 |
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
December 17, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, December 17, 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, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. ~Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of November 5th were reviewed. Chuck Puleo offered the following corrections: On page 3 top paragraph, revise to indicate that the applicant “would reference grading on the approved plan”. On page 5, he said there should be clarification of the “pre-clad walls” as stated by Jim McDowell. Danielle McKnight will add page numbers to the minutes as well.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the minutes with changes, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0.
The minutes of December 3rd were reviewed. Danielle McKnight read the updated version of section “Request of Paul DiBiase for a partial release of escrow funds after completion of roadway work on the Osborne Hills (Strongwater) subdivision” , which will take place of that section in the minutes. On page 5, second paragraph, when Jim McDowell explained the dimensions of the roadway, Danielle will make sure the dimensions are correct. On Page 5, in the description of chemicals, change “arson” to “arsenic.”
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to approve the minutes with changes, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0.
Public Hearing: Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) Special Permit for the property located at 12 POPE STREET (Map 15, Lot 308). The proposed project includes the installation of three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units, four (4) backhaul antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets mounted to a rooftop penthouse, and one (1) GPS antenna on the roof of the Salem Heights Apartments.
Heather Carlisle, representing Goodman Networks, said that there is some equipment already at this facility and that they want to install three (3) panel antennas and associated BTS units, four (4) backhaul antennas, two (2) equipment cabinets and one (1) GPS antenna. She said they will make sure that they paint them to match the building, so that they are less noticeable from the street. Presently, she says there are antennas on the building that are reddish in color. Elevation of the antennas is shown on the drawings that were distributed to the Board. Danielle McKnight said as part of the project review, the only comment from city departments was from Dave Knowlton, City Engineer, that he’d like a condition on Wireless Communication Facility decisions that states “the City shall
reserve the right to install radio antennas for water billing on the equipment owned by cell phone companies”. However, Danielle explained that in this case, she spoke with Ms. Carlisle about the possible condition, and she explained that Clearwire doesn’t own the area the antennas are mounted on, they rent it, so she doesn’t think the condition can apply here. However, Danielle suggested the Board keep this condition in mind for the future similar projects. Chuck Puleo said they approved a similar project recently on Highland Ave, and would that condition have applied here? Heather Carlisle wasn’t sure if they own that tower, most likely not. Danielle will watch for this in future applications. Helen Sides commented on the pictures presented for the project and also commented on Heather’s statement that they will paint the antennas to match the building. Helen said usually a red color doesn’t work well for
antennas and her suggested color would be maybe a dark slate grey, not a shiny black and not reflective, that would be less visible than red. Christine Sullivan asked why the new photos show the equipment extending above the roof line, while the older ones showed the equipment below the roof line. She noted that the photos submitted with the application don’t reflect how the antennas will look, which is not acceptable. Heather Carlisle said that they changed the design after the photos were done. Helen Sides asked why the new design necessitated placement of the antennas above the roofline rather than below; Ms. Carlisle responded that she could go back to her design team to see if they could place the antennas below the roofline.
Board members discussed whether they would prefer to have Ms. Carlisle come back with revised photos or whether the Planning Department should do this review; in the end it was decided that she should come back, particularly if the design could be changed so that the antennas were all below the roof line.
Issue Opened up for Public Comment
No comments were made by the public.
There being no comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to continue the Public Hearing to January 21, 2010, seconded by Tim Ready and approved 7-0.
Continuation of 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.
Danielle McKnight received a letter from Attorney Atkins which stated that since the City’s peer reviewer hadn’t yet provided the applicant with any feedback, they did not have any updates at this time, and so they are requesting to continue the petition to January 21, 2010.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing on January 21st seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0.
Continuation of 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 a new street off of Szetela Lane.
Attorney John Keilty, Lowell Street, Peabody, representing Shallop Landing, said that since they last met, two things have occurred: a site visit by the Planning Board, and a meeting between the applicant and City Engineer David Knowlton. Attorney Keilty said he had several documents for Board members. The first document is a letter to address the neighbors’ concerns about what would happen with respect to the H&H Propeller parking lot. He reviewed a portion of the agreement that says that they, Shallop Landing at Collins Cove Partnership, have with H&H Propeller, which says that they the buyer, Shallop Landing, shall convey to or grant an easement over a certain area of land shown as parcel B – or the parking lot – shown on the submitted plans. Attorney Keilty went on to say
that the choice was H&H Propeller’s. He said that because of the hazmat issues on the property, they may well take an exclusive easement, rather than a deed. He says the agreement goes on to say that the area shall be paved in accordance with the construction detail attached to the P&S, and it shall be fenced. The agreement further states that the property shall be restricted to parking for employees of H&H Propeller, and will include vans up to 9,000 lbs gross weight, boats, trailers or products of the seller. Lobster traps or trucks shall be prohibited. Chuck Puleo asked if they choose not to own this parcel and just have an easement over it, then who would continue to own it after development of the property and sale of the homes? Attorney Keilty said they could assign the interest to the Homeowners Association. Chuck Puleo asked what would happen if H&H Propeller sold the property, couldn’t the Homeowner’s Association decide not to extend the easement to the new owner?
