-consuming and costly
annual appeals of real estate tax assessments.
4. The projectis not detrimental to:
a. the best interests of the public or City;
b. the best interests olpublic safety and convenience;or
c. consistency with the most suitable development of the City;
The Salem Planning Board has determined that the project will further the best interests of
the public and the City by providing much needed, safe and decent affordable housing to
families, through the support provided by the predictable amount of taxes payable under
• Chapter 121A, as well as providing a predictable source of tax revenue for the City, and
participation in any increase in rental income under the statutory formula of Chapter 121A.
5. The project constitutes a public use and beneFt;and
The Salem Planning Board determines that the project meets this criteria by supporting a
much needed affordable housing development subject to a 100-year restriction held by the
City, and will benefit the surrounding neighborhood by enabling the project to address the
maintenance and capital needs of the project notwithstanding the limitations on rental
income created by the affordable housing restrictions held by the City and federal and state
governments.
6. No relocation of residents is required since the ongoing maintenance and capital
repairs programs being undertaken by the Applicant are being performed with
tenants in place.
Motion:Mr. McCabe made a motion to a"e t the findings as stated buff and recommend approval of the Salem
H_eiabts Chapter 121A application for 12 Pape Street, seconded by Mr. Clarke and a unanimous vote was taken.
All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Mr. Read (Vice Chair). Ms. Sides. Mr. McCabe, Mr. Clarke,
Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is berebv
incorporated as part of these minutes.
•
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
I
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 4 of 12
Mr. Ready introduced the second item. •
Project: Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A
designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION
ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-year
extension to the 15-year period of exemption from property taxation under
Section 10 of Chapter 121A for the property located at 1000 LORING
AVENUE.
Applicant: LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES,LP
Location: 1000 LORING AVENUE
Mr. Sexton stated that staff was asked by Loring Towers Salem Preservation Associates, LP and
Councilor O'Keefe to continue this item to the next meeting so they may have time to resolve the
issues raised during the joint public hearing.
Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to accept the request for a continuance of the Loring Towers Cbypter 121A
aAhlication till the-tune 6°' reular Plannnn Board meeting. seconded by Mr. Clarke and a unanimous vote was
taken. All the members voted-in-favor, with a 6-0 vote Wr. Ready_a ice Chaijr. Ms Sides Mr. McCabe Mr.
Clarke, Mr.Anderson and Mr. Rieder in-favor and none o4,tosed The motion was accepted The decision is hereby
incorporated as4art of these minutes.
Project: Continued Public Hearing on the Planned Unit Development Special Permit,
Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Public Hearing. •
Specifically, the requested petitions concern select demolition and
redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the
construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric
generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the applicant Footprint Power, said that
this is the second in the series of meetings that they are presenting the proposal for Footprint
Power. He reviewed the presentations from the previous meeting. This evening they are going to
continue their presentation on new materials. As they continue to present this, and as questions
come up, the specified consultant will respond to those issues. He introduced Scott Silverstein,
COO of Footprint Power.
A member of the audience asked if they could film this presentation, to which the Vice Chair said
yes. Mr. Ready reminded the audience that there is an official audio recording of the meeting which
is available through the Planning Department.
Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint, stated that in the discussion regarding the minutes that the
trees in question are not scheduled to be removed, which he also confirmed with National Grid.
The other issue came up in the meeting in regards to concerns about the plant in Everett. The
concern that was raised were about explosions and gas coming out to the stacks. They looked at the
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 16,2013
Page 5 of 12
• new reports which stated that National Grid was doing maintenance on the line and they did the
flaring on the Mystic site which was not related to the plant, and was a safe and controlled event.
The other point that he wanted to make was about the scope of the project, specifically the kind of
inner workings of the site as well as what they have gone through on the permitting front. They
have gone through the Siting Board hearing over ten days, which included thousands of documents
and testimonies. Others will be vetted before the Department of Environmental Protection, as
there is an ongoing MEPA process, and they expect the Secretary of Energy to issue a certificate on
the process. Many of the issues are being vetted elsewhere. They hopefully have answers to all the
questions that will be asked as they have spent a great deal of time thinking about this project. The
city has been involved in each of these proceedings and these issues have been seen by others. He
concluded by stating that there is a packed agenda tonight, along with slides that will demonstrate
their plans.
Brian Marchetti, TetraTec, is the civil engineer on the project, focused on stormwater management
and facilities. He reviewed the size of the project and explained how it currently operates under
EPA multi-sector general permit. He then described slides that showed the current and proposed
outfalls on the site and the direction of the stormwater floes. He spoke of the treated wastewater on
the facility and how that impacts day-to-day functions. He stated that it was important to note that
currently, on the entire facility, there are no drainage connections to the city's 48-inch drain line and
they are not proposing that. He then showed a slide of the proposed stormwater management
system, noting that none of the stormwater runoff will be directed or discharged into the
surrounding streets. He described the plan for the new stormwater collection area and said that
• there would only be 7 inches of water in the basin, and will discharge in process stormwater into
Salem Harbor. Oil water separating technology was described. The northeast part of site will largely
remain unchanged, but they will replace catchbasins at the beginning of the parking lot, and will add
catchbasins up the driveway, along with water quality units. Additionally, in that same secton they
proposed some demolishing at the site, but the slabs will remain. Catch basins will be there to
collect drainage before outfall. All outfalls are being proposed to remain to clean stormwater runoff
from the property.
He then described the rooftop design and discussed harvesting rooftop runoff. Mr. Marchetti then
spoke of the route of the rainfall from the rooftop.
Then reviewed the drain line relocation, and said that they are working with the City and peer review
consultants for the final design as they would like to relocate portion of drain line.
In terms of water quality, Mr. Marchetti stated that they need to meet DEP requirements in order to
promote groundwater infiltration which will be cleaner as part of the proposed development. Based
on the DEP standards they expect to have a net decrease in paved area of approximately 15 acres.
He then reviewed standard DEP stormwater requirements and explained how the development of
the site will conform with those requirements. Explained that this site has some obstacles, but just
in the fact that they are reducing the paved areas by 15 acres, the direct result reduces a significant
amount of rainfall runoff. He noted that the water quality units will be tested by third parties; they
have been tested and have been found to be at manufacturers requirements, which would allow
them-to use them on the site. They are treating a 1 inch water quality volume that is required by the
. standard. He described this as a significant improvement over what is currently on the site. This
site is considered a critical site due to shellfish on the site. They are a re-development project and
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 6 of 12
while they are required to meet certain standards, they are meeting all of the standards beyond what
is required. There are no illicit discharges proposed and there are no illicit discharges known on site. •
If there are any then the connection will be immediately shut off.
Mr. Marchetti then showed a slide on the amount of fill that is being brought to the site and
described the elevations that will be changed on the site due to the additions of the fill.
He then showed and explained a slide on the conceptual gas line routing plan.
Another slide showed the domestic water and fire water services on the site currently. He noted that
they are not proposing any changes to those lines, but will add lines to supply the water tanks with
water to facilitate the fire service needs.
He concluded his presentation by showing a slide on the sewer connections.
Kenny Kinkela, Bay Shore Services, reviewed the flood zones and associated mitigations. He
reviewed the effect of 100 year flood zones and the velocity zones under the FEMA mapping,which
is zoned at 12 feet. He said that they need to address how to protect these sites and to his
knowledge, there has only been one hurricane in 1950s which (breeched hurricane flood elevations).
He showed and described proposed elevations on the site. They proposed raising the elevations of
the site to 16 feet, at a minimum, particularly on the main part of the site. He acknowledged that
while this isn't a significant change on the northern areas of the site, it will be a significant change at
the southern parts of the site. The current FEMA flood zone is set for 10 feet, and the new facility
will give them a safety factor of 4 to 6 feet. •
Mr. Kinkela then discussed climate change and stated that from an observational methodology over
a 40 year period, they came up with a 15 year rising,which is how they came to that estimation. He
explained that they took the mean high level water and then added in sea level rise. He presented
the NOAA storm surge model for Salem Harbor, which showed a potential of 6 feet in sea water
rise during a nor'eastet. He then added in some additional buffer, and that's how they came up with
16 feet.
He then addressed how fill is going to affect a person's home. Mr. Kinkela stated that the site is
protected very well from the north and northeast as large wave actions get dampened by the
topography. Any wave action that comes in from a storm will be interrupted by the breakwater,
which is what happens currently.
Mr. Kinkela then presented on construction phasing describing each of the stages. He stated that
preliminary staging will take place between August 2013 and March 2014, and at that time they will
be removing tanks, as well as electrical systems to try to grade this site down to smoother profile.
He then showed a graphic with the demolition area. Stage 2 will take place between Match 2014 and
July 2015, which includes the coal handling conveyer and the stacks. For this stage, the emphasis is
on getting demolition done as soon as possible. Stage 3 is the beginning of the actual site
destruction which will take place between July 2014 and December 2014 and at this time access to
site will not be much different. They will limit it to delivery trucks and overall this will make a
significant difference to the community. The construction workers will come in from the arterial
roads and they will build as much parking as necessary for their workers. •
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 7 of 12
• The actual construction will consist of the installation of foundations for the buildings and auger
cast piles He noted that the geotechnical work is ongoing right now. After pile work is underway
they will do general slab work followed by underground piping, which will take place between July
2014 and December 2014. Above ground construction will take place between December 2014 and
January 2016; and finally the facility operations will begin in 2016. He emphasized that the peak of
work will only be over the course of a few months.
Mike Hall, TetraTec, gave the traffic study presentation and stated that he oversaw preparation of
the traffic project. He provided a summary of findings and began by stating that during operational
phase, there will be a net benefit of traffic during construction phase of project with construction
workers. Workers will show up before peak hours of traffic, which they found to be 7:30 - 8:30am
and 4:30 - 5:30am. They did find that most of the roads have adequate capacity to handle traffic.
One exception Derby and Webb Street, which is where mitigation is being proposed. In 2012, they
did traffic counts in the area, and observed how and when the trucks come in and out of the site.
Currently, there are almost 300 vehicles on a daily basis, and they are expecting about 100 vehicles
per day which is a net benefit. The traffic study then focused on the construction phase if there is
going to be an impact on the traffic. They looked at the total of 6 intersections. Webb and Derby
Streets, Essex and Webb Streets, both ends of Ayube Drive, Fort Avenue and the site driveway, and
Bridge and Webb Streets. They looked at peak times of the days as well as traffic signals. They
asked if these signals can function and handle the traffic and they tested what if scenarios. They
anticipate that 98% of traffic will come through Webb and Bridge Streets.
They looked specifically at July- September 2015 when the most workers will be coming to the site.
• They conducted rigorous testing of if the streets can handle the traffic, taking into account a
workforce this size and they could be coming from a further distance. The analysis they did showed
everyone coming from their own car. They looked at number of lanes, traffic signal timings, etc. to
determine how well a traffic signal is going to function. Mr. Hall then explained the rating system
and showed that all of the access roads function between levels of service rated A through D. He
noted that there were two routes that did not function at those levels, which were Webb and Bridge
Streets,rated level E,Webb and Derby Streets,rated level F. The mitigation they are recommending
there is a positioning of an officer during the morning and afternoon, which will move it up to level
C. Footprint is willing to work with the city to mitigate the light. Mr. Hall then reminded the Board
and the audience that this is during a three month period only. They want to be a good neighbor
and want to work with the city to make this work for all. He concluded, by saying that there may be
some miscellaneous trucks coming in from routes 114, 107 and IA.
Scott Silverstein acknowledged that it is a complex and difficult project. Mr. Ready echoed his
sentiments and also introduced the Peer Reviewers from AECOM, Kathleen Schaeffer and David
Derring.
Ben Anderson stated that he heard a fair amount about materials coming in on barges but would like
to know about materials leaving the site. He asked about the plan for them to queue in the site, and
not on the city streets. Mr. Silverstein stated that everything that is going to off by barge will by able
to go by barge. He specifically stated that they will sort on site, demolish on site, anything that can
be reused will be the best option and will be used on site. Anything that can go off by barge will go
off, as they don't want to add congestion to the streets. Mr. Anderson asked how that is determined
• to which Mr. Silverstein stated that in terms of things being shipped, there are no major issues with
things going off by barge, to which Mr. Kinkela added that no materials are leaving the site by truck.
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 8 of 12
They have been in discussions with the demolition contractors, and they have concluded that
loading materials onto barge is easiest and quickest. Truck queuing at each of the entrance gates will ✓.
be set back into the site so trucks will be queued off the city streets. Mr. Anderson asked about the
frequency of deliveries to which Mr. Kinkela stated that he believed them to be as many as one a
day, which is about the same size of the coal loading ships now. He said that it will be aggregated
elsewhere and brought in, so it should be a pretty controlled and well planned delivery system.
Randy Clarke asked about trucks going to the site. The assumption was how where they would go,
can it be a requirement that the trucks take Routes 114 and 107 as Derby is a single point failure.
This is a minor detail but it would do a lot to help the neighborhood. Mr. Kinkela agreed and added
that they can specify arterial routes.
Mr. Rieder would like to enter into the record a set of red-lined drawings, reflecting many of the
comments from the last meeting in graphic format to help the applicant understand. Tim Ready will
accept them and the applicant does not object. Mr. Ready then reminded the applicant and the
audience to stand up so everyone can hear.
Mr. Rieder questioned the markings on the cherry trees in regards to removal. Mr. Silverstein said
that he checked with National Grid and they are not planning on taking out trees. Mr. Rieder stated
that they would be well suited to make notes that they do not remove trees based on previous
lawsuit.
Mr. Rieder asked why stone slope is needed as opposed to loam and seed. Mr. Marchetti responded
that as it is designed now the central portion of the basin was landscaped with loam and seed and •
the stone surrounding the reservoir. The thought is that the fresh stone could be used as a
construction lay down. Area has enough volume that will protect trucks and materials in the area
from heavy rains. Mr. Rieder continued his questions, stating that he felt that something was
squirrely with the contours, and asked what is the low point as opposed to the high point. Mr.
Marchetti described the inner elevation as 9 stone, and holds the same elevation 9 up to the center
to the collection. Mr. Rieder recommended that they clarify the drawings. Mr. Marchetti said that
the Elevation 10 is where they want to keep elevation. Mr. Rieder asked about location of fence by
Derby Street to which Mr. Kinkela said that he does not know the answer to the question but the
intent is to keep it in the area of the chain link fence. The site does slope up. Put it near the chain
link fence. Mr. Rieder recommended a web-enabled camera for the residents for everyone to see
what is going on beyond the 12 foot high wall. Mr. Silverstein said that he thinks it would be great
to do that, it's something that they need to discuss with the city and the Coast Guard to make sure
they are not running afoul, but it is a great idea. Mr. Rieder said that demolition would be a great
thing to see as it goes away, to which Mr. Silverstein said that they would like to continue the
discussion, keeping security concerns in mind.
Mr. Rieder asked what section of PUD is this project on to which Attorney Correnti stated that they
have shown all 65 acres of the site which is what encompasses the whole PUD and as this site
continues to develop this will become more clear. By applying in this manner, this gives the
Planning Board ultimate control as to how the site will be developed, and noted that there is no
other site or project like this in Salem. He said that because they have to demolish and build within
the fences there is a sequencing of this. Throughout their presentations they will continue to
address how the traffic, drainage, curb cuts, they will continue addressing those with the Board. Mr. •
Rieder said that there is some concern that some sort of housing will be shoe horned into this
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 9 of 12
• development, to which Mr. Correnti responded that because it is zoned industrial and it's not a
permitted use; they don't want anyone to stress about this. Mr. Silverstein added that they know
they can't do a high density development; that cannot happen here and everyone knows it. He
described the northern portion of site, as industrial, and then moving southerly to fight industrial.
The site kind of lays itself out, and it should put some fears aide. Mr. Correnti said they have been
having a lot of discussions elsewhere and explained that they have asked for this as a PUD, so if in
the future something comes along, then they will ask to amend the site. If other uses do come in
then they will come back before the Planning Board.
Mr. Ready recognizes that future plans will be back before us.
Ms. Duncan asked a follow-up question in regards to storm water collection area, how does it affect
the future development of site, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that it does not impact it. They
have to have storm water in place and they need to use all of that. They need to stabilize that until
they are ready to do the next phase of construction. The one thing they don't want to do on the site
is preclude future uses for marine industrial uses. They want to make sure that land is safe and
secure. Mr. Marchetti added that any future development that occurs on the site needs to be raised.
The basin is significantly oversized with more than enough capacity than what it can handle. Ms.
Duncan recommended keeping that in mind as they continue to think about where to place the city's
48 inch drain line, and the increase in the impervious area she recommended that the team be
prepared to articulate that response. Mr. Silverstein agreed and said they would work with her office
to figure out where to put the drainage pipe.
• George McCabe stated that he looked at the study that was done and uses that as a guide for
conditions which will put the project in good shape.
Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the language for Planned Unit Development (PUD)
ordinance, specifically on sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.3, and he read from those two sections. He stated
that the key items for him included time limits and complete property. Attorney Correnti stated that
they have provided the total plan for the whole site and recommends looking at what is proposed as
this is the site as they have presented it. He acknowledged that there is the possibility for future
development, which they will have to come back to the Planning Board again to present, but they
still have more presentations to give. But they have given a good answer of how this site will be
designed and noted that open space is part of the plan. He emphasized that the PUD is what you
have in front of you. As far as what's going to come down the road in terms of future development,
they don't know now, but it will be something that fits in the Designated Port Area (DPA). He said
that having open space doesn't disqualify it from the PUD and they think a PUD from the city's
perspective gives the Planning Board more power to review. He concluded by stating that they
could have gone a different route, but they wanted to come this way.
Mr. Rieder said that there are still some blurry areas and would only like to take the opportunity to
recommend a site circulation route, as he sees a big horseshoe as a problem. Mr. Silverstein
responded that it is problematic as the site has marine-related industrial uses and the challenge is
communication issues, specifically between the northern industrial parcel and the wharf.
Issue opened to public for comment
• Hans Weedon, 1A Daniels Street Court, asked if they have taken the National Grid project into
account, to which Mr. Silverstein responded in the affirmative that they have been in discussion with
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16,2013
Page 10 of 12
the city, and the city has asked them to work with the three other projects and have the project •
managers communicate with each other.
George Smith, 6 White Street, asked if they were able to restrict coal distribution times to which Mr.
Silverstein responded that they haven't gotten to that level of detail yet. He continued, stating that
this should not be an issue as these will just be a container coming off a barge. He said that they will
vet this with the city, in terms of bringing the fill in and if they need to have the same timing
restrictions, then they will do that.
Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, noted that traffic study was done in April, and asked if there has been
a traffic study done during the tourist season. She is concerned that the pipeline is being brought
down through the city and is asking that the project not be brought into city, and recommends a
staging area. She is concerned about anyone who tries to get off the ferry, to the willows and other
events will have problems getting through the city due to this. She does not think a person in charge
can manage that. She has looked at other waterside projects and asked about workers being
carpooled from a ferry across the way and thinks they should do this in Salem. She also asked about
the timeline for the removal of the tanks, which is important to her. She asked if repurposing of
turbine building is part of the plan, and when can they expect to hear about that. She also has
concerns about the fill they will be using and if it will be contaminated soil. Mr. Silverstein
responded that they will have someone from TetraTec at another meeting who can address this, but
the short answer is that it has to be clean fill. Ms. Haley then asked if they will use contaminated fill
on the site to which Mr. Silverstein responded that the DEP will deal with remediation, particularly
what stuff needs to be taken off and what needs to remain on site. He stated that the short answer
is that it will be addressed under current regulations. As far as Turbine Hall, the intent is to take •
down all the buildings that will not be re-used and noted that there is an architectural interest in
structural steel. In terms of the seasonality of traffic study, Mr. Hall stated that they recognize
tourist season and so there are a couple of things to think about - the timing of construction workers
and tourist arrivals. This raises the question of what happens if Webb Street is being torn up.
Trenching could be expected and there may be situations where cars will not be allowed to get on
road at certain times. In that situation, the city can issue what times work can be done on Webb
Street. Mr. Silverstein discussed the challenge of off-site parking options as the site does not have
sufficient on-site parking. He said that with off-site parking, then clock starts earlier which will
extend the number of months the process will take and means that they need to add more workers
or more time.
Lester Smith, 10 Memorial Drive, stated that they will have traffic problems in October, particularly
the last 3 weeks in October from Tuesday through the weekend. He then asked about how a high
powered gas line will be secured; as well as how is a fence going to stop sound on Fort Avenue and
asked for more details on the construction and demolition timelines. He specifically asked if
homeowners in the immediate area will be compensated if thee is damage to their foundations due
to the demolition. Mr. Silverstein responded, stating George from TetraTec will answer these
questions in more detail when he presents. He also said that they don't anticipate any blasting and
they've heard the concerns loud and clear, so they will direct demolition crews not to implode the
structures. As for the pilings, there is no anticipation for blasting. In terms of the sound wall on
Derby Street, they are speaking colloquially as the whole length of the site which includes both
Derby Street and Fort Avenue and he apologizes for imprecision. In terms of the gas line, Spectra
will construct that line, as this is what they do throughout the country. He noted that this is a fairly •
small line for them, but recognizes that this is a large line for community. This will be a whole
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 16,2013
Page 11 of 12
• separate process and lines will be interior to plant, which he emphasized will be better addressed at
spectra part of process.
Ilir Korriku, 47 Fort Ave, stated that he is concerned about dust issues and in the past he has made
phone calls regarding dust. He asked if there will a point of contact with issues that arise during the
renovations and requested that there be an assigned point of contact who will be available to
respond to issues. Mr. Kinkela responded, stating that in terms of dust mitigation, they will use dust
abatement measures,including watering down trucks. Site measures are very clear and they will have
people on site conducting monitoring. Mr. Silverstein added that they want to make sure they have
a phone set up and route it to the right person as they are putting every process in place to make
sure everything goes smoothly. The important thing is that there will be someone who can address
issues and fix problem. Ms. Duncan said that there are people in the mayor's office, as well as on
salem.com, or on the city's Facebook page where these issues can be addressed.
Mr. Sexton asked if, based on the scale of the site, there is any anticipation of additional taps on city
water supply. Mr. Kinkela responded that the existing connections will be sufficient, and they are in
the process of developing a storm water prevention plan as part of that process.
Theodora Sobin, 110 Derby Street, stated that she is concerned about fumes, emissions during
normal maintenance, plant safety, and an overall huge pile of issues in regards to the relative risk
around the neighborhood. She recommends discussing this sooner rather than later. Mr. Silverstein
acknowledged that every topic feel like it needs to be hit the most and this plant is being built and
safety is primary concern. It's important to them that everyone gets there safely and gets home
• safely. The will have future meetings with more details coming soon. He then reviewed what they
have presented thus far in terms of the state of the art emissions, which are going to be 2 parts per
million carbon dioxide, ammonia, and nitrous oxide, which exceeds every standard. The stack
height will be optimized and he stressed that this plant is safe and is being engineered to ensure it is
safe.
