Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
January 21, 2010
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, January 21, 2010 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, Mark George, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. ~Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting by introducing two new Planning Board members- Mark George and Randy Clarke.
Approval of Minutes
The review of the December 17th meeting minutes were postponed until the February 4th meeting.
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 construction a new street off of Szetela Lane to serve a new subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land into 15 single-family house lots between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 41, Lots 235, 236, 243, 244, 246, and 274). ~Attorney John R. Keilty.
Attorney John (Jack) Keilty, representing Shallop Landing, recapped some information previously presented. He said they met with the Conservation Commission and received an Order of Conditions. Attorney Keilty said he noticed at the site visit that some Board members were concerned with the type of cap to be used and wanted more information. He handed out a drawing of a cross section of cap. Attorney Keilty said they received a memo from City Engineer Dave Knowlton, who reviewed the site engineering, with requests for changes to the plans, and that they are able to meet these requests.
Michael Geiser, Alliance Environmental Group, talked about the cap and said that they have two infiltrators on lots 14 and 15. He referred to Nadine Hanscom’s question at the last meeting about other sites where this type of cap has been used, and said he spoke to Pat Donahue at the DEP who said there are some single- family homes with this type of cap. He said in Salem near the Witchcraft Heights Elementary School (WHES) there is land that has this type of cap with an AUL on the property, and two elementary schools with these caps, all which have DEP approval. Mark George
asked which schools use the berm and cap, Mike Geiser said WHES and Carlton. Attorney Keilty added that it has been used on residential properties as well.
Chuck Puleo asked what happens when the material gets saturated. Mike Geiser said the contaminated area has very granular soil and the water table is 8 ft. With testing it appears that the material on site is not coming off into the ground water because the groundwater is showing to be clean. He doesn’t see any issue where that would be changed. John Moustakis asked if there are sites like this one with same cap, sites that have more than one home on them. Nadine Hanscom said she would like an “apples to apples” comparison- site(s) with same contamination, same cap and similar buildings them. Jack Keilty said you can get through the membrane material so they proposed the snow fence as another barrier. Christine Sullivan mentioned that Salem State College has a building
that is on a slab like these will be. Mike Geiser said he didn’t think the college used a permeable membrane and that you would want the rainwater to go through. He said the snow fence is preferred because it’s tough, cheap and easy to see if anyone were to try to dig.
Lynn Duncan, Director, wanted to make sure everyone at the meeting understands the language. The cap is the clean fill being proposed; the orange barrier is not a cap. Lynn said originally the AUL (Activity & Limitation Use limitation cap type) was done for the city, so the requirements were for the city to meet for the current use. Attorney Keilty agreed and said they want a revised AUL so it can be used residentially. Lynn Duncan said the planning department looked into what Nadine is looking for. They contacted a licensed site professional who the city has under contract and who was familiar with this approach, and while he couldn’t give specific examples, said it has been used in other locations. Nadine Hanscom said that if the cap is approved by a government, there has to be
something that states this, with today’s technology, it must be recorded somewhere. Michael Geiser explained that there is no way to search the DEP database by the AUL. He said when he spoke with Pat Donahue he told her that there are questions from the City about use of these barriers. Pat said this type of cap on a residential site is not as common as other sites, more commercial sites have them, but that they exist. He said the reason they are more often found on commercial property is because these properties historically had other commercial uses on them, which tend to pollute. The commonwealth has pegged this as a risk reduction program using rules and guidelines.
Nadine Hanscom said she would still like to see a comparison at the next meeting. John Moustakis asked if it is possible to get a letter from the DEP saying that this process is ok. Michael Geiser said he does have an email from Pat saying that this cap/barrier process they are proposing is okay and will supply a copy. Tim Ready said ultimately they will have to meet the requirements of the BOH, DEP and Planning Board and if that’s not satisfactory, then what other assurances could they ask for? He feels the presentation has been made by an expert and it has seemed to satisfy the DEP. Attorney Keilty has no objection to providing a copy of the email, and he will ask Miss Donahue to put it on letterhead. He also said he will try to find an “apples to apples” comparison as Nadine
requested.
