Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
November 20, 2008
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 20, 2008, at 6:40 p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Tim Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan (arrived 6:55), Tim Ready. Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. Those absent: Dave Weiner.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the November 6th meeting were reviewed.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by John Moustakis to accept the minutes, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (7-0).
Public Hearing- Request for Waiver of Frontage- 2 Prospect Avenue (Map 16, Lot 0121) Angelo Meimeteas represented by Attorney William F. Quinn
Attorney William Quinn said the Board of Appeals has approved the division of land frontage on Butler St (behind the Diary Witch) & Prospect St., which is considered legal frontage. Mr. Meimeteas owns the lot from Boston to Butler St. It’s an oddly shaped lot and in May they were at the Board of Appeals where they received a variance to establish a separate building lot to build a single-family house. Because the lot does not meet the Planning Board’s frontage requirements, they have come for a waiver. The lot has 50 feet of frontage, and about 9,000 sq ft on the land division plan provided with the Form A application. This would be a single family home set back at least 25 ft. There is access on an approved way, Butler Street, where the driveway will be. A two-family home is next
to this property and there are no easements or other connections between the two lots. Attorney Quinn said this is a clear division.
Meeting Opened for Public Comments
Mario Costa of 26 Butler St. and Ed Young of 30 Butler St. took a closer look at the plans. Chuck Puleo asked if the way shown on the plan will remain a private way and Attorney Quinn confirmed that it will. Chuck Puleo asked Attorney Quinn to clarify if Prospect Ave. was a “private way” or a right-of-way for use by all the abutting lots; Attorney Quinn said it is one of those private ways that is considered frontage by the City of Salem because it’s paved and it’s adequate access – it’s an existing private way. He said the abutters probably have rights to the middle of it. It’s used as a walkway, but could be used for driving purposes to get between the properties. The current address on the petition is 2 Prospect Ave, but the City would assign
it a Butler St. address.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to close the public hearing, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved (7-0).
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Gene Collins to approve the waiver of frontage, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (7-0).
Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval- 2 Prospect Avenue (Map 16, Lot 0121) Angelo Meimeteas represented by Attorney William F. Quinn
Attorney Quinn stated that the plan presented for the Form A application was the same as that shown for the Waiver of Frontage just granted. Chuck Puleo asked Attorney Quinn to explain that the conditions of the variance for the above application are tied to the deed for this property – the variance is recorded and has a specific condition about not blocking the kitchen window of the abutter at 30 Butler St.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the Form A Application believed not to require approval, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (7-0)
Old/New Business
- Recommendation to City Council on proposed Zoning Amendment to allow Wind Energy Facilities
Danielle McKnight went over some of the issues that arose from the joint public hearing with the City Council last week: 1) Some wondered if it was an error that it was zoned R3 – this was not an error; it was done to allow sites like the Fairweather to possibly be considered for something like this. 2) How would we define nuisance? This can include noise, odor and visual nuisances, which can be discretionary to the Planning Board. 3) Use of the word “preferred” in reference to monopoles doesn’t mean technologies other than monopoles are not considered, it isn’t limiting. 4) The question had been asked whether Marblehead had an wind facility siting ordinance - they do not and would like to see Salem’s ordinance when it’s complete.
Chuck Puleo asked if the Planning Board’s next step was now to endorse the ordinance as it was sent to City Council, if no language changes were proposed; Danielle McKnight confirmed that it was.
Nadine Hanscom reminded all that Councillor O’Keefe suggested an amendment to the ordinance to include fire safety equipment and wondered if it will be incorporated. Gene Collins said that the Councillor made a suggestion that Board members haven’t discussed and noted this language had not yet come back before the Board. Danielle McKnight thinks it would be up to City Council to add and approve that suggested amendment. Chuck Puleo feels they would likely incorporate at least some of the suggested amendment – that this was probably the prudent thing to do.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by John Moustakis to recommend to the City Council to accept the proposed Zoning Ordinance relative to special permit uses and regulations for land-based wind energy facilities, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (8-0).
Continued Public Hearing- Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, & 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 0091, 0095 & 0097) former Salem Suede Property – Attorney Scott Grover
John Moustakis and Nadine Hanscom are not eligible to vote on this item; as the recorder didn’t work at the last meeting, they are unable to listen to that meeting for information purposes. Chuck Puleo clarified that there are now six members eligible to vote, and all six votes are needed.
Attorney Scott Grover, representing Riverview Place LLC, introduced Dave Walsh, Dave Zion, Chris Huntress, Landscape Architect, Steve Livermore and Jim McDowell, Site Engineer from Eastern Land Survey. Attorney Grover noted that since the last meeting, they had been before the Design Review Board. The peer review consultants are expected to be at the first Planning Board meeting in December. The traffic study has begun; the civil engineering peer review has also begun. Danielle will check next week on the status of the studies. Discussion on traffic issues will be covered at the next December meeting. Chuck Puleo said traffic would one of the strongest points the Board would be focusing on, and there were suggestions for particular points the traffic peer review should cover, such as Goodhue St. Gene Collins mentioned that they already had a traffic study submitted and presented at the first meeting. Scott Grover responded that new issues were being looked at, such as the
entrance and exit off of Flint St. The bigger picture on traffic has been presented in terms of the number of trips, but the peer review is looking at new specifics. The Board will also be refreshed on previous information given by Beta.