Rinus Oosthoek, Salem Chamber of Commerce, thanked them for their work on this project. He is
concerned about the traffic issues, and stressed the importance of good communication. He
recommends talking to Destination Salem for traffic plans, as well as utilizing Route 62. He said
that there are ways to address that in October as well. Mr. Silverstein said that they alluded to
carpooling, and they will encourage it as they are also planning for the worst. Past projects indicate
that they will see this,but they are assuming the worst. Mr. Hall pointed out there are going to be
two Octobers with a lot less workers. Ms. Duncan said that the city requested that they should work
with the North Shore Transportation Management Association, to which Mr. Silverstein agreed.
Jeff Brook, 14 Webb Street, stated that health and safety issues are a concern. Last week he spoke
to many neighbors who were not aware of what was happening on the site, and asked about what
the city is doing to let people know what is going on here. He is especially concerned about the
conversion of tons of emissions and he is concerned about the health of people who live around the
site. He hopes the city will do due diligence in getting message out. Mr. Silverstein explained the
parts per million conversions and stressed that the key for them is to find technology that will
reduce emissions for the region. This plant's efficiency will reduce emissions in the whole area. Mr.
Brock emphasized that while they are happy they are shortening the stack but the reality is that the
• emissions are going to be coming out closer to people. Mr. Silverstien responded that an air
modeling expert will be at a future meeting to address this issue and he understands his concern and
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 16, 2013
Page 12 of 12
the local concerns. Ms. Duncan would be happy to discuss better ways to get the word out about •
this in addition to the emails, city news, email blasts, city website, and they meet with various
neighborhood associations. She would be happy to hear any other specific recommendations. Mr.
Ready stated that the board is uniquely aware of the concerns of the citizens of Salem which is why
the meetings are conducted in such detail.
Ms. Haley recommended SATV to film this. She is concerned because they had email blasts from
Councillor McCarthy on other issues but nothing was about this.
Attorney Correnti provided some closing remarks. He stated that they will have other upcoming
presentations,where they will provide you new information first as well as answering questions from
the public. He said that future topics will include noise, air modeling, specific filings, landscaping
and architecture.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the next Planning Board meeting on June 6, 2013,
seconded by Helen Sides.All approved 6-0.
III. Old/New Business
Community Preservation Committee Appointment
Dan Sexton explained that the commission was recently established shed and he included information
about it in the packet. The Planning Board has been asked by the Mayor and the City Council to
nominate a member. Helen Sides was nominated by Randy Clarke, Kirt Rieder seconded. All
approved 6-0. •
Randy Clarke recommended shorter meetings in order to get the public out to them.
Vice Chairman Ready asked if there were any further old/new business, there being none he asked
for a motion to adjourn.
IV. Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 6-0.
Vice Chairman Ready adjourned the meeting at 10:07pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
•
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
:1
CITY OF SALEM
MAY 15, 2013
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD
Joint Public Hearing of the Salem City Council and Planning Board was held in the
Council Chamber on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. for the purpose of
discussing M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for Salem Heights Preservation Association,
Limited Partnership located at 12 Pope Street, Salem, MA and Loring Towers Salem
Preservation Associates Limited Partnership located at 1000 Loring Avenue, Salem, MA.
Notice of this hearing was posted on May 9, 2013 at 6:16 P.M. -
Absent were:
Councillor Jerry L. Ryan presided.
In attendance were the following:
APPROVAL OF CHAPTER 121A DESIGNATION FOR
SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
• LOCATED AT 12 POPE STREET, SALEM, MA
Councillor Moved the hearing be closed Voted
Councillor Moved the matter be referred to the Planning Board
for their recommendation Voted
•
/ f
CITY OF SALEM
MAY 15, 2013
• JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD
APPROVAL OF CHAPTER 121A DESIGNATION FOR
LORING TOWERES SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
LOCATED AT 1000 LORING AVENUE, SALEM, MA
Councillor moved the hearing be closed Voted
Councillor Moved the matter be referred to the Planning Board
for their recommendation Voted
•
On the motion of Councillor the meeting adjourned at P.M.
f
CITY OF SALEM
MAY 15, 2013
• JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD
•
CI 'I Y OF SALL, 1VI
0
tri City COunc" April 11, 2013
Ordered:
That City Council approve the Chapter 121A designation for Salem Heights
Preservation Associates, Limited Partnership effective upon the expiration of
the current 121 A designation, which expires on March 26, 2013, and
approve a 25-year extension to the initial 15-year period of exemption from
property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A, based upon the
significant and long term affordable housing restrictions that encumber the
Project subject to approval of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and
Community Development.
Be it further Ordered, that the Mayor be authorized to enter into the 121A
Agreement on behalf of the City.
In City Council April 11, 2013
Mdtion to schedule a joint public hearing with the planning board was Adoptdd.
ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK
1
. o
Ute'
•
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
Kimberley Driscoll
Mayor
Honorable Salem Cit i
City Council April 11, 2013
Salem City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Chapter 121A Designation
Salem Heights Preservation Associates, Limited Partnership
Gentlemen of the Council:
Attached please find an Order for approval of the Chapter 121 A designation for Salem Heights
Preservation Associates, Limited Partnership concerning the property located at 12 Pope Street,
Salem, Massachusetts, known as Salem Heights. As you may know, the original developer of
the Salem Heights project secured the benefit of a 121 A designation at the time of the initial
construction of the project in 1974. In 2003, the City negotiated a new agreement with the
owner of Salem Heights, one of five privately owned subsidized rental housing developments in
• the City that would maintain the affordability of the project's 283 units for a 100-year term from
2003.
The request to continue the Chapter 121A designation includes approval of a 25-year extension
to the initial 15-year period of exemption from property taxation under Chapter 121A, based
upon the significant and long term affordable housing restrictions that encumber the Project.
However, please note that Salem Heights will continue to make annual payments to the City of
Salem. Thus, to clarify although there is an exemption from property taxes under Chapter 121 A
status, a payment bf at least $256,000 will continue to be made to the City on an annual basis.
The City Council approval is subject to approval of the Massachusetts Department of Housing
and Community Development.
The current designation expires on March 26, 2013; however, provided that we act in a timely
manner there will be a seamless transition.
The next step is to schedule ajoint public hearing with the Planning Board and City Council.
We need to advertise two weeks in advance and notify abutters. I request that the public hearing
be scheduled for May before budget hearings begin.
I respectfully request adoption of the attached Order and invite you to contact either City Planner
Lynn Duncan or City Assessor Deb Jackson with additional questions or comments.
• Very yours,
Kimberley r
Salem City Hall—93 Washington Street—Salem, MA 01970-3592 Ph. 978-745-9595 Fax 978-744-9327
CITY OF SALEM
Q NR
In City COUncil,April 25, 2013
Ordered:
That City Council approve the Chapter 121A designated for Loring Towers Salem
Preservation Associates, Limited Partnership effective upon the expiration of the current 121A
designation, which expires on March 26, 2013, and approve a 25-year extension to the initial 15-
year period of exemption from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121 A, based upon
the significant and long term affordable housing restrictions that encumber the Project subject to
approval of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development.
Be it further Ordered, that the Mayor be authorized to enter into the 121A Agreement on behalf
of the City.
In city council April 25, 2013
Received after the deadline of Tuesday noon under suspension of the rules
Motion to schedule a joint public hearing with the Planning Board was adopted
ATTEST:
CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SALEM
"'O�rnHew DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
Kimberley Driscoll COMMUNITY D E V E L O P NI E N T
MAYOR
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP 120 \VASI IINGR)N SIRI:FI SALI::b1, INgCyUa IUSf_1 IS 019]0
DIRECTOR I LL: 978-619-5655 FAX: 9]8']40-0-404
April 25, 2013
Honorable Salem City Council
Salem City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Chapter 121A Designation
Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited Partnership
Gentlemen of the Council:
Attached please find an Order for approval of the Chapter 121 A designation for Loring Towers Salem
Preservation Limited Partnership concerningthe r
MA, known as L project located at 1000 Loring Towers Road
Loring Towers. The , Salem,
Applicant is the successor in interest of the original developer of the
project, who secured the benefit of a 121A designation at the time of the original development of the
• project. The project, which is the subject of the application, includes the preservation and maintenance of
the existing 250 units of housing within one eleven story building, which will continue to be subject to
affordable housing restrictions.
The request includes approval of a 40-year period of exemption from property taxation under Section 10
of Chapter 121 A, based upon the significant and long term affordable housing restrictions that encumber
the Project, with the applicant maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the first fifteen
(15)years. To clarify, there will be a continuation of the current payment to the City instead of
property taxes, thereby maintaining the status quo. The City Council approval is subject to approval
of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development.
The current designation expires on March 26, 2013; however, provided that we act in a timely manner
there will be a seamless transition.
The next step is to schedule ajoint public hearing with the Planning Board and City Council. We need to
advertise two weeks in advance and notify abutters. I request that the public hearing be scheduled for
May 15, 2013, the same night as the public hearing for Salem Heights.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
• Ly Goonin Duncan, AICP
Director
• 1 Memorandum of Understanding("Memorandum ')
2
3 This Memorandum is made as of the lye'" day of June, 2007 ("Effective Date")
4 by and between LORING TOWERS ASSOCIATES, a Massachusetts limited partnership
5 ("Seller"), LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
6 a Massachusetts limited partnership ("Purchaser') and the CITY OF SALEM,
7 MASSACHUSETTS, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the
8
9
10 RECITALS
11
12 WHEREAS, Seller is the present owner of the 250 unit multifamily apartment
13 complex approved to be built in 1973 and located in Salem, Massachusetts known as
14 Loring Towers (the"Project");
15 WHEREAS, Seller and the City are the current parties to the Contract Required
16 by Section 6A of Chapter 121A of the General. Laws (the "6A Contract") dated March
17 26, 1973 in connection with the Project;
18
19 WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser have entered into a Purchase and Sale
20 Agreement dated September 21, 2006 (the "Purchase Agreement") with respect to the
21 Project;
22
23 WHEREAS, Purchaser is a new tax credit limited partnership that shall be
• 24 authorized to acquire and carry on the Project under Chapter 121A of the General Laws,
25 and, upon closing of the sale of the Project as contemplated by the Purchase Agreement,
26 Purchaser will continue to operate the Project as an affordable residential housing project;
27 WHEREAS, the Purchaser will finance the Project with the use of Low Income
28 Housing Tax Credits ("LIHTC") that require use restrictions on all LIHTC units,
29 whereby, subject to the rights of existing residents to remain in the Project pursuant to
30 Section 4 of this Memorandum, ninety percent (90%) of such units shall be reserved for
31 families or individuals with incomes at or below sixty percent (60%) of AMI and ten
32 percent (10%) at or below thirty percent(30%) of AMI for a period of forty (40)years;
33 WHEREAS, the Purchaser and Seller have submitted an application dated
34 October 6, 2006 and revised April 24, 2007 to the United States Department of Housing
35 and Urban Development("HUD") for the prepayment of the first mortgage on the Project
36 assisted under Section 236 of the National Housing Act (the "236 Mortgage") and are
37 seeking a decoupling of the interest reduction payments in accordance with Section
38 236(e)(2)of the National Housing Act;
39 WHEREAS, in connection with the decoupling, rental restrictions on the Project
40 will remain in effect for five years beyond the term of the 236 Mortgage as evidenced by
41 a Section 236(e)(2)Use Agreement to be entered into between the Purchaser and HUD;
10552227.14
1
i
1 WHEREAS, the Purchaser will certify the eligibility of residents under the .
2 LIHTC Program ("LIHTC Eligible Residents") and the Salem Housing Authority
3 ("SHA")will certify resident's eligibility for Section 8 Enhanced Vouchers;
4 WHEREAS, after a lengthy process, including input from the Loring Towers
5 Tenants Association ("LTTA"), the Seller, Purchaser, and the City wish to set forth
6 protections, in addition to the 6A Contract, to ensure the continued affordability of
7 Loring Towers for current and future tenants;
8 WHEREAS, in consideration of the Purchaser's undertakings as set forth in this
9 Memorandum, the City agrees to execute an Assignment, Assumption, and Amendment
10 to the Section 6A Contract and Consent and Release Agreement, to request the
I Department of Housing and Community Development's ("DHCD") approval of the
12 assignment, and take any finlher steps necessary in order to approve the transfer of the
13 Project from Seller to Purchaser;
14
15 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
16 sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller, Purchaser and the City hereby
17 agree as follows:
18
19 1. Rent Phase-In, Buyout Incentive Fee, and Relocation Expenses. The Purchaser
20 will provide in its Relocation Plan the following protections to the residents of the
21 Project:
22
23 a. LIHTC Eligible Residents Phase-In: A rent phase-in plan in which residents •
24 of the Project pay an immediate increase in the fust year of the greater of(i)
25 $50 or (ii) 10% of the current amount of rent to the Landlord paid by the
26 resident, with subsequent annual increases equal to 10% of the resident's then
27 current portion of the basic rent for four additional years, such that a resident
28 will pay the full then-approved basic rent for the unit not covered by Section
29 8 voucher subsidy by the beginning of the sixth year following the initial
30 post-transfer rent increase.
31 b. Non-LIHTC Eligible Residents Buyout Incentive: A buyout incentive
32 payable upon relocation equal to a one-time payment of $6,500.00 for
33 residents currently living in one bedroom apartments and $7,500.00 for
34 residents currently living in two bedroom apartments. This incentive will be
35 available to qualified tenants until the placed in service date upon completion
36 of construction.
37 c. Non-LIHTC Eligible Residents Relocation Expenses: The Purchaser will pay
38 for and engage movers and pay for utility hook-up costs, the total amounts of
39 which for movers and utility hook-ups shall not exceed $1,000.00 per
40 apartment, for residents who will accept the buyout incentive to move due to
41 LIHTC ineligibility. This incentive will be available to qualified tenants until
42 the placed in service date upon completion of construction.
43 d. If AHTF funds, as described in Section 2 of this Memorandum, are awarded
44 to the Project, not less than $150,000.00 will be set aside for a special
•
10552227.14
i
• 1 contingency fund (the "Contingency Fund") to assist with resident hardship
2 cases as determined by the Purchaser in consultation with MassHousing.
3 2. Affordable Housing Trust Fund ("AHTF'). The City will support an award by
4 the Massachusetts Housing Financing Agency ("MassHousing") and DHCD of
5 up to $450,000.00 in AHTF funding to the Project, which amount shall include:
6 funds for resident relocation and assistance as specified in Section 1 of this
7 Memorandum, sufficient amounts to fund the rehabilitation scope as approved by
8 MassHousing, and the Contingency Fund for resident hardship cases. If
9 MassHousing and DHCD do not award the AHTF funds as requested, the City
10 and Purchaser shall renegotiate the terms of this Memorandum based on the
11 amount of the AHTF award, if any, granted by MassHousing and DHCD.
12 3. Project-Based Vouchers ("PBV's"). Purchaser will apply to DHCD for the
13 maximum allocation of PBV's permitted by DHCD. In addition, The City shall
14 support the application for PBV's from DHCD. Further, the City shall work with
15 the SHA to match any PBV's made available from DHCD and other sources.
16 Should PBV's become available from any source, including, but not limited to
17 HUD shifting policy to allow for Project Based Enhanced Vouchers to replace
18 Rent Supplement units, the Purchaser will make all reasonable effort to secure
19 additional PBV's.
20 4. No Involuntary Permanent Displacement of Non-LIHTC Eligible Residents;
21 Subsequent Leasing. Purchaser will provide buyout and moving incentives as
22 described in Section 1, however, these residents will not be forced to relocate.
• 23 When a non-LIHTC Eligible Resident moves out of a unit, Purchaser will re-lease
24 such unit to an LIHTC Eligible Resident.
25 5. Parties. This Memorandum represents understandings among the City, Purchaser
26 and Seller and will be for the benefit of the City, Purchaser, and Seller only and is
27 not for the benefit of any third party, and accordingly, no third party shall have
28 the right to enforce the provisions of this Memorandum.
29 6. Multiple Counterparts. To facilitate execution, this Memorandum may be
30 executed in as many counterparts as may be convenient or required. All
31 counterparts shall collectively constitute a single instrument.
32 7. Miscellaneous. The foregoing Recitals are hereby incorporated by reference.
33
34 [signatures on following page]
•
10552227.14
Z
I [SIGNATURE PAGE TO THE MEMORANDUM BY AND BETWEEN LORING •
2 TOWERS ASSOCIATES, LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION,AND THE
3 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS]
4
5
6 EXECUTED under seal as of the date fust set forth above.
7
8 LORING TOWERS ASSOCIATES
9
10
1112 By:
n 1�
13 Name: Lance J. Graber
14 Title: Executive Vice President
15
16
17 LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION LIMITED
18 PARTNERSHIP
19
20
21
22 By:
23 Name: Lance J. Graber
24 Title: Executive Vice President
25
26 •
27 THE CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
28
29
30
31 By:
32 Name: The Hon able Kimberley Driscoll
33 Title: Mayor
34
35
•
10552227.14 d
r
d 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
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members a
FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner d �*
DATE: May 15,2013
RE: Meeting Packet Supplement—May 16,2013 Planning Board meeting
Board Members,
The City's Department of Planning & Community Development is supportive of the two Chapter 121A
Designation requests. The designation will help ensure that these projects continue to provide quality
affordable housing for the residents of the City, and are essential to the City meeting the affordable housing
• needs of its residents.
In addition, Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, has discussed the 121A
application with Deb Jackson, City Assessor, who is also supportive of both 121A requests. Basically,
approval of these two applications will maintain the current tax situation in regard to these projects.
Information in the 5/16 Meeting Packet indicated how the Planning Board's decision to approve, disapprove
with recommendations or disapprove completely must include findings speaking to the criteria. To facilitate
the Planning Board's articulation of the findings for the Loring Tower and Salem Heights applications, Staff
is providing the following draft findings language for consideration:
Draft Findings — A request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for LORING
TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval
of a 40-year extension from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A, with the applicant
maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the first fifteen (15) years, for the property
located at 1000 LORING AVENUE.
CRITERIA #1.• Whether blighted open or decadent or sub-standard conditions exist within the
proposed project area
The Project was developed in 1973, having received its original Chapter 121A Designation due to the
need for affordable housing and difficulty of development of the Project Area due to challenging
topography, including substantial ledge on the site. At the time of the development of the Project, the
Project Area remained largely undeveloped and the physical aspects of the Project were both unattractive
and made conventional development too costly. Upon its acquisition of the Project in 2007, the
Applicant invested Five Million Four Hundred Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy One Dollars
($5,451,771) into the rehabilitation of the Project, so as to maintain the Project as an important
• affordable housing resource in the City,and to avoid the potential for blighted,substandard and decadent
City of Salem:Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—May 15,2013
Page 2 of 5
• conditions. The rehabilitation included HVAC replacement, heating plant upgrades, repairs to improve
wall waterproofing, full restoration of existing masonry, roof replacement, exterior louver replacement,
and upgrades to common areas including elevator modernization,parking lot repairs, walkway and tennis
court repairs, landscaping refurbishment, upgrades to corridor lighting and installation of an emergency
generator. Each unit was also upgraded with new appliances, cabinets, countertops, tubs/shower and
window replacement, as needed. It is difficult to maintain such an updated facility with limited income
and the support and certainty provided by Chapter 121A is needed for the Project to maintain its present
condition and to avoid becoming a blighted,substandard and decadent facility.
CRTERIA #2.• That the project is not in contravention of any zoning, subdivision, health or
building ordinance or by-law or rules and regulations of the city or town.
The Project will comply with all applicable zoning, health and building bylaws or ordinances and any
other applicable laws, bylaws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the Project. The Project
does not seek any zoning relief.
CRITERIA #3: Whether or not the proposed project conflicts with the master plan of the city or
town made by authority of chapter forty-one, if such a plan has been made, determine whether
or not such project would be in any way detrimental to the best interests of the public or the city
or town or to the public safety and convenience or be inconsistent with the most suitable
development of the city or town.
The Project is an important resource for the City, as it provides a substantial number of needed
affordable housing units. The Project was originally developed in 1973 under the Section 236 program.
The Applicant purchased the Project from Loring Towers Associates, a Massachusetts limited
partnership, in 2007, and the Applicant continues to operate the Project with a mission to preserve
• affordable housing units. The preservation and maintenance of this affordable housing resource is
important to the City and is consistent with it planning goals, both to provide needed affordable housing,
and to prevent blight which would impact not only the Project but surrounding areas if the support of a
Chapter 121A designation is not available to provide financial support for Project operations. Since the
Project is subject to affordable housing restrictions which limit the income eligibility of tenants and rent
they may be charged, it is not possible to increase operating income to meet the ever increasing cost of
proper operations of the Project.
The City of Salem Master Plan Update and Action Plan 1996 (the"1996 Plan"),provides on page 31, that
a goal of the City is to "preserve the current level of subsidized housing."The 1996 Plan also indicates on
page 8 that"every effort must be taken to keep up the appearance of neighborhood public spaces and the
condition of private housing." The Chapter 121A designation will allow the City to use one of its
strategies to meet its housing objective. By approving a 121A designation, the City will be removing a
barrier to affordable housing, which, in turn, will allow the Applicant to preserve and maintain 250 units
of affordable housing. The preservation and maintenance of this privately owned affordable housing is
key to the City as demand for affordable units remains high.
CRTITERIA#4.• Whether or not the proposed project will constitute a public use and benefit.
The Project constitutes a public use and benefit for the following reasons:
1. The anticipated impacts from the Project are sufficient to warrant the granting of Chapter 121A
status for several reasons. The Project is dedicated to the preservation and maintenance of a
significant affordable housing resource in the City. Proper maintenance of the Project precludes
the creation of blighted, substandard and/or decadent conditions at the Project Area, and
positively impacts the surrounding neighborhood. The support to the Project provided by the
continuation of the 121A designation will help ensure that Project will continue to provide
• quality affordable housing for the residents of the City.
} I
City of Salem: Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—May 15,2013
Page 3 of 5
• 2. The Project provides needed affordable housing, and, at present, positively contributes to the
surrounding neighborhood in which it is located. The Project has large and attractive grounds,
and open space with basketball and tennis courts, all of which have benefitted the surrounding
neighborhood. This has been possible through the significant resources invested in the Project
by the Applicant and funding sources described above, and by the Original 121A Designation
which is about to expire. Absent the support of operating costs provided by a new Chapter
121A designation, there is a substantial likelihood that the Project will become blighted due to
inadequate resources,which will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
3. The preservation and maintenance of the Project through the support of a new Chapter 121A
designation will preserve the important affordable housing resources provided by the Project,
and will enable the Project to be a positive contributor to the surrounding neighborhoods and
the City. There are no facts or documents of which the Applicant is aware which would result in
a determination by DHCD that the Project is detrimental to the best interests of the public or
the City or to the public safety and convenience or inconsistent with the most suitable
development of the neighborhood or of the City.