David Knowlton, City Engineer, says he has reviewed the resubmitted plans and storm water plans. He prepared a memo that he forwarded to Attorney Keilty and Planning Board members. Some comments on the memo have been addressed and Attorney Keilty said they will incorporate those addressed items for the next meeting. Dave Knowlton said he will have time to review the drawings with those same items. Tim Ready added that Attorney Keilty said that they can meet most of the requirements. Dave Knowlton said he is comfortable with the engineering aspect and is convinced the applicant will be able to make the necessary changes.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Teasie Riley Goggin, 3 Wisteria Street, asked if this project will have a certified industrial hygienist on board. She thought OSHA required that if you’re working with chemicals. Attorney Keilty said no, that one would not be required for this site.
Councillor Robert McCarthy asked about the drain that drain that is tied into the ones already at that site. What else ties into it or drains into it? Should they increase the pipe size? Dave Knowlton said they didn’t include that drainage system up to Lee Fort Terrace on the original plan, however it has been included/incorporated in the resubmittal as well as the tide gate. Councillor McCarthy will get a copy of the resubmitted drawings.
John Givelia, who was previously a member of the Council on Aging Board, said that Attorney Keilty mentioned that the soil was removed. Michael Geiser agreed and said this happened in approximately the year 2001/2002. John said he knows that they removed so many cubic yards of soil and left the rest. His concern is on those lots there is a lot of heavy metal contamination and there was not a lot of soil taken, and it was not removed from all of the lots. He says that to the best of his knowledge, not much has been done to that site.
Councillor Michael Sosnowski said current soil conditions were tested down to the water table, which is clean and he understands they will be put down snow fence, then a barrier and cap. He asked if after it’s capped, would the contaminants percolate up. Michael Geiser said the contaminates are heavy metals fixed to the soil and that they are not going to move or float; they’re not like oil, it’s essentially dirty dirt and it would sink to the bottom.
Councilor Robert McCarthy asked to see a map of the site. He wondered how the lots have been tweaked to fit them in the perimeters. Attorney Keilty said they moved some houses back further, changed the size of some of the houses and took some area of the lots to make the street a bit wider. On average, the lots are almost bigger because they redid the geometry of the street and houses. There is a difference of frontages. Councillor McCarthy said he has looked at this project a long time and his area of concern is the houses on Webb Street, along the back. He says it’s the edge of the old railroad easement, which is now a walkway, which was like a buffer. Is there a way of moving the wall back so that it’s not on the other property? Attorney Keilty said they did that, they pulled the
wall back which resulted in the ability to put in storm water man holes on the property that will collect from Webb Street properties and go underground. They stepped the wall back about 4-5 feet.
Amity Vandoren, 1 Essex Street, adjacent to the parking lot area, said at one time there was a 6-10 ft area of buffer and wanted to know what size that buffer now is. Attorney Keilty said now it’s 3 feet, the wall starts approximately at the back of house and showed it to her on the plans. Chuck Puleo pointed out that Helen Sides had previously asked about the size of the fence. Amity said initially the wall and fence had been set 6-10 feet off her property but now the wall starts at their property, near the back door, and it impacts her yard and property. Attorney Keilty said they have never moved the parking lot from the original presentation and the fence is the same. Amity said they previously offered to give them 8-10 ft. and is disappointed that is not the case now. Attorney Keilty says
this is not the case; the plan before the Planning Board has always had the wall in this location. Tim Ready commented that the Board doesn’t know what agreement is being referred to, but if the parties can bring in any formal documentation to support their claims (about the location of the fencing); they should bring it to the board.
Ruth Page, 28 Webb Street, said they want a 6 foot fence on top of the 3 foot wall at their property.
Chuck Puleo said there will be some engineering changes for the next meeting. Attorney Keilty said they will contact the DEP and get Pat’s comments on letterhead as well as get a fair comparison to other similarly remediated properties.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the public hearing at the February 4th meeting, seconded by John Moustakis and approved (7-0). In favor- Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh (Mark George and Randy Clarke abstaining).
Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). ~Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing High Rock Bridge Street, LLC, said they are pleased to bring this project to the Planning Board. This is the former Sylvania site, on which they are proposing a mixed use building which will house the senior center, professional offices, a fitness center/health club and an atrium. He wants to give an overview tonight, and they will do traffic analysis for the next meeting. He introduced David Masse and David Sweetser, one of the principals of the proposed development. David Sweetser said about 15 month ago, they engaged the City for their plans for this intersection and since then they have met with the public, the Mayor’s office and constituents. They have tried to be as responsive as they can and have had a positive relationship with the City, Mayor
Driscoll and staff. They are trying to find a balance between what’s economical and what’s best for the City and seniors. He thanked the board for their time tonight. Attorney Correnti said they have filed and are asking for a site plan review, and because of NRCC they will be going to the DRB. He said they are asking for 3 permits: one for retail use over 3,000 sq ft (for fitness center); one for height of fence; and one for eating and drinking places within the building. They are proposing an atrium in the middle of the building with a small food-court type of feel. They will be going to the Board of Appeals asking for a variance for number of parking spaces even though this has 374 proposed parking spaces and for a variance for height of building. Currently they are allowed 4 stories, 50 ft., they have 4 stories, 57 feet. They will meet with the Conservation Commission and received an Order of Conditions, they will go back to see
if they need to file a new Notice of Intent. There is a buffer zone from the canal.
Lynn Duncan, Director, said that this is a very important plan to the city and thanked everyone for great turnout. Attorney Correnti said they have had great support from the City and the City Council. Architect Harry Gunderson, 20 Second Street, Salem, said he has been involved with this project for 5-6 years. Used a PowerPoint presentation to show and explain the proposed project. He showed an aerial view of the lots. There will be two entrances, one off of Bridge Street and one off of Boston Street. There are 374 parking spaces, 22 of those are handicap accessible because they anticipate the senior center will require them; they are also located closer to the senior center than the offices and fitness center. There is also a possible medical use on the upper floor. There will be a
landscape buffer along the back side, 136,000 gross sq ft. On the Boston Street end, the building will be 2 stories and then it will be 3 stories in the middle and then 4 stories at the other end. The entrance to the offices upstairs will be at the end of the building off of Bridge Street, next to the service area. The office space will be 91,000sq ft. Surrounding the building outside will be a very wide sidewalk about 10-12 feet wide. On the South side of the building (in the back) there will be a covered walkway the entire length of the building. There will be a Porte cochere so that patrons can drop someone off out of the elements. The Boston Street entrance will be right turn in, right out. The landscape buffer in the back will be varying widths. There is a 12 ft high retaining wall in back. For landscaping, currently at the back of the site there are mature large trees. The plantings along the fence will be
mountain laurel which is a flowering tree; the trees lining the sidewalk will be callery pear; the trees in the island will be honey locust; and the other trees will be creeping juniper. In between that will be grass, and in the lot there will be permeable stone pavers.
Harry Gunderson continued to explain that the entire property is 880’ ft long. The NRCC zoning calls for putting the building along street because it builds a streetscape along Bridge Street, and there was also an expectation from everyone to build on the corner. Since it didn’t seem right to park at one end of the parking lot and walk to building at the other end, the end of the building closest to the parking area has the entrance to the upper floors, which is the end that has 4 stories. The first floor of the building will house the Senior Center, which will be in the majority of that floor, the health club is at the corner of that floor and the atrium will be in the middle. There will be three ways to get into the senior center- through the atrium, through the front door and directly into senior center. They are currently in discussion with senior center staff about how it will lay out. There will be a separate entrance into the health club. On the second floor there will
be professional offices on both sides of the atrium and there will be the second level of atrium in the middle, with a bridge to connect the two sides. The third floor will be all professional offices with the main entry at the east end. There will be mechanical equipment on the roof of the atrium. By doing that, they will be limiting what is on the fourth floor of the building.