Tonight will be discussion on the site plan, including drainage, landscaping and utilities.
Danielle McKnight received the watershed plan and distributes. Councillor Prevey had suggested moving entrances that will be addressed at the next meeting as well.
Chris Huntress, Landscape Architect from Huntress & Associates said they presented to the Design Review Board (DRB) last night and the DRB had good comments. From Mason St. down to the river, there is a 12 ft. wide walkway with a few steps. They are introducing some crosswalks and plantings that would strengthen the street for pedestrians. He discussed some of the trees and plantings to be used. There will be two styles of lighting: one using pedestrian scale ornamental fixture, an identical fixture to what’s being used on the canal corridor already; and another using downcast shoebox fixtures with ornamental light pole and using taller fixtures with a concealed source.
Chuck Puleo, who was at the DRB meeting, said that someone mentioned that if the easement for the extension of Commercial St. becomes a reality, how would we address the fact that this would take out the majority of the green space along the canal? Chris said they haven’t fully examined the issue, but said that in considering the potential for the Commercial St. extension, they would look to tie the main road in one exit up Flint St.; although the road itself would take up open space, it might also present an opportunity to increase buffering and landscaping on Flint St. if they can reorganize parking and circulation. They would be presenting plans that will not inhibit the future construction of Commercial St. and will include buffering and landscaping.
Chuck Puleo asked about the proposed 6 ft walkway. Jim McDowell said they were asked early on to incorporate a walkway and that it should be close to the river. They will have more information to present this at next meeting. There will be a pedestrian connection from the walkway to the sidewalk. Chuck Puleo suggested getting as much built into the plans for the walkway as they can; if the road does come through the area, we want to be sure not to be left with just a swatch of pavement with no amenities left. Attorney Grover said the plan is to come up with alternative schemes. Chris Huntress mentioned that the DRB suggested that the walkway could perhaps become a sidewalk in the future, and also that they should take a harder look at programming the open space and taking advantage of the views.
Christine Sullivan said if the road were to go in, there should be a condition that landscaping must be reviewed by the Planning Board. She mentioned that when the Jefferson apartments went in, the landscaping/plants were tiny in comparison to the building, and she would like these to be good size in relation to the building. Chris said the by-laws state they have to be 3 ½ to 4” caliper trees. The building is 3-5 stories in height. Also, it’s required to have 1 tree for every three spaces. Chris Huntress said they will be providing more than the bylaw requires for planting, and that the buffering trees are significant in size.
Chuck Puleo mentioned that there was also a fence proposed along the back on Flint St. on the previous plan and wanted to know if this was still part of the landscape plan. Chris Huntress said they are working on proposing a retaining wall between the driveway and landscape area, and it is not very high. Tim Ready asked roughly how high the trees would grow. Chris Huntress approximated 30 ft up to 60 ft high and said bigger plants have a higher failure rate, so they need a balance.
Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey, talked about the utilities. They are proposing two water connections: one at the existing 8 inch on Flint St and tie in to the existing 12 inch at Mason. They will be building a new 8-inch through the property. They are proposing 2 fire hydrants. Each building will have potable water and sprinkler connections, all service connections for sewer and water will be off of new facilities they are building on the site, other than their water main connection. The sanitary sewer will be an 8-inch sewer with 6-inch connection and will be a gravity system with no pumps on site. Concerning storm drainage - the 2008 DEP regulations stated when you have site subject to coastal storm flows tidal waters, you don’t have to have storm water detention rate or volume.
They do have a series of manholes/catch basins on site which will flow to a common point that he showed on the plan, at which point they will go into the stormceptor. Roof drain will be separate; the conservation commission asked to have it separate in case of a spill from mechanical equipment on the roof. Rain gardens will be installed to handle the roof drainage (uncontaminated water only). McDowell explained how rain gardens function and how they are constructed.
There are some 21E site conditions, which they won’t know until later. They are looking at the possibility of putting in rain gardens to handle roof drainage. A discussion of how rain gardens, how they function, and how they are constructed ensued. Chuck Puleo asked about what would happen to the drainage system in an extreme high tide event, and McDowell explained that they are bringing the outlet in at the high tide level, and there will be a tide flex gate on the end of the outfall. The stormceptor has a high-capacity tank.
McDowell explained that the telephone, electric and transformers will all be underground.
