Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
April 16, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 16, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Pam Lombardini, Gene Collins, Dave Weiner, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Tim Kavanaugh, John Moustakis. Also present: ~Lynn Duncan, City Planner and SRA Executive Director, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. ~~~
Chuck Puleo mentioned that Tim Ready was reappointed to the Planning Board.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the March 19, 2009 meeting were reviewed. ~
There being no comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved 8-0 (Sullivan, Kavanaugh, Ready, Collins, Puleo, Lombardini, Weiner, Hanscom in favor; Moustakis abstaining; none opposed).
~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 St., 67-69 Mason Street & 71 Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) Former Salem Suede Property- Attorney Scott Grover
Attorney Scott Grover, representing Riverview Place LLC, introduced David Zion and David Walsh both principals of this project. Also present were Jim McDowell, engineer for the project, and Bill Ross, Engineering Peer Reviewer for the City. Attorney Grover thanked the Planning Board for their diligent process on this project, which he feels will be beneficial for City; he also thanked the City’s planning staff for their work.
Bill Ross mentioned that at the last meeting there were 20 outstanding items in his review of the project and of those 20, 13 have been resolved. Jim McDowell said for the few outstanding items, they will be addressed through conditions. In response to Board questions about not being able to see the proposed Oak St. traffic island on the plans, McDowell says that the island cannot be seen on the plans because it’s offsite; however, they have no problem incorporating it. Nadine Hanscom was concerned that a snow plow won’t be able to get by the island on Oak St. and suggested having painted arrows on Oak St. instead. Lynn Duncan reminded all that the island was put in as a response to Planning Board’s concern to people cutting down Oak St. and across
Flint St. to the project site. Christine Sullivan agreed with Nadine that the island wasn’t necessary, and just putting proper signage would address the problem. It was suggested to add a condition for a six month report on whether the island would be necessary, and to have the developer build it at that time if the City wished. In response to concerns about damage from snow plows, Bill Ross mentioned that there are islands that don’t need to be raised; they can be painted on the street or done through textured pavement.
Dave Weiner had some concerns with the entrance on Mason St, that trucks would not have enough room and they would need to cross the other lanes to make a turn. He also said he agreed that an island on Oak St isn’t needed.
Danielle McKnight pointed out that there have been some additions to the draft decision letter. She handed out the Draft Site plan review decision and the Board reviewed section 9. There was discussion as to whether 9D, the Oak St. traffic island condition, can be eliminated. Lynn Duncan suggested for verbiage “Signage and pavement markings as appropriate as determined by the Traffic Division commander to control traffic from Oak St cutting across to Flint St entrance.”
Section 9G conditions design of a traffic light at Mason and Tremont Streets, so the city will have design in hand when money becomes available. There was concern about another condition, the flashing light at Flint St. and Mason St., and the suggestion that this should be a hanging light, not on a post on the corner where it could flash into someone’s house. Danielle McKnight suggested that City approval of the light’s design be put in the conditions.
Chuck Puleo mentioned that after the last meeting, at which there were disputes from members of the public about whether the City’s traffic engineer peer reviewer had supplied accurate traffic counts, he and Nadine Hanscom spent a few hours doing sample counts of their own, and their numbers were close to those submitted by the engineers.
Steve Livermore reviewed the photometric lighting plan. The lighting at entrances is included in plan. On Mason St., the lights will be on 12 ft poles; lighting is hidden and directional into parking lots. The photometric plan is designed to show strength of lights. The lighting in parking area will have two different types of light poles. One type is a more protective light, about 18 ft tall, those are hidden and direct; the other is typical of what is on Washington St, traditional, about 12 ft high. In Mason Street area, the lighting isn’t shown but there will be spillage in from street lights. Christine Sullivan pointed out that it looks like there is no light until you get down to the end of driveway, and she wanted to be sure that area was well lit
for safety reasons. Steve Livermore says that on the back of the building there are lights, as well as more lights at the entrance that are intended to be directed toward that area. Chuck Puleo is concerned that since houses are very close to that driveway, if they were to put lights there, the light may spill into their homes and be a nuisance along with traffic noise.
