Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, December 7, 2006
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, December 7, 2006
in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were: Walter Power, John Moustakis, Gene Collins, Tim Kavanagh, Chuck Puleo, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready. Also present were City Planner Lynn Duncan, Staff Planner Dan Merhalski, and Ian Fullerton, Clerk.
Members Absent: None
Approval of minutes
Walter Power reviewed the minutes for November 2, 2006.
Mr. Power suggested a change on page one, noting an instance where ‘deceleration’ should be added before the word ‘lane.’
Tim Kavanagh noted that on page six Gene Pelletier was referred to as Ward One Councilor and that it should be corrected to Ward Three.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes, seconded by Chuck Puleo, approved (9-0).
Mr. Power then reviewed the minutes for November 16, 2006.
Mr. Power noted that on page three the minutes stated that the public comment was closed and it should be noted that public comment was not closed but continued to the next meeting.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by Chuck Puleo to approve the minutes, seconded by John Moustakis, approved (9-0).
Christine Sullivan suggested that, in the future, pages for the minutes should be numbered for easy reference.
Before continuing, Walter Power addressed the public. He stated that all Planning Board meetings would run on the first and third Thursday of every month, and that the meetings would last from 7 p.m. until 10 p.m., and would not go on any later. Mr. Power stated that all members of the public who wished to speak would be given three minutes to speak for each meeting, and that those who spoke would do so by standing up by their seat and not approaching the podium.
(Continuation to January 4, 2007 Meeting) Continuation of Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit — Chapel Hill LLC —Clark Avenue (Map 6, Lots 6, 7, 8) – Atty. Jack Keilty
Dan Merhalski stated that Chapel Hill LLC had made two requests, the first for an extension of the Planning Board’s final action to January 22, 2007, and the second being that the public hearing be continued to January 4, 2007.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the request to extend the Planning Board’s final action on the Approval of the Special Permit to January 21, 2007, seconded by Pam Lombardini, approved (9-0).
Pam Lombardini made a motion to postpone the public hearing until January 4 2007, seconded by Christine Sullivan, and approved (9-0)
Continuation of Public Hearing – Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit – Old Salem Jail Ventures, LLC – 50 St. Peter Street (Map 35 Lot 179) – Joseph Correnti
Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal Street, on behalf of Old Salem Jail Ventures LLC, addressed the Planning Board on the progress of the Site Plan since they last came before the Board. He noted that there had been a site walk of the property which included members of the Planning Board. He stated that there had been substantial input from several different departments in the city, including the Historic Commission and the Salem Fire Department.
Mr. Correnti also stated that the Fire Department had requested the service drive have two parking spaces instead of the three originally presented. He noted that this request will be accommodated.
Mr. Correnti stated that in the original site plan there were fire hydrants placed in the courtyard area in front of the jail keeper’s house, but that after the Fire Department’s review it was decided that the hydrants would be unnecessary.
At this point Walter Power opened the meeting up to questions from the Planning Board.
Christine Sullivan inquired as to the status of the proposed restaurant. Penn Lindsay of Old Salem Ventures stated that there had been no final decisions made as to the contracting of the restaurant, but that they had been speaking with some of the foremost restaurateurs in the area.
Chuck Puleo asked the planners to review the plans for fencing and hedges separating the property and the neighboring cemetery.
Dan Ricciarelli of Old Salem Ventures stated that there would be hedges and a four foot tall fence between the cemetery and the property.
Mr. Power then opened the public hearing.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street, Salem, inquired as to the status of the formal Historic easement, and commented that the security of the cemetery against trespassers should be considered in this review.
Dan Ricciarelli answered that they had met with the Mass Historic Review Board and that they were in the process of having their plan approved.
Mr. Correnti stated that there had been a request filed for a waiver to delay the demolition of the barn on the property. He noted that the demolition of the barn was scheduled for January, and that the barn had been deemed unsafe. Mr. Correnti stated that the barn would be rebuilt within the same footprint.
Christine Sullivan asked if Mass Historic Commission had agreed that the barn can come down.
Mr. Correnti stated that the Mass Historic Commission was aware of the plans to demolish the barn, but he was not sure if they supported it.
There being no further public comment on the matter at this time, Pam Lombardini motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by John Moustakis, and approved (9-0).
