Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, February 2, 2006
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 2, 2006 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were: Walter Power, Chuck Puleo, Gene Collins, Paul Durand, John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanagh, and Tim Ready. Also present were City Planner Lynn Duncan, Staff Planner Dan Merhalski and Eileen Sacco, Clerk.
Members Absent: None
Preliminary Subdivision Application – Clark Avenue – Chapel Hill, LLC – George Belleau
Atty. Jack Keilty addressed the Board and explained the Form B Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Chapel Hill LLC.
Atty. Keilty reviewed the plans and noted that they filed for and received approval of an abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation from the Salem Conservation Commission. He explained that the areas approved are noted on the plan in green.
Atty. Keilty explained that there is an old monastery at the top of the hill, thus the name Chapel Hill LLC.
Atty. Keilty explained the location of the property and explained the neighborhood. He noted that they are proposing a cluster subdivision with two cul de sacs. He noted that the open space would be around Clark Avenue and noted that there is a significant tract of city owned land nearby. He also noted that the parcels are topographically challenged.
Atty. Keilty stated that they are proposing 38 homes in a cluster. He explained that they came to that figure by using the formula for the process and explained it. He noted that the plan meets the standard of a cluster development.
Atty. Keilty noted that they have met with the neighbors and have noted that there is a significant amount of work that needs to be done in the area of engineering. He stated that the public pumping station needs some work and Clark Avenue needs to be repaved. He further noted that they have to take a look at the area globally to determine what other improvements to the area can be made.
Atty. Keilty noted that the size of the lots has been criticized but they feel that the design affords them the ability to build an enclave that will not diminish the value of the properties in the area. He also noted that there would be no impact on the resource area with this design.
Chuck Puleo asked if they had the calculations on how many lots they would yield with a traditional subdivision as opposed to the proposed cluster development. Atty. Keilty stated that he did not have that information but he would provide that to the Board. Mr. Belleau estimated that it would around 34-36 lots.
Christine Sullivan stated that she could not make an intelligent decision without a baseline of information that would include that calculation. She noted that it is a fundamental question that needs to be answered. She also stated that she would like some clarification on Mr. Mello’s drawing noting that she would like to see the area defined more clearly. She stated that she would like a red line on the plan that outlines their entire property.
Chuck Puleo asked that the plan be expanded to include Clark Street.
Walter Power stated that the land looks like there is a significant elevation difference. He also noted that the open space proposed has no area for recreation as per the cluster regulations regarding open space. He stated that he did not feel that this is a subdivision that is workable.
Atty. Keilty explained their calculations. He suggested that the Board visit the site and they would see that it is very flat at the bottom of the slope.
Walter Power noted that he sees several problems with this plan. He stated that there are several points of high elevation where houses are proposed. He also stated that he is concerned about the storage capacity for runoff for 25, 50 and 100 year storms and advised them to really think this through for the Form C application.
City Planner Lynn Duncan addressed Atty. Keilty and noted that Chairman Power made some good points. She also stated she has concerns about the usability of the proposed open space. She advised them to make sure that they fulfill the requirements of regulations and that the open space is usable. She also suggested that the open space should be connected and should go all the way around the site, which may mean losing a few lots to make that work.
Christine Sullivan referred to the monastery on the site and asked if it has any historic value. Atty. Keilty described the condition of the monastery as that of a cinder block foundation. It was also noted that at one time Clark Avenue went all the way up to the monastery.
Walter Power concluded that the developer has a lot of work to do on the plans. A discussion was held on the time frame for the Board to act on the application. Atty. Keilty asked that the hearing be kept open and that they stay on the agenda to allow them to work on the plan some more. He offered to give the Board an extension of the 45 day time limit in which to act on the application.
Walter Power noted that this is not a public hearing but recognized Ward III Councillor Jean Pelletier to address the Board. Councillor Pelletier apologized for being late and asked how many houses they are proposing. Atty. Keilty stated that they are proposing 38 homes.