Attorney Scott Grover mentioned that since there are conditions for the lighting, the Planning Department would have a chance to review the lighting at another time. Steve Livermore said they could revisit the lighting if they felt it wasn’t adequate.
Meeting Opened to Public
Councillor Steven Pinto is familiar with this project and he feels the developer has gone above and beyond; he says it’s a big project on an entrance corridor, he asked the Board to support this project.
Councilor Prevey, Ward 6, has an issue with the density of this project; he hopes traffic issues can be addressed; he commends the developer as this has transformed into a much improved project from what it originally looked like. He feels that the process of going through various boards has helped tremendously. He’s disappointed that he feels it doesn’t meet all NRCC requirements, but is happy to see a project going there. He is concerned with the construction and its effect on the neighbors (noise, traffic, etc). He plans on being involved every step of the way. Chuck Puleo addressed some of Councillor Prevey’s comments, and also suggested some neighborhood action, especially to address speeding cars. For demolition, the
Planning Board is putting on strict conditions for notifying neighbors. Nadine Hanscom added that the traffic problem is already there and feels most people will enter from Mason St. Christine Sullivan asked if they would be drilling geo-piers and Jim McDowell suspects that may be the way to go. Pre-inspections of homes will be done because it’s a requirement. Christine Sullivan wants neighbors to be educated on what will happen, for example, that drilling does shake things. Lynn Duncan asked if geo-piers require pre-survey, and Steve Livermore said he would look into it, and Lynn suggested adding it as a condition. Steve Livermore said they are not committed to a certain type of system for foundation. Lynn Duncan discussed whether the condition should be added under section 5, construction practices. John Moustakis said that blasting comes under the state; it doesn’t come under the City.
Ann Whittier, 10 River Street, says she can’t understand how the Mayor, Board members and the City would allow a development of such a high density to go there. She also has concerns about traffic. Chuck Puleo explained that the intent is to keep traffic off of Flint St, have the access at the lower end near Bridge St., as well as use entrance on Mason St. Ann Whittier feels the traffic has changed since the courthouse construction.
Councillor Joan Lovely speaks in support of this project. She thanks the Planning Board for their work. She feels that this is an opportunity to clean up an old building and site and replace it with something viable. She also thanked the developer for listening to the neighbors and Board members.
Councillor Tom Furey is in support of this project. He feels in 5 years from now the area will be new and very desirable with the COA and this development. He asks if the developers could comment on how many jobs this project would bring to Salem.
Attorney Scott Grover said the Brownfields will be addressed by the state. The DEP will oversee the cleanup of the site and because it’s for residential use, there are higher requirements. They are unsure of how deep they will go for contamination testing. Once this project is started, Steve Livermore estimated there could be dozens of workers/jobs brought into to the city. The total construction will be about $20mil worth of work in about a 2 year period of time.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St, talked about the Planning Board obligations to the NRCC. He feels that there are areas on noncompliance. For example, the surrounding homes are 2 levels, and these buildings will be taller. He is asking that the Board deny this special permit.
Lynn Duncan said the Board needs to make findings for this special permit that show compliance with the NRCC zoning. She read some compliance requirements, such as having mixed use on main corridor, redeveloping the Salem Suede site, and improving access to the canal. She also discusses how this project is in compliance with the overall NRCC goals in terms of architecture, pedestrian improvements, and pedestrian-oriented development.
Bill Penta, 89 Flint St, feels the area is already a mess and that it doesn’t make sense to add another mess. He feels that the City should fix the area first before adding a development in.
Lorene Scanlon, 77 Mason Street, says she is hoping that the development will include real mixed use and services that will enhance the neighborhood.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, says she has been to every single meeting except for one. She commented that a lot of changes have been made and that they have addressed some of the goals and vision of the NRCC, but that some of these goals haven’t been addressed. She doesn’t see how this fits with the goal of preserving the character of the historic neighborhood, because it will be the only residential complex and this project abuts the McIntire district. She feels the city is losing an opportunity for mixed use property with this project. In the NRCC statement, it said the project should manage and reduce traffic. Chuck Puleo asked how it would be possible for a project to reduce traffic. She feels that by approving this project, they are missing out on
an opportunity for better mixed use. She also feels that it’s important that neighbors are contacted prior to construction.