Attorney Keilty said there would be a 99 year lease agreement on the property. Chuck Puleo asked if the new owner would then pick up the lease; Attorney Keilty confirmed that they would. He went on to add that some of the use issues could be addressed by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, since some of the undesirable uses were occurring in a residential zone. Chuck Puleo asked if H&H Propellor is used for something else in the future, then how would the change impact the use of that lot? Attorney Keilty confirmed that the uses outlined in the agreement would still be available.
The second document Attorney Keilty presented was the representation of the structures they will build. He says that some will be one story, while those on Fort Ave will probably be two stories. He says this will not be an age restricted community; however, this is the market segment they are targeting.
The third document Atty Keilty presented was a packet including an illustration of the vinyl fencing that they will install per the neighbors’ request. The representation showed what vinyl fence will look like as well as the chain link fence on the other side. Also contained in the packet was a representation of the wall and what it would look like, what it would be constructed of, how it will operate, how the fence will fit on the top of the wall, how high it will be off neighboring property and how the soil will be next to it. With this representation, they tried to address several concerns that the neighbors had about the wall.
Danielle McKnight said she had received a memo from Jim McDowell summarizing his meeting with the City Engineer, and another one from the City Engineer in response to Jim’s memo. She said that for simplicity, she had condensed all of the issues identified by both memos into one document; she handed out both the condensed document and the two original memos to the Board members. Jim McDowell also received a copy of the condensed list of issues.
Attorney Keilty then presented a landscape plan which showed a representation of the street trees. He asked if the Board would like to take some time to discuss this, or if they would prefer to ask Mr. Geisser, the project’s LSP, questions about the contamination, or to discuss the engineering feedback from Dave Knowlton. Chuck Puleo said he would like to start with the site contamination, and that he had some questions for Mr. Geisser from the site visit. He said he’d learned at the visit that the material on the site could be taken and used to regrade the site; he asked if Michael Geisser could tell the Board more about this. Specifically, he asked if the whole site had contamination on it, or just certain areas. He also asked for an explanation of how the material would
be pulled back to the sidewalk level to bring it down by three feet and regrade for the capping. Michael Geisser, Alliance Environmental Group, responded that the contamination on the site is erratically placed in no particular pattern. In regards to regrading, he said it’s permissible to regrade a contaminated site under the Mass Contingency site plan if it’s done under a health and safety plan under an LSP. He said decontamination of any equipment that is on the site needs to be done. Chuck Puleo commented that once they redistribute the soil they won’t know how it will get mixed together; is this why the site gets capped? Will the underground utilities be in place before the cap is put in, or would the site be disturbed again? Michael Geisser explained the sequence of construction doesn’t matter under the Mass Contingency Plan, as long as protocols are followed. He said the equipment being used for moving, digging, replacing and
the like must be decontaminated, as long as it’s done under a health and safety plan. He said they will also put dust monitors and establish limits to the work if there is any dust generated. Chuck Puleo asked about the structural stability of the site, saying that it’s relatively uneven, what’s to prevent any settling once slabs and homes are in place? Michael Geisser said they never found any debris on the site that would impact the structure of the site. He said they did some geotechnical studies when the senior center was proposed on the Collins Cove side of the property, the part with the most fill on it, and found most the soil to be compacted and any work to be done to increase the grade, or to excavate and replace soil, will have to be recompacted to engineering standards.
Nadine Hanscom asked Michael Geisser if he knew of any other sites that have this much contamination that they have put houses on. Michael Geisser said many existed in the state, but he could not name any offhand, but that he knew of one site that had a playground, which he said was a more sensitive use. It had the exact same cap as the one proposed for this site and described its configuration. He also said the playground at Witchcraft Heights Elementary School had contaminated soil that was capped; and the Carlton school had contaminated soil which was capped as well. Michael Geisser said scientific studies show that the cap they will use is a suitable cap because the risks only come into play if a person were to eat 100 grams of contaminated material a day for several years. He said the risk
was almost negligible. He also said at the last Planning Board meeting someone asked about the longevity of the cap with salt and water. He said it is made of polyethylene, a non-corrosive material that can withstand moisture and other biological activities and corrosion. He said there would be 2 feet of fill over the snow fence barrier. Chuck Puleo asked about the cap itself; Michael Geisser explained that the snow fence is the cap; that it sits over the contaminated soil, and the fill goes on top of it, but there is no additional capping. John Moustakis asked if this cap is the same one used in Beverly that Mr. Geisser has talked about previously, and asked if he had any history on this type of cap, such as how long it lasts. Michael Geisser said it won’t be exposed to ultraviolet rays because it will be buried, and so its life is indefinite under the proposed conditions.