4. The Project is necessary and desirable because, as more particularly described in other portions
of this Application, a new Chapter 121A designation will prevent the Project from falling into
blighted, substandard and decadent conditions which would negatively impact the surrounding
area, and will enable the Applicant to continue to provide decent, safe and sanitary affordable
housing.
CRITERIA #5.• The feasibility of the method of relocation and existence or availability of
dwellings for displaced families as hereinafter provided.
• The Project does not involve the relocation of residents.
Draft Findings - A request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for SALEM
HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES.LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-
year extension to the 15-year period of exemption from property taxation under Section 10 of Chaptet
121A for the property located at 12 POPE STREET.
CRITERIA #1.• Whether blighted open or decadent or sub-standard conditions exist within the
proposed project area.
The Project as developed in 1974,having received its original Chapter 121A Designation due to the need
for affordable housing and difficulty of development of the improvements due to substantial ledge on the
site.At the time of the City's litigation and acquisition of the Project by the Applicant in 2003,the Project
had substantial capital needs resulting from deferred maintenance and unanticipated substantial utility
costs due to obsolete energy systems. Using a combination of tax exempt bond financing through the
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, Section 42 Low Income Housing Tax Credits, deferral of
the development and management fees, releases of project reserves, a solar energy grant, and rental
subsidy provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Applicant has worked very hard to
upgrade building systems, make energy improvements and upgrade other physical conditions of the
Project (including replacement of all windows, and installation of a co-generation plant and solar panels),
so as to maintain the project as an important affordable housing resources in the City, and to avoid the
blight, substandard and decadent conditions which resulted from underfunded capital and operating
budgets. The support and certainty provided by the Chapter 121A is needed for the Project to maintain
its now-stable condition and to avoid becoming a blighted, substandard and decadent facility.
•
City of Salem: Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—May 15, 2013
Page 4of5
• CRTERIA #Z.• That the project is not in contravention of any zoning, subdivision, health or
building ordinance or by-law or rules and regulations of the city or town.
The Project will comply with all applicable zoning, health and building bylaws or ordinances and any
other applicable laws,bylaws,ordinances,rules and regulations applicable to the Project.
CRITERIA #3: Whether or not the proposed project conflicts with the master plan of the city or
town made by authority of chapter forty-one, if such a plan has been made, determine whether
or not such project would be in any way detrimental to the best interests of the public or the city
or town or to the public safety and convenience or be inconsistent with the most suitable
development of the city or town.
The Project is an important resource for the City, as it provides a substantial number of needed
affordable housing units. The Project was originally developed in 1974 under Section 236 program. The
Applicant purchased the Project from the original developer in 2003, following a lawsuit brought by the
City of Salem to stop its conversion of this important affordable housing resource into market rate
housing. The preservation and maintenance of this affordable housing resource is important to the City
and is consistent with its planning goals, both to provide needed affordable housing, and to prevent
blight which would impact not only the Project but surrounding areas if the support of a Chapter 121A
designation is not available to provide financial support for Project operations. Since the Project is
subject to affordable housing restrictions which limit the income eligibility of tenants and rent they may
be charged, it is not possible to increase operating income to meet the ever increasing cost of proper
operations of the project.
CRTITERIA #4.• Whether or not the proposed project will constitute a public use and benefit.
The Project constitutes a public use and benefit for the following reasons:
• 1. The anticipated impacts from the Project are sufficient to warrant the granting of Chapter 121A
status for several reasons. The project is dedicated to the preservation and maintenance of a
significant affordable housing resource in the City of Salem. Proper maintenance of the Project
precludes the creation of blighted substandard and/or decadent conditions at the Project Area,
and positively impacts the surrounding neighborhood. The support to the project provided by
the continuation of the Chapter 121A designation complements the substantial public and
private resources brought to bear in rectifying the financial difficulties of the Project under its
prior ownership.
2. The Project provides needed affordable housing, and at present positively contributes to the
surrounding neighborhood in which it is located. The Project has large and attractive grounds,
ample parking, a community garden, and extensive landscaping, all of which have benefited the
surrounding neighborhood. This has been possible through the significant resources invested in
the Project by the Applicant and funding sources described above, and by the original 121A
Designation which is about to expire. Absent the support of operating costs provided by a new
Chapter 121A designation, there is a substantial likelihood that the Project will become blighted
due to inadequate resources,which will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
3. The preservation and maintenance of the Project through the support of a new Chapter 121A
designation will preserve the important affordable housing resources provided by the Project,
and will enable the Project to be a positive contributor to the surrounding neighborhoods and
the City. There are no factors or documents of which the Applicant is aware which would result
in a determination by DHCD that the Project is detrimental to the best interests of the public or
the City or to the public safety and convenience or inconsistent with the most suitable
development of the neighborhood or of the City.
•
City of Salem: Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—May 15,2013
Page 5 of 5
4. The Project is necessary and desirable because a new Chapter 121A designation will prevent the
Project from falling into blighted, substandard and decadent conditions which would negatively
impact the surrounding area, and will enable the applicant to continue to provide decent, safe
and sanitary affordable housing.
CRITERIA #5.• The feasibility of the method of relocation and existence or availability of
dwellings for displaced families as hereinafter provided
The Project does not involve the relocation of residents.
•
•
18-2 America Way
Salem, MAO 1970 rs�``_�` ,•9per,�
May 13, 2013
Planning Board
City of Salem 1
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 0140
Re: May 15, 2013 Hearing, 1000 Loring Ave.
Gentlemen:
As an immediate abutter, I want to express my strong opposition to the proposed 40year-
extension from property taxation under MGL Chapter 121A for the above cited location.
lime raviewed MGL Gltapter.12iA and find that°tlie dial exemptionwas granted for 15
years and has been renewed accordingly. It is my understanding of the intent of the
statute that the 40 year time fiame is a.limitation on that 15 year exemption and
subsequent renewals, and not an expansion of same.
A 15 year exemption,with appropriate.renewals,allows the city to monitor the operation
and administration of such properties. It does not appear to me from a casual reading of
• the statute that it was ever intended to grant such an extended exemption as 40 years. As
an immediate abutter to this property, I feel very strongly that the city has an obligation to
all taxpayers to rarefiiffy monitor such tax Exempt properties. This particular property
has a significant record of both fire and police calls, and as a result creates a significant
burden on city services and taxpayers and requires ongoing review.
Furthermore, Salem alreadysuffers from too many tax exempt properties:North Shore
Medical Center, Salem State College,the Essex County court system, and all the many
churches and other houses o€worship,.as well as Peabody Essex Museum which is
constantly buying up taxable property. Our tax base has been eroded too much. I
oppose any 40 year extension. Time for everyone to pay their fair share.
Very truly yours,
Eleanor M. Lynn
•
• City of Salem
Joint City Council and Planning Board Public Hearing
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 15, 2013
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
in City Hall Chambers, Second Floor, at 95 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Tim Ready Vice Chair, George McCabe, Dale Yale, Randy Clarke, Kirt Rieder
and Ben Anderson. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community
Development and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Chairman Chuck Puleo,
Helen Sides and Mark George.
City Council President Jerry Ryan opened the meeting at 7:06 pm. Acknowledged Tim Ready, Vice
Chair,who introduced the Planning Board.
Approval of Chapter 121A designation for Salem Heights Preservation Associates, Limited
Partnership, located at 12 Pope Street, Salem, MA
Council President Jerry Ryan turned the floor over to Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and
Community Development to review the agenda items with members of the City Council and the
Planning Board.
• Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, explained that 40 years ago
Salem Heights received the 121A designation and because it is up for renewal is why they are here
tonight. She stated that once the City Council votes to move the decision to the Planning Board, the
Planning Board will review and make a decision at the next meeting. In rendering a decision, the
Planning Board will make certain findings and decision that will be reported back to the City
Council before their next meeting. She thanked the City Clerk for scheduling this meeting of both
the Planning Board and City Council.
Atty. Katharine Bachman, representing Salem Heights Preservation Associates, LP, described the
location of the property and the type of project, as well as reviewed the application. They are before
the City Council this evening to seek a renewal of the Chapter 121A status, where they will continue
to be required to pay taxes under Chapter 121A. She explained that the project was developed, in
spite of being a hard to develop site, in 1974, under the program formally known as 236 which was
enacted to create affordable housing. She noted that there are challenges at the location to this day.
The original owners sought to sell property in 1990s, where at that time the property was conveyed
to current owner "Preserve Affordable Housing" and was part of agreement to provide affordable
housing for 100 years. Over the past ten years they have tackled many challenges like energy
improvements and upgrades, structural maintenance, and sought and obtained grants for the project.
Their continued goal is to make it a safe and affordable place to live and to have a good future.
They are challenged by affordable housing restrictions, such as how does one balance unexpected
cost increases with an income that is capped. She pointed out that the property pays taxes to the
community as part of the state formula for 121A. They have worked closely with city and noted that
• their taxes are what average taxes are.
Approved by the Planning Board on 06/06/2013
City of Salem Planning Board t
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013
Page 2 of 8
Councilors Siegel and O Keefe joined the meeting.
Councilor McCarthy asked about the reason for the extension. Arty. Bachman explained that for •
affordable housing, the ability to finance is constrained by capital gains. Councilor McCarthy then
asked about the agreed on value, to which Arty. Bachman said the Assessor can respond with
further detail. Councilor McCarthy asked a follow-up question about the gross income and revenue.
Arty. Bachman responded that it is 5% of the gross income of the resident.
Kirt Rieder asked about the staircase in relation to the process of investing, specifically how the
staircase could be brought into compliance. He noted that this may be the only opportunity to
provide residents easy access to Splaine Park and this may be the right time to do this if they have
the ability to invest in it. Atty. Bachman stated that it is a difficult situation, as the staircase is closed
off due to extreme slope of the site and in order to be compliant with the Americans with Disability
Act they would need a series of ramps and to have that length of infrastructure for a affordable
housing project is a huge monetary challenge. Mr. Rieder stated that as a landscape architect he
understands the constraints, but feels that it is difficult to bypass this opportunity. Atty. Bachman
responded that they did look at it and a lot of it is city owned, and there are liability issues, plus the
property owners would have to pay taxes. It is a very steep drop and a wooded area plus it is not
easy to police. She concluded stating that she understands why he raises it, but it is separate from
the subject matter of this evening's application.
Councilor O'Keefe asked if the petition has been reviewed as the wording is not proper for Loring
Avenue, even though this is Salem Heights and this should be amended. Arty. Bachman responded
that everything can be reviewed and if something can be fused they will fix it. •
Debby Jackson, Assessor, stated that the wording on the application may be a little confusing and
read from the document. Councilor O'Keefe stated that the proper documents weren't presented.
Arty. Bachman stated that the application reflects the 40 year status of 121A which expired in March
of 2013. They have a new application and they acknowledged the expiration, which is why they are
coming here as a new project, per state laws.
Charlie Speliotis, 20 America Way,read about both applications and is confused by both. They both
expired and if they are expired then they have to show, according to the law, an open, blighted and
decadent, need for the city, for a stabilized taxability to be economical. He stated that he was the
advisor to the Boston Redevelopment Authority and discussed his previous experience with Chapter
121A applications and projects. He has no problems with the sites and supports affordable housing.
Usually at the end of a 40 year period, usually they go back on the tax rule and they can get
subsidies.
Atty. Bachman said that she holds him in the highest regard, and has previous experience with him.
As a real estate expert they cannot anticipate everything that is going to happen. The original owner
of Salem Heights said they were all set and this would go back to private housing when the City of
Salem fought to keep it private. She went on to speak of housing cycles and changes to the housing
market, where housing is seen as a community asset. The theme of the application is that this is a
project to prevent blight and the goal is to keep it safe affordable and decent.
•
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes-May 15, 2013
Page 3 of 8
• Councilor Legault asked about the 100 year designation. Atty. Bachman explained the guidelines of
the program and where the funding comes from to which Councilor Legault asked if this is new
ground that is breaking. Arty. Bachman explained that it was first used for Prudential Center, and
talked about Great Society programs in Massachusetts, concluding that this is the way they were
written because 40 years seemed long. Councilor Legault asked if there are any other housing
developments like this to which Arty. Bachman this would be the first. She noted that there is no
prohibition to go forward, they just need the approval this evening. She concluded by stating that
the application first went to the state.
Councilor Turiel asked why the 15 &25 year restrictions expired. In terms of if the application could
have been submitted as an extension rather than a new application to which Arty. Bachman
responded that this was exactly what she thought, specifically no statutory equipment and no
prohibition.
Councilor Siegel stated that he is concerned about breaking ground, and asked if approving this
would open the City up to potential lawsuits. Atty. Bachman responded no. Councilor Siegel stated
that his concern was that this doesn't follow the statute, as it's not blighted and whether doing
something could cause future law suits for the City. Arty. Bachman stated that she is a real estate
lawyer, and she doesn't want this to get into court. This is what they have to work with. She further
stated that what they are asking for is the ability to have a baseline for taxes. They have new
circumstances with the statue that is designed to take hard geographies to make ends meet.
Mr. Speliotis stated that as the housing director of BRA he thinks this is a perplexing problem as
• renewal is not in statute. He had previously gone to the legislature to request legislation that would
include renewal in the statute, but it did not go anywhere. He concluded stating that he is all for
affordable housing, but he is not sure if a Chapter 121A status is appropriate for projects that are
already built.
Councilor Turiel stated that he can see the concern in Salem being the test case, but asked who
would have standing to challenge this,who would be harmed. Atty. Bachman concurs.
Mr. Anderson asked how these major improvements to the facility would benefit a tenant. Atty.
Bachman stated that a lot has gone into dealing with the energy issues and there are continued
investments.
Alexandra Dailey Preservation of Affordable Housing, 40 Court Street Boston, stated that the issue
is of deterioration. They have already done major work at the property and added a cogeneration
plan, as well as secured additional funding to put in new windows. Recently, they put up a solar
panel on the south side of the building. The code dictates that air has to circulate through the
building, so they secured a grant through TD Banknorth to help meet that code requirement. She
stated that this is a large physical plant, where the average annual costs are $250,000 per year, and
with the pipe replacements,it will exceed $330,000. Yet they are constrained due to the income and
rent restrictions through program. They have spent the last ten years soliciting grants to make
improvements to the property to help control the cost. She explained that the organization buys
older properties and they find financing to rehabilitate the properties into good shape. It is not a gut
rehab, but a moderate rehab,which is why they pay$250k per year.
•
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013
Page 4 of 8
Councilor Siegel asked if the insides of the property has been rehabilitated, to which Ms. Dailey
responded yes, specifically stating that they have completed upgrades to some kitchens, baths, •
hallways, a new air handler, and new boilers. Councilor Siegel asked about the repair schedule to
which Ms. Dailey said they were done during turnover replacements,which happens routinely and is
part of the$250,000 annual costs.
Michael Kane, stated he was the one originally who worked to find the restriction to save building
and to keep the tax rate low. He said that Salem Heights is an example that should be preserved and
the other precedent is in Boston where their affordable housing helps the city. Councilor O'Keefe
asked Mr. Kane if he supports Salem Heights to which he responded in the affirmative.
Councilor Furey stated that when he was growing up he and his family lived in Salem Heights and
he feels that affordable housing is critical to any city. Without Salem Heights, he would not be here,
thus he supports this.
Councilor McCarthy stated that he supports affordable housing, but asked what the cash values of
the property will be, based on how the restrictions written. He gave a scenario where the state keeps
the rents at one rate, while the property taxes continue to rise, and asked how the city would afford
something like that. Atty. Bachman stated that the truth of the matter is that the assessor will only
assess it at what the rents it can get for the property; so while it's a beautiful property, it's not worth
that much because it is valued by rental income.
Mr. Anderson asked a question about taxation and read form section 6a. of the code. He then asked
if the rates are required to be negotiated now or at a later date, to which Arty. Bachman stated that •
these rate would be negotiated going forward. Mr. Anderson clarified if it would have to be decided
now to which Arty. Bachman said that this is the mechanism they use for income certainty.
Ms.Jackson stated that she is currently negotiating another property that does not want to continue
as 121A, where their expenses are about equal to income, and the values are less than what is
proposed. Mr.Anderson asked what is it now for Salem Heights, to which Ms.Jackson said they are
higher.
Councilor Siegel asked for a figure on how much this building costs the city to which Ms.Jackson
responded that she does not have it and not sure how she would calculate that.
Tim Ready stated that he wants a conservative opinion, and asked Ms.Jackson if this is a good thing
for the city, to which Ms.Jackson responded in the affirmative.
Councilor Siegel moved to close hearing and moved that hearing be moved to the Planning Board
for their recommendation. One opposition.
Approval of Chapter 121A designation for Loring Towers Salem Preservation Association
Limited Partnership, located at 1000 Loring Avenue, Salem, MA
Lynn Duncan, Director of Community Development and Planning, introduced people to speak on
Loring Towers.
•
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013
Page 5 of S
Dodge McCourt, from AIMCO real estate investment trust in Denver, CO, stated that they have
• several properties in the Boston area and in Salem and they want to stay here. They are requesting
the Chapter 121A to continue providing affordable housing.
Arty. Jeff Sacks, representing applicant, added that they have discussed the application with the
Department of Housing, and they are seeking stability and certainty to maintain affordability of
project.
Councilor O'Keefe stated that they have been very cooperative but he is concerned about the
agreement.
Michael Caine, from the Loring Towers Tenant Association, stated that the problem with AIMCO is
its noncompliance with the City's affordable housing requirements. He explained the history of the
building along with AIMCO's involvement and issues that have arisen since their ownership of the
building. He pointed out that a number of the tenants who paid rent have seen their rent increasing
when AIMCO could have helped tenants get enhanced Section 8 vouchers to cover the increases;
this would have helped the owners as well as the tenants to maximize the long-term affordability of
the project. He explained that project-based vouchers assist in maintaining affordability and without
the enhanced vouchers, they have seen an exodus of 80 vacancies, which then caused mortgage
concerns. He said that the bottom line was that AIMCO didn't follow covenant they had with the
city to provide affordable housing and he read from the covenant, specifically citing where it states
that the purchaser will make all efforts to get project-based vouchers. He pointed out that due to
the Merkley-Brown amendment, which allows for a provision of up to 60,000 affordable housing
• units, AIMCO could apply for enhanced vouchers. They believe AIMCO is legally bound to apply
for the maximum vouchers, which would permanently preserve affordable housing at a deeper level
of housing for 50 years. They have urged AIMCO to do the right thing and AIMCO has done
absolutely nothing. They are convinced that unless the city forces AIMCO to do this as a condition
of the 121A, then they will not do this. If they did this it would be beneficial to the town, better for
the tenants, and make AIMCO look good and they need the support of the Planning Board and the
City Council to make this happen.
Councilor Legault asked what would be the maximum number of enhanced vouchers needed to
which Mr. Caine responded that thee are a maximum 85 are left and there are a number of tenants
who are paying over 30% of income, who would be willing to convert to an enhanced Section 8
voucher.
Councilor O'Keefe asked Mr. Caine how he wants them to handle this. Mr. Caine said that this is a
big company based in Denver, and he recommended that they get some firm commitment from the
company before giving them a break. He had hoped that they would make a commitment tonight to
do this as they are very difficult to deal with. He concluded by recommending that they do not vote
on this tonight and get the Planning Board to discuss it at their next meeting.
Councilor Turiel reminded the City Council members that the only outcome of this hearing is for
this process to go to the Planning Board who can address some of these matters.
Councilor Sargent asked about the time frame after public hearing closes, and suggested keeping this
• topic open.
,
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes-May 15,2013
Page 6 of 8
Mr. Dodge responded that AIMCO is not opposed to having project based voucher, and they will
move forward with the application, though they are very difficult to get and are a scarce resource. •
He suggested that they could work out a schedule and they will move forward with that.
Mr. Ready asked Mr. Caine if he could have something for the Planning Board in writing for their
next meeting tomorrow to which Mr. Caine stated that he would be tied up with a rally tomorrow.
But he said that there are administrative things that could be done, such as obtaining vouchers
through CTI. He said that there is a specific request for an internal waiting list and separate
agreement through 8 units, and they should get them converted. Mr. Dodge stated that they are
prepared to move forward on voucher-based details,but can't make commitments on those.
Councilor OT,eefe recommended not jumping on this so quickly and asking the city solicitor to
comment on this issue. He questioned why they are here now if this expired in March. He wants to
see this worked out and recommended adding language to the agreement that reflects that this will
be taken care of He concluded stating that there are poor people in the building that he is looking
out for them.
Ms. Duncan addressed the question on timeliness as she thinks people are confusing this with
zoning requirements. She thinks that thee is no time constraint. Council President Jerry Ryan read
from ordinance and Mr. Dodge said they can work with this.
Randy Clarke left at approximately 8:45pm.
Mary Dennison, 12 Pope Street, stated that they did away with 236s, enhanced vouchers, so now •
some residents are paying 90% of their income towards rent. She is concerned that AIMCO is .
making promises they don't follow-through with and urged the City Council to keep the public
hearing open.
O'Keefe reviewed documents and questioned changes in documents. Ms. Duncan stated that if they
are incorrect, then they will work to fix the issues.
Rayna Jezzini, 1000 Loring Avenue, stated that she is concerned about people who are paying of
90% of income, as these are people who desperately need project-based vouchers. She described
other problems at Loring Towers including ongoing issues with the elevators, as well as needing new
washers and dryers, and because of these ongoing issues, she questions where $5 million in
renovations went. She described a situation where the playground was shrunk for dog park and now
there is no where for children to play. She also expressed concern for the high turnover rate for
security and maintenance people. They need a lot of work done at Loring Towers, and she doesn't
think a lot of people are happy with how it is run. She stressed that a lot of people need the project
based voucher.
Councilor O'Keefe acknowledged that in most instances they've been cooperative when speaking
with the councilor, except for the elevators. He asked for patience on this issue.
David Gerard, Loring Towers, stated that he is a 52 year old man on disability and recently received
a notice to quit, which he finds a frustrating and intimidating tactic. When he first moved in, he
received a limited voucher. Prior to the funding running out he went to Loring Towers to ask for •
assistance and was told that they could do nothing. He asked if he could be on an internal waiting
f City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes-May 15,2013
Page 7 of 8
• list, and he was informed it didn't exist. He is here today to put a face on this. It is very difficult for
him to do afford his rent without a project-based voucher, and while he is looking to move due to
the rent burden, he would prefer to remain where he is. However, it is not possible to continue
living there without assistance. He pointed out that they are slow to provide assistance to tenants
with a rent burden and he would like to have legal statements from AIMCO to fulfill this need. He
described his situation of having only $200 left over to pay for food and necessities after rent is
leaving him barely afloat. He recommended that they should be giving a break to tenants if they are
getting a break.
Kathleen Burke, 205 Bridge Street, stated that she just finished a term of Salem Public Tenants,
Mass Alliance of tenants, and she is tired of hearing landlords and companies saying that they need
tax breaks. They spent a long time hashing this agreement out, and where the agreement is not
being honored, she wants the Council and the Planning Board not to do anything until these things
are worked out. When they made an agreement for people who left Loring Towers that they were
going to get help, some were honored and some were not. They had been working with Jason Silva
and they didn't know that he left. People need help and everyone wants their piece. She described
this as low income housing not affordable housing. She asks the Council to not do anything until
AIMCO steps up to the plate.
