Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
April 5, 2007
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 5, 2007, in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, 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 Timothy Ready. Also present were Staff Planner Dan Merhalski, and Ian Fullerton, Clerk.
Members Absent: none
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Power reviewed the minutes for the March 1st, 2007 meeting.
There being no questions or comments regarding the matter, a motion was made by Mr. Kavanagh to approve the minutes, seconded by Ms. Lombardini, and approved
(9-0).
Mr. Power reviewed the minutes for the March 15st, 2007 meeting.
There being no questions or comments regarding the matter, a motion was made by Mr. Moustakis to approve the minutes, seconded by Ms. Hanscom, and approved
(9-0).
Continuation of Public Hearing – Request to Amend Site Plan Review Decision – Stutz Volvo – 309 Highland Ave. (Map 8, Lot 139) – Beth Rennard
Ms. Rennard requested that the public hearing be continued to April 19th, 2007.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter at this time, a motion was made by Mr. Puleo to continue the public hearing on April 19th, 2007, seconded by Ms. Hanscom, and approved (9-0).
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 and 105) – Joseph Correnti
Mr. Correnti, representing Tri-City Sales and CVS Pharmacy, addressed the Planning Board in regards to a Drive Through Facilities Special Permit and Site Plan Review Special Permit for 262-272 Highland Ave. (Map 8, Lots 99, 100, 104 and 105). Mr. Correnti recapped some of the issues previously discussed with the Planning Board concerning the site plan, including drainage problems and a hypothetical curb cut onto Verona Street.
Ward 4 City Councilor Leonard F. O’Leary asked if there had been any progress in the bid for state involvement in regards to the reconstruction of the intersection at Highland Ave. and Marlborough Road. Ms. Sullivan explained that Lynn Duncan had requested that the state consider a bond bill to finance the reconstruction of the intersection.
At this point Christopher Iannuzzi, site engineer for the project, addressed the Planning Board in regards to the hypothetical curb cut from the site onto Verona Street, referring to the curb cut as the ‘preferred option.’ Mr. Iannuzzi explained that the curb cut would be 16 feet wide, one way exiting out of the site, with a geometric restriction deterring left turns onto Verona Street.
In regards to the drainage issue, Mr. Iannuzzi stated that there was a grading problem behind Mr. Disick’s property at 10 Greenlawn Road due in part to an accumulation of compost. He stated that the developers would install a trench drain that would carry rainwater out onto the street. Mr. Iannuzzi recommended that the neighbors refrain from storing compost in the area to ensure that the drainage system is functional.
Ms. Hanscom asked if the developers had considered having three lanes on the Marlborough Road curb cut. Mr. Iannuzzi explained that if the curb cut exceeded a width of 24 feet the developers would need to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers did not feel a third lane would be necessary, but that they were willing to accept a restriction on left turns coming out onto Marlborough Road during weekday peak hours, between 3 and 6 p.m., to avoid traffic congestion at the intersection and on Marlborough Road.
Ms. Sullivan suggested that the traffic conditions in and around the site be reviewed after a six-month period to survey any traffic problems due to the new curb cuts. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers would accept a condition, which stated that the project would be reviewed in six months.
Mr. Kavanagh stated he felt that the curb cut on Marlborough Road would function best with 3 lanes: a left turn out, a right out, and an entrance lane. Mr. Correnti noted that a variance would be required to create a third lane, adding that a left turn out restriction would be difficult to enforce if there was a separate lane. Mr. Kavanagh noted that it would be difficult to take a left turn out during peak hours, thus the restriction would be self-enforcing. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers would go forward with the two-lane curb cut on Marlborough Road, and would consider a third lane if proved necessary by the six month review.
Mr. Moustakis asked how trucks would enter and exit the site. Mr. Correnti stated that all truck traffic would enter and exit through the Highland Ave. entrance. Mr. Power asked what the normal delivery schedule for the site would be. Sharon Borges from Gershman & Brown Associates Inc., representing CVS, responded that there would be one truck delivery per week, sometimes two deliveries per week during the holiday season. Ms. Lombardini suggested that loading on site be done during off-hours to avoid traffic congestion.
