A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and the Planning Board was held in the Council Chamber on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 at 6:00 P.M. for the purpose of discussing a proposed Zoning Amendment for Drive-Through Facilities. Notice of this hearing was posted on July 7, 2006 at 10:46 A.M. and advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 29th & July 6, 2006.
All Councillors were recorded as present.
President Jean M. Pelletier presided.
Council President Pelletier opened the meeting by asking Dan Merhalski of the Planning Department to make a presentation and introduced Mr. Walter B. Power III, chairman of the Planning Board.
Mr. Power, Chairman of the Planning Board, introduced the other members of the Planning Board that were present, Gene Collins, Timothy Kavanaugh, Pamela Lombardini were in attendance. Timothy Ready arrived late.
On the matter of the proposed Zoning Amendment for Drive-through facilities.
Councillor Furey stated his concerns for this Ordinance on drive-throughs that was put in by Councillor Sargent.
Councillor Veno requested point of order – the only matter before us is the Zoning Ordinance.
Councillor O’Keefe objected.
Councillor Veno – stated we can discuss drive-throughs but only the zoning ordinance that is before us.
Councillor Blair asked if the member of the Planning Department Dan Merhalski could do his presentation.
Dan Merhalski of the Planning Department explained drive-throughs and where they are currently on the map in Salem. He explained that this ordinance will be for the B-2 zone only and that they are specific for fast food and banking. Notice to grant a Special Permit would require a Public Hearing and a Traffic Study would also be needed. Mr. Merhalski read the proposed zoning ordinance for the audience.
Councillor Veno – regarding the standards for drive throughs, how did the Planning Board arrive at these standards.
Dan Merhalski of the Planning Dept. stated that the City Planner Lynn Duncan checked around locally to draft this ordinance.
Councillor Furey asked are there any drive-throughs that would be eliminated?
Mr. Merhalski stated no that all current drive-throughs would be grandfathered.
Councillor Pelletier asked how could this matter be before the Planning Board for their meeting tomorrow night?
Councillor O’Keefe asked for a definition of the B-2 zone.
Councillor Blair asked about speakers for drive-throughs, Can there be something to tone down the volume? We should put controls on that.
Councillor Sargent stated that we talked about certain deciples of noise over property boundaries. He stated that this matter is on the Planning Board’s Agenda for their meeting tomorrow night, does this give enough time to digest public comment?
He went on to explain how this matter of drive-throughs came about when he and Councillor Sosnowski found there was nothing in our current zoning to regulate drive-throughs. This is why we have one regular ordinance that’s been passed for first passage until this zoning ordinance is in place. Compare Canal Street and Highland Avenue, drive-throughs on Canal Street are a problem. The ones on Highland Avenue have not been a problem. If Planning takes this over, this should be a separate vote for drive-through permits with a review yearly in case there are problems that arise. If you do it right you keep your permit, if you don’t you loose it. It’s a quality of life issue.
Timothy Reddy of the Planning Board arrived late.
Councillor Pelletier opened the Hearing for public comment.
Councillor Pelletier asked if there was anyone appearing in favor of this zoning?
THERE WAS NO ONE IN FAVOR.
Councillor Pelletier asked if there is anyone opposed to this zoning?
APPEARING IN OPPOSITION
Pat Donahue – member of the NRCC stated she is opposed to changing the zoning ordinance. There’s no need for any special permits. We have enough drive-throughs, there is no need for more.
Kathy Meadowcroft – 22 Foster Street, stated she is opposed to this ordinance.
Pat Murphy – 27 Foster Street, stated that we should be very careful voting for this ordinance change.
James Rose – 25 Linden Street, commented that Mr. Bertini proposed a CVS and Dunkin Donuts where Eastern Bank is on Jefferson Avenue. They’ll want drive-throughs.
Georgeanne Kalat – 326 Lafayette Street, stated that Canal Street already has enough drive-throughs.
Meg Twohey – 122 Federal Street, stated that the NRCC members spent a lot of time on the drafting of the NRCC Ordinance. She questioned why is this special permit to be issued by the Planning Board and not the Zoning Board of Appeals. She stated this proposal would allow drive-throughs within a 100 feet of a residence. She is opposed and doesn’t want this change.
Darrow Lebovisi – 122 Federal Street, stated this is a complicated Ordinance. It changes where drive-throughs could go and how they can be constructed. He urged the Council to do this carefully. It should not undo the NRCC.
Rita Markunas – 19 Federal Street, Stated she was shocked when she heard that they want to amend this ordinance. We want to preserve the quality of life. You have more noise and trash etc. with drive throughs. People will want them to be open 24 hours, then you’re not preserving Salem.
Jim Treadwell – 36 Felt Street, (comments were provided in writing as follows): As preface, it is noted that the NRCC mixed use district zoning amendment, as adopted on December 6, 2005, lists “Drive-through facilities” among its prohibited uses and was the subject of a most thorough review by the City Council prior to its adoption. Further, said amendment was based on the NRCC Neighborhood Master Plan which was developed with input from the general citizenry of Salem, the citizen NRCC working group, consultants Goody, Clancy and Earth Tech and staff of the Salem Department of City Planning and Community Development. I would submit that the drive-through prohibition was based on the Plan’s Transportation objectives as well as the appropriate
development/”image” objectives of the Master Plan.
