Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
March 15, 2007
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 15, 2007, in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were: Walter Power, John Moustakis, Tim Kavanagh, Chuck Puleo, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Timothy Ready. Also present were Staff Planner Dan Merhalski, and Ian Fullerton, Clerk.
Members Absent: Gene Collins.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Power reviewed the minutes for the February 15th, 2007 meeting.
Mr. Power suggested changes on pages 2 and 3.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Ms. Hanscom to approve the amended minutes, seconded by Ms. Lombardini, and approved (8-0).
Continuation of 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, Lots 99, 100, 104, 105) – Joseph Correnti
Mr. Correnti, representing Tri-City Sales and CVS Pharmacy, addressed the Planning Board in regards to a request by the developers to withdraw the original application concerning the Drive Through Facilities Special Permit and Site Plan Review Special Permit for 262-272 Highland Ave., filed on November 15th, 2006, and to begin a new public hearing for a identical petition, re-filed on February 22nd, 2007. Mr. Correnti explained that the developers wished to re-file the petition because several Planning Board members had been absent from the Planning Board meetings over the holiday season, and they wished to have a vote which included all members of the Planning Board.
Ward 4 City Councilor Leonard O’Leary contested that the developers were not allowed to have two applications before the Planning Board on one night, stating that they should have withdrawn the original petition at the March 1st, 2007 meeting.
Mr. Merhalski explained that the required quorum of the Planning Board needed to vote on the application had fallen below the number necessary to take action on the March 1st meeting and that this had only been discovered following the March 1st meeting.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Ms. Sullivan to approve the withdrawal of the original application, without prejudice, and begin the public hearing for the new petition, seconded by Mr. Ready, and approved (8-0).
Public Hearing (NEW) – Drive Through Facilities Special Permit and Site Plan Review Special Permit – Tri-City Sales and CVS Pharmacy – 262-272 Highland Ave. (Map 8, Lots 99, 100, 104, 105) – Joseph Correnti
Mr. Correnti, representing Tri-City Sales and CVS Pharmacy, addressed the Planning Board in regards to the Drive Through Facilities Special Permit and Site Plan Review Special Permit for 262-272 Ave. Mr. Correnti reiterated that this petition was identical to the previous petition for this property, which was a proposal for the demolition of the current Tri-City Sales building and the development of a new Tri-City Sales showroom with a Dunkin Donuts, and a new CVS Pharmacy building.
At this point Christopher Iannuzzi, the site engineer for the project, addressed the Planning Board in regards to the Site Plan for the property. Mr. Iannuzzi stated that the proposed site would feature two (2) two-way access drives, one on Highland Ave. and the other on Marlborough Road. He also noted that the site would have 59 parking spaces and a separate loading area for the Tri-City Sales building. Mr. Iannuzzi stated that the site currently contained two detention basins.
At this point Christopher Hollis, architect for the project, addressed the Planning Board in regards to the architecture for the two buildings. Mr. Hollis stated that buildings would feature a red brick exterior and a stucco-like sign band. He noted that the height of the CVS building would be 28, 26, and 24 feet, and the Tri-City Sales building would be between 24 and 26 feet tall.
At this point Alan Cloutier, traffic engineer for the project, addressed the Planning Board in regards to a traffic study for the surrounding area. Mr. Cloutier noted that the traffic impact study completed in November of 2006 had analyzed Highland Ave., Marlborough Road, and Traders’ Way, as well as Verona Street and Greenlawn Ave. In regard to the traffic-related improvements which would come as a result of the project, Mr. Cloutier stated that the three existing curb cuts on Marlborough Road would be consolidated into one and moved away from the intersection. He also noted that there would be a sidewalk added along side the frontage of the property on Highland Ave. leading to Verona Street.
Ward 4 Councilor Leonard O’Leary asked Mr. Cloutier to point out the two site drives, and asked if there were currently plans to have an exit onto Verona. Mr. Cloutier responded that there were currently no finalized plans for an exit onto Verona Street.