Ms. Sullivan requested that there be a condition stating that there would be no building on the corner of Marlborough Road and Highland Ave. Mr. Correnti stated that the current plan designated only landscaping on the corner.
Mr. Puleo asked if there had been any consideration of an extension of the deceleration lane onto Trader’s Way from Highland Ave. heading south. Alan Coultier stated that he had not seen any mention of the deceleration lane in Mass Highway’s plans for the intersection, noting that the plans were more concerned with the traffic signals.
At this point the hearing was opened to public comment.
Steve Disick of 10 Greenlawn Ave. stated that he was opposed to the curb cut on Verona Street, noting that the proposed Highland Ave. entrance would be sufficient. Mr. Power stated that Mr. Disick had mentioned problems with the drainage system behind the site and asked if the developers had spoken with him about the new drainage trench. Mr. Disick stated that they had not.
Mr. Iannuzzi explained that the grading issue behind the property was due in part to an accumulation of lawn clipping and compost, and explained that the new drainage trench would carry the water out onto the street.
Ward 2 City Councilor Michael Sosnowski asked what options would be available in altering the curb cuts on site after the six month review. Mr. Power stated that those details had not been developed yet, adding that the review would focus on the Marlborough Road curb cut, and would probably have to do with the left hand turn restrictions and a possible third land.
Mike Dennedy of 4 Orleans Ave noted that the property crossed over from a B1 into a residential zone. Mr. Correnti stated that current zoning ordinances allowed the property to run 30 feet into the residential zone. Mr. Dennedy also noted that the current site has a good amount of truck traffic, especially in the mornings, and suggested that more trucks be sent to the Swampscott Road warehouse.
Councilor O’Leary suggested that the proposed Dunkin Donuts be omitted from the plan, stating that it would reduce traffic congestion in and around the site. He also noted that a curb cut onto Verona would create an unwanted flow of traffic into the neighboring residential area.
Roger Ledger of 64 Marlboro Road stated that currently delivery trucks on the site had been driving up on the sidewalks and blocking the handicap ramp. Mr. Power suggested that Mr. Ledger speak to his City Councilor and alert the police to the issue.
Councilor O’Leary asked if the Planning Board would be following up on the state’s involvement in the reconstruction of the intersection. Mr. Merhalski stated that the plans were available to the public at the Planning Department. Ms. Sullivan suggested that the plans be brought to the meeting to be discussed by the public and the Planning Board.
Ward 7 City Councilor Joseph A. O’Keefe, Sr. stated that he supported Councilor O’Leary’s comments, and asked what would happen to the bus stop on the corner of Marlborough Road and Highland Ave. Mr. Correnti stated that the bus stop would remain in its current location, adding that the developers intended to install new sidewalks on Highland Ave.
Mr. Dennedy commented that there are too many curb cuts on both sides of Marlborough Road, adding that this contributes to traffic congestion in the area.
Roger Ledger of 64 Marlboro Road requested that approval of the site plan be postponed so that state representatives could be involved in the public hearing.
Chuck Barton of 26 Marlborough Road reiterated his position in opposition to the curb cut onto Verona Street, suggesting that it would create a surplus of traffic within the neighboring residential area.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter at this time, a motion was made by Mr. Collins to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Moustakis, and approved (9-0).
In regards to Councilor O’Leary’s suggestions concerning the proposed Dunkin Donuts, Mr. Kavanagh stated that the Planning Board did not have jurisdiction to tell the developers not include a Dunkin Donuts in the project.
Mr. Power requested that the water run-off plan be reviewed. Mr. Iannuzzi stated that the site would have an interior system, routed underground, and would not include down spouts.
Mr. Power then asked for the snow storage plan to be reviewed. Mr. Iannuzzi exhibited, on the site illustration, where the snow storage areas would be, adding that excess snow would be removed from the site.
Mr. Power asked that the lighting be reviewed. Mr. Iannuzzi stated that there would be wall-mounted security lighting, measured so as not to pass the property line.