Walter Power asked if there had been any further consideration of putting parking along the service road leading to the proposed restaurant.
Mr. Correnti stated that they had spoken with the planner and the mayor on the subject and that it would be decided once construction of the road was underway.
Mr. Power suggested that the draft decision be reviewed. Dan Merhalski reviewed aloud the components of the draft.
Mr. Correnti requested that on the section pertaining to the area requirement of the P.U.D. it be included in the decision that the area requirement is five times the that of the underlying zoning law.
The Planning Board had no objections to that request.
Tim Ready asked what the rationale was behind the change from three parking spaces to two. Mr. Correnti answered that the area could be used as a ladder set-up area by the Fire Department in an emergency.
Tim Ready asked if this change would be a substantial economic burden to the project.
Mr. Correnti responded that the spaces would have been sold to condominium residents, but it would not be a substantial loss and they felt that it was a reasonable compromise.
Dan Merhalski suggested that there be an added condition regarding the installation of a fence along the boundary against the cemetery, citing a specific height and material to be used for the fence.
Gene Collins stated that the height of the fence was never fully agreed upon, and that it should be before the condition is added.
Mr. Power asked if there were any windows that faced the fence. Mr. Correnti stated that there were. He noted that the fence would not be decorative because it would be hidden in the hedges. Gene Collins suggested a security fence. Mr. Correnti stated that a black chain link fence would work well with the landscaping of the property. At that point it was agreed that the fence would be four feet high and the material would be black vinyl.
Christine Sullivan asked who would be responsible for snow removal. Mr. Correnti stated that the condominium association would take on the responsibility of the snow removal at some point.
Walter Power asked if the project would be finished before Mass Highway finished construction on the adjoining Bridge Street.
Mr. Correnti said that they didn’t know when the section of land on Bridge Street would be worked on by Mass Highway.
Lynn Duncan suggested that the time frame be removed and instead the matter be subject to any necessary approvals by the city and/or Mass Highway. The decision could read: “if any deficiencies are found in the existing utilities connecting the city’s utilities with the site on the Bridge Street side of the project, the applicant will make necessary improvements to correct the deficiencies, subject to any necessary approval from Mass Highway or the city”.
Mr. Correnti stated that this was probably the best way to word it for the time being.
There being no further questions or comments on the hearing, Chuck Puleo made a motion to approve the Special Permit, seconded by Pam Lombardini, and approved (9-0).
Continuation of Public Hearing – Site Plan Review Special Permit – RGC, LLC – 76 Lafayette Street (Map 34, Lot 417) – David Steinberg
David Steinberg, on behalf of RGC, LLC, addressed the Planning Board on the progress of the site plan for 76 Lafayette Street since their last meeting. Mr. Steinberg stated that at the last hearing they were asked to make some clarifications in the site plan concerning the drainage systems and the parking plans, and that the corrections had been made. At this point he asked if the board had any questions.
Chuck Puleo asked if there was adequate sewage and water pipes coming into the building. Mr. Steinberg said that there were.
Mr. Power asked if there was adequate parking on the site. Mr. Steinberg responded that there was adequate parking: the plan only called for 10 spaces, and the site had 54 spaces to be used by commercial and future residential units.
Mr. Power asked if extra spaces would be rented. Mr. Steinberg replied that currently about a dozen spaces were being rented out, and in the future it would be a possibility that other additional spaces would be rented.
Mr. Power asked if the plan’s construction material would be stored on the site. Mr. Steinberg answered that all materials would be kept on site. Mr. Power asked if this would disrupt any space in the building. Mr. Steinberg stated that it would not be a problem.
Mr. Power asked if the construction would disrupt traffic in any way. Mr. Steinberg stated that all loading would be done on site and that there would be no disruption of traffic.
At this time Mr. Power opened the public hearing.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street noted that this property is preliminarily eligible to be included in the National Registry of Historic Places.
Mr. Power asked if the plans had been reviewed by the Salem Redevelopment Authority, and if they were awaiting any approval from them. Mr. Steinberg stated that they had gone before the SRA and that they were not awaiting any impending approval.
Christine Sullivan asked if they were changing the exterior of the building in any way. Mr. Steinberg responded that they were not.
