Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
February 21, 2008
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 21, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Christine Sullivan, Walter Power, Nadine Hanscom, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Gene Collins (arrived 7:45). Also present were: Amy Lash, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk.
Absent: John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the February 7th meeting were reviewed. Changes to be made:
Page 2: (recommended by Walter Power) fourth paragraph, after “the street paved” add “on Clark Ave.”; same paragraph, at the end of the last sentence add “to the intersection at Clark Rd”.
Page 3: (recommended by Walter Power) last paragraph, at “up the hill” add “to Chapel Hill”. Same paragraph at end add sentence “Paving on Chapel Hill Ave. will start from the previous development at the telephone pole.”
Page 4: (Recommended by Chuck Puleo) second paragraph at “6 and 8 ft piping” change “ft” to “inch”.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Walter Power to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved (6-0).
Public Hearing Site Plan Review, Wetlands & Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit- Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street & 71 Mason Street (Map 26, Lots 91, 95 & 97) (formerly Salem Suede) –Attorney Scott Grover
Attorney Scott Grover, representing Riverview Place LLC, informed the Board that for traffic, the City currently has a peer review in progress, and, Earthtech will be at the next meeting to discuss traffic. The proposed project will be located on two industrial sites, the Salem Suede site and the Bonfanti site. The buildings that are currently there will come down and be replaced with 3 buildings. Two main buildings will be on the Salem Suede site and the third building will be on the Bonfanti site. It will have 130 residential apartment units and about 5500 ft. of commercial space. There will be 309 parking spaces- 260 allocated for the residential units, 12 allocated to Flint St. residents and 37 remaining spaces for commercial use. Christine Sullivan asked if they could provide an aerial view of
the site at the next meeting. They started the permitting process with the Zoning Board of Appeals. They had neighborhood meetings and took some concerns from the residents and made some changes before going to ZBA. There were three variances that were granted. The first was lot area per dwelling unit. 13 of the 130 units will be affordable housing. The second allows for construction in the buffer zone. The NRCC creates a transition zone, which means no construction can be within 50 ft of a residential used parcel. They created buffers in certain areas and asked the Zoning Board for the variance for these buffer zones. They also reduced the height of the building in the transitional zone.
The third relates to the action that they are asking the Planning Board to take. The multifamily use in the NRCC is allowable by special permit. There are three conditions on which the Planning Board can grant the permit. 1) Every unit has to have a first floor entrance if it’s located within 100 ft. of a residential used parcel in another zoning district. All the units would have to be first floor, which would limit the style of the building. The Board of Appeals granted a variance from that condition so that the Planning Board would be in a position to grant the special permit that they have asked for. Attorney Grover said they received votes in favor of the project with the Zoning Board, but that was appealed and they’re presently in litigation in land court to uphold the
decision. The Conservation Commission will also have jurisdiction over this project and the Design Review Board has a role as well, they will make a recommendation to the Planning Board. He is asking the Planning Board to make a referral to the DRB.
Christine Sullivan said she wants to see the design of the project before making the referral to the DRB. She also confirmed that this project is not a development cluster. Attorney Grover explained that it’s a residential development. He also said that they would be meeting with Erin Griffin of the Fire Department to discuss access. Attorney Grover continued to explain the conditions that need to be met for the multifamily use- 2) Project abuts residential use and 3) When on main corridor (like Mason St.) you have to have commercial space on first floor. Attorney Grover said that some of these conditions are met with this project. Chuck Puleo asked, in regards to condition #3, what type of commercial use? Is there any restriction? Attorney Grover believes the developer will determine the
type of commercial usage.
Attorney Grover explained that the other applications before the Board are the site plan review and the site plan review criteria for the NRCC, this is where the referral to the DRB comes in. The Zoning Board found that the proposed project complies with the objectives & goals of the NRCC. Steven Livermore, Architect, said that the three buildings would house 22, 51 and 57 residential units respectively. He then presented drawings that showed the different views of the building. The new buildings will be about 100 ft. and 125 ft from the North River. So the heights of the building will be roughly the same as the existing Salem Suede building.
The base of the buildings will be synthetic stone; the body will be prefinished brick & veneer clapboards. The pitched roofs will be metal and the flat roofs will be rubber or PVC type. Landscaping will include shade trees throughout site, screening and plantings around the buildings. Lighting will include old-fashioned street lighting at the interior site and the rest will be more traditional. Chuck Puleo suggested that at the next meeting they have a streetscape of adjacent properties on Flint and Mason Street. They will also provide details of fencing. Walter Power asked if they have given thought to the idea (that the master plan suggested) of the possible extension of Commercial Street through to Flint St., with the easement part of Commercial St. being one-way. Jim
McDowell of Eastern Land Survey said that they have given thought to it and are making a provision on their site for it. The road would be about 30 ft. wide. The space between the proposed project and Commercial St. is about 400-500 ft; and between the parcel and the adjacent parcel is about 28 ft. He pointed out the land that is owned by the Commonwealth of Mass.