Christine Sullivan stated that she would like to see them cut back on the number of homes and increase the size of the lots.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to accept the applicant’s request to extend the time of Planning Board final action until March 6, 2006, seconded by Tim Ready and approved (9-0).
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the matter to the March 2, 2006 Planning Board meeting, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (9-0).
A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, February 11, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. The Board will meet on Clark Street.
Continuation of Public Hearing – Definitive Subdivision, Cluster Residential Development, Wetland Special Permit – 57 Marlborough Road – Osborne Hills Realty Trust – Atty. Brian McGrail
Atty. McGrail addressed the Board and noted that at the last meeting it was felt that a decision needs to be made regarding the location for the entrance of the development and the possible relocation of the traffic signal. He reviewed the options for the locations and noted that there was some concern by the neighbors that there would be noise generated from the traffic signal and that is what led to the present location of the traffic signal.
Atty. McGrail noted that his client remains firm that he has tendered a mitigation offer to contribute $40,000 to a study of the redesign of the intersection of Highland Avenue and Marlborough Road, or to cover the cost of the relocation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Marlborough Road and the subdivision entrance road, but not both.
Michael Abend of Abend Associates addressed the Board and explained the options for moving the location of the entrance and relocating the traffic signal.
John Moustakis noted that his concern is that the city would lose the $40,000 for the study of the design issues of Marlborough Road and Highland Avenue and that the intersection is the real problem. Gene Collins and Paul Durand agreed.
Walter Power noted that he and Chuck Puleo looked at the site today and suggested that the entrance should be almost directly across from McGrath Park and noted that the traffic lights would improve the intersection. He also noted that he did not know if it was a rule required a light there. He also noted that there is no gate in the fence along the road in front of the park and proposed an opening in the fence close to the crosswalk, with another fence along the entrance road to discourage kids from going around.
Lynn Duncan introduced Ken Petraglia, the consultant for the city, who addressed the suggested locations for the entrance and the possible relocation of the traffic signal. He stated that Mr. Power’s suggestion is not an option and any engineer who designed it and put his stamp on the plan would lose his license.
He explained the suggested alternatives and described them in reverse order of preference as follows:
Alternative C - “Non-Alternative”
The “non-alternative” is to put the site access drive at its original location (closest to Highland Avenue), put in the left turn lane and leave the location unsignalized. This is a plan that Ken Petraglia had already said was unsafe. The existing signalized pedestrian crossing would end up being blocked by westbound vehicles trying to turn left into the development waiting to find a gap in the eastbound traffic flow. Pedestrians (many of these children from the park) would be forced to wind their way through backed up vehicles when crossing the street. The movement of pedestrians between cars would severely reduce sight distance for motorists on the open through lanes – this could result in motorists being surprised by crossing pedestrians and increase the potential for accidents. This is so unsafe that he would not be responsible for designing it if asked.
Alternative B
This plan would move the site drive further west (away from Highland Avenue), but would also relocate the signalized crosswalk to this same location. This has the advantage of consolidating all activities to create a single conflict point. It would also control traffic flow with signals to further protect pedestrians. The disadvantage is that the crosswalk would not be right at the park. Pedestrians will tend to cross where they exit the park. Children especially may not have the discipline to walk to the crosswalk (at the new location further west) and may impatiently cross right at the park where they are not protected.
Alternative A
This would leave the site drive in its originally planned location, furthest east (towards Highland Avenue) along the property frontage. The existing crosswalk signals would be moved slightly west and would be modified to control all vehicles. This is the best solution for the following reasons:
1. The existing crosswalk is at the mid-point of the park frontage and the gate from the park is at the extreme west of the frontage. The “desire lines” for pedestrians are towards the west, and pedestrians (specifically children) would generally have to exit the park, walk east to the crossing, cross the street, and then turn back to the west. Pedestrians may tend to just cross where they exit (unprotected) instead of using the crosswalk. This plan would require that the crosswalk be relocated slightly west at the existing park exit, which is the optimum location.