Harry Gunderson explained the elevations and showed photos of the proposed building from different views. He said there will be a glass canopy at the atrium. The south side of the building faces Federal Street. Near the office entrance there will be a glass curtain wall at the East end of the building, you could see it if you were standing on Flint Street and looking at the building. There will panel systems but he is not sure if they will be concrete or metal. He showed another view as if entering from Boston Street. Then the view from the parking lot (east end) looking towards the building, it will be primarily a brick building, precast headers and sills and a sunscreen on the roof at fourth floor.
Peter Blaisdell, Hayes Engineering, Salem St., Wakefield, explained the civil engineering aspect of the plan. He said the ground floor will be 45,400 sq ft, the second floor will be 41,800 sq ft and the third floor will be 26,600 sq ft. The site gets a bit higher towards the church. There are a lot of existing utilities on this site from when Sylvania was on site. Also, this site is part of the 100 year flood plan and they are concerned with the neighbors’ yards. They tried to identify some existing drain problems. As part of the demolition and erosion control plan the existing building will be taken down, certain drainage will be removed, and some pavement will be removed. To keep the site from eroding they are proposing a silt fence barrier around the site, they will put hay bales near the drainage
system, will use tracking pads and have a 25 ft wide apron of crushed stone for any vehicles going into the lot. Peter Blaisdell said for parking and layout of the plan they tried to get as many parking spaces as possible. There are two driveway entrances and the one off of Bridge Street will be 2 lanes in. There will be speed bumps in the parking lots as well. There is a conceptual land donation for a right turn lane which will be explained further down the road. There will be a large walkway around entire building.
Peter Blaisdell said for the grading plan all runoff from the pavement is directed to deep sump catch basins and there will be a stormceptor unit and these will remove solids. The grades from Federal Street go towards the North River not toward Federal Street; there will be catch basins to catch the runoff. As for the utility plan, one of neighbors has a depression in their yard, their idea is to put a catch basin in their yard and direct it towards this proposed property. For weep holes they put a crushed stone trench with PVC pipe underneath. There is an existing drainage system that they will utilize. The large precast concrete unit will have about 81% removal ability, state standards is 80% removal. They will have discussions with ConComm about this unit. The building will be serviced by sanitary sewer
line. They haven’t selected lights for the final plan yet, for safety purposes, they will have 1 ft candle lighting designed to provide light without spilling over onto the neighbors’ property. There will be typical sloped granite curbing.
Attorney Correnti mentioned that they have a 50 ft buffer from the residential line, so they will need a variance for that as well. He said there is an AUL on this site; they will address how they will handle environmental issues at a future meeting. Christine Sullivan said there was a decision in November 2006 and she noted that at that time there was an agreement of height of fences with the Federal Street neighbors and then she read the approval that the Planning Board gave. Also, during the traffic presentation, she wants to discuss a deceleration lane, which had also been discussed for the previous proposal for this site in 2006.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Councilor Michael Sosnowski said that they were previously promised a traffic lane by the church and there was a possibility of making Goodhue Street a two way. He said it is an good time for the Planning Board to take advantage of those things that were promised. He also pointed out that Peabody is working on their flood issues and Salem is in phase 3. He wants to make sure that any increase of water/impact from this is taken into account.
Stan Poirier, 8 Cottage Street, said that looking at the site plan, it looks like there is a lot of hot top and a flat roof which means there would be a lot of water that will run off and asked what they will have for this. Peter Blaisdell said that is a good point and for that they will have a good amount of impervious area and a lot of landscaping. He said the pipe sizes are such so that they won’t send more water to streets, everything that comes on to the site now goes to the street. He said they’re trying to clean it and treat it. He said the stormcepters slow the runoff a bit.
Nancy Reilly, 24 Webb Street asked if the fitness center and food court would be opened to the public. Or would the food court be more like a hospital cafeteria for renters of the building? Attorney Correnti said the fitness center would be a membership type of club, opened to the public and it will also seek to do joint programming with the senior center; and the senior Center staff thinks it’s a benefit. As for the food court, ideally it would be opened to public, but it would be open only during the building hours.