Mr. Ready commented he felt that the developers had been very cooperative with the requests of both the Planning Board and the public, and suggested that the Planning Board move forward and approve the plan.
Mr. Puleo asked what the developers intended to do with the area between the site and Verona Street. Mr. Iannuzzi stated that the developers plan to repave the road and install 1 foot-wide berms on both sides.
Mr. Power asked if the developers had considered where the water on Verona Street will drain to? Mr. Correnti stated that their detention pond was designed to handle all site drainage and excess capacity. Mr. Iannuzzi added that water on Verona Street drains towards Highland Ave. Mr. Power asked how water would drain from the site. Mr. Iannuzzi stated that the catch basins would be located in the center of the site along the sides of the drive through aisles, which would drain into the detention system. Mr. Iannuzzi noted that the catch basins on Highland Ave. would catch the water coming off of Verona Street.
Mr. Correnti stated that the developers would accept a condition stating that the drainage on Verona Street be approved subject to the review of the City Engineer, adding that Mass Highway would insist that the drainage would not flow onto Highland Ave.
Mr. Power asserted that a condition be added to the draft decision stating that a review of the curb cut onto Marlborough Road will take place after six month, at which point the developer will change the site drive according to the recommendations of the City Engineer. Ms. Sullivan added that there should be a meeting between the applicant and the Planning Board at the time of the review. Mr. Collins suggested that this responsibility be deferred to the Planning Department. Mr. Merhalski stated that the Planning Board could not enforce a condition that the applicant have a representative address the Planning Board if there were any alterations of the Marlborough Road curb cut after the six-month period.
Mr. Kavanagh suggested that a condition be added that the dumpster may only be emptied between the hours of 8 and 9 am. He added that a condition should be added concerning the restriction of truck delivery hours.
Mr. Kavanagh asked if the applicant would be willing, after the six month review, to install a barrier to prevent people from taking a left turn out of the site onto Verona Street. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers would consider the options for deferring left turns onto Verona Street, if after the six-month review it proved to be a serious problem.
At this point Mr. Merhalski reviewed the draft decision with the added conditions.
Mr. Correnti explained that the developers would install a 6 foot stockade fence along the rear of the property, as well as plantings along the top of the berm. He added that there would be substantial planting along Marlborough Road and Verona Street as well.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter, a motion was made to approve the Special Permit by Mr. Collins, seconded by Mr. Moustakis, and approved (9-0).
Continuation of 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 (Map 31, Lot 237). Mr. Atkins reiterated that this was a request for a modification of a plan previously approved by the Planning Board, noting some of the changes which included drainage issues and addition parking spaces on the roadway. Mr. Atkins stated it was his understanding that the issue between the Marblehead and Salem Fire Department had been resolved. Mr. Atkins stated that he agreed with Councilor O’Keefe in that the City of Salem should have no maintenance responsibilities in regards to the walkway.
Mr. Atkins submitted his amended language for the subdivision plan, which stated that Tide’s lane may be accepted as a public way, provided that any and all maintenance, repair and snow plowing be the responsibility of the condominium association in accordance with an agreement between the condominium association and the City of Salem.
Ms. Hanscom asked why the applicant wished to make Tide’s Lane a public way. Mr. Atkins stated that if it is a private way, the condominium association would discourage the public from using it.
Mr. Moustakis asked if the City of Salem would be responsibly for fire and law enforcement issues. Mr. Atkins speculated that Marblehead would be responsible for the condominiums, and Salem would be responsible for the road.
Mr. Power asked who would be responsible for the utilities. Mr. Atkins stated all utilities would be the responsibility of Marblehead. Eric Lane noted that the existing sewage pumping station will be rebuilt by Marblehead.
Mr. Kavanagh asked if there were any unresolved requests from the Marblehead and Salem Fire Departments. Mr. Merhalski stated that Erin Griffin from the Salem Fire Department had requested 3 addition parking spaces.