Christine Sullivan suggested that for the walkway with benches, to have it along the river. Jim McDowell explained the utility systems: the water supply will tie into existing 8-inch line on Flint Street & tie into the 12-inch line on Mason St. The sanitary sewer will take from the site and tie into Mason St. There will be a new sewer system on site that will tie into existing site. For storm drains, they are proposing catch basins to connect to a water treatment device and discharge to the North River; the site doesn’t need stormwater detention. Low impact development will be ongoing. For grading, the site right now is a typical elevation of 8-9 above mean sea level, other parts of the site about 9 ½ to 11 ½. He pointed out the areas that will have
elevation 9 ½ to 10 ½; some areas at 11 and the driveway/parking are at 18.
Chuck Puleo asked, due to soil testing, if there are any special conditions for the site. Jim McDowell said they might have to do some soil capping. The test wells haven’t exhibited anything. Christine Sullivan inquired if there is expensive clean up. David Zion said they have budgeted half a million dollars for cleanup and they’re applying for money for cleanup and for testing. The majority of cleanup is where the buildings won’t be.
Meeting opened to the public
Paul Prevey (Ward 6 Councillor, 26 Tremont St.) has been in attendance at the Board of Appeals meetings. Based on the neighborhood, he feels the project is “too big” for the area. He lives on Tremont St. and sees the traffic and congestion there. Also, there are abutting neighbors, who he doesn’t want to see negative impacted. He wants a project to enhance the neighborhood. For the Commercial St. easement, if the City doesn’t have money to purchase abutting property within 10 years, it will revert back and he’s concerned about that.
Barbara Warren (5 Hardy St.) said she encourages the walkway to be built along the river. She is concerned with amount of parking. The plan shows that snow storage is on the landscaping, you won’t have trees for very long if snow & salt are on them. She asked when the FEMA 100 yr. flood zone map was last done. She also asked if the lowest level is in the basement. Jim McDowell answered that the FEMA map was updated around mid 1980’s and that the lower plan living units in the back of the building are above ground. Christine Sullivan said this makes it more urgent to see pictures of the back of the building and David Zion said it’s a good point because the building is almost set in "like a bowl”, it's hard to see what the view will really be like.
Martin Imm (174 Federal St.) was on the Master plan committee and feels that density is an issue. The zoning ordinance provided for lower level of density and the Planning Board has to approve this as a special permit. Then he handed out a page from the Master plan and went over some features. If Commercial St. could be built with a connection made up to Mason St., which may relieve some of the congestion.
Lorene Scanlon (77 Mason St.) said when she purchased her condo years ago she went to the Planning Department and got the NRCC Master Plan. She was told that there wouldn't be any large buildings or apartment complexes put at that site which is what is being discussed today. She feels the building is too large for the neighborhood and that variances were wrongly given.
Bill Penta (89 Flint St.) said that traffic is ridiculous. The City Council all agrees that the situation is bad, and this is before the building goes up. He heard Jim McDowell say they'd build an easement street to Flint that would be 30 ft. wide, which would be adequate. However, Flint St. is only 25 ft. wide, how would people get thru there? It’s very narrow.
Jane Arlander (93 Federal St.) stated that the City is lucky to have received a HUD grant to prepare a Master plan for NRCC. We should take the time to look at a development that would help the city, one that brings in more money. To put more residential buildings, that would stress the infrastructure. Jane Arlander had a memo from Lynn Duncan dated October 2007 that outlined the permitting process, that she thought was well written, and handed it out.
Ray Harvey (84 Flint St.) said that when he looks out his window, he sees the roof of the existing building because the building is down low. Also, he’s lived there for 36 years and has yet to see anything done with the parcels, so he’s for the development since it will improve the area.
Jacqueline Washburn (143 Federal St.) has concerns of the effects on traffic. The streets are not wide and the traffic comes from the Salem Hospital, schools, etc. By adding residents, that will increase the number of kids, increasing traffic to those areas. Look at Boards ability to rectify the traffic situation. Amy Lash said when this project came in, she checked on the number of kids in other similar units such as the Jefferson building, in which there are 260 units and less than 5 children.
Darryl Labisi (122 Federal St.) said the context of the NRCC Master plan included one overriding concept- to bring mixed use to an urban area, have a way of connecting old industrial areas back to the City. He urged the Board to look at ways to modify the plan to keep more in concept and in line with the Master plan.
Mary Whitney (356 Essex St.) said that there has been pollution, asbestos falling into the river and asked where the refuse would be as to eliminate pollution. She asked how many stories the building will have and also asked, for the affordable units, how is portability calculated? Scott Grover said that rent is based on 20% of 80% of income.
There being no further comments on this matter, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing, seconded by Tim Ready and approved (7-0). The public hearing to be continued to March 20th.
Christine Sullivan recused herself from the remainder of the meeting.
