Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
November 5, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh and Tim Ready. ~Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of October 15, 2009 were reviewed.
There being no comments on this matter, a motion was made by John Moustakis to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved unanimously.
Old/New Business
Request of Angelo Meimeteas for approval of insignificant change to a Definitive Subdivision Plan at the end of Cloverdale Street, Map 8, Lots 269, 280 and Map 9, Lot 122.
Chuck Puleo said that when this project was originally approved in 2001, most present members were on the Board, but not all. He explained that this project (which is off of Glenn Avenue, off of Marlborough Road) is a 3 lot subdivision and that Angelo Meimeteas is proposing to not have to build sidewalks. Chuck said it’s recorded in the original decision that he put sidewalks and this request would waive that requirement. He says It’s a short street and they also required a guard rail, which is shown on the plan. Chuck said he would like to know if he’s going to put curbing in or eliminate it entirely. Chuck Puleo suggested the board decide whether Mr. Meimeteas should come in to explain how he’s going to treat the rest of the street. Gene Collins remembered that originally they were
concerned about the direction of the water draining off the street. Chuck Puleo noted there is a double catch basin at the end of the street.
Danielle McKnight said there are two families whose houses originally had sidewallk proposed in front of them, and both have submitted letters saying they prefer the sidewalk be eliminated in front of their homes, but that there was also a third neighbor who contacted the Planning Department in opposition, saying he thought there should be a public hearing if the sidewalks were to be eliminated. She explained the issue arose when the Planning Dept. contacted Mr. Meimeteas regarding timing of completing his roadwork,. Tim Ready recalled this request being before the Board about 18 months ago and says Mr. Meimeteas was directed to meet with the neighbors and bring information back to the Board.
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to request Angelo Meimeteas to come before the Planning Board to explain his plan for the street, sidewalks and curbing, seconded by Tim Ready and approved unanimously. A letter will be sent to Mr. Meimeteas stating same.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Facility Special Permit- Fast Food- Petition of Snakebite Realty LLC. The proposed project is a fast food facility with a drive-through on the site of a previously approved bank with a drive-through on the property located at 142 Canal Street (Assessors Map 33, Lot 006).
Danielle McKnight recently spoke to Mr. DiLullo and informed him that the traffic study is still being reviewed by one of the city’s on-call engineers, not as a formal peer review, but just to help the City Engineer evaluate the applicant’s study. She says Mr. DiLullo preferred waiting two weeks to the next meeting until the review was finished.
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the public hearing to November 19th, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved unanimously.
Chuck Puleo explained that since there were three new subdivision hearings, about 45 minutes would be allowed for each during the meeting.
Public Hearing: Petition of DEIULIS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., for a Definitive Subdivision Plan and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, to create three (3) new single-family house lots at 40 CIRCLE HILL ROAD, Salem, MA, Assessors Map 9, Lot 0255, and to allow the extension of Circle Hill Road to serve the new lots.
Patrick DeIulis, petitioner, explained that they received an approval with the preliminary plan, and were directed to address two issues in the definitive plan, which he says they have done. He says the first was to extend the sidewalk on the opposite side of Circle Hill Rd around to the park from where it currently ends on Circle Hill Road. He says they will create a walkway from that sidewalk into the park to give clear definition to where the sidewalk ends and the park begins. Mr. DeIulis said the other issue he had been asked to address was drainage. On the park side of the roadway they had provided for overland drainage and so there was no curbing on that side of roadway. However, he said there is an embankment around a certain portion of the cul-de-sac before it leveled off with the park and is
at grade with the street, so they have provided on the plan a guard rail. Mr. DeIulis said he spoke with the City Engineer about it, and he said as long as it meets Mass Highway specs he was fine with it. He says the neighbors would prefer a wood guard rail, which they are proposing. Chuck Puleo said he was concerned about the use of wood, just in thinking of long-term maintenance. Mr. DeIulis said he would do whatever the Board preferred. He said a guardrail will be provided so that no cars could skid down the embankment and into park. He said they spoke with neighbors and they are open to another possible barricade system including fencing, or continuing a guardrail. He says whatever they put there, they would prefer it be set back off the grass swale area which is provided to handle overland drainage. Mr. DeIulis said they did some additional analysis in terms of the overland drainage scheme and made some modifications,
including crowning the road a little more in the center to push water more across the cul-de-sac so it wouldn’t go down Circle Hill Road, and creating ridgelines so that landscaping and contours act as a natural barrier directing water away from the street and abutting properties. The says they are trying to capture as much water from the lots as possible and direct it to the park.