Councilor McCarthy asked what it takes to get a project-based voucher to which Arty. Sacks
responded stating that the Salem Housing Authority and the Department of Housing both have
vouchers that they can make project based vouchers. They are prepared to go forward into the
program to get more vouchers.
• Mr. Caine stated that he approached the Salem Housing Authority for many years about the
vouchers and they said if AIMCO would ask for it they would give them. He described the rental
assistance demonstration as a major initiative as a retroactive conversion for residents needing rental
assistance as the statute was written so that you could go back. He emphasized that this building is
eligible to apply for these vouchers. He stated that the Office of Multi-family Dwellings wants
people to come in for applications and there have not been many and he has been informed that if
AIMCO came in they would get them.
Ms.Jackson reviewed the amounts of taxes received from Loring Towers, and prospective amounts.
She stated that the tax dollars are approximately the same, meaning that the amounts are equal to
what they would pay, it is income related.
Councilor Sargent asked for a bargain on good faith and pointed out that an approval of one thing
that was supposed to help them that didn't help. He is also concerned about them having to
foreclose due to the constraints of 121A.
Councilor O'Keefe asked if the Planning Board and City Council have your commitment to work
with the people to help resolve this matter, as he wants this addressed. Mr. Sacks responded that
they want to work with this and all the interested parties.
Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk, read into record a letter from Eleanor M. Lynn, 18-2
America's Way.
O'Keefe moved to close the public hearing and matter moved to Planning Board. All approved.
City of Salem Planning Board
Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes—May 15,2013
Page 8 of 8
Adjourned at 9:11 pm •
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
•
•
CO
v CITY OF SALEM
t PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF MEETING
CHANGE IN MEETING LOCATION
You are hcrebynwfiafihat the Salem Pla=,g Boml udl hold its regularly sd;aUd n&6rg on Thursday,May 2, 20D at
7.00 p.m. in the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School at 25Memorial Drier, Salem,MA
Charla M. Parr C)a=
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
➢ March 20,2013 Meeting Minutes
• III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Project: Request for release of Lots 1 and 3 from Covenant of the Definitive Subdivision Plan
at 18 Thorndike Street
Applicant. PATRICK DEIULIS
Location: HUBON and THORNDIKE STREETS
2. Project: Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit Public Hearing
Applicant: INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS
Location: 12 POPE STREET
3. Project: Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District
Special Permit Public Hearing. Specifically, the requested petitions concern select demolition
and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the construction of a
new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre
portion of the Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
IV. OLD/ NEW BUSINESS
➢ ENF Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion
➢ Joint Gty Council and Planning Board Public Hearing
➢ Old Project Follow Up
• V. ADJOURNMENT
Know YourRil & tinder the Open Mee&g L awM.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and C4Ortliname§ 2-2028 th7xagh2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 Ax: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM
CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
• I ' 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
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Plann`e
DATE: April 23, 2013
RE: Agenda—May 2,2013 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
• ➢ Agenda
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Meeting Minutes - March 21, 2013
➢ Materials for Regular Agenda
Materials for the agenda item are included in the packet for the 05/02/2013 meeting. Here is a summation of
the request and background parcel information for each item:
III. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Request of PATRICK DEIULIS for release of Lots 1 and 3 from Covenant of the Definitive
Subdivision Plan at 18 Thorndike Street (Thorndike and Hubon Street).
The petitioner is requesting approval from the Planning Board to release Lots 1 and 3 of the Definitive
Subdivision at 18 Thorndike Street. This requested release of lots is subject to the petitioner's submission of
an acceptable form of surety in the amount determined by the City Engineer. A copy of this letter is enclosed
in your meeting packet for review.
The City Engineer is reviewing the construction plans for the subdivision, and will establish a value for the
subdivision's proposed infrastructure improvements. I expect to have his recommendation for the meeting.
Pending the petitioner's submission of surety in the amount established by the City Engineer for the
municipal infrastructure to be installed within the subdivision, the Partial Release of Lots from Covenant
document will not be executed and released to the petitioner.
Public Hearing — INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS to consider a Wireless Communication
Facility Special Permit for the property located at 12 POPE ST (113 Zoning District).
• The petitioner is requesting a Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit pursuant to Section 6.6 Ivirelera
Communication Facilities of the Sale Zoning Ordinance to co-locate five wireless communication devices on an
existing multi-story apartment building. Specifically, the five wireless communication devices included
City of Salem: Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—April 23,2013
Page 2of2
• • Four(4) omnidirectional antennas;
• One (1) microwave dish antenna; and
• One (1) outdoor equipment cabinet.
The petitioner's application packet is enclosed in your meeting packet for consideration.
In accordance with Section 6.6.3 Submission Requinments of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, this petition was
reviewed by the Building Commissioner. The City Building Commissioner, in the attached Request for
Review Comments form, concurred with the proposals adherence to applicable regulations administered by
the FAA, FCC,Massachusetts Aeronautic Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
In July 2008 and January 2010, the Planning Board granted two other Wireless Communication Facilities
Special Permits for the property in question.
Based on staff's review of the proposed petition, the following conditions are recommended for
consideration by the Planning Board:
1. All proposed antenna and ancillary equipment shall be painted a color matching that of the existing
structure to reduce the visibility and allow it to blend with the existing brick penthouse; the applicant,
his successors or assigns shall maintain the appearance of the equipment.
Public Hearing— FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP -Planned Unit
Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the
property located at 24 FORT AVENUE (I). Specifically, the requested petitions concern select
demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the construction of
• a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion
of the Site.
The petitioner is requesting a Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Flood Hazard District Special
Permit and Site Plan Review to redevelop the Salem Harbor Power Station at 24 Fort Avenue. Copies of the
petitioner's application packet have been provided in your meeting packet.
Due to the scale and scope of this project, the Department of Planning & Community Development is
working to review the petitioner's applicant for consistency with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The
consulting firms of AECOM and Sasaki Associates,Inc. are also being contracted to conduct peer reviews of
select aspects of the proposed application. In the coming weeks, additional information developed from
reviews conducted by the peer review consultants and staff will be submitted to the Planning Board for
consideration.
The application was routed to the Budding Commission, Board of Health, City Engineer, Conservation
Commission, Department of Public Services, Disabilities Commission, Fire Department, Police Department
and School District for comments. To date, the Conservation Agent has provided comments indicating that
the project will require an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Conunission prior to development.
Staff is coordinating with the other City Departments to secure additional comments for the project (see
Attachment B. The deadline for comments to be submitted is May 15,2013
Attachment
Attachment A—Completed request for Review Comments form from the City Budding Commissioner, dated
April 16,2013.
• Attachment B—Completed request for Review Comment form from the City Conservation Agent, dated
April 17, 2013.
• to '.1 CITY OF ;SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR REVIEW COMMENTS
DATE: 04 / 12 / 2013
TO: ( BUILDING COMMISSIONER ( ) CONSERVATION COMM
) CITY ENGINEER ( ) FIRE PREVENTION
( ) BOARD OF HEALTH ( ) SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) DISABILITIES COMMISSION ( ) POLICE DEPARTMENT
( ) DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SERVICES
Attached please find the application referenced below. The Planning Board requests that you review
this application relative to the Zoning Ordinance and/or to the Subdivision Regulations and MGL
Chapter 41. We would appreciate your completing the form below and returning it to Daniel Sexton, he
can be reached by phone at 978-619-5683 or email at lsexton(ciL;aiemt�.
O Preliminary Subdivision Plan
O Definitive Subdivision Plan
O Waiver from Frontage
O Drive-Through Special Permit
• O Cluster Development
( ) Planned Unit Development
O Site Plan Review
O Business Park Development District
(X) Wireless Communication Facilities Special Permit
O North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit
O Flood Hazard District Special Permit
APPLICANT: INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS
PROJECT NAME & ADDRESS: 12 Pope Street Wireless Communication Facility
CONTACT PERSON: Tony Germanetto 781-3191089
COMMENTS DUE: Requested by 5/2/13 for hearing that night, but required 5/16/13 (failure to
comment within 35 days shall be deemed lack of opposition)
CONCUR WITH PROPOSAL (Explain on reverse side)
O NEED MORE INFORMATION (Explain on reverse side)
O CANNOT CONCUR WITH PROPOSAL (Explain on reverse side)
O COMMENTS INCLUDED
• "MewerVgttanve Title Date
�"'.0 AVASIENMC,N 1IS
r
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR REVIEW COMMENTS
DATE: 04 / 11 / 2013
TO: .( ) BUILDING COMMISSIONER ( CONSERVATION COMM
( ) CITY ENGINEER ( ) FIRE PREVENTION
( ) BOARD OF HEALTH ( ) SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) DISABILITIES COMMISSION ( ) POLICE DEPARTMENT
( ) DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SERVICES
Attached please find the application referenced below. The Planning Board requests that you review
this application relative to the Zoning Ordinance and/or to the Subdivision Regulations and MGL
Chapter 41. We would appreciate your completing the form below and returning it to Daniel Sexton, he
can be reached by phone at 978-619-5683 or email at dsexton ,salena.conn.
O Preliminary Subdivision Plan
O Definitive Subdivision Plan
O Waiver from Frontage
( ) Drive-Through Special Permit
• O Cluster Development
(X) Planned Unit Development
(X) Site Plan Review
( ) Business Park Development District
( ) Wireless Communication Facilities Special Permit
( ) North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit
(X) Flood Hazard District Special Permit
APPLICANT: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
PROJECT NAME &ADDRESS: Footprint, 24 Fort Avenue
CONTACT PERSON: Joe Correntiat (978) 744-0212
COMMENTS DUE: Requested by 5/2/13 for hearing that night, but required 5/15/13 (failure to
comment within 35 days shall be deemed lack of opposition)
O CONCUR WITH PROPOSAL(Explain on reverse side)
O NEED MORE INFORMIATION (Explain on reverse side)
O CANNOT CONCUR WITH PROPOSAL (Explain on reverse side) C ��
(COMMENTS INCLUDED Prp,6L� �t�� ► t Vpr� •h o�
Review ' re Title Untr�
•
1'110 W 1SILINGF LN Sf tl l; SALI,M. b1ASS.a(I l!SB1T.S 01(),U 11110!m,97S.619,%6 5 FAX 975.710.0404 ' 6 \, SA1.B ('M6
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board
Date
N m Mailing Address Phone # Email
C aG.�
/7 a, "
I auS dkc 1t_ ✓� / 7b'l�3�9 �1�3 �«<, ��Ip Cr.., 4�
-� q�-z�iCI,�e ►,�c�� S`� l� ?4'77(6:�, r .
c
✓, fry �CC6 .
r4Ue:- y'73-7PY 7So/ Q/ikDDN ��o � -
�sL�e{ MA�Is as rak 7- If/e -77?-7 4-76"�1
el z_ o w 7 6na.i3Td'' ZPttt hcz o�s� Q �,
Japer Q,�sc�/ 31 Fort Ave 978 76`f9gd S(o�Ji fiu Qlb ,/
,x.. 77— �1�crZr�215�
1111
Alt.
s-� 99�4f 4g 4S
Tle�ey �0.vhicn 145ESSex G-veoF -k!2'R q�-R�9.Q24g �eakler••FannicaC9h.ai(-cd.,,
MARK caar �i� r9 �•�E si 5b8-9��-3� �u���;X•NETCOM. C�I"?
�v c/J(A(-�e SL . ?7aq4O -01816 r��(� �� byr
8 Lee S 4 reet 01970-2242 978-745 2593 ThQi0VictorYh#1*1coo
/a 1 11 f1y
•
Page of
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board P(a� n •��
Date S Z
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
a
weeA D?14 ,5 Ct Rl8'144- J519 ywee,4on
eon e � (O
�` he ST S' l&-S?6 610 @eorS�-sM �i Weca•^ `nd
%2 15DIZI2%�' v 3 FOQ1 A �/CSa��o�,so � - Yeo o/oo kov.4s/
.6Z:�V� i q .S74-
//-/ WC49
'-�to 1.1 -LJc.+:.��N� 1 �F TQC w�^ Q' �u '��`i �2'�� �u=1-•c C�;,a _ �%�
9 Y- y/-) o
Page of
j
City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board P �a.•� �9
Date 5
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
3l Cck< Sr T-- L�z A 7F/Z5- b77 Pale:u fs�al�ulal�,.y sw,,,
L �L SG/sP fe i .LG S OLtK
4)s-aGs C/o.3z
�o►n Anjaa&) IN Fbv-T Avz 5g/e/r7 '/7&zi"Ve An4raW (ha��CdA7
-Sn6l Oil 2 74S:
.Karel re�s�r-�SwiJh �D tjtm -[ �
a ' x18- 740-inInn kL cS61er^ 'O`r%kt ero
L.st�skrSrh ql \ tti N luyKjy ia1 ChS, 740•WSfl
Page of
• City of Salem – Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board t��0.✓�r1 "�9
Date �_� Z ! —
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
(-7hQocQvra SC)brnj /1 -�12a-by 575 7708flq "0.�¢)ann2 N1Sr1.
iak ( ( O De�by St #1 S�s T�Sv�rlf
fpr
Page of
ri CITY OF SALEM`
PLANNING BOARD
FILE 0
CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS.
May 9,2013
Patrick BeIulis
Vice President
31 Collin Street Terrace
Lynn,MA 01902-2205
RE: 18 Thomdike Street Subdivision Partial Release of Lots from Covenant
Dear Mr.BeIulis:
The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday,May 2,2013 to discuss your request to release Lou 1 and 3 of
the 18 Thomdike Street Subdivision.
• The Planning Board voted by a vote of seven(9) in favor(Mr.Puleo(Chair),Mr.Ready(Vice Chair),Mr.
McCabe,Mr.Clark,Ms.Sides,Mr.George,Mr.Anderson,Mr.Rieder and Ms.Yale),and none (0) opposed,
to grant the release of Lots 1 and 3 from the Covenant recorded at Essex South Registryof Deeds at Book
32192,Page 168.The execution of the Partial Release of Lot from Covenant for Lou 1 and 3 will be withheld
pending the submission of an acceptable form of surety in the amount determined by the CGtyEngineer,
which has been set at$50,000.00.
If you require further information,please contact Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner,in the Department of
Planning&Community Development at(978) 619.5685.
Sincerely,
Charles Puleo,Chairman
Salem Planning Board
Cc:Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 .TEL: 978:74 .9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.C>M
sI CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
May 9,2013 FILE #
Wireless Special Permit Decision CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS
For The Petition of Industrial Communications
For The Property Located At 12 Pope Street
A Public Hearing on this petition was opened on May 2,2013. The hearing was closed on May 2, 2013 with
the following Planning Board members were present:Mr.Puleo (Chair),Mr. Ready(Vice Chair),Mr.
McCabe,Mr. Clark'Ms.Sides,Mr. George,Mr.Anderson,Mr.Rieder and Ms. Yale. Notice of this meeting
was sent to abutters and notice of the hearing was properly publishedin the Salem News.
The petitioner is requesting a Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit under Section 6.6 Bidets
Gommoarwu Faalirie of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow for the installation of 4
omnidirectional antennas,one dish antenna and one outdoor radio equipment enclosure located at 12 Pope
Street,Salem,MA
The Planning Board reviewed the application and plans submitted and found that the petitioner addressed
the requirements of this section for the issuance of a Special Perrnit.
• On May 2,2013,the Planning Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a vote of
seven (9) in favor(Mr.Puleo (Chair),Mr.Ready(Vice Chair),Mr. McCabe,Mr. Clark,Ms. Sides,Mr.
George,Mr. Anderson,Mr. Rieder and Ms. Yale), and none (0) opposed,to grant the Wireless
communication Facility Special Permit for the location stated above,in accordance with the application
(dated April 11,2013) and plans last dated April 9,2013,titled "Salem Heights, 12 Pope Street,Salem,MA
01970" (Sheets T-1,Z-1,Z-2,Z-3,and Z-4) and prepared by Industrial Communication and the Hudson
Design Group consultants,submitted and now part of the file.
The Special Permit was approved with the following conditions:
I. All proposed antenna and ancillary equipment shall be painted a color matching that of the
existing structure to reduce the visibility and allow it to blend with the existing brick
penthouse, and where any portion of the antenna projects above the roof line of said
structure it shall be painted black,bronze or brown;the applicant his successors or assigns
shall maintain the appearance of the equipment as stated above.
This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing certification of the City Clerk
that twenty(20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed that it
has been dismissed or denied,is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed in the
grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of
title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision is on file with the Gty Clerk and that a copy of the decision and
plans is on file with the Planning Board.
Charles Puleo,Chairman
A pped fmn dais dai wA rfan);sixdl le nude ptmuvr to Seiicn 17 Cf dx Massadnwm Gereral Lana (Irpter 40A,and Add le*u An 20
da)s cfldT of dns dmsttn in the q�w cf de ay Berk: Ptaswrz to nix Massa&dex Cenral Lana Gvprer 40A, Sexist 11, dx Vamne or
Saul Pemat groaal ixmn slxdl rrx tike e fat rued a spy Cf dx dedsm lt:irvg dx axifi ate cf dxCrey Clerk lags dun filed uid)dx Essee Saul)
Rte' rycfDod,.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI.EM.COM
City of Salem Planning Board
• Regular Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 2, 2013
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School, 25 Memorial Drive, Salem,Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:06 pm. He introduced Dale Yale and described her
experience.
I. Roll Call
Those present were: Chairmen Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Anderson,
Mr. George,Mr. Clarke and Mr. McCabe.
Also present: Mr. Sexton, Staff Planner, and Ms. Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
March 21, 2013 draft minutes
Mr. Rieder noted that his name was incorrectly spelled on page 3.
Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to 4prove the minutes as amended seconded by Mr. George, and a
unanimous vote was taken All the members voted in favor, With a 8-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair) Mr. Beady. Ms.
• Sides Mr. McCabe Mr. George Mr.Anderson Ms Dale and Mr. Rieder in favor and none opposed. Mr. Clarke
abstained The motion was accepted The decision is Hereby incor2orated as ban of these minutes.
II. Regular Agenda
Project: Request for release of Lots 1 and 3 from Covenant of the Definitive Subdivision
Plan at 18 Thorndike Street
Applicant: PATRICK DEIULIS
Location: HUBON and THORNDIKE STREETS
Patrick DeIulis, 31 Collins Street Terrace, Lynn, stated that they have begun preliminary work and
they have a buyer interested in the two lots on Hubon Street. He noted that they are not working
with a lender, so there is no surety and they propose posting a cash bond. He said that the City
Engineer is working on a reasonable estimate and they are here asking for the consent of the Board
to sign off on the release so they can release the lots. They will be performing all the site work for
the builder and will be pursuing all the remaining work. Chairman Puleo asked if the work that
needs to be done is on the street or on site, to which Mr. DeIulis responded that the work would be
done mostly on the site. He went on to describe how the storm drains tied into the catch basin, but
stressed that they would be tying in the utilities only,everything else will be primarily on the site.
Mr. Sexton, Staff Planner, explained that the City Engineer still needed to finalize the surety amount
and have the release approved to form by the City Solicitor, and the document should be ready for
the Board to sign document.
•
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 2,2013
Page 2 of 12
Motion: Mr. Ready made a molion to gWmve the requested 4arlial lot release as Presented seconded by Mr.
McCabe, and a unanimous vote was taken All the members voted in favor, with a 9-0 vote (Mr Puleo (Chaim •
Beady. Mr. Clarke, Ms. Sides Mr McCabe, Mr. George Mr.Anderson Ms Dale and Mr. Rieder) in favor and
none o�.Posed The motion was acce�ted. The decision is hereby incorborated as Pad of these minutes
Mr. Ready asked Chairman Puleo to recognize the city councilors in attendance, which included
Councillor-at-Large Tom Furey, Ward 5 Councillor Josh Turiel, Ward 1 Councillor Bob McCarthy,
Councillor-at-Large Bill Legault, Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, Ward 2 Councillor Mike Sosnowski,
and Councillor-at-Large Arthur Sargent.
Project: Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit Public Hearing
Applicant: INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS
Location: 12 POPE STREET
Tony Germanetto presented on behalf of the applicant. He explained who Industrial
Communications is and who they service. He stated that they were in attendance to seek a special
permit in relation to the equipment they would like to place on top of the Salem Heights apartment
building at 12 Pope Street. He described the equipment they would like to put on the roof as a
digital two way radio, four omni-directional whip antennas, along with an associated radio cabinet.
They believe that this is consistent and compliant with Ordinance 6.6 in relation to design and they
feel that 12 Pope Street fills a gap in the digital network. There are two existing wireless facilities
already on the roof and the equipment will meet all setbacks and height limits. Additionally, the
antennas will be painted to fit in with the current color scheme and they will all be installed and
operated in compliance with federal and state regulations. •
Chariman Puleo inquired about the dimension of the dish on section 7 of application.
Mr. Anderson asked if the drawings are to scale to which Mr. Germanetto responded that they are
not to scale, but they are the best example of what they are going to look like.
Mr. Rieder asked for clarification on how many antennas will actually be on the building as it sounds
like there is a conflict in his April letter the Planning Department and what he is presenting this
evening. Mr. Germanetto responded that it will be 3 on ballast mount and 1 on penthouse.
Ms. Sides recommended that anything that projects above the roofline should be dark. Mr.
Germanetto responded that they found that they are blended better into the skyline if they are white
or a sky blue color, to which Ms. Sides disagreed. Mr. Rieder asked if they could be a darker grey as
opposed to black, to which Ms. Sides responded that they could be any of those colors from bronze
to black. Mr. Gemunetto offered to bring paint swatches to the department, to which Ms. Sides
agreed.
Chairman Puleo asked if a suggested condition already in the decision should that be changed to
which Ms. Sides said no, and stated that if things are attached to the building should blend, but if
they extend they should be black. Ms. Sides further recommended that they could add that language
as it always comes up. Mr. Sexton read from a re-worded condition, and includes language stating
that any equipment that is visible above the roof line will match that of existing structure above the
roof line, and further will be colored black, bronze, dark brown black, non-glossy. •
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes—Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 2,2013
Page 3 of 12
• Issue opened to the public for comment
No one from the public was present to speak on this issue.
Motion: Mr. Rieder made a motion to close the public hearing seconded by Ms Sides, and a unanimous vote was
taken All the members voted in favor with a 9-0 vote (Mr Puleo (Chair Mr Ready.Mr. Clarke,Ms. Sides, Mr.
McCabe Mr. George Mr. Anderson Ms Dale and Mr. Riederf in favor and none opposed The motion was
accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Motion: Mr. Rieder made a motion toapprove the Iflireless Communication FacigU Stecial Permit as conditioned
and4resented seconded by Mr. George and a unanimous vote was taken All the members voted in favor, with a 9-0
vote �Ir Puleo (Chair Mr. Ready, Mr. Clarke Ms Sides Mr. McCabe Mr. Geroge. Mr.Anderson, Ms. Dale
and Mr. Rieder in favor and none o hosed The motion was accepted The decision is hemby incoj4orated as Bart of
these minutes.