Mr. Correnti noted that, prior to filing the petition, the developers had met several times with the Ward 4 neighborhood to discuss their concerns regarding the project. He noted that one of the major issues which came from the meetings was the landscaping along the back of the site, and that the developers had made certain that the site would provide adequate screening, in terms of both visual blockage and noise reduction, for the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Moustakis requested the traffic flow within the site be reviewed. Mr. Coultier stated that the traffic flow within the site was mostly two-way, with the exception of the center aisle which would lead to the CVS Drive Through section.
Mr. Ready requested that Mr. Coultier review the proposal for exiting onto Marlborough Road. Mr. Coultier indicated the exiting options onto Marlborough Road using the illustration of the site. Ms. Hanscom suggested that the exit onto Marlborough Road be three lanes to avoid traffic congestion. Mr. Coultier explained that the zoning by-laws prevented the developers from making a third lane. Mr. Iannuzzi added that the maximum allowed width of the curb cut was 24 feet.
Ms. Sullivan asked how long a driver would have to wait to exit from the site drive during rush hour. Mr. Coultier stated that during the weekday rush hour there would be a short wait, especially to make a left turn onto Marlborough Road.
Mr. Power stated that drivers exiting out onto Marlborough Road would be forced to act aggressively.
At this point Gary Hebert, traffic engineer and the city’s traffic peer reviewer for the project, addressed the Planning Board in regards to the traffic study submitted by Vanasse, Hangen and Brustlin, Inc. Mr. Hebert stated he felt the study was generally carried out in compliance with standard practices, with a decent traffic distribution pattern for the projection of the site. He concluded he felt that, overall, the plan was ‘okay’ but flawed in certain instances. Mr. Hebert stated that the study showed that the project would double the amount of traffic within the area.
Mr. Hebert proposed that the best solution would be to have an entrance/exit on Highland Ave., an entrance-only drive from Marlborough Road and an exclusive right turn exit out onto Verona Street. He noted that a geometric restriction on Verona Street may be occasionally ignored, but for the most part it would prove to be helpful in controlling the traffic within the area. Mr. Hebert added that he presented this solution without being privy to neighborhood bias, and was interested to hear their input.
Mr. Power requested that Mr. Hebert discuss the deceleration lane on Highland Ave. in regard to the bus stop.
Mr. Hebert suggested that, if the right turn lane onto Marlborough Road be widened, it should be done for the benefit of vehicle traffic, and not for pedestrian safety. He added that another possible option would be to have a separate bus bay somewhere ahead of the Marlborough Road turn.
Mr. Power asked if, in the future extension of Highland Ave, a wider turning lane be beneficial.
Mr. Hebert stated that, in regards to the lane width, it would benefit larger vehicles, but a wider lane would also threaten pedestrian safety. He added that he had not considered the bus bay area thoroughly enough to give a qualified answer regarding the widening of the turning lane onto Marlborough Road.
Ms. Sullivan noted she felt that the entrance onto the site from Highland Ave was not wide enough, and suggested that the entrance be widened to include a third lane.
Ms. Hanscom stated she felt that the exits onto Marlborough Road, Highland Ave., and Verona Street were necessary for adequate traffic safety and flow.
Mr. Ready asked Mr. Hebert to clarify what he meant when he said that the projected traffic affected by the proposed project would ‘not be a good situation.’ Mr. Hebert stated that volume-to-capacity ratio of the projected traffic around the site was estimated between 2 and 3 times greater than the acceptable capacity for the intersection, and drivers would have to wait an inordinate amount of time to exit from the site. Mr. Ready asked if he would call this a ‘dangerous condition,’ and asked if there were applicable statistics from the Salem Police Department to back up this claim. Mr. Hebert stated that the crash data between 2002 and 2005 showed that the intersection at Marlborough Road and Highland Ave. had a slightly higher accident rate than the state average. Mr. Cloutier added that these
statistics included accidents within the immediate area and was not limited to incidents at the intersection itself.
At this point the public hearing was opened.
Roger Ledger of 64 Marlborough Road suggested that the site drive on Marlborough Road be widened to alleviate traffic congestion. Mr. Ledger alluded to a proposed project by Mass Highway concerning Marlborough Road.