Mr. DeIulis said they are all R1 conforming lots, and they’re not asking for any waivers from subdivision regulations. He said all utilities will be underground. He also says they’ve met with the neighbors multiple times, and they’ve been to the Conservation Commission. He says they feel they have a plan that covers everything.
Chuck Puleo says he understands neighbors are concerned about the patching of the road; Mr DeIulis says they will take the pavement back to the utilities where they’ll connect with water, sewer & gas, before the finish coat. If they trench, they will patch that. Chuck Puleo asks about the location of the fire hydrant and says he would like the fire department and/or City Engineer’s opinion of its placement.
Chuck Puleo asks for clarification of which contour lines are existing and which are proposed. Scott Patrowicz, Project Engineer, explained that on the plans, the green lines are existing contours, purple lines are proposed. Chuck Puleo noticed that the contours look to be almost level with the road. Scott said they pulled the ridge line further to take more water to the back of property rather than front. Chuck Puleo asks if short of completing the building sites, they will complete all the grading shown on the plan? Mr. DeIulis says they will do all the work outside of the existing roadway and bring that grade down before tying into utilities. They will deliver with the finished proposed grades as shown. He also says they will do as much of the ledge removal as possible when they are doing the
roadwork. Chuck says he wants to clarify that these will be the finished grades at the time that the lots are sold, and wants to make sure finished grades for the lots are referenced in the approved plans; Mr. DeIulis says they would.
Gene Collins asks about the drainage on the side of McGrath Park and asks where the retention basin would be; and how would the water be kept off the abutting properties? Mr. DeIulis says the aren’t constructing a retention basin, and the water would percolate into the ground because of the grading they propose, and they don’t anticipate any standing water.
Gene Collins asks about the proposed sidewalk and guardrail and the reason for where they are placed ; Mr. DeIulis explains the function of the guardrail, and that it’s placed in the park so as not to interfere with the swale needed for drainage. He says as it exists now, there is a lot of water that goes down the slope into neighbor’s yards; they’re trying to minimize that. He says there is a naturally occurring storm water retention basin in the area, to which water will be directed. He also says playground equipment will need to be relocated but they are unsure how the City wants it done. Danielle said they will work with Doug Bollen to determine who is responsible for moving the equipment. Patrick DeIulis said they’d be willing to move it, but they need to know where to move it to.
Danielle said will be talking to Doug Bollen about the playground reconstruction.
Nadine Hanscom asked if they will be building homes and who would be responsible for utilities. Patrick DeIulis explained that they will be building the lots with infrastructure, lines will be brought in to each property, then selling the lots. They will post signs that say ‘work area’ and gate at end so that access into the work area from the park would be difficult during construction.
Chuck Puleo opens up the issue for public comment
Richard Sakowich, 36 Circle Hill Road, said there was not much opposition anymore to this, other than the sidewalk and blasting issue – he feels the sidewalk on the park side should be extended further. Also, he would like all blasting be done at once. Chuck Puleo said he understood from previous meetings that the neighbors were concerned that about possible damage to existing water/sewer pipes in the course of the new pipes being put in, and that they would need to do a preconstruction survey prior to blasting. Mr. DeIulis said they would deal with the main but didn’t know how many of the other connections they would be able to survey. Chuck Puleo said their work would extend well beyond the first two houses, and they should at least look at the connections in front of those two.
Tim Ready said since the roadway has recently been resurfaced leading up to the park, were there any complaints about that construction? Ward 4 Councilor Ryan said he didn’t get any complaints.
Chuck Puleo asks for clarification of where the sidewalk ends; Mr. DeIulis shows on the plan where the sidewalk ends and explains there is no curbing as they are trying to spread the water into the park. Scott Patrowicz explains this is a low-impact development technique recommended by DEP to handle stormwater, and says it’s preferable to catch basins draining to point sources. Nadine thought that with the cul-de-sac not having curbing, it may not be aesthetically appealing, and couldn’t they place a pipe around the cul-de-sac and construct curbing. Scott said that in this situation, the best solution is to spread out the drainage over the entire cul-de-sac to handle the water. He says the other way would be to have a point source discharge, but the ConComm doesn’t want them to
direct it into the wetlands without treating it first, and there wouldn’t be any room to do that in the cul-de-sac. Chuck Puleo asks for clarification on the plans as to where exactly the sidewalk begins and ends. Regarding reflectors at circle for snow removal, Patrick DeIulis said that there is a high guard rail that they could possibly put an extension on.
Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, said he spoke with residents and many are concerned about blasting. He’s concerned about fencing off the area from the park for kids, so they won’t try to get in the work area. Patrick DeIulis reiterated that they will post signs during construction, after that, they won’t have anything there blocking the road that will be a nuisance. He mentioned that they have a timeline to build the road, but no timeline to sell the property.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, mentioned that there is a playground and soccer fields at McGrath Park nearby, and wondered if the roads built would cause more runoff into the park or soccer field. Patrick DeIulis explained that McGrath park is quite large and it would be too far away to suffer any impacts from this development. He said they will be maintaining the water on the property, discharged and percolated into the ground.
Tim Ready said that the last time these folks were at a Planning Board meeting, they were sent to the neighborhood to talk with the residents, they did that, and brought Councilor Ryan with them, and they should be commended.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready to continue the public hearing to November 19th, seconded by Christine Sullivan and unanimously approved.
Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between Szetela Lane and Fort Avenue, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 41, Lots 235, 236, 243, 244, 246 and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots, the construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes, and the construction of a new street off of Szetela Lane.
Attorney John Keilty, Lowell Street, Peabody, representing Shallop Landing, explained that there are 15 proposed single family lots. Some are accessed by Szetela Lane, some by Shallop Lane and some by Fort Avenue. There are proposed retaining walls on the northeast side and on southwest side with an average of 2 ½ - 3 ft, highest of 4 ft. They have been to the Zoning Board of Appeals for relieve from lot area. Now they are looking for a Special Permit for wetlands and for approval of roadway for the definitive subidivison plan. The water, sewer and gas will be from Fort Avenue onto Shallop Lane and drainage is down Szetela Lane. He says they are going to ConComm next week. He says there will be reconstruction of a pipe on Szetela Lane which triggers the Wetlands and Flood Hazard
special permit and Filing of Notice of intent.
Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey explained that Essex St. turns into Szetela Lane at the southerly side of railroad tracks. Parcel D is the vacant land, across from H&H propeller. The radius of the cul-de- sac is 85.76. The fire department requires a radius of 90 ft. The City Engineer is recommending civil peer review of this project.
Chuck Puleo added that the street is shown as 22 ft wide, and the city standards are 24 ft, so can they make it wider? Jim McDowell said there are sidewalks on both sides which could be made narrower and add that to the street width. Chuck commented that there doesn’t seem to be much room for snow removal, and also asked if the homeowners would be responsible for this. Atty Keilty responded that since this is not a condo, they will not have private snow removal. Nadine Hanscom pointed out that this land is highly contaminated. Attorney Jack Keilty said that they are working with LSP getting estimates and information on what clean up would entail in order for this land to be used for single-family homes. He suggested that the LSP come to next meeting to explain the plans.
John Moustakis said that sidewalks are usually 5 ft, but they’re asking for 4ft. Roads are usually 24 ft, they’re asking for 22ft and there are no grass strips. He says there seems to be a problem with the roadway before they start, it seems like everything is squeezed in. Tim Ready agreed that it clearly is squeezed in, and thought they should hear from the city engineer and city experts on their opinions. Jim McDowell corrected the earlier number, saying the cul-de-sac radius is actually 45 ft, so the outside diameter is the required 90. Gene Collins suggested that they make it known if is there an opportunity to widen the road or not, and if not, Board would need to discuss what concessions would have to be made. Jim McDowell explained that these single family homes are designed smaller for empty
nesters and will be set back about 18 ft, there will be a 2 car garage with room for 2 cars out front. He says this dictated the depth of the lots, and that’s how they established the width of the roadway. Gene Collins wondered if they could take a foot off of each lot to get the road into compliance at 24 ft. Jim McDowell said that there are some options for the roadway, they will take a look at them and come back to the Board. He says there is a high water mark at Collins cove with a 100 foot buffer, and they propose to drain Shallop Landing to a low point, build a new drain 18 inches in diameter off the roadway towards a stormcepter they will put in. This will go to a storm drain manhole, which they will change to a 24 inch drain and put a tide gate at the end of that. He says all of this will be under the jurisdiction of Wetlands Protection Act. Nadine was concerned about emergency vehicles getting by with cars parked on the
street. Jim McDowell said there is parking on one side only with a street width of 24 ft, which would leave about 13 ft, enough room for emergency vehicles to get by. Christine Sullivan said she didn’t think the road needed to be 24 feet wide – 22 was wide enough, and if necessary, perhaps parking could be restricted to one side of the street.