Chuck Puleo wondered if they have received comments from the City engineers as well as the age of the water mains on Flint and Mason Streets. Jim McDowell said they have not received comments from the city engineer yet since the plans just came in last week. He spoke with the Fire Department regarding the water mains and they are not aware of problems with them, as far as the age of the water mains.
Christine Sullivan asked about snow removal and Jim McDowell said it would have to be removed from the site by trucking, since snow storage areas on the site are limited. They will show these areas on the drawings and will be in compliance. Chuck Puleo inquired about whether they were recommending restrictions on what was used for ice melt. McDowell said that sometimes sand is preferable to ice melt in a tidal area and that the retention basins and stormceptor’s maintenance plans include sand removal.
Christine Sullivan wondered if the water mains, since they are older, could handle the extra water? Jim McDowell offered to send a letter with that question to the City Engineer and cc the DPW, and will bring the answer back to the Board.
Meeting Opened for Public Comments
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, thought that the traffic engineer would be looking at the traffic as it is today compared to the traffic report the Board saw earlier, since there has been a substantial change to that area due to changes on North St., Mason and Flint. Scott said BETA is doing the traffic study and it would be appropriate for the Board to ask if the new lights on North St. have had any impact on their report. Chuck Puleo said the point had come up at the last meeting, and so he had assumed BETA would be looking at this, and we should certainly expect the question to be asked when BETA comes before the Board again. Scott Grover said that it probably made sense for the Planning Department to ask BETA to include this in the scope of their report. Gene Collins said the project would have
an impact all over the city, but that it was not located on North St. or Goodhue St. Chuck Puleo said that the project would impact both of those streets. Christine Sullivan suggested that the Planning Board urgently asks that BETA presents this information to them. Chuck Puleo said the we could do that, and Danielle McKnight said she would communicate that to BETA.
David Gogin, retired Deputy Fire Chief, asked about the two story parking garage and suggested the plans be submitted to the Fire Department.
Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., asked where the trash collection is going to be. Jim McDowell explained that there would be two closed dumpsters angled next to building one. Mr. Imm also pointed out that the designated land for the extension of Commercial St. bumps against a parking lot that offers parking spaces for the park, which is owned by the state, and does this present a problem? He wondered if Commercial St. gets pushed through, what would happen to this land? He notes that the creation of the parking lot for the park was done as mitigation for other activities at the other end of the park. Dave Walsh said that offering the easement is an accommodation to the City, and that the City was under no obligation to take it, but in view of the requirements for the number of spaces needed, we
feel the parking is probably in excess of what is needed. Pam Lombardini reiterated that they’re providing an easement and that the issue of what will happen to that parking lot lies between the City and Commonwealth and is not under the control of the developer. Mr. Imm said if they’re accommodating the Master Plan, they should offer public parking as it is now by the state owned land (there are 7 spaces).
Scott Grover mentioned that a condition of the variance is to provide 12 or 13 spaces or so for public parking on the Riverview Place property. Chuck Puleo pointed out that when the state does a project in the city, the Planning Board doesn’t get to review it. Christine Sullivan said the Planning Board could put in a recommendation to say that should Commercial Street go through, those seven spaces shouldn’t be lost. Pam Lombardini mentioned that they could recommend something for the Riverview Place site but not for the state’s land. Tim Ready felt the Board was getting ahead of themselves, but recognized that the developer seems amenable to working with the Board on this problem. He feels the problem has been presented from both sides and that both sides seem to want to work to
an answer, but it’s not currently an issue that should be before the Board.
Jane Arlander, 92 Federal St., noted that Section 110 of the Eastern Land Survey submission asks if there are any historic homes and it’s marked “no”, however 13 of the abutters to this project are within the McIntire District. Meg Twohey also noted that when Commercial and Bridge Streets are flooded, traffic goes up to Flint & Federal Streets and this puts more stress on the infrastructure; and any construction, such as pile driving, will affect the historic district. Some board members felt that this project wouldn’t affect the historic district. Pam Lombardini acknowledged the traffic and flooding problems in the Federal Street neighborhood, but stated that this project would not have any impact on these conditions. However, she said that she would like to see a list
of the abutters in the historic district because it had not occurred to her that there would be impacts to the historic district itself, and suggested Ms. Arlander and Ms. Twohey send a copy of this list of abutters to the Planning Department. Steve Livermore added that if they do pile driving, they would do a pre-blast survey. Jane Arlander wondered if they have contacted the Historic Commission and Scott Grover said they haven’t been directly contacted but representatives from the Historic Commission have attended the DRB meetings, so they know what is planned. Gene Collins questioned whether this property in question is part of the historic district.
Jane Arlander thought she remembered hearing the dumpsters would be in a garage behind closed doors. Jim McDowell said both plans have always had the dumpsters out and not behind doors. Steve Livermore added that there will be further discussion about trash removal with the DRB and that the dumpster location may be moved.
There being no further questions or comments on this matter, a motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the Public Hearing to December 4, 2008, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (6-0).
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Gene Collins and approved (7-0)
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