2. Like Alternative B, pedestrians and vehicles would be channeled to a single conflict point.
In conclusion Mr. Petraglia noted that Alternatives B and A are workable, but Alternative A offers the highest degree of safety for pedestrians crossing to and from the park, while controlling vehicular traffic at least as well as Alternative B.
He also noted that no one knows for sure what further demands will be created on Marlborough Road and now is the time to plan for whatever the future holds by going forward with the best possible plan.
Chuck Puleo asked if the light control box would also have to be moved if the signal is relocated. Mr. Petraglia stated that the crosswalk and lights would have to be moved 50 feet and the control box does not necessarily need to be moved. It was noted that noise was a concern in the location of the lights. Mr. Petraglia explained that the noise from the lights comes from the sight impaired box at the base of the light.
Christine Sullivan addressed the Board and stated that she rejects the premise that it is an either/or situation regarding the money for the study of the intersection of Marlborough Road and Highland Avenue or moving the traffic signals, noting that where there is a will there is a way. She also noted that the Marlborough/Highland Avenue study is essential to the area and does not agree with the suggested premise that it is the light or the study.
Atty. McGrail stated that to move the light and to do it properly would require an additional signal head for the traffic in and out of the development.
John Moustakis stated that he would like an estimate of what the relocation of the traffic light will cost. Mike Abend estimated that the relocation of the traffic signal could cost as much as $100,000 noting that the controller might have to be replaced.
Walter Power opened the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Roger Leger addressed the Board and asked for clarification on the proposed location for the entrance. Atty. McGrail explained that the alternative being considered is to move the driveway to the original location and move the traffic signal.
Patricia Liberti addressed the Board and stated that she feels that the plan is superior for the safety of the children in the neighborhood.
Ann DeLuca of Clark Avenue addressed the Board and noted that turning left onto Marlborough Road from McGrath Park is very difficult in the spring and fall when soccer season is in full swing. She cautioned the Board to look at that area carefully for the safety of everyone.
John Moustakis agreed and suggested that the traffic consultant look at that area on Saturday and Sunday in the spring, noting there is a lot more traffic out there on the weekends during soccer season.
Tim Ready addressed Atty. McGrail and asked if he has any thoughts on the location of the entrance. Atty. McGrail stated that they presented the original plan to the city and it was deemed unsafe and they need to reconfigure that. He also noted that from their prospective they need to stick with the plan that meets the requirement. He also noted that there is a concern that they could be required to move a traffic signal that the state may not allow them to move. He stated that they would entertain a condition that if the city can obtain the necessary approvals they would come back and amend the plan and only if the subdivision is not appealed. He stated that they would work cooperatively with the Planning Department to obtain the necessary approvals to move the traffic signal.
City Planner Lynn Duncan stated that she was sure that they could work out some approach to that.
John Moustakis stated that he did not feel that it should be the responsibility of the city to get the approvals for the relocation of the traffic signal, it should be the responsibility of the developer.
Bill Luster stated that wherever the approval granting authority lies be it the state or the city council it would be helpful to have the support of the ward councilor.
Lynn Duncan stated that she would find out who would grant the approval.
Ann Pelletier addressed the Board and suggested that the developer look into using National Grid land for the entrance. She suggested an easement to place the road across from the park and line it up with the traffic signal.
Atty. McGrail stated that from his experience working with National Grid they are not usually open to the possibility of granting easements to their property.
Walter Power asked the Planning Board to take a vote and go on record for the preference for the location of the roadway. Paul Durand stated that he did not think that the Board had to make a decision this evening, noting that he would like further information and some answers before committing to anything.
Christine Sullivan agreed noting that she prefers Plan A but we need more information on how executable it is.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the public hearing to February 16, 2006 seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (9-0).
Approval of Minutes
The minute of the Planning Board meeting held on January 19, 2006 were presented for approval. Pam Lombardini moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Board meeting held on January 19, 2006 as amended, seconded by Gene Collins and approved (9-0).
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by John Moustakis to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
__________________________
Eileen M. Sacco, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
PB020206
| 