Chuck Puleo asked about the proposed filling. Jim McDowell explained that as part of management of hazardous material, as directed by their LSP, it’s to cap it with vegetative cap which needs to be 3 ft above existing grade. Philip Singleton, of Shallop Landing, said all the 1400 sq ft homes are built on slabs, have a 2 car garage and room in front of garage for 2 car parking. He said grading will be fairly level across all lots. Chuck Puleo asked about the ownership of the parking lot (Parcel B); Atty Keilty said H&H Propeller will probably lease the parking lot from Shallop Landing with some restrictions on what could be parked in that lot. Chuck asked if any of the parking area could be used by the new homes; Mr. Singleton said the neighbors did not want that.
Chuck Puleo opens the issue up for public comment
Francis Page, 28 Webb Street, said that on his street there is a drainage problem around the retaining wall which abuts their property, and would this development affect runoff? He asks what the empty lot on the plan would be used for, and if it was used for dumping, that would be a fire hazard to his property. He also asks if they intend to build a fence along the wall. He also wants to know what the plan is for drainage, since the site is contaminated, and he expressed concern that the water would be percolating through contaminated soil and into neighboring properties.
Jim McDowell said that the retaining wall height is about 2 ½ feet, so that they can grade the land away from his property and toward Shallop Lane. He says at the time they build the wall, they could put in an impervious barrier behind the wall, and this would keep water from going towards their property. He said they are not proposing a fence.
Ruth Page, 28 Webb Street, asks how much space there will be between the development and her property. Jim McDowell indicates on the plans.
Jim McDowell says they would be pre-clad block walls; they are looking to avoid any extra excavation on the site. He says the walls would have nice looking materials and provide opportunity for impervious barriers. Chuck Puleo would like details on the walls. Philip Singleton said they would put up a fence along the wall.
Councillor Robert McCarthy said that over a year ago he had asked, but still had not heard the response, about a 20 ft easement at this site that SESD owns, and this hasn’t been addressed. He says the easement runs along railroad tracks which would go right through 2 or 3 houses of the proposed houses, and there is a pipe currently there. He says SESD owns the pipe and the easement. He says they’re SESD is trying to negotiate with the City on this land, but SESD has been dragging their feet and have not made a decision. He says he knows the Mayor and administration have been talking to them and trying to resolve this, but it hasn’t happened yet. Another point Councilor McCarthy brought up was the retaining wall – he asked what type of blocks they would be using for the wall. Jim
McDowell said that they would use 6 to 8 inch blocks, not the big 2-footers.
Councillor McCarthy also wondered where they are going to stack the snow, since this is a very tight site. He also mentioned the 13 houses will be single floor, but what if someone buys a house and then wants to add on a second floor in a few years? He asks if there will be a covenant preventing that. He says that would mean maybe more bedrooms, more people in the house and more parking. Danielle McKnight said by right they can’t build a two family houses by right, even though this is in the R2 zone, because they would need relief from lot area per dwelling unit from the ZBA, but any single-family house can build a second story.
Councillor McCarthy also gave the developer a lot of credit, saying he has attended a lot of meetings and has gone through a variety of plans. He would like to see some development on this land as it’s not attractive but he wants it done right and doesn’t want it to affect the surrounding homes.
In response to the question about the easement, Attorney John Keilty said Beth Rennard has been working with John Dowling at SESD to establish how that will be done. He said they are doing an appraisal, and SESD will determine whether they need it or not, but he thought they would not need to keep it, since they’re not using it. He said the only questions for SESD are whether or not they will release the easement, whether they will ask for money, and whether they want the pipe removed. Philip Singleton said they would be reluctant to remove the pipe, they would rather cover it. Chuck Puleo asked about the use of the pipe today; Jim McDowell responded that records to date show a bulkhead has been built over it and that the pipe is not part of the SESD system. He says there are no manholes nearby;
the nearest one is on Derby Street. He says the city will extinguish the easement before they buy it.