There being no further questions or comments by the public at this time, Nadine Hanscom moved that the hearing be closed, seconded by Chuck Puleo, and approved (9-0).
Dan Merhalski reviewed aloud the draft decision.
Christine Sullivan asked if any new signage would have to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Lynn Duncan responded that there was no new signage.
Walter Power asked what progress had been made on the planning of lighting and inquired as to the expenses.
Matt Picarsic of RGC stated that they had been having difficulty working with the electric company on the issue of lighting. He added that they were willing to work with the Planning Board to find a cost efficient way to light the area surrounding the building.
Mr. Power asked if they had any plans to install period lighting on Lafayette Street.
Mr. Picarsic stated that the project’s planners were willing to purchase and donate a period light for Lafayette Street, but that they would not do any additional construction on the outside of the building.
Lynn Duncan stated that the city could accept that donation, but that no decision concerning the donation or the installation of the lighting could be made that time.
John Moustakis stated that he felt it was unnecessary to impose the responsibility on the applicant of installing lights on Lafayette Street, considering how minor the project was.
Tim Ready stated that he felt it was a considerable project, and asked Lynn Duncan if there were was a specific definition for period lighting that could be installed in that area. Lynn Duncan responded that there was.
Christine Sullivan noted that there should be a meeting between the Planning Board and the utility company to regulate the price of any possible period lighting on Lafayette Street.
Matt Picarsic stated that RGC would be willing to donate and store a period light for Lafayette Street before the project was complete. Lynn Duncan stated that the city could not commit to any decision concerning the donation at this time, but it would be considered, and the gesture was appreciated.
Gene Collins commented that he was disappointed that the project did not include any affordable housing.
There being no further questions or comments concerning the matter, John Moustakis moved to approve the Special Permit, seconded by Tim Ready, and approved (9-0).
Public Hearing – Drive Through Facilities Special Permit – Puleo Realty Trust – 370 Highland Ave. (Map 3, Lot 63) – George Atkins
Chuck Puleo recused himself from the meeting at this time.
George Atkins of 59 Federal Street, representing Puleo Realty Trust, addressed the Planning Board concerning a new ordinance for Drive Through Permits. Mr. Atkins explained that much of the new ordinance concerned fast food facilities, and so there were few changes that need to be made to the original Site Plan since the facility was not a fast food restaurant.
Mr. Atkins stated that they had agreed to install hedges on the boundary of the property bordering a residential property. Mr. Atkins exhibited that the plan complied with curb cut requirements, and that the likelihood of traffic within the property was not great. He also stated that the plan met all noise compliances.
Mr. Power asked if there was any curb cut length requirement from the street to the teller queue. Mr. Atkins stated that he believed the requirement was a minimum of twenty feet.
At this point Mr. Power opened the public hearing.
Steven Pinto of 55 Columbus Avenue stated that he supported the project.
There being no further questions or comments from the public at this time, John Moustakis moved to close public hearing, seconded by Pam Lombardini, and approved (9-0)
There being no further questions or comments on this matter, John Moustakis moved to approve the Special Permit, seconded by Pam Lombardini, and approved (8-0).
Chuck Puleo returned to the meeting at this time.
Public Hearing – Drive Through Facilities Special Permit and Site Plan Review Special Permit – Beverly National Bank – 6 Paradise Road (Map 20, Lot 5) – George Atkins
George Atkins of 59 Federal Street on behalf of the Beverly National Bank, addressed the Planning Board for the approval of a Drive Through Facilities Special Permit and Site Plan Special Permit for 6 Paradise Road. Mr. Atkins stated that there would be very little change to the structure of the site, the major change being the three lanes on the north side of the building for the drive through window. He noted that the footprint of the site would only be altered slightly. Mr. Atkins also stated that the current landscaping on the site would be maintained, except that which needed to be removed to accommodate the construction of the site.
Mr. Atkins presented to the Planning Board a traffic study which stated that the site’s change from a fast food restaurant to a bank would reduce the average number of vehicles on the site during business hours, and that the queuing needs would be reduced as well. He also noted that the removal of a dumpster and a grease pit currently on the site would reduce both the odors and noise levels coming from the building.
