Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
July 19, 2007
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Walter Power, Tim Kavanaugh, John Moustakis, and Pam Lombardini. Also present were Amy Lash, Staff Planner, and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk.
Members Absent: Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan and Nadine Hanscom.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes for the July 12, 2007 Planning Board meeting were reviewed.
On page 2, paragraph 5, regarding the “Drive Thru” sign, Mr. Power questioned whether the sign should say “Bank Drive Thru”. Attorney George Atkins said that he believes that since the bank would be the only drive thru there, the word Bank doesn’t need to be on the sign, also, the bank logo may be on the sign. If necessary, they can comply. Matters regarding signage will have to go for sign review, and it can be brought up then.
No changes needed to be made to the minutes.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Ms. Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Mr. Power, and approved (5-0).
Request to Continue Public Hearing – Amendment to Previously Approved Subdivision Plan- Leggs Hill Road (Map 30, Lot 83)- Atty. George Atkins, Chris Nowak, PE- Requested Continuance to September 20, 2007
Atty. George Atkins requested to continue the public hearing so they can look at the project and address concerns as well as talk to the City Council and neighbors. They would like to come back September 20, 2007.
Mr. Power asked if they still envision the roadway to the YMCA going over the rear lots on Leggs Hill Road. Mr. Atkins said that yes, the driveway does go up to the YMCA, and the driveway is on part of the land owned by the people on Leggs Hill Road. Mr. Atkins stated that the plan originally approved doesn’t include any parcels on Leggs Hill Road. They reconfigured the lots, eliminating 5 lots on the cul-de-sac and creating an extra lot on Leggs Hill road. This is the proposed modification, but they could come back with a different plan.
Mr. Power is concerned that the people who own the land are paying taxes on land that is being used to create an easement. Mr. Atkins explained that the homeowners will own the property that the road goes over.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Ms. Lombardini to continue the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Moustakis, and approved (5-0).
Discussion- Six (6) Month Follow Up Report- Witch Hill Subdivision- Dell Street/Durkin Street- Ken Steadman
Atty. George Atkins addressed the Board. They were in six months ago, at that time it had been two years since the Dell St. project was approved, and there were two issues: clearing the titles for the land and the fact that the land will cross under National Grid’s power lines. He reported that they have made progress. They have: 1- clarified and resolved all the title problems and 2-made an agreement with National Grid, they just need to get the paperwork done and that is currently in progress. In addition, they submitted the plan (which the Planning Board approved) to Land Court engineers and a preliminary review has been done.
Mr. Puleo asked what percentages of the roads are in. Mr. Steadman said that a good 1/3 of the roads are in. Utilities, hydrants and drainage are in. Mr. Power asked if any construction on the houses has started and how much time is envisioned to complete the project? Mr. Steadman said there isn’t any construction yet, but they’re hoping that the first phase of 6-8 lots can be marketed in the fall. There are no issues to setting and the land will cross over National Grid lines. Mr. Moustakis asked how quickly they think they can get approval by National Grid- Mr. Steadman said that they already have a deal, the approval is in place and the paperwork has been sent to their legal department. They are getting their finances in place, and will be ready to go once this
paperwork is done.
Continuation of Public hearing Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit- Chapel Hill LLC, Clark Avenue (map 08, Lots 6,7,8)- Attorney Jack Keilty- Requested Continuance to September 6, 2007.
Mr. Puleo read a letter from Attorney Jack Keilty respectfully requesting continuance of the public hearing until September 6, 2007.
There being no further questions or comments on this matter, Ms. Lombardini made a motion to continue the public hearing to September 20th, seconded by Mr. Power and approved (5-0).
Councillor Pelletier, present at this meeting, also has a copy of plans for Chapel Hill LLC.
Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- Story Street (Map 23, Lot 2)- Leo Higgins
Neither the applicant nor a representative attended the meeting to present the plan.
Mr. Tim Kavanaugh has some reservations about this application and feels that they will need a legal opinion from the City Solicitor. According to the subdivision regulations, page-2 paragraph-A there are three criteria to meet. First, he states that on the map provided to the Board, there is a dotted line, which assumingly shows the end of the street. There appears to be a line separating Story Street, which is a public way, from St Ann’s Park, which would appear to be a private way. That line of demarcation is just above the parcel A that would be created. So according to this plan, parcel A does not have any frontage on the public way. St. Ann’s Park would be a private way. He said that it does not seem to meet the requirements for an ANR.
The second criterion says ‘a way shown on a plan theretofore approved in accordance with the subdivision control law’. Mr. Kavanaugh pointed out that there are no notes, no reference that would indicate that St. Ann’s Park is a way shown on a plan since 1964.
The third says ‘a way in existence when the subdivision control law became effective’. The applicant shows the way on the plan. On that, it appears wooded and unconstructed and the applicant has not proven it was in existence in 1964. Mr. Kavanaugh feels the plan does not meet any of the requirements for an ANR and the Board should seek a legal opinion from the City Solicitor.