Francis Page, 28 Webb St., asked if there are any power wires as he thought the power plant put wires under the properties. Jim McDowell stated that there is nothing in the title search that shows any easement for wires. Tim Ready commended Councilor McCarthy with his continued efforts with the community.
Danielle McKnight received a call from Helen Twardowsky of 9 English street, she’s concerned with traffic, aesthetics, and the height of houses (blocking view).
A motion was made by Tim Ready to continue the public hearing to November 19th, seconded by Gene Collins and approved unanimously.
Public Hearing: Petition of Paul Ferragamo for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to allow the subdivision of 405-419 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75 and 76) into eleven (11) new single-family house lots, the construction of a new street off Highland Avenue, and the construction of eleven (11) single-family homes.
Attorney George Atkins, representing Paul Ferragamo, gave brief overview. Last May they brought in proposal for 12 houses to the Board of Appeals, which was reduced to 11. He says the Zoning Board made some changes to accommodate the neighbors. Since then, he says there have been many changes: they have moved some parking areas, and there will be a landscape buffer/easement along one side between the roadway and an abutter. He says this project is an attempt to make a small neighborhood. He says there are sidewalks on both sides, and the sidewalk would be extended down to Highland Ave where there isn’t one now. He says the site itself is a difficult site to develop because of ledge. There will be blasting requirements. He also says the engineering of drainage is difficult because of the site. The City Engineer has requested a peer review and getting a traffic engineer but Attorney Atkins explains to the Board why he thinks this is unnecessary. He says they will need a
curb cut permit from Mass Highway, so Attorney Atkins suggested that the approval be conditional upon the developer getting a curb cut permit from Mass Highway. If there are changes during the Mass Highway process, they will need to come back..
Scott Patrowicz said since the road slopes, they made a 10% slope to level that area up, and that set the elevations for the houses. He says they are trying to blast as little as possible. He says the goal of storm drainage is to sub divide each area into small little areas , then grade around house, then grade into a small swale then into crushed stone. The houses are set so there is a patio that is higher than Highland Ave, about 10 ft or so that their yards are not on Highland Avenue. He’ll be giving drainage calculations to Dave Knowlton on Monday. There is a sidewalk on both sides, grass strip will be small swale with crushed stone and will go into catch basins. Each catch basin is connected two leeching basins, then into sediment forbay and into a bigger detention basin. On one
side, he says the state has provided 10 inch pipe that will provide overflow. He says there are a lot of water and sewer lines on Highland Ave and an 8 inch water main on Clark St, and they are going to connect with a 16 inch water main on Highland Ave. He says they are not looping the water main near Clark Street so that it won’t impact that street at all. He says they will be using the EnvironmentOneSystem used all over Gloucester, and says Dave Knowlton is familiar with it, it’s used in the Vinnin Square area. He says some homes’ drainage is going into certain manholes that he showed on the drawing, and 4 homes will pump into a different manhole and then some will use gravity.
Attorney Atkins said there is snow storage on parcel A. That parcel would remain owned by Paul Ferragamo, but the city would use it for snow storage. If necessary, they could have a neighborhood association for snow removal.
Harry Gunderson, Architect, explained when they began working on this project the concept has always been to bring a road through and work with the contours of the property. He says they have designed the houses so that they are dimensionally small, 2,000 sq ft range. There is a steep slope towards Highland Ave. There will be uphill houses and downhill houses. For houses on the uphill side you would walk onto patio, then up into house; on the downhill side you would walk down onto patio. They feel this neighborhood would be quite walkable. Attorney Atkins said for the location and size of houses, they would be moderately priced,. John Moustakis wondered if there is any landscaping there. Attorney Atkins said there are trees and shrubs there and they will try to save as much as
they can, they don’t want houses exposed to Highland Ave. Chuck Puleo added that they would want to buffer the homes from the sights and sounds of Highland Ave. Attorney Atkins said they also heard from neighbors that there is some water pressure issues. He says Scott Patrowicz has designed it so that the water pump station down the street would not be affected since it has some problems.
Issue opened up for public comment
Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, said he has been meeting with the Lowes developer and the architects, they’d like to meet with board before the end of the year. He says this project is still in the works and it will include improvement to the pump station and water tank.