Mr. Atkins stated that there would be two entry ways on the site, one entering out onto Vinnin Street and one on Paradise Road.
John Moustakis asked if the lighting in the back parking lot was adequate. Mr. Atkins stated that he felt the lighting was adequate. Mr. Atkins noted that there would be a much more limited time of activity for the bank than for the Wendy’s Restaurant that was there before. He also stated that a snow storage area had been added to the lot, and that the flagpole currently on the site would be relocated to another area of the site.
Tim Ready asked if the Beverly National Bank would take on the responsibility of snow removal on the sidewalk surrounding the bank. Mr. Atkins stated that the bank would be responsible for snow removal on the sidewalks surrounding the site
At this point Jack Good, Executive Vice President of Beverly National Bank, addressed the board. He stated that the bank’s express lane would be a convenient feature of the site. He noted that the bank would have six full-time employees, would be open 56-58 hours a week, and the bank would be closed on Sundays.
Gene Collins stated he felt that there was adequate lighting on the site, and that he approved of the project.
Mr. Atkins stated that the stockade fence currently on the plans would be replaced.
Craig Douglas, Architect for Beverly National Bank, pointed out where two free standing lights would be installed on the property.
At this point Mr. Power opened the public hearing.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street stated that he applauded the zoning ordinance and the entrance corridor requirements present in the site plan. Mr. Treadwell asked if the developers took into account the entrance corridor requirements in regards to signage.
Mr. Atkins responded that the provisions in the entrance corridor overlay requirements don’t apply to this site, because Paradise Road is not within that overlay district.
There being no further questions or comments from the public at this time, John Moustakis moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Christine Sullivan, and approved (9-0).
Dan Merhalski stated that one of the requirements of the Drive Through Special Permit is a minimum distance of 200 feet between curb cuts, and the requirement could be waived by the Planning Board.
There be no further questions or comments on the matter, Gene Collins moved that the 200 foot requirement between curb cuts be waived for this Special Permit, seconded by Tim Kavanagh, approved (9-0).
At this point Dan Merhalski reviewed aloud the draft decision.
Mr. Atkins noted that the developers were scheduled to meet with the Board of Health in the coming week.
Nadine Hanscom stated that the snow removal commitment should be added into the draft decision.
There being no more questions or comments on this matter, Gene Collins made a motion to approve the Special Permit, seconded by Christine Sullivan, and approved (9-0).
(Continued to December 21, 2006 Meeting) Public Hearing – Drive Through Facilities Special Permit and Site Plan Review Special Permit – Tri-city Sales and CVS Pharmacy – 262-272 Highland Ave. (Map 8, Lot 99, 100, 104 and 105) – Joseph Correnti
Christine Sullivan stated that she felt the Planning Board should acknowledge and express gratitude to those coming before the Planning Board who push back their meeting dates to decrease the number of hearings in one night.
There being no further questions or comments on the matter at this time, Chuck Puleo motioned to continue the hearing to December 21, 2007, seconded by Nadine Hanscom, and approved (9-0).
Public Hearing – Site Plan Review Special Permit – North River Canal, LLC – 28 Goodhue Street (Map 16, Lot 372) – Joseph Correnti
Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal Street representing North River Canal, LLC, addressed the Planning Board on a Site Plan Review Special Permit for 28 Goodhue Street.
Mr. Correnti presented an overview of the project. He explained that the factory building which had been standing on the property was condemned in 1995, and demolished in 2005. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers met with Historic Salem, Inc. for a period of six months to determine if the structure could be saved, and it was decided that the building was unsalvageable.
Mr. Correnti noted that the developers of the project had gone before the Planning Board in the spring of 2006 and received a Special Permit for the project, and then went before the Board of Appeals in the summer and made an appeal concerning the density issue. The original proposal included 54 units, but was reduced to 44 units, 4 being set aside as affordable units.
Mr. Correnti noted that, beginning in January, the project would be filing with the Conservation Commission.
Tim Galvin, architect for the project, stated that the site was made up originally of factory space, with no landscaping. Mr. Galvin noted that the project would increase landscaping on the site, and that parking would be underneath the building, as well as 120 outdoor spaces. He also noted that there would be a walkway, which would include a buffer, and a plaza in front of the property.