Helen Sides asked if this site is different because it would be developed over time, unlike a park or ballfield, which is built all at once. Michael Geisser clarified that all the development that disturbed the earth would occur at once; this is why they are placing the slabs in for the homes. All the grading, capping and fill would be done at once. Helen Sides asked if the prospective buyers of the house lots would need to follow the proper protocols for building on the contaminated site, but Phil Singleton said the lots were not for sale until the site was developed – otherwise they would lose control over the process.
Christine Sullivan asked the neighbors that were present if they have dealt with a Licensed Site Professional before, and asked for Mr. Geisser to explain what one is.
Michael Geisser explained that the licensing professional program was implemented in 1993 by Mass DEP. He said it privatized compliance with Mass contingency plans, which is a set of regulations that involve assessment, containment and remediation of oil and hazardous waste. He explained the education and testing involved with becoming a Licensed Site Professional, or LSP. He explained that an LSP must follow DEP’s guidelines for contaminated sites. In this situation, he said the DEP guidelines call for a cap. He said again that as far as the contamination, the only threat to human health is direct contact. He explained limitations on the types of vegetation that should be grown on the site. John Moustakis mentioned that the examples given earlier of redeveloped contaminated sites didn’t
have living quarters and Mr. Geisser said there are many sites in the state with houses on them. Nadine Hanscom commented that she thought the whole area would be underneath something, something harder to get through than the snow fence. She asked what happens if someone wants to plant vegetables in the future, who would monitor that. Michael Geisser said the homeowner’s association would be monitoring those situations.
Issue Opened up for Public Comment
At-large Councilor Steven Pinto asked what the procedure for developing contaminated sites was prior to 1993, and whether the material to be used for capping was the same material used during that time. Councillor Pinto was also concerned that over time, such as 20-30 years, the capping material may not be as effective. Michael Geisser explained the history of the Massachusetts contingency plan, which was established in 1989, and the LSP program that put out guidelines for these types of cleanups. He said what they used to use in the early 90’s were some of same materials used for landfills, such as geotextiles. He said they started to use polyethylene at the turn of the century because of its color (it easily alerts anyone who tries to dig beneath it) and it’s very
inexpensive. Councillor Steve Pinto said there has been data on houses located on contaminated soil. He’s heard of buildings where people have been taken out because they’re sick, that’s what he is concerned about, the fear of the unknown and the liability down the road.
Councillor Robert McCarthy thanked everyone for going to the site visit and Attorney Keilty for addressing the issues that had come up. He asked how many test wells are on the site and when the last time was they were monitored. Michael Geisser didn’t remember how many wells there were. Councillor McCarthy said that this site is 5 parcels and wondered if the contamination is on particular parcels. Michael Geisser said the contamination is not in a particular pattern, it was spread out; there is some near the public housing, some where the senior center was going to be. Councillor McCarthy went over the RFP and asked about the cost of cleanup. He said that Michael Geisser said it would be cost prohibitive; however they’re going to move it all around, cover it, cap it, etc.
Councillor McCarthy is not against this project but he wants it to be done right. He referred to a document with Michael Geisser’s signature that says “pursuant to Mass DEP the objective is to excavate all contaminated soil and temporarily store it on another site”. He read another document that said if the senior center were on that site; the heavy contaminants would be removed. Michael Geisser said that has been done, all heavy contaminants have been removed and what they are dealing with now is the more minor contamination that remains.
Councillor McCarthy said he still hasn’t had his questions answered about what will happen with the SESD easement across the property - will they move forward or wait until SESD resolves the easement issue? Michael Geisser said it’s known that the easement and pipe are not used. Attorney Keilty said he issue is going to be presented to the City and he thinks the City may be asked for the release of the easement. Chuck Puleo asked if Mr. Geisser thought the City will require them to fill in the pipe and Michael Geisser said yes. Attorney Keilty said the easement issue is one that needs to be resolved before the city turns over ownership of the property to the applicant. John Moustakis asked if it wouldn’t make sense to resolve this before moving forward, but Attorney Keilty said
that they’re being asked to move forward by the City, so they are trying to do that and get this approval, and he thinks the easement issue can be resolved.