NRCC District: based on land use, development potential and traffic considerations, only the “Sylvania” site might be seen as appropriate for drive-throughs. However, per Master Plan objectives for NRCC southwest quadrant, a free standing bank drive-through at Boston and Bridge would be inconsistent with the objectives of the creation of an Urban Village and Gateway to downtown, the development of a Landmark Building and emphasis on an urban/pedestrian environment. Maybe, with further “objective criteria” guiding drive-through development, such might be incorporated as an integral part of a permitted, greater development.
General: I would heartily support over-sight of the drive-through special permit review process by our elected Councillors. The subject amendment, DOES NOT accomplish this to any degree. I would suggest, in this regard, that Council review and approve “rules” to be developed pursuant to Section 7-22-2, sign off on/endorse Special Permit decisions (Section 7-22-6.2) and review/approve “changes’ to previously approved plans (Section 7-22-6.4)…and, if traffic congestion/other nuisances result from a drive-through, that the permit be revoked until it is corrected to the satisfaction of the SPGA and the City Council.
· I do not believe that the City has any professional expertise available regarding traffic planning/engineering. Who will advise the SPGA with regard to traffic impacts and scrutinize the traffic analyses?
· Has an authority on traffic matters scrutinized this amendment on behalf of Salem and offered comments?
· Impact on “character of the city” (see purpose) and design. The proposed zoning should require review by the City’s Design Board and suggest the use of Salem’s new (2005) “Commercial Design Guidelines”.
· Subsection 4.1 Detailed traffic impact analysis should be required for all proposed drive-through projects and not be optional for “other drive-through facilities”
· Subsection 2. “land use impact” and neighborhood character should be added and acknowledge as appropriate considerations for “further conditions” by the SPGA.
· Subsection 2. Should posting of bond/other surety be a requirement rather than optional?
· Subsection 4.1. What’s to be the source of funding of the traffic impact study? Who will select the registered engineer to conduct the study? Who will provide technical over-sight? (4.1 is silent in these regards.)
· Subsection 4.2. Level of Service (LOS). Is this an appropriate measurement of increased congestion on our city streets? If relevant, have the principles of LOS been explained to the members of the Council and the Board? Is LOS only applicable in the instance of controlled street intersections?
· Subsection 4.2. Should this criteria address pedestrian traffic adjacent to the drive-through development site?
· Subsection 5.1. Should there be a control on number of curb cuts? (as within entrance corridor?)
· Subsection 5.3. It would seem appropriate to define “sufficient setback from intersection” in order to set a standard/provide an objective criteria. Have “directional restrictions” worked in Salem? Could previous restrictions be monitored and reported to the Council/Board/Public. Bad restriction example: North Street Citgo/Dunkin Donuts. Beverly Co-op example? (Required follow-up by City Planner)
· Should parking requirements for Drive-throughs be established in this amendment. The current zoning ordinance does not appear to have such a requirement.
· Should requirements regarding delivery/loading spaces (i.e., number, location, etc) to service the drive-through facilities be included in the amendment? Also, location and other standards respecting refuse areas?
· Subsection 5.11. Noise. The amendment should include the maximum decibel (db) level that can be generated by; the audio equipment associated with the drive-through. Further, to be effective and reflect an objective criteria, the amendment should address the issue of sound at the property lines of the drive-throughs, especially where such has an abutting residential use. Further, objective landscaping criteria and objective criteria regarding height or required fencing should be added to this subsection. Also, the word “wide” appears to have been omitted after (20).
· Subsection 6.4. In view of interest of the citizens/public in the issue of regulation of drive-through facilities, it would seem appropriate to require for a public hearing – as well as for review/approval by the City Council –of “any changes in the approved site/drive-through plan”
· Should the amendment refer to other controls on drive-through facilities – such as hours of operation, hours for delivery – or otherwise established such controls in the amendment?
Councillor O’Keefe – stated that he agrees with Mr. Treadwell, the City Council should have a say on drive-through permits.
Councillor O’Leary moved that the hearing be closed.
Councillor Prevey – stated regarding comments he has serious concerns regarding drive-throughs. Many of the complaints he receives are regarding businesses close to residential areas. And there are no drive-throughs. There are problems already with traffic. This ordinance would undercut the NRCC. He is opposed.
Councillor Veno – This is really about protecting residents and safety issues.
Councillor Sosnowski – stated he is grateful for all the public comments.
Councillor Lovely – Stated she also appreciates all the input. She is concerned with protecting the integrity of Historic Districts in regards to drive-throughs. She feels that 5.14 language should be tightened up.
Councillor O’Leary – Thanked Mr. Treadwell and others for their comments, it has opened the Councils eyes. Drive-throughs on Highland Avenue coming out on to a residential street are a concern. We need something in place to help us with neighborhoods.
Councillor Pelletier – stated he has the same problems in his Ward.
Councillor O’Keefe – moved that the hearing be closed. It was so voted.
Councillor O’Keefe moved to refer the matter to the Planning Board for their recommendation. It was so voted.
On the motion of Councillor O’Keefe the public hearing adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE
CITY CLERK
| 