Ms. Lombardini thinks the petitioner should have been at this meeting to hear the concerns and issues of the Board instead of just having Councilors and abutters present. Mr. Power reminded the Board that they have 21 days before it would be automatically approved. Mr. Kavanaugh said that Mr. Power is right and that the Board must take a vote. Mr. Kavanaugh wants to submit a query to Beth Rennard, the City Solicitor, to review the application and plan and give her opinion as to whether they must approve this plan if it is submitted again. Mr. Collins asked that if this goes to the City Solicitor and if her opinion says that it doesn’t meet the requirements for an ANR, does it “stop the clock”? Should they take a vote tonight? It was concluded that they must do so or
the application would not be constructively approved. Mr. Collins is concerned and feels that the Board’s opinion should be sent to the City Solicitor with their denial attached. They want to know whether they acted correctly or not.
Mr. Kavanaugh says this must be considered a subdivision because it does not meet the three exceptions of section-2.
Mr. Power said that he assumes that the Board could turn this down due to lack of important information needed. Also, if turned down, is there a time frame that the petitioner would have to wait before re-filing? Board members agreed there is not, though a re-filed plan should include additional information.
A motion was made by Mr. Collins to “deny the Form A based upon lack of reliable information as to whether the road is private or existing” seconded by Mr. Moustakis and approved (5-0).
The board wants to send to Beth Rennard the results of the deliberation and would like her to render her opinion based upon the information. Mr. Kavanaugh views this as a subdivision and would like Beth to see if this is entitled to ANR status.
The motion was restated- Mr. Collins made a motion to send the results of the discussion of the Form A to Beth Rennard, City Solicitor, for her review in terms of whether or not it’s a subdivision, or needs to be filed as a subdivision, or whether or not it should be considered a Form A. Seconded by Mr. Kavanaugh, and approved (5-0).
Mr. Power asked if there was any other access to the remaining parcel. Councillor Lovely pointed out that the terminus off (Cleveland) street is not to be considered for frontage purposes. She also pointed out that the extension Story Street was cut into a subdivision in the early part of the century. Mr. Kavanaugh stated that he understands why abutters are interested, it is a large parcel with wetlands. He said that we know it’s not a public way, and we know it’s not a way that’s on an approved plan since 1964. There is an 1895 plan, which shows the way, which is different than being a way in existence. He questions what a way in existence means and wants Beth Rennard to interpret that by looking at the case law.
Mr. Power recalls a precedent case off of Chapel Hill where somebody wanted to build a house with frontage on a paper street and they were allowed to do that. He believes the paper street may have been registered in some way.
A question was posed- wouldn’t the other thing to look at be the original zoning map for the city? The zoning district is R-C, when the zoning was originally done they must have looked at the street. The footprint where somebody could build is very limited. Mr. Kavanaugh said if Beth Rennard says it is an ANR- the board must form an opinion- is it sufficiently wide enough? We might say because it’s being joined with a parcel that has frontage on Story Street, the board could say yes we believe there is sufficient width because we could consider it as part of a larger lot on Story Street. Mr. Kavanaugh noted it does say on the application that the lot will be combined with the lot of Gerald and Linda Tardiff, however they aren’t present to acknowledge the property is
being conveyed to them. Comments were made that parcel A is not a legal lot by itself.
Mr. Power said to add that, if in fact it is a Form A, how do we protect ourselves from the use of upgrading utilities? Mr. Collins said that if her opinion comes down to the side that we were wrong, he has 100 ft of access on the city street. Mr. Collins said that it’s 1700 ft in question plus the 100 ft of frontage, which would give him adequate lot size plus minimum frontage on Story Street. Gene Collins noted that it is all speculation at this point. Can Amy ask Beth that if does not meet Form A requirements, what rights does the petitioner have, what could he do legally? If we approve this are we giving him greater rights to develop his parcel? Can he go to the building inspector and get a permit to build something? What are his rights in terms of the remaining
parcel? Are we giving him rights to a greater parcel? Does it have proper sewer and utility lines? Gene Collins noted he could just add that land and just make his land bigger. The Board wants make sure that he will not be using this as an entrance to the rest of the property.
The Board members were in agreement that the petitioner should be there to answer the questions.
Mr. Power made amendment to the previous motion to add in that “if in fact we approve as Form A, how can we make sure that the utilities in the Paper St area are installed and street extended if in fact that’s opening into a subdivision”, seconded by Kavanaugh, and approved (5-0).
Old/New Business
o Chapter 91 Application Received for 6 Dearborn Lane
This is for a floating dock. Ms. Lombardini lives in this area and said that the public way runs down near the top part of the beach. The right of way is a city way, open to the public, you can get there. There are no postings.
Mr. Moustakis wants to protect the right of way to the water as long as there is no encroachment on abutters land if that is what the neighbors want, if it is an encroachment on their right of way. Pam asked when this would be going to the DEP, she will email Amy Lash with her questions and she can check on when they will be going to the DEP; there may be a public comment period.
o Mr. Puleo received a letter from the City Council regarding the rezoning of six parcels from the July 12th public hearing. Against what the Planning Board recommended, it was approved as first passage to rezone six parcels in question. It will go for a second passage at the Sept. 13th regular Council meeting.
o City of Salem Open Space & Recreation Plan Update 2007-2012
Amy explained that the Open Space & Recreation Plan was sent out by email for review by Planning Board Members, and that comments/suggestions could be submitted to Carey Duques, the Conservation Agent who is still working on the draft. The board indicated they are in support of this effort, though they would like more time to read the draft document. Amy will send hard copies to the planning board members and find out the date that comments need to be in by.
o Comment that they have started the deceleration cell lane on Highland Ave next to Traders Way.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Mr. Collins to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Kavanaugh, and approved (5-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