At-large Councillor Joan Lovely asked about Dave Knowlton’s responsibility as peer reviewer, and wasn’t it the more usual course for the Planning Board to use an outside firm for peer review? She also asked if the city was taking on any additional liability by doing this. John Moustakis was also curious about the city’s liability with respect to the site’s contamination. Attorney Keilty said in the years he has been doing this, the City Engineer has always reviewed the projects. He sais there are burdens on City departments because of rapid development, and then peer reviews are necessary by outside firms, but they cost money. He says there are no ethical issues since the City Engineer is working for the city. As far as liability, he said the first party that has
responsibility is the owner and then the generator of the problem. The city didn’t generate this; this property was taken by prior ownership. He said peer reviewing doesn’t give any liability to the city.
Danielle McKnight said the only reason the Planning Board hires an outside peer reviewer is for capacity issues – David Knowlton reviews the projects he has time for, but since he has no assistant, he can’t do them all. For the larger projects, the Planning Board asks the developer to pay for a peer reviewer. Dave Knowlton is reviewing the work of the project engineer as a second party. Christine Sullivan asked if he’s considered a peer reviewer or is he doing this as part of his job. Danielle McKnight said this kind of review is definitely part of his job.
Tim Ready said he would like to briefly go over the various levels of review this project will undergo with regard to environmental and health issues: the City’s health department, the developer’s survey, Mass DEP, the city engineer, and the Conservation Commission. Michael Geisser confirms this is true and reviews the various city and state departments they must notify. Jack Keilty also explains that the LSP program has created accountability in the cleanup of contaminated sites and puts site remediation in the hands of professionals who are trained to understand the issues. He also further explained how liability could be assigned for contaminated sites and how it is the generator of the pollution who is responsible.
Phil Singleton requests that the Board act as soon as possible because his financial commitments are time sensitive.
Chuck Puleo refers to the information from Dave Knowlton and the project’s engineer, Jim McDowell, asking if Mr. McDowell could explain it to the Board, and also whether the Board would be able to see the proposed changes on the plans. Mr. McDowell briefly summarizes his meeting with Dave Knowlton. He explains there will be revisions to the placement of the rip rap below the outfall, and also says the stormceptor would be moved from the public way on Szetela Lane to within the development. Chuck Puleo asks if there was any advantage of putting it further down; Jim McDowell says the stormceptor would have picked up a little more material from Szetela Lane. He explains that many municipalities and the state are unwilling to have these facilities placed in public areas because of maintenance
issues. Mr. McDowell confirms that the homeowner’s association will be responsible for cleaning and pumping out the stormceptor. He goes on to explain the grading plans with respect to the retaining walls, and shows how water will not drain onto neighbors’ property. He explains the drainage along the back side of the fence. Chuck Puleo asked if there would be space under the fence when installed; he was concerned about grass growing underneath and whether it would be maintained. Jim McDowell said there would not be grass underneath, but crushed rock. He also explained the function of the tide gate, which would prevent water from Collins Cove from washing back into the system.
Jim McDowell explained also that they planned to have only one water meter for the entire development; Planning Board members said they would much prefer to see separate meters, particularly since these are single-family homes. Nadine Hanscom asked whose decision this was. Danielle McKnight said she didn’t know and would have to find out. Chuck Puleo said he knows of other condo complexes that have had a problem in the past getting separate meters. Christine Sullivan thought separate meters were better for single-family homes.
Chuck Puleo also noted that he wanted the Board to have the time to read the City Engineer’s comments before finishing the discussion about engineering.
Jim McDowell also said they will be crushing the pipe and filling in the area, and more detail about this would be provided.
Helen Sides asked about the wall and the height of the fence that was proposed. She thought a 6 foot fence on top of a 3 foot wall might be unappealing to abutters. Chris Mello of Eastern Land Survey responded that this could be discussed further with the neighbors and adjusted if necessary, but that his understanding had been that they had wanted a high fence.
Chuck Puleo said, in review, that Eastern Land Survey would be updating their plans in response to the City Engineer’s concerns, and that the Planning Board also still did not have comments from the Board of Health. Attorney Keilty said they had not been placed on the agenda for the last Board of Health meeting, though they thought they would be. Danielle McKnight pointed out that the Planning Board had to give the Board of Health had 45 days to comment on the application, but the time had already passed. Board members said that they preferred to have comments from the Board of Health to be incorporated into the decision.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready to continue the public hearing to the January 7, 2010 meeting, seconded by John Moustakis and approved 7-0.
Old/New Business
Adjournment
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 7-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 2/4/10
| |