Councilor O’Keefe noted that he had submitted a letter opposing the application, adding that felt Tide’s Lane should remain a private road because if it were public it would cause problems for the City of Salem. Mr. Atkins noted that there are no houses on Tide’s Lane, and that Marblehead would be responsible for maintaining all utilities and services for the condominiums. He added that the project would result in a clean up of the beach, as well as an improvement of traffic conditions on Lafayette Street, citing the proposed installation of a pedestrian light.
Mr. Kavanagh stated that there should be no problems involving the City of Salem’s resources if the agreement is tightly drafted. He speculated that at some point the Salem City Council would be met with complaints of some kind regarding Tide’s Lane.
Mr. Atkins stated that Tide’s Lane needed public access protection, adding that a Chapter 91 license would be required.
Mr. Moustakis asked what Councilor O’Keefe’s objection was to Tide’s Lane becoming a public way. Councilor O’Keefe responded that, in principle, it is a private road.
Mr. Power asked Mr. Merhalski what benefits or responsibilities would come before the City of Salem if the Planning Board deemed the road to be a public way. Mr. Merhalski answered that if the Planning Board approved the amended language and it was not accepted by the City Council then there would be no party responsible for the maintenance of the street. Mr. Atkins stated that the subdivision plan with the modified language was compiled as close as possible to Chapter 91 requirements, adding that the City of Salem would benefit from road being turned into a public way.
Ms. Hanscom asked Mr. Atkins why it would help the applicant if the road were a public way as opposed to a private way. Mr. Atkins responded that it would allow him to say to the DEP that they did everything they could to provide public access, citing that this is the main purpose of a Chapter 91 License.
The Planning Board amended the decision rendered last year allowing the developer (and its successors or assigns) to petition the City Council for acceptance of Tides Land as a public way. Tides Lane must first be constructed in accordance with all the Planning Board’s rules and regulations. Further, the developer must negotiate an agreement acceptable to the City of Salem with respect to the repair, maintenance, and upkeep of Tides Lane, and must also indemnify, and provide insurance coverage satisfactory to the City of Salem. If the developer does not negotiate such and agreement with the City of Salem then the developer cannot petition the City Council. If however, such an agreement is realized, then the developer may petition the City Council to accept Tides Lane as a public
way.
Mr. Merhalski noted that Lynn Duncan had stated that the City of Salem would not benefit from Tide’s Lane becoming a public way.
Councilor O’Keefe stated he wished to go on record as saying that the Planning Board was taking an opposing position to the opinion of the City Planner on this issue. Mr. Power stated that the Planning Board was capable of taking independent action.
Mr. Merhalski suggested that the Planning Board continue the meeting with Lynn Duncan in attendance so that any ambiguities as to the nature of the amended plan may be settled. Ms. Lombardini added that Beth Rennard should also be present.
A motion was made by Ms. Lombardini to continue the public hearing on May 17th 2007, with City Planner Lynn Duncan and City Solicitor Beth Rennard present, seconded by Mr. Moustakis, and rejected (4-5).
A motion was made by Mr. Collins to approve the suggested amendments, seconded by Mr. Kavanagh, and approved (6-3).
Mr. Merhalski noted that the language in the approved amendment said that Tide’s Lane should become a public way. Ms. Sullivan stated she believed she had voted to have the City Council make the final determination.
Mr. Moustakis noted that the Planning Board had not gone over the draft decision.
Ms. Sullivan stated that it was her understanding that she had voted in favor of allowing City Council to make a determination of whether the road should become a public way.
Continuation of Public Hearing Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit – Chapel Hill LLC – Clark Avenue (Map 6, Lots 6,7,8) – Atty. Jack Keilty
Mr. Keilty requested that the public hearing be continued to April 19, 2007.
A motion was made by Ms. Lombardini to continue the public hearing on April 19, 2007, seconded by Mr. Kavanagh, and approved (9-0).
A request was also made for an extension of final action by the Planning Board until June 24, 2007.
A motion was made by Mr. Moustakis to approve an extension of final action by the Planning Board until June 24, 2007, seconded by Ms. Sullivan, and approved (9-0).
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 10:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Ian Fullerton, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