Christopher Lane, 403 Highland Ave, wondered if the meeting with Lowes is a public meeting; Councillor Ryan said not at this stage. Mr. Lane commended the folks working on this project and the councilor and says they have been accommodating to neighbors’ requests.
Tim Ready wondered what ”moderately priced” meant ; Paul Ferragamo said in the high 300’s .
Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, is concerned that they will be blocking off Clark St., the intent is for both ends to be open and that right now it’s only a right or left turn off of Old Village Drive. She said Mass highway redid the poles and handicap ramps. Attorney Atkins believes the position of that location will create a right turn only, they don’t think anyone will be able to do left turn there. Chuck was concerned with there being no breakdown lane on certain parts of Highland Ave it will be hard to try to make a right hand turn. Scott Patrowicz said they could make that turn a gentler curve which is possible. They have a leveling area, so turning off would be a radius issue.
Dennis Colbert, 37 Clark Street, is concerned with the end of Clark St. being open with Dunkin Donuts traffic. He said he thought there was supposed to be a fire gate installed. Right now, he said large tractor trailers go down there with difficulty.
Wayne Silva, 20 Barnes Circle, said right now they have 20 ft of buffer on his property and he’s concerned that it will be opened up. He says he doesn’t want to hear Highland Avenue. Attorney George Atkins asked if fencing would be address this.
Councillor Jean Pelletier, Ward 3, said he was under the impression from the ZBA meetings that that was going to be blocked off with a fire gate, just for traffic alone. Atty Atkins said it had been discussed, but was not a condition of the decision. Councillor Pelletier said he thought it should be one, since traffic was a problem and this project would aggravate the intersection; also, a gate would prevent people cutting through the development.
Councillor Pelletier also said he appreciated Mr. Ferragamo’s work with the neighbors, and was glad the project had been scaled down from the original proposal, and that even with the congestion in the area, this time they have it right. He said he thought the Board should listen to Atty Atkins and get this before Mass Highway for the curb cuts. Also, he said he would like to know the exact square footage for the radius of the blasting, and he would like the abutters list for blasting and he wants the Board to have a copy of the blasting regulations. Gene Collins said these were available at the Fire Department.
Councillor Pelletier said he was happy to see the developer using low-impact development techniques to manage stormwater, though he is still concerned about whether manholes would be put in –and he indicated areas of the plan where he’s concerned about increased runoff. He suggested placing a pipe across the entire street. Scott Patrowicz explained the drainage system. He says they will have crushed stone so the water would percolate, then overflow to another basin. Councillor Pelletier asked if they would be dead-ending the water line and said they should talk to the City Engineer about that. He said he also was going to speak to Dave Knowlton about the condition of that pumping station on Ravenna Ave. He said if that pumping station would be negatively impacted, he asked for the
Board’s assistance in getting the developer to contribute to it.
Councillor Pelletier said he also wanted to remind the Board that only Council could give new streets names – developers name their streets, but the names need to be confirmed by Council. He said the City Clerk asked him to address this with the Board. Chuck Puleo said they only go by what’s proposed on the plan. Christine Sullivan said a project might have a street name indicated on a plan, but the Board knew that the only people who could name a street were Council. Atty Atkins points out there is no name given to the street on this subdivision.
Councillor Pelletier said again he thought the fire gate issue was very important, and. Chuck Puleo said the fire dept will give their opinion on the fire gate and may not like blocking one end.
Attorney Atkins said he would like to get going on the peer review right away. Danielle suggested the Board needed to decide whether they need a traffic review. Danielle says they need to get an estimate from whoever will be doing the peer review. Gene Collins felt that a traffic review is redundant, since Mass Highway would already be reviewing the curb cut. Other Board members agreed that they clearly understood the impacts associated with 11 single family homes.
Nadine Hanscom thanked Attorney Atkins for his presentation, which she said was thorough and easy to understand.
A motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the public hearing to November 19th seconded by John Moustakis and approved unanimously.
Old/New
John Moustakis thought the Board should have copies of blasting regulations, and have someone here to explain them. Danielle says she spoke to the fire department about this, but Lt. Griffin prefers that the Planning Department refer people directly to her rather than giving out the regulations themselves.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to adjourn, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved.
Meeting adjourned at 10 pm
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 12/17/09
| 