Ms. Sullivan asked as to the nature of the project.
Mr. Merhalski stated that the project pertained to pedestrian lights at the intersection, and was not concerning lane-widening.
Ms. Sullivan stated it was imperative that Mass Highway be present at future Planning Board meetings to discuss solutions to the projected traffic risks threatening the intersection.
Mr. Kavanagh suggested that future changes to the intersection by the city and Mass Highway be anticipated in the development of the current project. He also inquired as to the possible options and availablitity of space in the widening the Marlborough Road site drive. Mr. Hebert suggested that the site drive be widened on the right curb cut, away from the intersection.
Mr. Moustakis concurred with Ms. Sullivan in that Mass Highway should provide representation at future Planning Board meetings in regard to the matter of decreasing traffic congestion at the intersection.
Mr. Puleo suggested that the deceleration lane for the left turn onto Traders Way be increased in length up to the Verona Street curb cuts. Mr. Hebert noted that the dimensions of Highland Ave. may not allow this increase in length of the left deceleration lane, and added that the left turn onto Traders Way was not related to the project.
Mr. Iannuzzi stated that, between the VHB traffic study and Mr. Hebert’s peer review of the study, it was clear that an exit-only right turn drive onto Verona Street was a reasonable conclusion to decreasing traffic congestion out of the site and at the intersection. Mr. Iannuzzi cited that a geometric restriction at the exit would be necessary to deter drivers from taking a left turn onto Verona Street, as well as one on Highland Ave. to prevent vehicles from entering Verona Street and allowing vehicles exiting onto Highland Ave. effectively acting as a buffer zone for merging traffic heading south.
Steven Disick of 10 Greenlawn Ave. stated that the retention basin in back of the property was once a wetland, and that his property had been impacted with flooding problems as a result of the basin being built. He also stated that an exit onto Verona Street would be unacceptable, because drivers would not abide by the right-turn only restriction.
Mr. Power asked if this matter had been discussed at the neighborhood meetings between the community and the applicant.
Mr. Disick stated that it had not been discussed.
Mr. Iannuzzi stated that in the past water had flowed from Traders way across Highland Ave. and into abutting properties. He explained that retention ponds had been built with surrounding berms to restrict run-off into these properties. Mr. Iannuzzi stated that in his opinion, the amount of run-off allowed by these retention ponds would not allow for flooding in the neighboring backyards.
Ward 4 Councilor Leonard O’Leary stated that the water was not flowing from across Highland Ave.
Mr. Correnti stated that the design to prevent water from flowing in to the property had failed, and had had the opposite effect. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers had installed a pipe running out to Marlborough Road which connects to the storm water drainage basin. Mr. Correnti added that the developers could not be responsible for all storm water drainage on Verona Street. Mr. Power suggested that the project’s engineers reexamine the issue of drainage on the property and in the surrounding area.
Ralph Meneades of 8 Verona Street asked if the VHB traffic study had generated an anticipated statistic as to the division of entering and exiting traffic from the site?
Mr. Cloutier stated that the traffic study only anticipated the proposed exits in Marlborough and Highland Ave. He stated the study showed that 40% of the traffic would come from Highland Ave., 10% from Traders Way, and 40% from Marlborough Road and potentially to Verona Street. Mr. Hebert added that these statistics indicated traffic during periods of queuing.
Mr. Meneades noted that additional traffic would affect Verona Street as a fire lane. He suggested that it would be difficult to enforce the right turn exit only restriction on Verona Street. Mr. Cloutier noted that the developers were planning to have a geometric restriction to enforce the right turn, adding that most drivers would have no incentive to take a left onto Verona Street.
Chuck Barton of 26 Marlborough Road stated that queuing on Marlborough Road is only a problem during peak hours. Mr. Barton stated that a geometric restriction would not prevent exiting traffic from turning left onto Verona Street.
Ward 4 Councilor Leonard O’Leary stated he felt that the proposed Dunkin Donuts was unnecessary and would contribute to added traffic in the area. Mr. O’Leary also stated that part of the property was on Single-Family (R-1) land. Mr. Iannuzzi stated that current zoning allowed a 30 foot extension into the Single-Family portion of the site.