Project: Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard
District Special Permit Public Hearing. Specifically, the requested petitions
concern select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power
Station Site to include the construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined
Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
• Mr. Sexton, Staff Planner stated that AECOM and Sazaki are the Peer Reviewers and will be present
at a later meeting to provide comment to the Board.
Atty Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, stated that he is representing the applicant Footprint Power,
and they are very pleased to be here. They are going to present the thoughts behind the project and
he introduced the team from Footprint as well as the consultants that include Peter Furniss, CEO
Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint. They have met with many of the neighbors and obviously this
is a huge presentation. They want to give the overview as to how this project lays out on the site.
He will also introduce the architects, Bob Fox and Stephen Tupa. He noted that part of the filing
also includes traffic, environmental impact statement, site plans, and storm water management plans
which will also be presented to the Board. He specifically pointed out that they are asking for three
different approvals: a Planned Unit Development special permit, Site Plan Review and a Flood
Hazard District special permit. He stated that the PUD is for entire site, which comprised about 65
acres, and the residential part of the site,which is about 1.1 acres, is not included in the PUD. PUD
part of the site is less than the whole site and in the presentation the Board and audience will see
more of what he is describing,which is the layout for the power plant, which is about 20 acres. He
expects that through the presentation, the Board and the audience will come to understand why they
can't build this whole site all at once and noted that virtually everything currently on the property
will be demolished. He described this as a new opportunity on this oceanfront property that will
come to life over the course of the project, and noted that this will be the most significant project in
their lifetime. He concluded by stating that at the end of the presentations, they will have better
understanding of how this project compares to other projects in the state.
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes—Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 2,2013
Page 4 of 12
Chairman Puleo reminded the public to sign in and stated that they will get an opportunity to speak
on general comments after this evening's presentation and after the Board has asked their questions. •
Peter Furniss, CEO, Footprint Power, introduced himself and gave a brief overview about who
Footprint Power is and where they are at the state level. He stated that Footprint Power has been in
the community for three years and they came to Salem because they saw the promise of this new site
and are invested in moving old coal-fired plants to new life. They like Salem because they feel it is a
community that is extremely educated about power and they were impressed about the site itself due
to the location. They started their conversations about three years ago and they have been listening
ever since. They were impressed by the work that Sazaki did, and so they approached Dominion,
where they had a long negotiation process and ultimately they purchased the property. He noted
that they are eager to get the new property up and running. The existing plant will be entirely
dismantled save for three small buildings, which are the Guard House, Turban Hall, and 1950's-eta
building. In connection with demolition they did a full environmental study of the site and there
was a lot of discussion about what was there. They determined that the site was relatively clean,
though there is some remediation that needs to be done. He emphasized that the groundwater is
clean and they will be working on the remediation process.
Mayor Driscoll stated that she wanted to come before the Planning Board based on the importance
and complexity of the project. She wants to stress how much they appreciate the volume of
volunteer hours that have been and continue to be put into this project. Secondly, she wants to
recognize not only the long term and short term benefits, but that there is a terrific upside to this
which includes the development of this site. The applicant started this process two years ago to
better understand the obstacles and benefits of this site and they are doing everything they can to •
put the best foot forward. They have one chance to get this right. The state process is underway
and they are close to wrapping up, and she did note some duplicity in this process. She said that the
local power plant stakeholders are tracking what is happening on the site, and are serving as a
clearinghouse as they are identifying how land is used then tackle issues beyond Planning Board.
She discussed some of the more unique issues on the site including the port, and pier to bring in
cruise ships, as well as off-shore wind. These are part of the number of items that cannot be lost for
long-term benefits. She noted that although there are many eyes, local eyes are the most important
eyes, and state eyes. She welcomes everyone to dive in and really make sure that this is something
that we can be proud of. She wants protection and preservation at the focus. She concluded by,
thanking everyone for the volunteer effort.
Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Power, stated that they have been here for 3 years now talking
to residents and he wanted to go back to the beginning the process, specifically addressing why here
and why Salem. He talked about how they could look at older coal sites and envision new use, and
combining that with fording the right communities where power is needed and people are thinking
about how to utilize power. He stressed that they want to be clear why plant is needed, and went on
to explain that within Route 128, is a separate zone for ISO New England. They attended an
auction for power needed beginning on June 1, 2016 where they looked at what units were out there
and what would be needed. They realized what was needed in this area, and NEMA Boston needs
this power for reliability in the Boston area. Mr. Silverstein also explained where they are in the state
permitting process, stating the there is a final environmental impact report to be filed with MEPA
and should be completed this month, along with a Chapter 91 license due this month.
•
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes-Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 2,2013
Page 5 of 12
• Bob Fox, architect, introduced Zach Kron, who stated that this project is about the whole site and.
their goal is to do the best thing on the site that doesn't just make power and is also good for the
neighborhood. The site is identified as industrial port and it's an incredibly important site which is
zoned industrial except for one spot that's bigger than Salem Common and the downtown business
district. He noted that they are filing the whole site as a PUD, when in reality what they are using is
only twenty acres which leaves the rest open for future development. He further explained that to
actually re-do just the plant they only need thirteen acres. The remaining seven acres is slightly
smaller than Salem Common which they hope will be enjoyed by the people of Salem.
Stephen Tupa, the project's landscape architect, stated that this is an unusual site and it is interesting
what is happening here. He described the main structural elements of the landscape which included
an acoustic gabion wall that wraps around the buildings as well as a landscape berm. He showed a
graphic from the perspective of someone standing on Derby Street, and stated that they are hoping
to use some of the demolition material as fill. He presented other slides that showed the lawn,
wildflowers, and lines of sight from various points of the site, and included an early conceptual
e thought about what are
the possibilities of the berth and they
. He stated that they
of the site g
sketch Y
want to have areas of lawn and openness. They plan on crushing up materials to use as paths which
will also be used as an acoustic wall. He also discussed areas of meadow, plantings and security
barriers, and showed the amount of fill added to make acoustic berm is which will be done on top of
what is remediated. Showed slide in regards to water system, and explained that they will use
stormwatex to irrigate the landscape which will connect back into existing stormwater system.
Overall they did a major rethinking of landscaping and it was important to remove the chain-link
fence to create new openness and access to the site, which is important to talk about. They are
• proposing a new walkway and bikeway to get people off of Derby Street, which will also allow
access to the site as well as new views westerly back towards Salem. There are also going to be new
views out across the harbor and h showed graphic on how this is really sunny site. He then showed
the potential of the path system, and how people can move over the path system, and described the
large area of open lawn where they are hoping to build some habitat. There is great potential for the
site and they can plant a lot of great plants that will be good for the site. This is a maritime zone
ideal for juniper grass and will be good for maple trees. Their goal is to create an upland meadow
and the idea is that looking through the site from Derby Street they are looking at a multilayered
habitat which will change with the topography. He then showed graphics describing what would be
in the line of sight including Black Eyed Susans and other plantings. He concluded by stressing that
they will be creating a layered landscape.
Bob Fox stated that this is something that Peter and Scott have been saying all along: no chain link
fence. They thought about how they use the site in a creative way to create an acoustical site and
make it appealing to the public. Mr. Fox then described the proposed site plan, which will be to
compress it to use less land. He described the main plant and how the electric production will work
and will go through various buildings. They are taking as much energy out of the gas to make it
more efficient and to keep it cooler. In terms of the site access, the facilities will be accessed by the
same route for employees. For anything large it will come from the harbor. There are 160 million
gallons of seawater utilized daily in the current plant, which is equal to filling 3 Fenway Parks, and
the new site will not use any seawater. This is not comparing the new plant to what is there now it is
comparing it to the New England ISO. Once this plant is up and running,it will reduce the harmful
emissions for the whole New England ISO and the new plant will be a major contributor for the
• entire micro-area.
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes-Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 2,2013
Page 6 of 12
Mr. Fox continued, and showed pictures describing what the new plant will look like including the
heights of the stacks from various areas around the site. He talked about how this is going to be a •
green site and how they will make the whole size of the plant green. They are going to harvest the
rainwater and use it for irrigation and other processes. The facilities will include solar panels, so
drawing power from the grid will not be necessary. They are looking at every way possible to make
it the greenest facility possible and they are looking at current LEED ratings, and thinking about
how this plant can set new LEED standards.
They looked at the architecture of the local area to think about the design of the building,
particularly in relation to layering in the landscape, and they looked at how to add value. The
building is going to make noise and there will be an acoustic layer and as well as metal louvers which
will add another acoustical layer, and furthermore,here will also be a corrugated metal layer.
For the Administration Building they feel they have done their best to integrate the building into the
landscape. They are going to have living roofs and gardens on top of the building.
What th rating as the Community Outreach Building will get a dramatic facelift. It will
be - ,i to c, the community on what is going on currently on the site as well as what will be
d..,, in the fu, le also provided an explanation of what a gabean wall is, and said people
should thu:k of it a lobster pot with rocks. He concluded by describing the main building.
Arty. C, 11ted that this is the bulk of the presentation for the evening.
Chairman Puts d if,,myone on the Board had questions. •
Mr. Anderson stated that he had several questions from review of materials. He works for Jacobs
who was hired by the city for the review of the study and he wasn't involved, and there is no conflict
of interest.
He asked about issues that were raised in the draft impact study, specifically when that report is due
and requested a copy of that. He stated that he appreciates the view perspectives, would like to see
more details of the perspectives, mote specifically getting perspectives of the stack and the view
from Common, Willows, Derby Wharf on a human scale. He would like to see what are the
material boards and the colors of the buildings. It would be great to see a shadow study of where
the shadow falls around the neighborhood.
He also stated that he is a little concerned that they are not meeting the flavor of the PUD. As he
understood it is intended that it is to develop the entire site. He thinks it's unfair to show just the
power plant site and would like to see how the whole site will be developed in the true spirit of the
PUD.
He also had a question about the disaster plan for the ammonia tank. He asked if it will be on
concrete and how will tank react in a storm. In some of his research about the power plant in
Everett, they have to fire the stack to clear gas build-up in, testing lasts about 8 hours in a day, so he
asked about the testing frequency.
•
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes-Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 2,2013
Page 7 of 12
In relation to the stack, he stated that 230 feet tall is quite big. He feels that there is a design
• opportunity to make it better than a concrete stack that could be something more that they can look
at the rest of their lives.
In relation to the storm overflow it looks like a lot is being drained back into the Harbor, and he
would ask that they think about a gas and oil separator for water going back into the ocean. He is
concerned about flooding and flood detailing and would like more info on flooding issues.
He then spoke about LEED certification and asked if it is related to the administration building
only.
He noted that a huge component of the facility is related to the gas pipeline, how is pipeline being
proposed and how it is connecting to site and how it will impact our city.
Mx. Rieder stated that he was looking through drawings, would
me to see buffers on all some of the honey loc
usts,g .
provider isproposing g
He also noticed that the other energy p
he would like to see more specifically what trees are going to go away. The southern half of site for
site infiltration and as he reads the drawings he sees a slight slope, like a gravel racetrack. He
recommended that they think about how to influence the team for a landscaped solution where
vegetation can work against the contamination instead of percolating the contamination in the soil.
He asked for further detail on the use of the marine dock, and asked if it
falls
allsii any of that can
nto phase 2 of
redevelopment. He noted that landscape-wise there is an existing berm, an
• be used on the southwest side to cap in place and re-vegetate or can it be the last thing in place to be
demolished to be a buffer for the neighborhood.
He recognized Footprint's plans in keeping some of the buildings in place as well as keeping
He also noted the plans to use some of the buildings as a
fragments of the landscape in place.
bookend to the larger berm, and wondered if they planned to repurpose it as a buffer between
facility and the neighborhood.
He asked about the site in relation to Webb Street, as it looks like they are filling the side of the site
up to Webb Street, which he felt that without a catch basin it could create some localized flooding.
He's not sure if it is a site gradient or civil engineering question, as Webb Street is critical to
redevelopment area. He would also like them to address the impact of the southwest corner, if it is
be a landscape or to remain as a land bank. His big question was if Webb Street becomes the
connection, which suggests that there is the intention that there is a road at the southern portion
that goes along the discharge channel to access the northern part of the site. He sees that as an issue
as it is the most circuitous route and is an inherent conflict where the discharge channel and the pier
meet. He asked about connecting the neighborhood to water. He notes that on the drawings, they
have included bollards in order to make it a pedestrian area in the eastern section. He asked the
applicant to consider a way to use northern access road as a primary entrance to the redevelopment
of the northern part of the site, and extends the discharge channel,which will
then become a front dock to the facility. He's concerned about having a pedestrian use and
d the landscape towar
industrial use in the same space,which kills it for him.
. Some minor comments on terrain, which include showing the existing honey locusts clearer. He
thinks it was a misstake to say there is only one part of fill when the entire site includes 6 feet of fill.
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes-Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board `
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 2,2013
Page 8 of 12
He is also concerned about the acoustical right side as it is not able to be redeveloped. His final
comment was about the stacks as he feels they have not fully addressed that and he would like to see •
a shadow and reveal on that.
Chairman Puleo asked why ammonia is used. Mr. Furniss explained the selective catalytic process,
whereby sulfur dioxide is not a big problem, however nitrous & nitrous oxide becomes a problem.
Ammonia is used as a catalyst of a chemical reaction for a waste stream leaving the plant and they
use 2 parts per million. Chairman Puleo asked how they replenish the supply, to which Mr. Furniss
explained that it comes through the streets in a tanker truck, and further stated that the ammonia is
covered in a tank that is a concrete enclosure. Further, they have an outer tank that is a size larger
in
case of breach. They have adopted a system that uses 19% aqueous ammonia which is the most to
ie real concern with ammonia is with the fumes. They have what he called
Fumes if the tank ever releases. The tank is filled with balls that would
reu. surface area where the ammonia fumes can leak. They went through
extensive questions <.vith that
11 recommended that they schedule deliveries when there is the least amount of
stated that they are operating 24/7 and that daylight hours are the best so
delivery per„ a what they are doing. They come less often when the plant is active they
have tried to )roject the least impactful of traffic on city streets. All of the major
equipment will be ' in the sea. They have bids out on the street now that try to achieve a
level of deliveries that arc toast disruptive. The sea deliveries will be coming from either the Port of
Providence or the Port of Boston into Salem for the least amount of disruption.
Chairman Puleo asked about the height of building in relation to the current height to which Mr.
Rieder recommended that the team show the height difference more clearly in a future presentation.
W "" r )ut the difference in terms of square footage, to which Mr. Fox responded
that, n:filer. Mr. Rieder recommended pairing up certain pictures together as
an overlay.to g,t a L,,m, , 'erstanding of the size difference. Mr. Fox explained that it will appear
bigger or smaller depending ,.om where you are standing.
Mr. Fox addressed the LEED question in relation to LEED for commercial interiors. He stated
that there is no LEED certification product for a processing building and he noted that where the
building is for people, they are going to be LEED certified. They are shooting for a LEED
certification on the buildings where there will be people. They spoke to the US Green Building
Council, who said that LEED doesn't quite fit, but they will work with them to develop it. He
stressed that if they can build it they are trying to do it. Mr. Anderson stated that he knows there is
no rating system for it, but knows that they are in the spirit of it to which Mr. Fox agreed.
Issue opened to public for comment
Lester Smith, 10 Memorial Drive, stated that he is happy to hear about the question of the catch
basin on Webb Street. He feels that the sound currently is very loud and is wondering how loud
that is going to be with the new power plant. He appreciates the ammonia tank being addressed and
would like to know how stable that tank is going to be and well as how the berm will be affected.
He noted that he has a sump pump but heavy rains become a problem in the neighborhood. He
doesn't think there is going to be any problem with the trucks. His big safety concerns are the
ammonia tank and how the demolition of the stacks will be done. How would also like to know at
future meetings what they are going to do to develop the other parcels, and what will be done with •
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes-Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-May 2,2013
Page 9 of 12
• the traffic in the neighborhood. He stated that he has seen a lot of reports, but this is the fust time
he is hearing about the ammonia tank, and he would like to be more informed. He said he is
grateful that someone is taking over the power plant. He doesn't think that regular maintenance is a
problem, but just wants to know the tank cleaning schedule and asked how that will happen. Mr.
Furniss responded that the stacks will be taken down brick by brick, using stack muncher and will
get cleaned up at night. He stated that there will be no implosions for the larger stack, but they are
still looking at the shorter stack. He pointed out that it is more than 375 feet away from everything
else and is a possible candidate for implosion, but safety is the utmost concern. He appreciated the
questions about the ammonia and the tank, and again stressed that safety is the overarching issue
with the plant. They are doing everything to make sure that is done safely and they will take you
through that over the course of their presentations.
Nick Sobin, 110 Derby Street, Unit 1, asked how they know that the steam will not have a negative
impact on the environment and the surrounding vegetation. Mr. Furniss responded stating that this
plant will have emissions control technology that will keep the pollution levels low and will displace
pollutants. They will see a system-wide reduction from this plant. He said that 2 parts per million
for nitrous oxide is very low and ozone level reduction is very important. Sulfur dioxide does cause
issues for plants. He acknowledged that they will emit negligent amounts of sulfur dioxide which
will reduce it for other plants. Their goal is to have a reduction in carbon dioxide,which in turn will
displace other power plants that are less efficient and will help the state meet their reduction goals.
Louise Brown, 60 Derby Street, stated that the noise estimate that was given was 6 decibels above
ambient noise, and asked if a 25 foot wall high enough to protect the neighborhood. She wants to
• start talking about what is going to be done on the rest of the site, as she is not clear on the part of
the site that is zoned residential. She also asked what people on Derby Street are going to be
looking at. She commented on the landscaping, which she thinks looks absolutely fantastic on the
current slides, but asked if what is going to be built along Derby Street is in line with the rest of the
character of the neighborhood.
Ken Novack, 42 Osgood Street, asked about protecting the noise on the ocean side of the site. He
also asked about various constituents to be removed on site, and asked what those are.
Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, stated that she is trying to figure out this proposal. She feels that
once the power plant is built and sold to investors they will be stuck with it and there will be
previous dangers that were unrealized before. Her biggest concern to having a gas plant in Salem is
the risk to the close-knit community and the school nearby. She raised the issue of previous
explosions in other parts of the country and asked why the power plant has to be located here in this
community and is there a way that they can be protected from a gas explosion. She likes the idea
about the chain link fence, but security has to be paramount. She is happy to look at a chain link
fence if it will keep the wrong people out. She is concerned that the two uses are not compatible.
Health and safety are the number one concern daring all of the phases and she appreciates the views
showed. She stressed that if they are buying this for our community for the next 50 years, she would
like to see the other power plants this company has built. She is concerned that the gas deliveries
will be coming over land. She noted that briefs are due on Monday to the (Energy Facilities) Siting
h fears that the perception of the Siting Board and Footprint is that the people of
Board, and she p p g tp p p
Salem want this because no one is screaming about this. So to assess our support is not really fair to
• us as we are polite and will not scream. She really does not want to get stuck with it, she doesn't
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes-Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 2,2013
Page 10 of 12
welcome it, and she's afraid of it. She is concerned about how explosions will impact the
foundations of people's homes. •
Ward 1 Councillor Bob McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue, he was smiling at the first few slides as he
recalls the old meetings. He is very optimistic about the plan, but as the Ward Councillor he is front
and center with the concerns. He stated that the stakeholder committee report will be coming out.
He will be at these meetings representing his constituents and addressing concerns. He is optimistic
that is it all going to be done right. His early on meetings with Peter Fumiss and Scott Silverstein
indicated to him that they are also benefitting from this being their first plan. Councillor McCarthy
feels that this will help us as a community but they are very cognizant that they want to do this right
and they should ask the tough questions to get this done right.
Hans Weedon, 1A Daniels Street Court, asked if instead of transporting ammonia, they could
generate it locally. He stated the proposed louvers aren't right, as he feels they will not absorb
sound.
Ilir "Nick" Korriku, 47 Fort Avenue, concerned about sound and the times of day or night that it
will be heard. He is also concerned about the gaping wall which will make sound that will be
coming right in his window. Overall, he is concerned about Fort Avenue. Chairman Puleo asked to
see the perspective from Fort Avenue at their next presentation.
David Reardon, 5 Victory Road, stated that he had questions there were structural in nature. He
asked if they will excavate as deeply at the sewage treatment plant and will it require blasting as it will
get into ledge. His concern is if they do, he wants know if Footprint Power's insurance will cover •
any damage to his foundation if he finds structural faults due to blasting.
Ed Wolfe, 95 Bay View Avenue, suggested that they look at dry exhaust versus wet exhaust. He
feels that most of the comments are due to noise but it is going to cost you a lot.
Mayor Driscoll recommended laying out an order to the review process. She gave an example of
certain issues relating to construction so residents know which meetings to come to. They want to
make sure that they hear from everyone. There are email lists to get on the agendas and they want
to make sure that they get the word out to people. She also mentioned other projects such as the
National Grid cable replacing project, and she said that some are related, but the new cable project
happens regardless of power plant. They are trying to coordinate the projects and they are providing
ways for folks to comment and having input. She reiterated that this is going to be a busy summer
and the city is working with dynamic consultants who will provide a peer review. They are going to
be checking the math, lines of sight, decibel levels, but reminded the Board and the audience that
they don't own the land as this is not public space. It is amazing space that has the opportunity to
stabilize tax base long term.
Arty. Correnti stated that they were laying out a format earlier and the comments were right on
point. He said that there is no way to present all this in one evening and understands there is
frustration that this can't be done all at once. They will have experts here for specific parts of this
process as this has so many levels including federal, state and city. He pointed out that they will be
filing notices of intent with the Conservation Commission in the next month, as well as the Board of
Appeals and they will also visit the Historical Commission where they will ask for a demolition
waiver in order to take down the tank f •
arm. He noted that some of what they want to get permitted
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes—Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 2,2013
Page 11 of 12
his presentation for the
and earl fall. He concluded s
to take down will be done m the summery p
evening by focusing on the application itself, in terms of the rest of the site, which includes the
construction and lay down area that will be used to rebuild the plant. In future presentations, the
Board and the audience will hear the details of the 25 or 30 acre lay down site and this will include
everything related to the existing plant being shut down by June 2014 and opening by 2016. He
stressed that they need the extensive area to be laid down, which they will talk about in future
meetings.
Chairman Puleo asked if there is a similar plant in the are that they can look at, to which Mr. Furniss
responded that there are others bigger than this and were specifically designed to be built
inexpensively, thus there really isn't anything like this. Mr. Anderson noted that Everett is partially
gas. Mr. Furniss reiterated his point is that they were built by Sythe and while they include all of the
functional plant aspects, they were not designed to work with the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson
noted that he was using that plant as a scale reference.