Continued: Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit- Chapel Hill LLC, Clark Avenue (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, 9)- Attorney Jack Keilty
Attorney Jack Keilty, representing Chapel Hill LLC, said that they are in agreement with City Engineer David Knowlton with all matters except for the intersection of Clark St./Clark Ave. They, the developers, don't think the paving on Clark St. is as bad as Clark Ave. Amy Lash said that the Planning Department asked FS&T to compare the cost of the paving options:
Option 1: Repair and put down two inches of top layer pavement- Cost $60,000 with 8-10 yrs lifetime expectancy
Option 2: Full rebuild- Cost $120,000 with 15-20 yrs lifetime expectancy
Attorney Keilty said they’re paving out the full course to the catch basins and some driveways are below grade. They’re going to try to minimize any water that could pool on the roadway. Chuck Puleo reaffirmed that they are proposing 30 ft of paving out to Highland Avenue. Chris Mello agrees with the cost options. The road from Clark Avenue to the rock, it’s not too bad, it has a good base. George Belleau said in areas where patches are done, it would be equivalent with the new road. Chuck Puleo asked what the time frame of construction is. Chris Mello said they agreed to do all grinding and base paving first, then construction and finish paving.
Walter Power asked about the paving on Clark Avenue up to the new section of subdivision pavement. Attorney Keilty said they would repair any deficiencies and put topcoat over to match the new section. Chris Mello said they have provided a striping plan. Walter Power suggested having vertical granite curbing up Clark Avenue. Gene Collins felt that that is a little overkill on the developer and Walter Power said he’s concerned about safety; there should be a verified sidewalk on one side. Amy Lash said to put a sidewalk and curbing in on the same side as the rock, there is the issue of the wall at 1 Clark Avenue in the way. Walter said he was talking about the other side of Clark Avenue. Attorney Keilty said there is an encroachment issue. If they consider this, it will change the
drainage issue. Tim Ready asked if they consider Walter Power’s proposal, what would be the cost? Chris Mello said it would be about $10,000 but it’s not about the money; it’s about possibly impeding on the neighbors.
Chris Mello said that Dave Knowlton is fine with the number of manholes and that there is another manhole to be named later. Walter Power said he won’t make a big deal out of the sidewalk if there’s striping where the stop sign will be- at the top of the hill, first house on right, in gutter line. Chris Mello said they could do that. George Belleau said residents aren’t here to object to the sidewalk impeding on their driveway. Gene Collins said they’ve been through this in other neighborhoods and wound up backing off. Councillor Jean Pelletier said that there would be a lot of vehicles going up there including heavier vehicles, the Board should consider that when considering the paving. Tim Ready said that the developer has proposed a reasonable plan; imposing
rebuilding a city street on the developer is excessive.
Chuck Puleo said the Board seems to be in agreement with Option 1 for paving. Tim Kavanaugh said the sidewalk, from the safety point of view is a good idea but the cost and anticipatory uproar of the neighbors is something to consider. Walter Power said that the Legal Department might back them up. Tim Ready pointed out that it’s an issue not brought by the neighbors but raised by the Board. George Belleau offered to put $10,000 in escrow, then, if the neighbors are okay with the sidewalk improvements, use the money for the sidewalk. If not, then the money would go back to the developer. Ellen Regato (13 Clark Ave) said that neighbors have addressed the corner in question. She felt that a sidewalk for safety might be something to consider.
Nadine Hanscom said its City land, the Board has the right to determine its safety. Tim Ready pointed out that there is already a sidewalk but the problem is that the neighborhood is not treating it like a sidewalk. Councillor Pelletier said that it’s bituminous curbing; it’s not much to take it out & put in granite curbing. Walter Power said that their subdivision will impact the existing subdivision and it should have a sidewalk, George Belleau then said they would repair the sidewalk and replace the curbing with vertical granite.
There being no further comments on this matter, a motion was made by Gene Collins to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Walter Power and approved (6-0).
Amy Lash reviewed the Draft Decision with the Board members, adding in the conditions that have been agreed to:
Section 14 (a)- should say 240 feet easterly towards Barnes Avenue.
Section 14- Specify the full pavement replacement program shall be applied to Clark Street and that the applicant has agreed to patch all deficiencies and overlay the road with two inches of new pavement on Clark Avenue from the intersection to the existing vertical granite curbing.
Section 15- add: (C) The applicant has agreed to install vertical granite curbing from the intersection of Clark Avenue and Clark Street southwesterly to the existing granite curbing on Clark Avenue and repair sidewalk as necessary
Section 16- Fences: add “onto owners property” at 13 Clark Avenue
Section 18- Trees: Guarantee tree survival, change to “One year”
Section 17- Sidewalks: insert: “vertical” granite
Chris Mello said that the sidewalks will have vertical granite curbing, he will change the plan details to removed the sloped granite
Section 14 (d) Attorney Keilty said for the Conservation Commission files, the first sentence says “shall” insert if deemed necessary
Attorney Keilty requested that a note be added to the second paragraph on Page 1 that the Planning Board’s understanding about Lot 21 is not a condition.
Gene Collins commented that he is taken back at the last minute money and burden put on the developer.
There being no further comments on this matter, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Special Permit with the decision and conditions reviewed, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved (6-0).
Old/New Business
· Chuck Puleo said that the telephone poles on Highland Ave. have been removed.
· Chapter 91 License Application Received: 15 Peabody Street Waterfront Park
Amy said action of the Board was not required, this was simply a notification. Many Board Members requested that they receive their own copies.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Walter Power to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved (6-0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