Councillor Joan Lovely, who was a member of the site plan committee for the senior center, said a lot of discussion for this site had focused on having an outside activity space for the seniors. This site doesn’t show anything like that and she asked if it could be discussed. She suggested a rooftop garden to address this. Attorney Correnti agreed that there isn’t any outside activity space; they did have the atrium and the fitness center, which provided some recreation and open areas. He added that they also incorporated wide sidewalks and they could have benches there. Councillor Lovely reiterated that a lot of discussion involved having seniors being able to enjoy the outside, that the Mayor had once suggested a rooftop garden. Over the next few meetings perhaps there could be some discussion on
this issue.
Jim Treadwell, previously on the NRCC Committee, wants to make sure this complies with the NRCC plan. He feels the parking is excessive and takes up useable outdoor space. Depending on the buffer, maybe they can eliminate some parking spaces and put a bocce court or something.
A woman echoed the sentiment of having a rooftop garden. She was a little disappointed at there not being any details to the building that shows the history of Salem. Attorney Correnti said that they will be showing the details of the building at future meetings.
Lynn Duncan added that the DRB meeting is next Wednesday where they will be reviewing the details of the building.
David Goggin, 3 Wisteria Street, commented that Sylvania’s plant didn’t make it because of all the water problems they had, water was getting into the building and they had slab construction. He feels the water situation is going to get worse at that site.
Mr. Gorman asked if they are going to allocate senior parking. Attorney Correnti said they can talk about peak hours at next meeting and parking. They won’t be allocating senior parking; they assume that seniors coming in through the atrium will park outside of that area.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 3 Wisteria Street, asked that since federal funds are being used for the senior center, would they be doing an environmental review. Lynn Duncan said that they will be doing an environmental review and they have submitted a 786. Ms. Goggin also asked about pile driving and how many they think they will need, as she thinks they will be digging up some contaminants.
Martin Imm, 174 Federal Street, says that in general, the plan is just super, but suggested that this should be a landmark building on the corner and have some more remarkable type of façade. He questioned why there are so many parking spaces and thinks a bocce court (or something similar) would be nicer.
Sandy Power, 18 Loring Avenue, said she’s looking forward to using the building. She asked if the sidewalk in the back of the building could be widened to add some tables and also asked how “green” the building is. Peter Blaisdell said they are trying to achieve LEED standards in some aspects of the construction, though the certification itself was expensive. Sandy Power commented on the landscaping. She doesn’t think callery pear is a good choice – they are overdone and not a good shade tree – and would like to see more of a variety of trees. She asked how extensive the permeable paving is. Harry Gunderson said they would be present in the islands and not in the parking areas.
Pat Donahue, 12 Dearborn Lane, who was member of NRCC zoning committee, would like to see the buffer zone honored and possibly use an open area for seniors and have a rooftop garden. She suggested looking at Shaughnessy Hospital; they have a really nice rooftop garden. Along with Sandy, Pat also thinks a pear tree isn’t good and suggested a dogwood tree.
Councillor Joan Lovely added that during the meetings for the senior center, they also discussed a “green” building and LEED certifications. Danielle McKnight read a letter from resident John Adelman, 27 Charter Street. In his letter he asked for a projection of the number of seniors in Salem. He asked if there would be any integration with North Shore Elder Services and wondered if there would be a discount for the seniors in the fitness center. He also asked how contamination would be dealt with.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to continue the public hearing at the February 4th meeting, seconded by Tim Ready and approved (9-0). In favor- Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Tim Kavanaugh, Mark George and Randy Clarke.
Continuation of 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) (Salem Heights Apartments). ~
Heather Carlisle, representing Goodman Networks, returned to tonight’s meeting with an update. At the last meeting, there was a discrepancy in the drawings of what is currently located at the site and what would be at the site. She said every antenna will be painted to match and the safety railing is now shown on the drawings. Helen Sides said the drawing looked better. The antenna that is show in the drawing will remain there as it has nothing to do with what they’re doing.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready approve the special permit, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved (7-0). In favor- Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh.
Public Hearing: ~Request of GOODMAN NETWORKS for a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) Special Permit for the property located at 320 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 32, Lot 216) (Park Towers apartment building).