Chairman Puleo asked whether the Atty. Correnti would be amenable to continue the public hearing
of Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special
Permit for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Redevelopment project. Atty.
Correnti consented.
Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to continue the Public hearing of Planned Unit Development Special Permit,
Site Plan Review and Flood Ha.�ard DistrictSpedal Permit for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power
Station RedevelomentPiviect until the regular meeting on Mai, 76 2013 seconded by Mr. Ready, and a unanimous
vote was taken All the members voted in favor with a 9-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair) Mr. Readv, Mr. Clarke. Ms.
• Sides Mr. McCabe Mr. George Mr.Anderson Ms Dale and Mr Rieder in favor and none opposed. The motion
was accepted The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes
111. Old/New Business
ENF Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion
Mr. Sexton provided an update there is a MEPA site visit for the Salem Waterfront Expansion that
they are going forward with soon. The site visit is next week, on Monday, and they can attend. Mr.
Sexton stated that he can provide a copy for the ENF to the Board members.
Joint City Council and Planning Board Public Hearing
Mr. Sexton stated that this meeting is in regards to two Chapter 121A applications that were
submitted to the City. The joint public hearing will be on the 15`h and the actual decision will be
made during the meeting on the 16`h. He asked that members let him know if there is any issue with
availability. The meeting will be in City Council chambers. Mr. Clarke asked for the time of the
meeting to which Mr. Sexton offered to send out a reminder email. He concluded by noting that
with regards to people being gone, he urged Board members to try not to miss more than one
meeting otherwise they can't vote. He noted that Chairman Puleo and Ms. Yale will not be in
attendance at the next meeting and they will listen to the minutes at a latex date.
Old Project Follow Up
Mr. Sexton provided a follow-up to Chairman Puleo's question about the responsibility of striping
• by Home Depot. He stated that it is the responsibility of the city and they will be striping it later in
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes—Approved on 05/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—May 2,2013
Page 12 of 12
the spring. Chairman Puleo then asked about striping Kentwood Avenue, to which Mr. Sexton said
he can ask about that.
Mr. Sexton then reviewed a minor amendment for the US Bio project in regards to the Certificate of
Occupancy issues and the internal review on the modified drainage plan. Mr. Sexton said that he
reviewed the request with Chairman Puleo and there is a minor modification so they signed off on
that.
Mr. Clarke asked if the applicant added more parking, to which Mr. Sexton responded in the
affirmative. Mr. Clarke stated that he would not have voted for it if the parking had been expanded.
Chairman Puleo then asked about fixing the
curbing on that site to which Mr. Sexton said they were
working on it.
Chairman Puleo asked if there were any further old/new business, there being none he asked for a
motion to adjourn.
IV. Adjournment
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to adjourn the Ma 7v id nyular meeting of the Salem Planning Board seconded
by Mr. Anderson, and a unanimous vote was taken All the members voted in favor, with a 9-0 vote Wr. Puleo
(Chain,Mr. Readv Mr. Clarke Ms. Sides.Mr. McCabe Mr. George Mr.Anderson Ms Dale and Mr &edea
in favor and none obhosed The motion was acce ted The decision is hev incorporated as art of these minutes
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:48 pm.
Respectfully submitted, ,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
•
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes—Approved on 05/16/2013
9 CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1011 APA I I P 4: 0
FILE #
CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS.
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street,
has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
Salem Planning Board
•
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on��pn I I ( 2D I J
at L t �y p��in accordance 1�rith MGL hap. 30A,
Sections 4-25.
Knorr Pur reohtj under the Open tW eeting Lin)A4.G.L e.. 30-1 f 18-23 and Cily Ordinance 12-2028 llnrouoh 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON SraeuT, SALEM, MAssAnjustTTs 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 • wIVN.S;v_FM.COM
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
2013 MAR 28 P 138
FILE 0
CITY CLEIK SALEM, MASS.
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, April 4,2013 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street,
has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items.
Charles M Puleo, Chair
Salem Planning Board
•
d� gid
KO fthm, . gnvw aFP dnc
3 3s P07
law it vu
Know pur rzghls under the Open Meeting Clue ALG.L is 30.115 15-25 and City Ordinance f 2-2025 through 5 2-2033.
120 WASHING10N STREET, SALEM. NIASSACnuSFrrs 01970 • P1101NE 975.619.5655 FAX 978.740.0404 • wwuV.SALF\I,C(AI
CITY OF SALEM
• �A PLANNING BOARD
I013MAR IU P12'. 01 ,
FILE #
NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLE hi. SALEM, MASS.
Your are 1xmby rrotifrad t1wt the Salem PlanwT Board uX held i8 rp L7dy sJ,,a&1e l nesting on
Thursday,March 21s y 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Anrxx,R00rn313, 120 Washrrgten St, Salm;MA
Gznfes M. Pid q Clxur
MEETING AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL
II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
i Nominate and Vote for Chair and Vice Chair
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
9 January 17,2013 Meeting Minutes
IV. REGULARAGENDA
Project: Request a Reconsideration public hearing pursuant to M.G.L. Ch 40A 4 16 of the Variance
and Special Permit applications denied by the Board of Appeals on December 26,2012.
Applicant: MICHAEL MCARDLE
Location: 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE
V. OLD / NEW BUSINESS
Schedule Jtdy4th meeting
VI. ADJOURNMENT t
rv,(
JC
Know Your Rights haler A-Open Mceting L awM.G.L. c 30A 18-25 and Cq Ordinance 5 2-2028 tlmutgh 2-2033.
•
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 WWW.SAI.EM.COM
vCITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
6 Arl
• 5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 .
TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAX:978-740-0404
LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP
DIRECTOR
STAFF MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner -53;k-
DATE: March 14, 2013
RE: Agenda—March 21,2013 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Meeting Minutes -January 17,2013
➢ Materials for Regular Agenda
Materials foi the agenda item are included in the packet for the 03/21/2013 meeting. Here is a summation of
the request and background parcel information for each item:
III. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
A Reconsideration public hearing pursuant to M.G.L. Ch 40A § 16 at the request of MICHAEL
MCARDLE for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1).This Reconsideration request
concerns a Variance and Special Permit application denied by the Board of Appeals on December
26,2012.
In hearing this petition, the Planning Board should be ready to vote on whether the Reconsideration petition represents specific and
material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based, and describes such changes in the record
of its proceedings. Upon receipt of a favorable determination, which can only be made with all but one member of the Planning
Board consenting to the request, anotherpublic hearing of the Reconsideration petition will be scheduled with the City of Salem
Board of Appeals. Since the Planning Board consists of eight members, presently, approval of this Reconsideration request
requires a favorable vote of seven (7)members of the Board
The petitioner is requesting a public hearing for a Reconsideration of a petition that was denied by the Board
of Appeals pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A 5 16. The petitions denied by the Board of Appeals concerned a
Variance to allow the construction of a shed dormer addition on the third floor of a three dwelling unit
structure and a request to modify Conditions #1 and #2 of a Special Permit granted by the Board of Appeals
on June 16, 2010. According to the petitioner's Reconsideration request, the changed petition proposes:
• elimination of the requested Variance to add the dorm; and requests the modification of Condition #1 and
#2 of the Special Permit.The petitioner's application packet is enclosed in your packet for consideration.
Qty of Salem:Planning Board
Staff Memorandum—March 14,2013
Page 2 of 2
• When considering whether the Reconsideration petition represents specific and material changes, it is
important to understand that the petitioner's packet is organized in the following manner. (1) the stjy
bundle is the Reconsideration proposal and (2) the binder dgM bundle is a copy of the denied petition packet
presented to the Board of Appeals on December 19, 2012. A copy of the decision for the denied Variance
and Special Permit modification is attached to this memorandum for reference (Attachment A).
Staff is available to answer any questions regarding the reconsideration process or the grounds for the Board
of Appeals denial.
Attachment
Attachment A- Qty of Salem Board of Appeals Decision for 9-11 Ocean Terrace,dated December 26,2012
•
•
coluulr�_.
SPI _ 1WCIS of SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
ta,
9�,�IMINE it 720 WASHING ION S'octi_r —Z�Snttn/ 1W_SACHt;.gn'h9�J .Q 10- 20
I'eu>978-619-5683 ♦ Ox A978-740-0404
K11161:ALHY leiscota. FILE #
Mnvon CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS,
December 26, 2012
Decision
City, of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Petition of MATTHEW BANKO requesting to amend a previous decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement from a Special Permit for
the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). Applicant also requests a Variance
and Special Permit to add a third-floor dormer to the structure.
A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on December 19, 2012 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, 5 11. The hearing was closed on December 19,2012 with the following
Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Annie Harris,Michael Duffy,
• Richard Dionne, and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate).
Petitioner seeks to amend a Special Permit granted on June 16, 2010 for the property located at 9-11
Ocean Terrace, Salem. Petitioner also seeks relief pursuant to Sections 4.0 and 33.4 of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance.
Statements of fact:
1. Three previous Special Permit decisions, date-stamped September 10, 1980, March 12, 1986,
and July 1, 2010, had been issued for this property, allowing its use as a three-family house,
with the condition that the premises remain owner-occupied, or it was to revert to a two-
family house.
2. In a petition date-stamped October 24, 2012,petitioner requested elimination of the owner-
occupancy requirement so that he could convert the apartments to condominiums. The
petition also requested dimensional relief to construct a third-story dormer.
3. Attorney Michael McCardie represented the petitioner at the hearing.
4. At the bearing,no member of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the petition.
The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing,
and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings:
•
I
1
With regard to the requested Variance and Special Permit for a shed dormer:
7. Desirable relief could not be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
2. Special conditions and circumstances do not exist affecting the parcel or building,which do
not generally affect other land or buildings in the same district.
3. Evidence was not presented establishing that a literal enforcement of the provisions of this
ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the appellant.
With regard to the requested elimination of the owner-occupancy requirement for the property:
1. Desirable relief could not be granted either without detriment to the public good or without
• nullifcing or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. All
previous Board decisions regarding this issue had contemplated reversion of the three-family
house to a two-fancily house if it were ever not occupied by the owner. Existence of a three-
family house in the Residential One-Family Zoning District warrants this condition.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including,
but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zonung Board of Appeals voted five (5)
opposed (Curran, Dionne,Tsitsinos, Duffy and Dionne) and none (0) in favor, to grant the
requested amendment to the previously issued Special Permit to eliminate the owner occupancy
requirement for a three-family house. The Board voted one (1) in favor (Dionne) and four (4)
opposed (Curran, Tsitsinos, Duffv and Dionne) to grant the requested Variance and Special Permit
to construct a dird-story addition. Both petitions are denied.
Rebecca Curran, Chau
Salem Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH TL-IE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City
Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special
•
2
i
Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the
City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.
•
e
3
i
• City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet
Board ao ex-f-
Date i / 2b I3
Name Mailing Address Phone # Email
(;t�G�hcrr� fa(1on �S (-G�IU ��iZ� SfG�lo„gi ��sr�a (.coT
U.044 (UtVt6 J
w h, 77j-Sz�r lG9f(
�l kc M ¢ 6 UAL, n sr Lgw��n« M q7g 1Y4 3-1 rn ® mr ,mac ,✓.t7.
Page of
40 ;� CITY OF SALEM
'4 PLANNING BOARD
1013 FEB-1 qA S 55
FILCITY CLERK SALEM.MASS.
City of Salem
Planning Board
Will hold a Reconsideration public hearing pursuant to M.G.L. Ch 40A § 16 at the request of
MICHAEL MCARDLE for the property located at 9-11"'OCEAN TERRACE (R-1). This
Reconsideration request concerns a Variance and Special Permit application denied by the Board
of Appeals on December 26,2012.
The public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third
Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General
Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal
business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, Third Floor, 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. /
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
Planning Board
Salem News Ads: February 21 and 28, 2013
TWO 1A4 000
�l 1tA11lR. Oft t M ZO/3
y4A0-11411
�� +
•
120 w Asttiut,am S'1REhF, SALB1, MASs.nCnt,SEiT3 01970 PuU.Ne'978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 MM,S 1,1 mM Cu_w
_ a CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
Reconsideration
Decision
April 1, 2013
-< o
C") W
Michael McArdle, Esquire m
60 Island Street, Suite 508E —
r i
Lawrence, Mil 01840 a"'
qc
D
Re: Reconsideration Request for 9-11 Ocean Terrace v
� F
v> a-
Dear. Mr. McArdle
On March 21, 2013, at the regularly scheduled Salem Planning Board meeting, the Board under the
provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40A S 16 consented by a vote of 7-0 (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready, Mr.
McCabe, Mr. George, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, and lair. Anderson) in favor and none opposed to the
granting of the Reconsideration request. The Board's consent to the Reconsideration request allows the
applicant to reapply to the Salem Board of Appeals (BOA) before the period of two years has expired
• from the date of the Board of Appeals' denial.
The Planning Board, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after
thorough review of the petition submitted and testimony, makes the following findings for their decision-
1.
ecision:1. The petitioner has proposed Specific and Material Changes to the previously denied Special Permit
modification request.
2. The revised petition retains the "owner-occupied" language in Conditions #1 and #2 of the
Special Permit granted by the BOA on June 16, 2010, which was initially requested to be removed.
3. The Petitioner's revised petition requests the BOA to amend or clarify the applicability- of
Conditions #1 and #2 to a mortgage lender in the instance of a foreclosure.
An Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
If you have any questions or further information, please contact Daniel Sexton in the City of Salem
Department of Planning & Community Development by phone at (978) 619-5685 ex. 5691 or email at
dsexton a salem.com.
Sincerely,
Chuck Puleo, Chairman
Salem Planning Board
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, NIASSActiuserrs 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 F,\x 978.740.0404 WWW SALFACO i
City of Salem Planning Board
• Approved Meeting Minutes
Thursday, March 21, 2013
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board (Planning Board) was held on Thursday, March 21,
2013 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman, Mr. Puleo, opened the meeting at 7.•00 pm.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Development, welcomed Dan Sexton, Staff Planner, to the
Planning Department, described his previous experience and updated the Board on his current
projects. Ms., Duncan also introduced the new Planning Board members, Kiat Rieder and Ben
Anderson. Mr. Rieder introduced himself to the Board and described his current work in Landscape
Architecture. Mr. Anderson introduced himself to the Board and described his current involvement
and work as an Engineer.
Chairman Puleo explained to members of the board and public in attendance that the meeting is
being recorded. The placement of a secondary recording device was also acknowledged by Mr.
Puleo. The second device was placed on the table by a member of the public, Edmar Goncalves, 157
Pleasant Street,Boston.
Mr. Ready noted, for the record, the audio being recorded by City Staff represents the official
recording of the meeting.
I. Roll Call
Those members present included: Chuck Puleo (Chair), Tim Ready, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Ben
• Anderson, Mark George, and George McCabe. Planning Board member Randy Clarke was absent
from the meeting.
Also present: Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
II. Approval of Minutes
Chairman Puleo asked whether any members had any comments or corrections for the draft
meeting minutes from the Thursday,January 17, 2013 regular meeting. Seeing no changes, Mr. Puleo
asked for a motion to approve the Meeting Minutes as written.
Motion: Mr. Ready made a motion to 4rove the minutes as Written, seconded by Mr. George, and a unanimous
vote was taken. All the members voted in favorr, with a 7-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair Mr. Ready. Ms. Sides, Mr.
McCabe, Mr. George. Mr. Anderson. and Mr. &ederf in favor and none oh4osed. Planning Board member Mr.
Clarke was absent from the hearing. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as-bart of these
minutes.
III. Regular Agenda
Request for a Reconsideration public hearing pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A § 16 at the
request of MICHAEL MCARDLE for the property located at 9-11 OCEAN TERRACE (R-
1).
Chairman Puleo asked in the applicant was present to speak on the Reconsideration Request.
Attorney Michael McArdle (60 Island St., Suite 508E, Lawrence, MA), representing the owners of
the property Matthew Banko and his father, described the location of the property and the types of
• uses (multi-family) that are present in the area. He described the multi-permits that had been
previously granted for the property in question. Atty. McArdle stated that Mr. Banko came before
the board in 2010 due to... and he explained the previous decision. In 2012, Mr. Banko engaged the
attorney to transfer the property to condominium. They were set to close with two potential buyers,
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-March 21,2013
Page 2 of 8
but the buyers' banks had concerns about the owner occupied requirements of the Special Permits •
as they relate to an instance of a foreclosure. As such, Arty. McArdle advised Mr. Banko to file a
petition requesting modification of the granted Special Permit, issued in 2010. Specifically, the
modification being requested asked that waiver petition present in the Condition language of the
Special Permit be waived in case of a mortgage foreclosure. The Board of Appeals denied the
request. The application that they have now submitted, which we are asking you to consider as
materially different from the earlier petition, does not ask for the waiver of the three-unit owner-
occupied requirement. It only asks that in the case of a foreclosure the foreclosing entity can market
the unit as an owner-occupied. Which he acknowledged was not clearly explained in initial
application. He is asking the Board to give their blessing of the material change in accordance with
M.G.L. Ch. 40A § 16..
Chairman Puleo, asked if this would automatically happen in the case of foreclosure?Atty. McArdle
stated that they thought that themselves, but based on underwriting guidelines...this appeared not to
be the case.
Mark George explained his understanding of the issue... not enforceable. He's confused as to
whether it was a Special Permit or Variance that was not granted?
Atty. McArdle explained that only Special Permits have been granted for the uses present on the
property. He understands the distinction between a Special Permit and a Variance, but would note it
as a condition.
Mr. George: I don't think you could sell that property... George asked for further clarification on
whether a Special Permit or a Variance runs with the land?
Arty. McArdle: Yes. It's a condition of the Special Permit that runs with the land. •
Chair Puleo stated that it's recorded, and explained the recent changes to the position of Special
Permits and Variances as they have been interpreted by the Land Court. He also explained what the
limits of the Planning Board's abilities were in terms of hearing this reconsideration Request.
Mr. George: It is very interesting to me, because it appear that the condition is almost
unenforceable.
Mr. Anderson: Who is responsible for incorporating the legal language of the Special Permit
decision and how will this actually take effect?
Atty. McArdle: It becomes part of the title. As a buyer, you become subject to that obligation. It's
also going to be incorporated into the Master Deed for the condominiums and will be incorporated
into the covenant.
Mr. Anderson: So that's a condition or stipulation of the property that the mortgage lender will have
to absorb.
Arty. McArdle: He stated that other properties area have also condominiumized their properties,
much like Mr. Banko is trying to do, but didn't have these problems. When Mr. Banko came back to
the board in 2010,his Special Permit became burdened with an owner-occupied condition that other
properties aren't subject to.
Chairman Puleo stated that really the only determination that can be made is whether the petition
request before them represents a substantial enough change, as compared with the 2012 petition, to
consent the Board of Appeals to taking another look before the two year period. Mr. Puleo also •
clarified to the Planning Board members that to allow this request to move forward, a favorable vote
of seven members must be made.
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes -Approved on 05/02/2013
{
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—March 21,2013
Page 3 of 8
• Arty. McArdle stated that he didn't ask for the right relief.
Chairmen Puleo: It appears to be a complete contradiction.
Mr. McCabe asked what happened at the original meeting and why he didn't speak up?
Arty. McArdle stated that they tried to explain they that they weren't trying to do away with the
owner-occupied requirement, but it sort of get shut down.
Mr. George: Why didn't stand up and explain to the Chairman that the request was not about a
waiver?
Arty. McArdle: We did, and I understand why it had been interpreted the way it had.
Chairman Puleo: As I understand the situation, the Board of Appeals probably felt such an action
may open up the doors for future request and didn't want to set a precedence. They were actually
voting on the petition as it had been advertised. Basically, they couldn't act differently because of the
way it was presented.
Arty. McArdle: Yes, I agree.
Mr.Anderson: What is substantially different?
Chairman Puleo: Wording of the applications and legal advertisement goes through the Planning
Office.
Mr. Sexton: Yes, each application is very by the Department of Planning & Community
Development and we work with the applicants to develop the legal advertisements.
• Mr. Ready: As I understand it, this application doesn't change the current dynamics of the
neighborhood. This would be no different than what currently exists at this moment.
Chairman Puleo: Yes, he's just asking for the opportunity to go back before the Board of Appeals to
have his case reheard.
Arty. McArdle: I believe it would further add to the community, because there would be two more
owner-occupied units in the neighborhood as opposed to just one.
Mr. Rieder: May I ask how many parking spaces there are?What are the parking requirements in the
R-1 zoning district?
Atty. McArdle:There is parking for four vehicles.
Mr. George said that 1.5 spaces are required per units so the property must have 5 spaces for 3
condos.An examination of that issue is beyond our scope.
Mr. Sexton: Correct.
Mr. George asked for further explanation from the Chair as to what issue we are considering here.
Chairman Puleo: We have to make a determination that there is a special or material change in the
petitioner's application to allow the item to be reheard by the Board of Appeals within two years of
the initial decision rendered by the Board of Appeals. Right now with a denial he would have to wait
until two years to go back to the ZBA. But if we agree, tonight that they have changed their
application enough can go back anytime they want. In my tenure, we have rarely heard petitions of
this nature. Mr. Puleo read some language from the statute regarding the procedure to hear this
• request. Tim made a good point.
Mr. Ready: I am of the opinion that this revised petition does represent substantial change.
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes —Approved on 05/02/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-March 21,2013
Page 4 of S
Chairman Puleo: If they ruled that he was requesting the removal of the owner-occupied condition, •
and now he is requesting to retain that condition than I would have to agree with you.
Mr. McCabe: He appears to be saying the same thing, just with different words. I don't see a big
difference, clearly not substantial.
Chairman Puleo: Yes, he runs the risk of getting a second denial. At that point he would have to
take up the matter in Land Court or wait two-years to reapply.
Arty. McArdle: I see this as a one-time effort.
Ms. Sides: I'm still a little in the dark, so explain to me how these two petitions are substantially
different.
Atty. McArdle: The ZBA advertised a petitioners request was for a waiver of the three-unit owner-
occupancy requirement...and that is how the board viewed it. He was surprised by how they
interpreted it, but it was a fair understanding as to the way it was presented. He tried to save it once
I saw the direction it was going in. It did appear that in the case of a bank coming in it would end;
he has a purchaser still interested. It is not the bank's goal to have this waived. If they go back to the
ZBA then they will understand that it is substantially different than what was originally presented.
Mr. George: I'm still confused by difference. What is the material difference in the applications
before us?
Mr. Anderson: He's not removing the owner-occupied requirement, originally requested in the initial
application to the BOA. If I understand you correctly, you are retaining that language, and merely
requesting clarification of the condition as it applies to instances of foreclosure. You need to make
sure the Board of Appeals understands that the waiver or elimination of the conditions is not being •
requested.
Arty. McArdle: We are not seeking a waiver in terms of a bank foreclosure for the owner-occupied
condition requirement. We want clarification for the Board of Appeals that indicates a bank is
obligated to adhere to the terms of the condition, and sell the property, if foreclosed, to an owner-
occupied buyer.