Mr. Galvin stated that the 44 residential units would be made up of 30 two-bedroom units, and 14 one-bedroom units, in addition to a meeting room on the second floor.
In regards to the exterior of the building, Mr. Galvin stated the there would be a heavy six foot banding, divided into two sections: one section being the signage of the residential area of the building, and the other section for the commercial space. He noted that the outside of the building on the second and third floor would feature PVC trim. He added that the building would have a mansard roof.
Christine Sullivan asked if any changes to the original drawing had been presented to the Design Review Board. Mr. Correnti stated that they were awaiting a meeting with the DRB. Mrs. Sullivan also stated that she felt the design of the building needed work.
Lynn Duncan asked the developers to verify that the DRB meeting would be on December 20, 2007. Mr. Correnti stated that he believed that was the date.
Tim Ready asked if there were any design or engineering considerations regarding the cleaning of the abutting canal. Mr. Correnti stated that although the developers did desire to have the canal clean, the canal was not their property, and certain permits from the city would be required for the developers to take responsibility for cleaning the canal.
Mr. Correnti stated that the walkway would be 20 feet wide, 450 feet long, paved, with fencing and period lighting.
John Moustakis noted that in the future the walkway could be extended to the Peabody line.
Mr. Power mentioned that there was a new bike path commission in Salem and that perhaps they could be contacted in the planning of the extension of the walkway.
At this time Mr. Power opened up the public hearing.
Cathy Meadowcroft of 22 Foster Street asked if the affordable units would be for sale or for rent, and asked Mr. Correnti to define ‘affordable units.’
Mr. Correnti stated that the units would be for sale, and units met the state and city guidelines of what was considered affordable. He also noted that the developers did not have a hand in setting the price for affordable housing.
Lynn Duncan added that affordable housing was geared more towards moderate incomes and that the term ’affordable’ differed from ‘low income.’
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street stated that he appreciated the mention of the bike path commission, and that current plans suggest that the bike path be built on the other side of the canal. He also mentioned that the mayor had appointed an open space and recreation committee, which would be holding a public forum scheduled on January 8, 2007 at 7 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, third floor.
Christine Sullivan asked what the meeting on December 21, 2006, would be concerning, considering the developer’s meeting with the DRB on December 20, 2006.
Mr. Correnti stated that developers would file a request with the Planning Board for continuance to January if their meeting with the DRB left too many issues open.
There being no further questions or comments on the matter at this time, Nadine Hanscom motioned that the hearing be continued to December 21, 2006, seconded by Pam Lombardini, and approved (9-0).
New Business
Gene Collins commented that the draft decision for the first Drive Through Permit was only half a page, and all other draft decisions have been 4 or 5 pages since he had been on the board.
Chuck Puleo noted that construction had begun on the deceleration lane on Swampscott Road.
John Moustakis noted that there should be a statement in the draft decision that makes it the developers’ responsibility to refer to the engineering department if there is something that doesn’t coincide with the plans that have already been discussed.
Tim Ready stated it was his understanding that Councilor O’Keefe had filed an ordinance approved by the city council which gave the Fire Department complete pervue over Public Safety resources, removing some of the considerations from the Planning Board.
Tim Kavanagh explained: at the YMCA hearing, the Fire Department asked the applicant to provide two means of entering the building, and in defense of their request they cited an ordinance filed by a group of Fire Chiefs in the western part of the country which consisted of recommendations in respect to large building groups. The recommendation concerned the need for two separate entrances for buildings of a certain size or function. Mr. Kavanagh noted that members of the Planning Board expressed dismay concerning this ordinance, and Councilor O’Keefe objected to the Planning Board’s stance on the subject.
Lynn Duncan stated that the Planning Board acts as a subdivision board, and that the Fire Department must sign off on the Planning Board’s permits.
Tim Ready stated that he felt the Fire Department’s ordinance concerning the two entrances removed authority from the Planning Board. Lynn Duncan noted that the Fire Department could not veto the Planning Board, but that the Fire Department had ultimate responsibility over safety issues.
Pam Lombardini commented that she was pleased with how the meeting had gone, and that the enforcement of the three-minute public speaking rule seemed to be a successful method.
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Pam Lombardini, and approved (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Ian Fullerton, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