Mr. Moustakis noted that the proposed 130 houses to be built on Marlborough Road would affect the increase in traffic within the area. Mr. Cloutier stated that the proposed houses had been factored into the VHB traffic study.
Mr. Disick asked when the proposed construction start time for the site was. Mr. Disick also stated he felt that the height of the CVS building was too high. Mr. Correnti stated that the start time would be 8:00 a.m.
Mr. Hollis stated that the height in the front of the CVS building defined the entrance.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter at this time, a motion was made by Ms. Lombardini to continue the public hearing to 7:00 pm on April 5th, 2007, seconded by Mr. Puleo, and approved (8-0).
Public Hearing – Amendment to Previously Approved Definitive Subdivision Plan – Glover Estates, LLC – 485 Lafayette Street (Map 31, Lot 237) – George Atkins
Mr. Atkins, representing Glover Estates, LLC, addressed the Planning Board in regards to an Amendment to Previously Approved Definitive Subdivision Plan for 485 Lafayette Street. Mr. Atkins explained that the amendment was a request under the statute for a modification of a previous decision made by the Planning Board on a subdivision approval and a wetlands permit. Mr. Atkins explained that the property was on the Salem/Marblehead line, and the subdivision was within the Salem parcel.
Mr. Atkins addressed, in the Planning Board’s decision, language which called for off-site traffic improvements on Lafayette Street. He stated the decision requested that the final plan be approved by the city engineers of both Marblehead and Salem, and that the engineers had met and discussed the changes called for in the decision.
Mr. Atkins noted that several other public improvements were involved with the project, noting that the area need to be cleaned for lead contamination. He added that the area required a Chapter 91 license by the Department of Environmental Protection, and that, during the DEP’s preliminary review, they requested a stairway leading the to the beach, as well as a handicap access to the beach and the bicycle path.
Mr. Atkins cited that the Planning Board’s decision required that the lane be maintained as a private way, which, he noted, may discourage public access in the future. Mr. Atkins stated that he was requesting a change in the language of the decision which would allow the subdivision to be accepted as a public way by City Council, while still being maintained by the condominium association.
Mr. Atkins also cited, in the decision, language which pertained to a ‘comprehensive permit.’ He requested that the term be changed to ‘permits required.’
At this point Eric Lane addressed the Planning Board in regard to the specific physical changes of the plan. Mr. Lane noted that the corner angle of Tides Lane and Lafayette Street had been tightened to create the appearance of an intersection. He noted that the city of Marblehead had requested a parking space next to the sewage pumping station. He also indicated new parking spaces at the end of the cul-de-sac, requested by the DEP.
Mr. Power asked if there would be a handicap access underpass under the bike path. Mr. Lane stated that they would be utilizing an existing cattle bridge from the walkway.
Ms. Sullivan noted that there had been an added pathway linking the bike path and the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Atkins noted that the Salem Fire Department had yet to endorse the plan, and that they were waiting for the Marblehead Fire Department to endorse it first, while the Marblehead Fire Department were waiting for the Salem Fire Department to approve the plan first. Mr. Power stated that the Planning Board would wait for the Salem FD to endorse the plan before they would approve it.
Mr. Kavanagh asked whether the Salem FD had made a statement to the Planning Board regarding their approval on the project.
Mr. Merhalski said that Lt. Erin Griffin from the Salem FD sent a message to the Planning Department which stated that they would wait for the approval of the Marblehead FD, adding that the Planning Board would have to wait 35 days before making a decision without the approval of the Salem FD.
Mr. Atkins suggested that the Planning Board make a decision including a condition that the Salem FD approve as well. Mr. Merhalski recommended a continuation of the hearing until a decision was reached by the Salem FD.
Mr. Moustakis suggested that the Planning Department send a letter to the City Solicitor requesting council in the situation, meanwhile making a condition for the decision made that night.
Mr. Ready asked if Ms. Griffin’s message was sufficient for the Planning Board to postpone their decision. Mr. Merhalski stated that the Planning Board would have to wait 35 days before going ahead without the approval of the Salem FD, and furthermore the Planning Department were not privy to the position of the city’s other boards.