Mr. George: So if the bank is required to sell to an owner-occupied buyer, as previously permitted,
there is no material change.
Chairman Puleo: It was originally permitted to be owner-occupied. The Board of Appeals wasn't
about to remove the Special Permit's condition because it had been retained during previous
modification and Special Permit request for the property. Why didn't you asked to withdraw?
Atty. McArdle: It didn't come down that way.
Ms. Sides: Technically, we are comparing interpretation to document, not document to document.
Chairman Puleo: My feeling is that if they are willing to go through these steps to have the petition
reheard, then the Board of Appeals would reconsider it. I'm comfortable with the way the facts have
been presented. You'll be facing the same board members...you'll still need 3 out of 5 votes.
Arty. McArdle: Like one of you said, nothing about what we are asking is changing the character of
the neighborhood. If anything, the restriction of an owner-occupied unit is a more restrictive
requirement than other surrounding properties.
Chairman Puleo: How long were they condoized? •
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes—Approved on 05/02/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—March 21,2013
Page 5 of 8
• Atty. McArdle: All the condoized units in the area were developed around the 1980s. Around 2002
two others moved onto condos, but a condition of owner-occupancy was not required of them.
Think, from an equity perspective,giving Mr. Banko another opportunity to be reheard.
Mr. Rieder: I still have a question about parking, but as I understand it that is an issue for the Board
of Appeals to consider. Is that correct?
Arty. McArdle: The issues of parking were resolved under the prior permitting actions.
Chairman Puleo: Are those parking restrictions identified in the deeds for each unit?
Mr. Ready: Although parking is very important. That is not the issue before us. I think you've clearly
admitted there was an error on your part and we can get hung up on other issues. Regardless, the
question is whether we can find a substantial change to allow the petition to be sent back to the
Board of Appeals to take another look. He admires his desire to have them look at it again. It's easy
to get distracted on other issues
Chairman Puleo: In the other hearings did they parking is an issue?
Arty. McArdle: Someone raised the question, but it didn't materialize as an issue of substance. We
showed them a parking plan and explained it to the board members.
Chairman Puleo: So there were no issues or concerns raised by the neighbors.
Arty. McArdle: No one spoke against it.
Chairman Puleo asked if there were members of the public present that wisbed to comment.
Cathy Essler (44 Lothrop St, Beverly, MA): All we need is clarification so the title insurance
• company can issue the necessary insurance to buyers that are willing to buy the property. Her
understanding is that this is simply a matter of clarification. The owner-occupancy requirement
enhances the neighborhood overall. They are vey marketable they have people two wanting to buy
them and this is the only thing holding things up.
Chairman Puleo: Are there any other comments? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public
hearing?
Motion: Ms. Sides motioned to close the public hearing. seconded by Mr. Ready, and a unanimous vote was taken.
All the members voted in favor, witb a 7-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair,, Mr. Ready Ms Sides. Mr. McCabe. Mr.
George,Mr.Anderson. and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed Planning Board member Mr. Clarke was absent
from the bearing. The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo: Is there further questions or discussion? Is there a motion?
Mr. McCabe: This still seems like semantics not substantial change.
Mr. George said he sees no changes,what's different?
Chairman Puleo: it appears the Board of Appeals heard the request as it was submitted and
advertised. The only thing he could see.
Mr. George: But that's beyond our scope.
Mr. Ready: Not necessarily.
Chairman Puleo: It depends on how you look at it. If they are just asking for clarification and not
• the removal of a condition,is that substantial?
Mr. George: But isn't that beyond our scope, nothing appears to be materially different.
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes—Approved on 05/02/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-March 21,2013
Page 6 of S
Mr. Ready: We aren't being asked to render a decision on the petition. We are being asked to •
determine whether the petition has changes from the initial submittal and should be sent back to the
Board of Appeals for another shot.
Mr. George: I'm just talking about change.
Mr. Ready: He's come to us with a new petition and we have the authority to send it back to the
Board of Appeals. That is within our scope.
Ms. Sides: Why didn't you appeal the decision of the Board of Appeals? She thinks everyone is right.
She asked Mr. Sexton to clarify.
Mr. Sexton: Based upon conversations with the City Solicitor, the applicant failed to file an appeal
within the necessary timeframe. If they wish to reapply within the two year window, they are
required to follow the reconsideration process.
Mr. Anderson: Did you ask for the relief from the owner-occupancy requirement in the previous
petition?
Atty. McArdle: Yes, as it applied to a foreclosure.
Mr. Anderson: So you are not asking for that relief this time, correct?
Arty. McArdle: Correct.
Mr. Anderson: So they asked for the relief in the denied petition, and are not asking for that now.
They want the owner occupancy,which is the difference.
Mr. Sexton: So you requested, in the original petition, the elimination of the owner-occupy •
requirement.
Arty. McArdle: Yes, as it pertained to a foreclosure.
Mr. Sexton: In the new petition, are you requesting clarification of the owner-occupancy
requirement?
Atty. McArdle: We are asking the owner occupancy requirement remain even in foreclosure, so the
foreclosure entity is subject to the owner-occupancy requirement as well. Is only allowed to market
the unit to an owner that intends to occupy. This was not made clear in the previous ruling on the
ZBA.
Mt. Rieder: How can a bank required to do that? A bank can't occupy the premises. Can you show
us what is different between the different applications?
Atty. McArdle: The material change is that the foreclosing bank would not be subject to that
restriction. He has now clarified it.
Mr. McCabe: Where?
Mr. Rieder: Where is the operative sentence or content in both applications so we can see it? So we
can consider it. It sounds verbal rather than written.
Mr. McCabe: I can't see the changes...
Atty. McArdle read from the second page of the new petition, which is different from the prior
application. Waiver of the requirement... obviously is that it didn't speak clearly... clarification only
came to him after the initial petition was denied and came from the title insurers. The Title •
Insurance Company indicated they just need to know that the condition doesn't automatically go
into effect if a foreclosure occurs.
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes -Approved on 05/02/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes-March 21,2013
Page 7 of 8
Chairman Puleo read the legal advertisement.
Mr. McCabe asked what they are asking now
Arty. McArdle said they ate asking to maintain it with that limited exception period.
Mr. McCabe: Can the Board of Appeals add language like that?
Mr. Sexton: They could modify the condition language to reflect the request clarification.
Mr. Ready: But we can't assume what they will decide. We would make a mistake to assuming what
they would do.
Chairman Puleo stating that they will have to act upon the request as it is advertised.
Mr. Rieder: To what degree is it a material change when part of the problem is the way it was
worded from the City?
Chairman Puleo: It wasn't the City,it was the way in which wrote the application out.
Ms. Sides: His misunderstanding.
Mr. Ready: We're talking about eliminate or maintain. I think that is substantial.
Mr. McCabe: I think I understand it now. They ate asking the board to do something different than
what they originally adjudicated on.
Chairman Puleo: If it's substantive enough send it back to them.
Mr. Ready: As we decide on this issue, we are entitled to consider the oral argument before us as
• well as the documents in making this decision.
Chairman Puleo: So you are making a motion that the applicant has provided enough information
for us to determine a material change has been made to send it back to the Board of Appeals.
Motion: Mr. Ready made a motion to approve the Reconsideration request, seconded by Mr. George and a roll call
vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, witb a 7-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair). Mr. Ready Ms. Sides, Mr.
McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson. and Mr. Rieder in favor and none opposed. Planning Board member Mr.
Clarke was absent from the hearing. The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these
minutes.
IV. Old/New Business
Schedule July 4' meeting
Chairman Puleo: So July 4t6 falls on the Thursday? Usually we try to move the meeting in July,
meetings on back-to-back weeks.
Mr. Sexton: We prefer to have a date set because of the large project applications (i.e. Power Plant)
that are likely to be submitted soon. When would the Planning Board like to hold the first PB
meeting in July?
Mr. McCabe would prefer 18 &25.
Puleo: Could we ask that the Administration appoint a new member to the Planning Board to fill the
vacant position?
Mr. Sexton: Yes. The power plant application has not been submitted yet, but they may be
submitting in April.
All members of the Planning Board agreed to schedule the regular meetings for July /8°i &25ib.
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes -Approved on 05/02/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes—March 21,2013
Page 8 of 8
Traders Way Striping—Home Depot •
Chairman Puleo asked for a follow-up on a striping on Traders Way.
Mr. Sexton Has reviewed the decision and determined that stripping was required for the
development. However, after the development of the project was completed it became the
responsibility of the City because the right-of-way is owned by the City. He's working with the City's
Engineering Department to coordinate the restriping of the roadway.
Salem Fire
Chairman Puleo mentioned that he had visited Manchester, MA recently and visited the old
firehouse by the Police Station, and they watched a meeting and saw the fire engine that was
involved in the Salem Fire.
Ms. Sides: Merrit Miller was in charge of making all of that happen.
Chairman Puleo: Maybe they would like to bring it down for the hundred year anniversary.
Election of Officers
Chairman Puleo asked if there were any nominees for the Chau and Vice Chair positions.
Motion:Mr. Ready made a motion that Mr. Puleo remain as Chain seconded by Ms. Sides and a unanimous vote
Was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 7-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair). Mr. Ready Ms Sides Mr.
McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson. and Mr. Rieder in favor and none apposed. Planning Board member Mr.
Clarke was absent from the heating The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorborated as-Part of these
minutes.
Motion:Mr. Puleo made a motion that Mr. Ready be elected Vice-Chair, seconded by Ms. Sides and a unanimous •
vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 7-0 vote (Mr. Pmeo (Chaim Mr. Ready Ms Sides. Mr.
McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson. and Mr. Rieder in favor and none opposed, Planning Board member Mr.
Clarke was absent from the hearing The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incor2orated as-Part of these
minutes.
V. Adjournment
Chairmen Puleo asked if there was a motion to adjourn the meeting?
Motion: Ms. Sides made a motion to adiourn the March 21" regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board,
seconded by Mr. George, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor with a 7-0 vote (Nlr
Puleo aChair), Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder in favor and
none opposed Planning Board member Mr. Clarke was absent from the heating The motion was accepted The
decision to addourn is hereby ineosporated as part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:16 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes—Approved on 05/02/2013
R CITY OF SALEM
i► ' `` PLANNING BOARD .
I013 FEB 28 P 2* 3b
FILE #
CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS,
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, March 7th, 2013. at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington
Street, has been canceled.
The public hearing for the Reconsideration request of the property located at 9-11 Ocean Terrace
has been rescheduled to the regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, March 2151, 2013 at 7 p.m.
at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street.
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
Salem Planning Board
3 P Feb OA-0/,j
Kno)v our rights under Me Open A4eeting Lam A4.G.L c. 30_4 7S-25 and Ordinance 5 2-2025 throngli 5 2-2033.
120 Wv si imiiot% STREET, SALEM, MASSACIiUSerrS 01970 • Pi oN�e 973.619.5685 F,vS 978.710.0404 a�cws;v eni.co�i
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD 111 FEB 19 A 8:
CITY CLERK!ALEM.MASS.
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly
scheduled meeting on Thursday, February 21,2013 at 7:00 p.m. at City
Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, has been canceled due to a
lack of agenda items.
C,LAO�`i3
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
Salem Planning Board
•
■
CRY j s Sew, vote. a 757/1 13
AA
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 - WWW,SAI,F.M.COM
�y�c0
�� CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
� 1013 FEB -
FILE it
CITY CLER{. ;, L.E;j, MHJS
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
rbursday, February 7, 2013 at 7:00 I nr. at City Hall Anne, Room 313, 120
Washington Strect, has been CtMCCled due to a lack of agenda items.
��.
C/uu'h.c ;I/ /'alto. Chub'
�C) 3
�oi'. "our Rights Under the Open Meeting Low M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 u. Sro-o-:r_r Sri-esi, �t�::;:�t-�iu�e.rrs 01970 . Tt:i.: 978.7-+5.9195 h,�.�: 978.7.10.0
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1013 JAN 10 P S 31
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,January 17,2013 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem, MA
C�r�I/L.YLd �G��
Charles M. Puleo, Chair j
MEETING AGENDA
1. Approval of Meeting Minutes
➢ December 20, 2012 Meeting Minutes
i January 3, 2013 Meeting Minutes
2. Request for Insignificant Change: Request of STUTZ PLAISTED to eliminate the approved landscape
• barrels alongside the building at STUTZ VOLVO, 309 HIGHLAND AVENUE.
3. Request of STUTZ PLAISTED for release of surety in the amount of$20,000 for STUTZ VOLVO,309
HIGHLAND AVENUE.
4. Request of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC.for endorsement of approved Definitive Subdivision Plans
and approval of Covenant for five single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE
STREET.
S. Form A: Request of GLOVER ESTATES, I.I.C.for endorsement of a plan believed not to require
approval to allow the property located at 485 LAFAYETTE STREET(Salem Assessor's Map 31, Lot 237
and Marblehead Assessor's Map 55 Lots 1 &3)to be subdivided into four lots,two entirely within the
Town of Marblehead (Lots 2 &4) and two entirely within the City of Salem (Lots 1 and 3)with frontage
on Lafayette Street.
M1 a
6. Old/New Business ea
`. 1 1 ,- MM. Od io, Zoi 3
... ..'.
7. Adjournment4 it Mal.
s= �
Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§238 and City Ordinance§2-2028 through§2-2033.
•
t
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 61970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM
F
r1
` v�CONDIT,%y�Q'
,,, s�\ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
• ; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
NgCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KIMRERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
120 WASHINGTON STREET♦SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
LYNN GOOMN DUNCAN,AICP TELE:978-619-5685♦FAX:978-740-0404
DIRECTOR
Memo
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Frank Taormina,Planner/Harbor Coordinator `•
CC: Lynn Duncan, Director DPCD
DATE: January 10,2013
RE: Agenda—January 17,2013 Planning Board Meeting
• ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ 1/17/13 Meeting Agenda
➢ 12/20/12 Draft Minutes and 1/3/13 Draft Minutes
Request for Insignificant Change: Request of STUTZ PLANTED to eliminate the approved
landscape barrels alongside the building at STUTZ VOLVO, 309 HIGHLAND AVENUE.
We have requested an opinion from the City Solicitor in response to the Planning Board's question
regarding the private way.
Request of STUTZ PLAISTED for release of surety in the amount of$20,000 for STUTZ
VOLVO,309 HIGHLAND AVENUE.
We have not received confirmation from Attorney Keihy whether or not the outstanding items have
been completed (paint chain link fence black and remove barded wire from fence). May need to
continue item.
. Request of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for endorsement of approved Definitive
Subdivision Plans and approval of Covenant for five single-family house lots on the property
located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET.
f;
• Patrick DeIulis is representing Pasquanna Developers, Inc and, following the 20-day appeal period, is
requesting that the approved plans be endorsed and covenant approved. Attached please find Mr.
DeIuhs's request and a copy of the covenant. The Director has reviewed/approved the covenant and
Mr. DeIulis has satisfied all the conditions needed to endorse the plans.
Form A: Request of GLOVER ESTATES, LLC. for endorsement of a plan believed not to
require approval to allow the property located at 485 LAFAYETTE STREET (Salem
Assessor's Map 31, Lot 237 and Marblehead Assessor's Map 55 Lots 1 & 3) to be subdivided
into four lots, two entirely within the Town of Marblehead (Lots 2 & 4) and two entirely
within the City of Salem (Lots 1 and 3) with frontage on Lafayette Street.
Paul Donohoe, Registered Land Surveyor, is representing Glover Estates. Attached please find a Form A
Application and Plan. A subdivision roadway for 485 Lafayette Street, formerly the Chadwick Lead Mills
Property, was previously approved by the Planning Board. The site, which extends into the intertidal flats,
has been fully remediated,pursuant to State's MCP regulations, however it will not be redeveloped. Instead
the Town of Marblehead and the City of Salem have partnered to purchase the property as passive
conservation land in perpetuity, utilizing a State PARC Grant coupled with private donations and Town of
Marblehead funding.
This is an unusual situation as the parcel is legally considered one parcel,crossing town lines and including a
small waterfront portion even though the waterfront parcel is not contiguous. In order to facilitate the
• purchase and transfer of title to each municipality the land must be subdivided so that parcels are entirely
within city/town limits. I have highlighted the subdivided lots in Salem for your reference.
The Town of Marblehead reviewed, approved, and signed the mylar on Tuesday,January 8, 2013 and it has
since been dropped off at the City of Salem for endorsement by the Salem Planning Board.
•
P
CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
'oafNc ?j P
FILE It
CITY CLERK. SALEM,
CORRECTED NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled mee
Thursday,January 3, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex Room 313, 120 Washington Si
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
A proval of Minutes
12/20/12 meeting minutes
2. ' quest of Stutz Plaisted for release of surety in the amount of$20,000 far STL TZ VQLVO,
AVE.A
S
• Old/New Business
4. Adjournment
Know Your Rights Under the Oper, meeting Law M.G.L. c, 39 5236 and City Ordinance Sucoons 2-2028 tl;
?dP ,� !+a ';
l�c
Cy��Lo �Qr�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
n .
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
�s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�Mmsoo.-,
MMBERLEY 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 27, 2012
RE: Agenda —January 3, 2013 Planning Board meeting
Please find the following in your packet:
➢ Planner's Memo
➢ Agenda
• ➢ Draft Minutes of 12/20/12
Request of Stutz Plaisted for release of surety in the amount of$20,000 for STUTZ VOLVO,309
HIGHLAND AVE.
Jack Keilty is representing Stutz Plaisted. I am enclosing his request letter for release of the surety.
I am also enclosing copies of the last two decisions from the Planning Board. There are three
outstanding items:
➢ The chain link fence was to be painted black (this is not done)
➢ The barbed wire removed from fence (this was done on side of site facing Greenledge, but
not the other, and the fence is down in places on this other side)
Landscaping barrels were to be installed along side of building (this is not done)
•
i
l •
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES 1/3/13
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chairman Chuck Puleo, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, George McCabe, and Helen Sides.
Also present were: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Those absent were: Mark George.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:03 pm.
Approval of Minutes
December 20, 2012 Draft Meeting Minutes
Postponed to the next meeting.
Request of STUTZ PLAISTED for release of surety in the amount of$20,000 for STUTZ VOLVO,
309 HIGHLAND AVE.
Attorney John Keilty, 40 Lowell Street, Peabody, MA appeared on behalf of Stutz Volvo. He explained
that a man named Joseph Shaker will do business in the same location as a Mazda Car Dealership and
• the license has transferred to him. He is before the Board tonight to ask for a release of a surety of
$20,000. He reviewed the three outstanding issues relative to painting a fence black, removing barb
wire from the top of a fence, and installing landscape barrels in front of the building. He further
explained that the barbed wire is not down completely as there is still some barbed wire on the rolling
gates; however, his client has agreed to remove all of the barbed wire from the site. He stated that they
have been in Land Court due to Green Ledge Street (12 foot wide private right-of-way),which has been
an ongoing issue since 2005, and described its location. They are trying to chip away at the issues
presented in Land Court, which included a recent judgment that stated that they could not encroach or
obstruct access to Green Ledge Street. He stated that they had to remove the stairway between the
showrooms and feels that the landscaping barrels will be located in the right-of-way and will likely
violate the judgment, as the barrels, once installed, will encroach into the private way and partially
obstruct access.
Chairman Puleo noted that there are several new members that were not part of the initial review and
approval process, so he took the liberty of giving them a brief overview of the situation. Attorney Keilty
stated that there were issues with the neighbors in relation to the landscaped islands after the approval.
He stated that Walter Power, previous Chairman, asked them to install a wrought iron fence and they
appealed that and won and eventually reached an agreement about installing jersey barriers with
fencing on top. At the time the City Solicitor stated that it was a non-jurisdictional matter as Green
Ledge Street is a private way, not public. Chairman Puleo continued describing the original decision
which included plantings to address aesthetics on the side of the building. Chairman Puleo stated that
the applicant never finished any of the three outstanding issues.
• Helen Sides asked if the chain link fence is still in good shape, to which Chairman Puleo said yes, but it
was not painted black, as he went to the site recently to check on the outstanding items. The Chairman
• stated that he thinks that the landscaping barrels on that side of the building were a good compromise.
Attorney Keilty said that his client was willing to install the landscaping barrels; however, in light of the
recent Land Court judgment he would anticipate that if they tried to put out barrels that it would be
challenged by the neighbors who own the private way.
Helen Sides asked if she could look at the approved plan so that she could better understand the
situation. Frank Taormina pulled the approved plans,dated October 2000,for the Board.
Randy Clarke asked for clarification on the timeline of releasing the money, stating that once the
conditions are satisfied then the Board should release the surety. Chairman Puleo explained the process
to the Board.
Helen Sides asked for further clarification of the proposed landscaping on the plan, to which Attorney
Keilty and Chairman Puleo described the area in question. Helen Sides said that it feels like the
landscaping barrels would be adding something that shouldn't be added to a small area.
Tim Ready stated that his concerns are that the applicant has made a request to the Planning Board and
six years have gone by,yet nothing was completed. He recommended that the applicant return once all
the outstanding conditions are met, before the surety is released.
Attorney Keilty stated that he kept the appointment tonight to request that the required landscaping
barrels be reconsidered, for reasons previously stated.
• Helen Sides recommended that before the Board considers waiving the landscaping barrels, and since
the meeting is going to continue, then she would like to see pictures or perhaps visit the site to get a
better understanding of the area in question.
Chairman Puleo recommended that they request that the City Solicitor review the issues with respect to
the private right of way and whether the Board can place conditions relating to a private way. Frank
Taormina asked Mr. Puleo to clarify exactly what he should ask the City Solicitor on behalf of the Board.
The Chairman said that they would like to confirm that Green Ledge Street is a private way, and, if that is
the case, whether the Board can require a condition for the applicant to install planters on the private
way, along the side of the building, even though they would encroach into the private way. Frank
Taormina told the Board that he will obtain that answer from the City Solicitor and report back at the
next meeting.
Helen Sides asked what parcels are being sold or leased, to which Attorney Keilty described the location
of the leased property on the plan. Helen Sides asked about traffic on the site and Chairman Puleo
outlined the flow of traffic in and out of the site utilizing Green Ledge Street and noted that all of the
service takes place in the rear of the building. He also noted the locations of the adjacent properties .
that own the private way. Attorney Keilty also gave a brief history of the location and how previous
businesses used to access the property.
George McCabe asked who owned the properties, to which Attorney Keilty described the ownership.
• Chairman Puleo asked for a motion to continue the matter to the next meeting, Randy Clarke made the
motion to continue to January 17, 2013 seconded by Helen Sides and unanimously approved.
v ..
Old/New Business
Frank Taormina stated that one Chapter 91 Application for 150 Rear Federal Street was received and
one Chapter 91 License for 28 Goodhue Street was issued by MassDEP. The application and the new
license were passed around and no questions were asked.
Chairman Puleo asked if there were any further old/new business, there being none he asked
for a motion to adjourn.
Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by George McCabe, unanimously
approved. Meeting adjourned at 7:33 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
•
•
a
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES 1/17/13
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,January 17, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in
Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides and Mark George.
Also present were: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Absent: George McCabe.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Approval of Minutes
December 20, 2012 Draft Meeting Minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke made a motion
to approve the minutes, seconded by Mark George. Approved 4-0. Helen Sides abstained.
January 3, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides made a motion
to approve the minutes, seconded by Randy Clarke. Approved 4-0. Mark George abstained.
• Request for Insignificant Change: Request of STUTZ PLAISTED to eliminate the approved
landscape barrels alongside the building at STUTZ VOLVO, 309 HIGHLAND AVENUE. Continued
until a later date.
Chairman Puleo read into the record a letter from Attorney John Keilty submitted on behalf of his client
Stutz Plaisted requesting that he return to the Planning Board at a later date, as he was not prepared to
discuss the item at this time.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to a later date, seconded by Mark George. All approved 5-0.
Request of Stutz Plaisted for release of surety in the amount of$20,000 for STUTZ VOLVO,
309 HIGHLAND AVE. Continued until a later date.
Chairman Puleo read into the record a letter from Attorney John Keilty submitted on behalf of his client
Stutz Plaisted requesting that he return to the Planning Board at an unspecified later date, once the
outstanding conditions have been completed.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to a later date, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 5-0.
Request of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for endorsement of approved Definitive
Subdivision Plans and approval of Covenant for five single-family house lots on the property
located at 18 THORNDIKE STREET.
• Patrick Delulis, representing Pasquanna Developers, Inc submitted the approved covenant and mylar of
Approved March 21, 2013 1
• the approved plan for endorsement. He explained that the mylar has less detail on it than the approved
plan, pursuant to Registry of Deeds requirements. Essentially all the colored landscaping details,
contours, and elevations have been removed leaving just the five lot subdivision property lines(meets
and bounds), easements, right-of-ways, etc. He noted that the covenant is a standard boilerplate which
was provided to him by the Director of Planning and Community Development Lynn Duncan, with the
only change being the simplified mylar plan is being recorded with the covenant.
Frank Taormina said that the 20-day appeal period has passed and no appeals were filed with the City
Clerk. He also stated that the Decision required that three items be completed prior to endorsement of
plans: a covenant, proof of easements, and a note on the mylar that Decision shall be recorded with the
plans at the registry of deeds. He informed the Board that Mr. Delulis has completed each requirement
and the plans can be endorsed.
The Planning Board reviewed the material and then signed the mylar for endorsement.
Form A: Request of GLOVER ESTATES, I.I.C. for endorsement of a plan believed not to require
approval to allow the property located at 485 LAFAYETTE STREET(Salem Assessor's Map 31,
Lot 237 and Marblehead Assessor's Map 55 Lots 1 &3)to be subdivided into four lots,two
entirely within the Town of Marblehead (Lots 2 & 4) and two entirely within the City of Salem
(Lots 1 and 3)with frontage on Lafayette Street.
Paul Donohoe, of Donohoe and Parkhurst, Inc. representing their client Glover Estates, LLC stated that
• the parcel at 485 Lafayette Street is considered one lot by the Land Court, even though the parcel
crosses city/town boundaries and is not contiguous. He explained that the City of Salem and the Town of
Marblehead will be purchasing the property with the help of a State grant and the Essex County Green
Belt to protect the property as passive conservation land in perpetuity. However, in order to execute
the sale and transfer title Glover Estates is required to subdivide the lot so that the land is split and
entirely within the City of Salem (lots 1 and 3) and entirely within the Town of Marblehead (lots 2 and 4).
Chairman Puleo asked for further clarification on the lot line for#3 and noted that both Marblehead and
Salem have waterfront property. Paul Donohoe explained that the lot is not contiguous and actually
split by the former railroad right-of-way, now used as a bike path/recreational trail owned by the Town
of Marblehead.
Mark George asked if this is zoned R-1,to which Paul Donohoe said yes. Mark George then asked how
they are meeting the requirement under a Form A when the lots do not have adequate frontage. Paul
Donohoe replied the plans stated that all the lots are not buildable lots, and will be protected in
perpetuity as conservation land. Discussion ensued.
Frank Taormina noted that Glover Estates has already gone before the Town of Marblehead's Planning
Board and they have already signed and approved the Form A mylar plan.
Helen Sides made a motion to approve the Form A, seconded by Mark George. All approved 5-0.
Old/New Business
• Chairman Puleo asked if there were any Old/New Business to discuss tonight.
Approved March 21, 2013 2
• Mark George asked to acknowledge the new City Councilor-at-Large, Bill Legault. Councilor Legault
introduced himself to the Board and stated that he was not in attendance in support or against any
items tonight, but rather to acclimate himself with all the City boards and commissions.
Frank Taormina informed the Board that the Planning Board received a letter from Massachusetts
Historical Commission stating that North Street Fire Station (142 North Street) is eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places.
Frank Taormina shared with the Board two Planning Board appointment recommendation letters from
Mayor Driscoll. The Planning Board reviewed the letter and several of the Board Members noted that
both new members are excellent choices. Tim Ready stated that there was an article in the Salem News
regarding the two Planning Board appointments and that he took offense to the City Council's
comments that the Planning Board is not acting in keeping with the Board's mission. He insisted that
the Board is made up of volunteers dedicating their time to reviewing development projects and looking
out for the City's best interest. He also stated that he was embarrassed by the actions of the City
Council putting the two potential members through an endurance test, when they are more than
qualified to serve on the Board.
Tim Ready asked Councilor Legault if the two new members were appointed or not. Councilor Legault
explained that the appointments were voted out of Committee and need to go back to full Council for
vote. Councilor Legault stated that he anticipates that both of the new members will be appointed, but
he cannot be certain until the vote.
Chairman Puleo stated that there are actually three vacancies on the Planning Board and even if the two
• appointments are confirmed by Council, they would still be one member short.
Chairman Puleo stated that when they ground and repaved Trader's Way, it was his understanding that
Home Depot was supposed to maintain the road and the pavement striping. He noted that once the
roadway was repaved it only had a single yellow centerline and was missing some of the other
pavement striping. He asked if Frank Taormina could pull the Decision and Approved Site Plan for Home
Depot and determine whether or not there is a pavement striping plan and whether they are required to
maintain the striping in addition to the roadway. He believes that Home Depot was supposed to
maintain a double yellow centerline and is concerned that there is quite a bit of striping that got left out.
Frank Taormina stated that he will pull the file and look into that and report back at the next meeting.
Frank Taormina noted that the next meeting is February 7, 2013 which is three weeks away and he sent
the 2013 meeting schedule out.
Chairman Puleo asked if there was any further Old/New Business to discuss tonight; there being
none he asked for a motion to adjourn.
Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 5-0.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:40 pm.
• Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved March 21, 2013 3
CITY OF SALEM
3
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Cancellation Notice
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, November 7 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313,
120 Washington Street, has been canceled.
Comment/input for the Community Preservation Act Plan will be re-scheduled to the next
regular meeting on Thursday, November 21.
Charles M Puleo, Chair
Salem Planning Board
•
Cl)
-+ o_
- w
C-) Z
r o
m 6
:U
r V
m
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" N co
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on /�V. (, A;fe
at /.'sg Pm in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Knowourrights under the Open Meeting Lw M.G.L c. 30A ff 18-25 and City Ordinance ff 2-2028 through 2-2033.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 *PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 •WWW.SALEM.COM
i
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regtrkuly scheduled meeting on
Thursday, November 7, 2013 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annwe,Xoom 313,120 Washington St., Salem, MA
OSW& m• PUS-/r,�R,
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA �.
CJ W
r c
I. ROLL CALL
nF W
3>m
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
e October 17,2013 Meeting Minutes
• 3
III. REGULAR AGENDA s J
No regtdar agenda items
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Cotrnnurmy Preservation Act Plan- Conunent/Input
V. ADJOURNMENT
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ,G) v9j, �Qe/-p
at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A,
Sections 18-25.
Kreoiv your r ighis�mderthe Open Meetiuy Lnw, Massachusetts General/,aw Chapter 30A.ti'ectionl8-2,5
Wirt Cily Ordinance Section 2-2026 through Section 2-2033.
•
SALEM
� A
t rJ 7 N T
s B ARID
�
2013 NOV 15 A ll: 53
C !! Nr,
LEK Mass.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are herehv notr ied that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting
cnr
Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 7.001wm at City Hall Annex, Rooar 313,
120 Washington St., Salem, MA
Charles All. Puleo, Chair
REVISED MEETING AGENDA
This notice posted on "Official BulletinRoard"
I. ROLL CALL City Hall, Salem, Mass.• on �/Jrr O/3at Sections 1ti 25 accordant with MGL Chap. 30A
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• October 17,2013 Meeting Minutes
III. REGULARAGENDA
Project: Site Plan Review for the conversion of the existing building to six(6) residential
touts and associated parking and landscaping.
Applicant: RENEWAL VENTURES LLC
Location: 3 WEBSTER ST (Map 36,Lot 0466)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Request of PAUL DIBIASE, IRUSTEE OF OSBORNE HILLS REALTY TRUST, for a
vote toapprove the tri-pang agreement as surety for Phase IIB,and a vote to release lots 3, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 32, 33, 34, 35,and 36 in PHASE IIB of the DEFINITIVE
SUBDIVISION PLAN OSBORNE HILLS, 57 MARLBOROUGH RD
ConununityPreservation Act Plan- Comment/Input
V. ADJOURNMENT
IGrotew}arrr rights aaxler tl e Op olaivag Lawill.G.L. (. 3111 g 18-25 mxl City Ordmmsz 2-2028 tlmxrgh g 2-2033.
l Ulu CITY OF SALEM
PLANNING BOARD
1613 Nov 14 All: 44
FILE It
CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS.
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting
on
Thursday,November 21, 2013 at 7r00pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313,
120 Washington St., Salem, AM
Charles M. Puleo, Chair
MEETING AGENDA
• I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• October 17,2013 Meeting Minutes
III. REGULAR AGENDA
Project: Site Plan Review for the conversion of the existing building to sig(6) residential
units and associated parking and landscaping.
Applicant RENEWAL VENTURES LLC
Location: 3 WEBSTER ST (Map 36,Lot 0466)
IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
➢ Community Preservation Act Plan—Comment/Input
V. ADJOURNMENT
Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L a 30A§ 18-25 and City Ordinance J 2-2028 through J 2-2033, 1
This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board"
City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Al", 14, 2-013
• at // :44N l in accordance with MGL Chap. 30At
Sections 18-25.
120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONF 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 • WWW.SALEM.COM
• SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 10/17/13
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 17, 2013 at
7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Tim Ready,Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Dale Yale, Ben Anderson,
Randy Clarke, and Mark George. Absent: George McCabe and Kirt Rieder.
Also present: Dana Menon,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
July 25, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
Chairman Puleo asked about the litigation in regards to the power plant approval. Dana Menon, Staff
Planner,explained the litigation process and where the suit is in process. She then stated that the
appeals process will likely not proceed while Footprint Power's application to the EFSB is being
considered.
Chairman Puleo pointed out a correction on page 5 regarding Scott Silverstein's clarification that use of
ammonia is the industry standard, and he was not aware anyone who was using urea instead. Tim
• Ready noted that in a previous meeting, Mr. Silverstein stated that ammonia was the industry standard.
Chairman Puleo also noted that there was a typo on Mr. Brooks'final comment on page 6.
No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the minutes seconded by Helen Sides. The
vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor(Mr. Puleo Mr. Ready Ms Sides, Ms. Vale, Mr. George, Mr.
Anderson and Mr. Clarke)and none(0)opposed The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part
of these minutes.
Project: Endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision
Control(ANR)
Applicant: CITY OF SALEM
Location: RILEY PLAZA EAST AT WASHINGTON AND DODGE STREETS—WASHINGTON STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY
Ms. Menon reviewed her memo,explained that the parcel in question was part of the Washington
Street right of way. She further explained that the State used to own the traffic circle on Washington
Street. The State gave a portion of the right of way to the City. She described her handouts which
included two views of the parcel map, showing the areas that were part of the right of way,which are
now used as City-operated parking lots. Previously,the city put out an RFP for development of parcels
• at Washington and Dodge Streets,which RCG won and RCG has since submitted preliminary plans. She
said that RCG is currently in front of the Design Review Board to work those plans out. The parcel being
1
c
proposed in the ANR application will not be sold to RCG until RCG's plans are approved and permitted.
She has RCG's response to RFP available for review but reminded the Board that the included plans •
could change before they are brought before the Board.
Chairman Puleo asked for clarification on the lot lines. Ms. Menon then reviewed the full-size lot plan.
Mr. Anderson asked how much of the right of way the City owns,to which Ms. Menon responded that
she would have to go to the Registry of Deeds to confirm. Mr. Anderson asked what precedent this
might set, and re-iterated that he's not terribly concerned but just wants to understand what the
ramifications would be for the Board and the City. Ms. Menon reviewed the bidding process in relation
to this project and requirements such as parking spaces.
Randy Clarke stated that the City Council has to approve this so it's a political process as well as a city
process. He further pointed out that it has to be vetted by a lot of other people before it gets to the
Planning Board.
Chairman Puleo reminded the Board of when Liberty Street was given to the Peabody Essex Museum,
utility structures had to be removed by the City. He would hope that this time, the responsibility for
moving of the utility structures would be borne by RCG. Mr. Clarke asked what was in the purchase and
sale agreement to which Ms. Menon stated that the sale has not been completed yet. Helen Sides then
stated that according to RCG's work with the Design Review Board, RCG will be responsible for moving
the city water line that runs across the proposed parcel. Mr.Anderson then asked where the water
line would be moved to, and how it would impact the neighbors, to which Ms. Menon said that she
could not answer that question at this time. Mr. Clarke said that he thought that this would come back
before the Planning Board, to which Dale Yale agreed. •
Ms. Sides noted that RCG is also proposing to realign the entrance to Dodge Street at their cost.
Mr. Anderson asked about the determination on the ANR, and further asked Ms. Menon to explain what
an ANR is. Ms. Menon explained the criteria and further described the way it is laid out in the zoning
code, which is in accordance with the subdivision control law. The proposed parcel already has frontage
on a public way. Mr.Anderson then asked if they are going to require a PUD or if she knew how they
are combining the lots,to which Ms. Menon stated that she didn't know. Mr.Anderson stated his
concern that there could be changes to this lot without having to come back to the Planning Board. Ms.
Menon stated that this approval is just for parcel D. She further explained that this is a separate issue
from a site plan review. They are giving a preview of what the plans are for the lot. If adjacent lots are
owned by the same person,the lots are merged. Mr.Anderson stated that he was worried about
potential changes made to the lot in the future that wouldn't have to be reviewed by the Board. Ms.
Yale explained that if the lots were merged, the owner would have to apply to the Board in order to
subdivide them. . Chairman Puleo clarified the process that they are adjudicating on (the ANR petition).
Ms. Menon said that the city's current plan is to not sell the proposed parcel until RCG's plans are
permitted. The lots at Washington and Dodge would not be merged with the proposed parcel until they
are all under one ownership.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made o motion to approve the ANR, seconded by Helen Sides The vote
was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Puleo. Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides Ms Yale Mr. George Mr.
Anderson. and Mr. Clarke)and none (0)opposed The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of
these minutes. •
J
• There was then discussion as to when RCG's proposal would come before the Planning Board. Mr.
Anderson asked who the project architect is. Ms. Sides responded that she thinks it is a company from
Somerville. She also stated that they are trying to iron out conflict of interest issues, so she may have to
recuse herself from deliberations on the development itself, both with the Design Review Board and the
Planning Board. Ms. Menon answered Mr.Anderson, stating that she thought the architect was Khalsa
Design Inc. Mr. Clarke stated that he thinks it will be an active review when it does come before the
Board. Chairman Puleo talked about how the area (near Washington and Dodge Streets) has filled up.
Ms.Sides noted that the development provides some city parking and also includes a hotel, retail,and a
restaurant.
Old/New Business
Community Preservation Act Plan—Request for Comment/Input
Helen Sides stated that Jane Guy is the city liaison. She has worked with Jane on the historical
commission for many years. The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) has been working hard. She
reviewed some of the CPC's draft materials with the Board. Ms. Sides stated that the taxation structure
is laid out by State legislation. There is no State body to consult with, it is up to the Cities and Towns to
write their own documents. There is a website created by the Community Preservation Coalition (a
nonprofit), as well as precedents from other communities that have implemented CPA. The CPC is
looking for precedents from communities similar to Salem. There are differences, for example-Salem
voted for a 1%surcharge where other cities voted for 3%. She continued reviewing materials and
highlighted the salient issues. One of the key points Ms. Sides highlighted is that funding of
maintenance (incidental repairs) is not permitted with CPA funds. Ms.Sides and Ms. Menon also
• referred to Newburyport's CPA funding criteria as a useful example for a more urban municipality.
Ms.Sides said that the fun thing is seeing the amount of open space that Salem has. Developing the
prioritization criteria for use of CPA funds pulls together different things, and references all the
different plans together. Ms. Menon stated that they are putting together a summary of the priorities
stated in a variety of city plans, so that the Board can see all of the different priorities together. Ms.
Sides shared a document showing how other communities have used these funds. Ms. Menon said that
the CPC has to first establish a set of criteria to evaluate and select certain projects,then they can create
a plan for use of CPA funds, and then use the plan to create an application process that will attract the
types of projects that are addressing priorities. The various Boards and Commissions have been asked
to help create criteria. The Planning Board is supposed to take a broader approach, as Boards with
specific interests are also reviewing their plans and priorities.
Mr.Anderson asked about the timeline,to which Ms. Menon responded that the CPC liaison would like
feedback by November 22nd. Ms.Yale recommended a workshop. Ms.Sides stated that the materials
that will be sent out will help get to the meat of it. She then said that Kirt(Rieder) sent out a list of
projects since he couldn't be here. Ms. Menon recommended that Helen review Mr. Rieder's list of
criteria,which is included as follows:
1. Projects should be accessible to the public(visible to passersby, physically accessible to visitors).
Funding should generally not be applied to hidden utilities,or structural improvements that are not
readily visible to citizens,visitors. In the interest of showcasing the positive impacts of the CPA,
preference should be given to readily visible improvements.
•
0
2. Projects should be pedestrian focused (funding should not be allocated to vehicular parking or
roadway improvements, EXCEPT in situations where the improvements are directly related to pedestrian •
passage, such as stone or brick crosswalks. Shall not be used for faux stamped asphalt/concrete, for
instance). Traffic and roadway improvements already have a dedicated funding stream, and while not
always adequate, it should not divert CPA funds for these purposes.
3. For discussion ... should CPA funds be available for or restricted from soil mitigation projects?
Splaine Park, Bertram Field, among others have had soil remediation issues that were costly. Should the
City be using CPA funds to dispose of'dirty soil' and buy clean planting soil?
- Pro: it does ultimately allow for a positive community resource
- Con:it does go into what is essentially invisible improvement
4. For discussion ... should CPA funds be limited to public property? Include private, but non-profit,
and if so, does that properly include or exclude very large non-profits such as Salem Hospital,Salem
State, PEM (those with non-profit status but otherwise large budgets)?
5. For discussion ... Should CPA funds be prohibited from application to annual sport field
maintenance (soccer, football, softball, baseball,courts,golf)? Limited to property acquisition for same
athletic use?
Ms. Menon stated that synthetic turf cannot be funded with CPA funds. Ms. Sides stated that she is
impressed by Kirt's recommendations. Chairman Puleo clarified that you could use funds for recreation.
Mr. Ready and Mr. Clarke discussed the McCabe Marina as an example-public bathrooms should be
available there. Mr. Ready noted that there are other facilities in the city that could benefit from CPA
funds. Mr. Clarke noted that his personal opinion was that they should not use CPA funds for municipal
or school athletics- there are a lot of other funding opportunities out there for those projects. CPA •
funds should be used for projects that benefit a wider group of users/residents. He stated that the
unique qualities of Salem are: 1. Historic architecture;and 2. the waterfront, which needs to be
protected. Mr. Ready supported Mr. Clarke by stating that this is a maritime city. Mr. Clarke pointed
out that if we didn't have the National Park Service at the historic waterfront, it would be a disaster.
Ms. Menon asked if CPA funds for open space and recreation could be used for piers and docks, or other
kinds of access that project off of the land. Ms. Sides stated that it depends on who owns it. As long as it
is on city land, it could be applied. Mr. Clarke stated that he was not sure if it's that specific. He noted
that clearly they want to focus on public land, not private, in order to make land more accessible to
walking, biking, boating. Ms. Sides used the House of Seven Gables as an example of something that is
private not public.
Mr. Clarke noted that the annual CPA funds collected is not a lot of money—maybe roughly$300,000
after administrative costs. They have to do things tactically, doing strategic smaller projects each year,
and at the same time saving up money for bigger projects. Ms. Sides stated that the funds can roll over
from year to year.
Ms.Sides said that she is grateful to have the Planning Department to help with this. Mr. Clarke
inquired about matching funds as there could be some value to partner up with non-profits with this.
Mr. Ready said that partnering up with non-profits will be great and he discussed this in relation to
McCabe Marina. He stated that he had a discussion with the company that laid pipeline under there
and noted that it was put in with a little bit of city money. He stated that in regards to that project, for
•
A
r
J
• the city it was a huge positive impact, but for the pipeline company it was a small effort. It created great
access for the public.
Mr.Anderson asked how often the Community Preservation Committee will review applications. Ms.
Sides responded that there will be public meetings. They are still working out the process. Likely there
will be a two-step process,with a preliminary short form. If the short-form application is approved,the
application would proceed to the long-form application. Ms. Sides stated that she believes the final
selection/approval of projects goes to the City Council for review.
Ms. Menon recommended that if they want to continue this to the next meeting, Board members
should send her their recommendations and thoughts on the CPA priorities. Ms. Menon will compile
the recommendations to present at the next meeting.
Mr. Clarke asked if they will see the finished package,to which Ms. Sides responded in the affirmative.
The CPC will arrange a public meeting,which Jane Guy will schedule. Ms. Menon stated that the
Planning Board has two more meetings before Jane's 11/22 deadline.
Tim Ready noted that the power plant review was handled professionally, and it was well-organized,to
which Ms.Sides echoed that it was a very professional and well-prepared presentation. Mr. Ready then
stated that this process was extremely well-handled by everyone and they made the right decision.
Mr. Puleo announced that he has a citation from the Mayor's Office to present to Mr.John Moustakis in
appreciation of his years of service on the Planning Board.
• Adjournment
Motion and Vote: Tim Ready made a motion to adiourn the meeting seconded by Randy Clarke. The
vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor(Mr. Puleo Mr. Ready Ms Sides Ms Yale, Mr. George, r.
Anderson and Mr. Clarke )and none(0)opposed The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part
of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:04 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://W-ww.salem.com/PagesjSa/emMA PlanMin/
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 11/21/2013
S