Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
December 18, 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, Tim Ready. Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Members absent: Dave Weiner.
Chairman Puleo opens hearing at 6:38.
Approval of Minutes
Moustakis: motion to approve the 12/4/08 meeting minutes, seconded by Hanscom. Passes 8-0.
Lombardini: motion to approve minutes from the 11/13/08 joint public hearing, seconded by Moustakis. Passes 8-0.
Public Hearing – Site Plan Review – William Wharff, 17 North Street (Map 26, Lot 492) (formerly the Elks Lodge).
Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition, explaining that while the Planning Board had previously approved an application under Site Plan Review for the property at 17 North Street. However, Grover explained that the original design features made the project economically unfeasible to build, and so the applicant had submitted a new design. The building had previously had two distinct components, one in a Victorian, late-1800s style; the other more modern. The applicant had problems melding those two structures together. The new application proposes a single structure. Grover states that the previous night, the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted the variances necessary to build the project, which were similar to original set of variances granted. Grover also states that the
Historical Commission had also issued a certificate of appropriateness the previous night, and that the Commission were enthusiastic about the new design.
Grover states that as a result of the plan changes, the project is now less dense than it was when first proposed. Seven units were originally approved, and now only six are proposed. Grover explains that the building, as proposed is not as imposing as it was, and not as tall. The footprint is bigger, spread out a bit. This has absorbed one parking space, and now there remain six parking spaces. The Board of Appeals approved this.
Puleo: the previous plan had parking laid out…this one does too, now I see.
Grover: It’s mislabeled, Mr. Puleo, but you can still count the number of them.
Puleo: where is 4? 5 is 4, 6 is 5, etc.
Grover shows where each parking space is. Puleo remarks on the increased footprint and notes that the building extends back further.
Hanscom asks Grover to show the parking spaces on the easel. Grover points to each numbered space on the easel so the public can see.
Puleo confirms with Grover that what the petitioner needed from the Board of Appeals were variances for density, lot area per dwelling unit, height, and parking. Puleo clarifies the difference in parking spaces – seven units with eight spaces were previously approved, and the new proposal shows six units with six spaces.
Puleo remarks on a space which still might accommodate a parked car, but notes that the applicant is not counting it as a legal space and remarks there should be language in the condo agreement about the use of that space.
Sullivan says she is an enthusiastic supporter of the project.
Puleo asks if they are still proposing to keep the fence in front. Grover says they are going to try to incorporate as many details as possible, finances allowing. Grover says that the details are still also subject to the Historical Commission, including color scheme, etc., so any variation on their plans need to go back to the Commission.
Puleo opens the issue up for public comment.. Emily Udy of Historic Salem states Historic Salem’s support for the project.
Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., states his support for the project.
Sullivan: motion to close public hearing, seconded by Lombardini. Passes 8-0.
Sullivan: motion to approve the site plan, seconded by Lombardini. The petition passes 8-0.
Withdrawal of Riverview Place, LLC petition.
Grover: because this hearing was continued so long, and due to technology issues with the recorder, and because so many board members are now ineligible to vote, we decided it was probably best to withdraw the petition and re-file in the same form without changes to the project other than those already made. That way we have the full board to render a decision. We’d like benefit of full board participation. We want to file to be on meeting for first meeting in January. That will be a very complete application containing all architectural and engineering plans, rather than peicemeal.
Puleo asks if they are still moving forward with Design Review Board; Grover says yes, they are on the agenda for December. Puleo asks if the traffic study and engineering peer review were still moving forward. Grover says they we met with the city engineer, the peer reviewers and McKnight about the peer review issues. Peer review is still ongoing; when the new application is filed, it would contain a lot more information. Grover says he wants to have traffic engineers come to the first meeting because they’ll be ready, and we can try to address those issues first. The engineers will attend the following meeting.
Grover says that with the Board’s permission, they would like to withdraw the current application.
Ready: motion to withdraw without prejudice, seconded by Sullivan. Passes 8-0.
Old/new business
The Board hears a presentation by Andrea Leary, who discusses the North Shore Traffic Management Association (TMA) and reviews the ways in which the Planning Board might use TMA membership as a condition for certain projects as a means of traffic congestion mitigation. Discussion ensues.
Dates for the 2009 Planning Board meetings are discussed. McKnight will email the tentative schedule to the Board members. The first and third Thursdays of each month, except October (no first Thursday) and August (no meetings) will be scheduled.
The Board also agrees to return to a 7:00 PM start time instead of 6:30.
Lombardini: motion to adjourn, seconded by Moustakis. Passes 8-0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
| 