Pierre Pelletier, 124 ½ Federal St., addresses the Bridge St. transportation corridor. He notes that many new parking spaces will be added to the area because of this site, the senior center and the MBTA. He says that 1000 parking spaces within a half mile will impact the neighborhood streets. He says all these projects should be looked at together and all this parking and traffic taken into account. He suggests that the transportation corridor on Bridge Street be seriously reviewed for traffic impacts.
Bill Penta, 89 Flint St., mentioned that no heavy trucks are allowed on Flint St. He’s concerned about trucks going down Flint St. during construction, they should not be allowed. He also said that most houses on the street were built in the 1700’s, vibrations can wreck those homes. Chuck Puleo informed him that the developer will have to submit construction plans. Bill Penta complimented Board members because after the last meeting, there was police detail with speed traps on the street.
There being no further discussion, Nadine Hanscom made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (9-0).
Danielle McKnight reviewed the site plan decision conditions, reading those out loud that are not standard:
# 5B is for beginning of construction. Lynn Duncan said pre-notification to neighbors about drilling, etc. should be above and beyond this section. Christine Sullivan suggested that notifications be sent to neighbors weekly or bi weekly. It was suggested to appoint a clerk of the works. It was recommended that Attorney Scott Grover talk with the contractor about putting something up in the neighborhood with information about the construction and/or submitting the information to the Planning Department so it could be posted on the City’s web site. The Board of Health has a condition to require notice to DEP. Christine Sullivan feels it’s only fair that a pre-survey be done.
# 5B- Add “72 hours prior to demolition”.
#5G Danielle suggested saying “All construction activities shall be in accordance with the Salem Police Station Construction management Plan,” rather than attaching this document to the decision itself.
#8 - Need order of conditions from the Conservation Commission.
#9D – Change to “signage at the Mason St. driveway prohibiting the entrance and exit of trucks (to be added to a revised signage plan).”
#9E- Nadine commented that the signs that already there regarding heavy traffic are really bad, they should be replaced
#9F- Make sure that light is in the middle of Mason Street and not impacting the houses on the corner, and that the light is shielded.
#10- Transportation Management Association membership requirement. Pam Lombardini felt that if this is in this decision, it sets a precedent. She believes the City shouldn’t impose this on a developer, it shouldn’t be on a site review plan. Lynn Duncan suggested rewording it to state that the applicant has “volunteered” to be a member. Tim Ready agreed with Pam and says he’s not comfortable with it. Gene Collins felt that the intention is good and it’s supposed to be voluntary but by putting it in the document it makes it mandatory. Tim Kavanaugh suggested rewording to the condition show that the applicant has voluntarily agreed to contribute to the TMA. A motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to change the language on #10,
seconded by Christine Sullivan, 4 in favor. (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan, Dave Weiner). A motion was made to remove this verbiage (#10) from document, 4 in favor. (Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Tim Ready). Lynn Duncan says that since the Special Permit requires a supra majority, this motion does not pass. The language is removed.
#12 Chuck suggested maintaining the parking area for Flint St. year round especially during snow removal. Add “Spaces are to be maintained year round”.
#13 For length of time for Commercial St. roadway construction easement, Attorney Scott Grover said client is willing to do a little more than 10 years. It could decrease the value of the property but they’re willing. Attorney Grover said the easement will only be taken with construction of road, with plan in motion, the easement will expire if it’s not granted within 15 years of issuance of certificate of occupancy.
#14 is a temporary condition.
#12 Tim Kavanaugh asked for it to say “Those residents who live on Flint St. between Mason St & Bridge St.
There being no further discussion on this matter, a motion was made by Gene Collins to accept the Site Plan Review, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved 8-0 (Collins, Lombardini, Puleo, Hanscom, Sullivan, Kavanaugh, Ready, Weiner in favor, none opposed; Moustakis abstaining).
A motion was made by Pam Lombardini to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved.
Meeting adjourned at 9:42 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
| 