Patty Masterson, representing Goodman Networks, said they are here tonight because they want to install 3 panel antennas and 1 backhaul antenna. One this site, T-mobile has an existing stealth chimney so they will make theirs to match. The proposed wireless communication facility will be on the southeast side of building. Helen Sides commented that the stealth (brick) chimney currently on the building, and the one proposed to be added is totally strange. Patty Masterson said those materials used for the chimney can be changed to be tailored to whatever the Board would like. Helen Sides thinks it should be more integrated into the building, maybe attached to the side of the building without the chimney surrounding the antennas. Patty Masterson said it needs to be in the open, so that the antennas can
send signals without interference. Helen Sides suggested that sometimes what you’re trying to hide looks better than what you’re using to hide it. She said she would like to know what it would look like if it were to be mounted on the side of the building without a chimney.
Patty Masterson explained that the chimney will be 10 ft high by 3 ½ ft wide and 5 ft deep. The three antennas are 42 inches each and the backhaul antenna is 29 inches. The existing chimney on the building is about 18 ft from the penthouse; their proposed chimney would be about 10 ft from the penthouse. Randy Clarke suggested that the chimney be painted white and that the Board conditionally approve this. Helen Sides would like to see an alternative to the mounting of the antennas and chimney.
A motion was made by Randy Clarke to approve the Special Permit with conditions and for the chimney to be painted white.
Tim Ready reiterated that the issue with this is that the Board would conditionally approve a white chimney; however Helen Sides would like to see an alternative design. Christine Sullivan would like the DRB to give the Planning Board some standards for these things. Tim Ready said that it seems they have established a precedent with other similar companies while Helen Sides pointed out that the other Goodman Networks representative came back with another option that was much better.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Randy Clarke to approve the petition, seconded by Nadine and approved (7-2). In favor- Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clarke , Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh. Opposed- Christine Sullivan and Helen Sides.
Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval – 1 and 5 Florence Street (Map 34 Lots 273 and 102). ~Benny J. Fisheries Ltd. and Anthony J. Picariello represented by Attorney George Atkins.
Attorney George Atkins, representing both property owners, said the derelict fee statute applies – the owners on either side of the paper street would like to add portions of the way to their properties. He said there is already frontage on both properties. Councillor Jerry Ryan suggested that if they don’t know who owns the parcel, he’s not sure they should do this in case the city owns it. Attorney Atkins reiterated that the abutters on either side own the way to the middle. Danielle McKnight said the City Solicitor recommended endorsement of this plan because it meets other requirements of an ANR. She said during her talk with the City Solicitor and the ownership issues came up, she said he felt comfortable that there are no ownership issues.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the petition, seconded by Nadine and approved (9-0). In favor- Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Request 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.
Attorney Atkins summarized some previous meeting information. Since the last meeting, the peer reviewer asked to expand and include further in calculations, and a summary from peer reviewer was submitted to Danielle late this afternoon. Attorney Atkins would like to keep this on the agenda for the next meeting. One thing they are working on is for the city to accept the street and manage the maintenance of it. Chuck Puleo asked if the City Engineer feels the grading proposals are acceptable. Attorney Atkins said they made changes at the city engineer’s requests: There are additional catch basins added to each lot; a catchment system at bottom of driveways; and drainage added to the back of Barnes Circle. Attorney Atkins said that Harry Gunderson has been talking to the neighbors about the plans. Some neighbors want the fencing to continue. The screening along Highland Avenue may be a problem and the ledge may be a problem with planting. Attorney Atkins said they have met
with the Board of Health who approved the plan with conditions.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the public hearing to February 4th, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved (7-0). In favor- Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh.
Old/New Business
There was some discussion as to the length of the Planning Board meetings. Since there are some large proposed projects, some meetings may be very long. Members discussed the option of special meetings for some projects.
Danielle McKnight informed Board members that Stacey Dupuis was leaving her post as Clerk and that this was her last meeting.
Adjournment
There being no further issues to come before the Board, a motion was made to adjourn by John Moustakis, seconded by Tim Ready and approved (9-0). In favor- Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides, Tim Ready and Tim Kavanaugh.
Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacey Dupuis
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 2/4/10
| 