Mr. Atkins stated that the determination had to be made by the Planning Board, and added that the developers would meet personally with the Marblehead FD to discuss the matter.
Mr. Puleo asked when the 35 day waiting period went into effect. Mr. Merhalski stated that it began 7 days after the application was filed.
At this point the meeting was opened to public comment.
Robert Kalis of 84 Robert Road concurred that the term ‘comprehensive permit’ should be changed to ‘permits required,’ to allow the project to move along quickly. Mr. Atkins added that the developers could not apply for the Chapter 91 license without first acquiring all other permits required.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter at this time, a motion was made by Ms. Sullivan to continue the hearing to 7:00 pm on April 5th, 2007, seconded by Ms. Lombardini, and approved (8-0).
Continuation of Public Hearing – Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit – Chapel Hill, LLC – Clark Avenue (Map 6, Lots 6, 7, and 8) – Atty. Jack Keilty
Mr. Keilty, representing Chapel Hill, LLC, addressed the Planning Board in regard to a Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit for Clark Avenue. Mr. Keilty explained that there were six existing houses located on lots which, it was discovered, run through an industrial zone. Mr. Keilty stated it was his opinion that the houses could not be granted permits for extension or be re-built in circumstances required it. He noted that he had asked the City Council to consider a zone change to Single-Family (R-1). Mr. Keilty stated that he had prepared a plan to show lots that would conform to zoning in the southern side of the property.
Mr. Keilty stated that he had sent a petition to Ward 3 City Councilor Jean Pelletier requesting a rezoning amendment. He added that he had drafted the letter as a landowner effective as a petitioner. Mr. Keilty explained that he planned to fund a peer review of the roadway and drainage, in hopes of obtaining a zoning change from Industrial to R1.
Mr. Puleo asked how Mr. Keilty proposed to define the zoning line. Mr. Keilty explained that in the petition he had identified everything by assessors’ maps and lots.
Mr. Moustakis asked if, in the event that Mr. Keilty acquired the desired zoning change, whether he would still own the industrial land. Mr. Keilty stated that he would still own it.
Ms. Sullivan speculated as to whether this was a true cluster development. Mr. Keilty stated that the preliminary plan which the Planning Board had voted on was a cluster development. Mr. Keilty explained that he wished to have the peer review done, while simultaneously asking for the zone change. Keilty stated that if the zone change was not granted then the Planning Board could vote to approve the northern cluster but not the southern cluster and Jennifer Circle.
Mr. Power stated that the Planning Board had reservations relative to approving any cluster on the plan. He noted that they had not approved a Definitive Plan for cluster development yet.
Mr. Kavanagh clarified that the northern cluster would not be affected by the proposed rezoning amendment.
Mr. Power speculated as to whether the Planning Board would want to approve a roadway that extended into an industrial zone. Mr. Keilty suggested that the Planning Board could vote to approve the northern cluster only, adding that the Planning Board had choices in regard to their final approval.
Mr. Power asked whether there was anyone currently eyeing the land for industrial purposes. Mr. Keilty stated that there wasn’t anyone looking at the land.
Mr. Merhalski stated that, under the current zoning ordinance, a cluster cannot be considered by the Planning Board if it is in an industrial zone. He suggested that for the time being Mr. Keilty submit a revised plan showing the northern cluster with a traditional subdivision on the Single-Family (R-1) portion of the southern section, until he has received approval of a zoning amendment..
At this point the public hearing was opened.
Dave Colpitts of 18 Clark Ave. stated that the property does not meet cluster zoning regulations. Mr. Colpitts provided photographs showing wetland cliffs on the property and presented a petition and new development plan for the site and stated that he had made an offer to purchase the property from the owner and develop it himself..
At this point Mr. Keilty left the meeting.
A motion was made by Mr. Kavanagh to continue the public hearing April 5th, 2007, seconded by Mr. Moustakis, and approved (8-0).
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Ms. Lombardini to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Hansom, and approved (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Ian Fullerton, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
