Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
February 4, 2010
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Charles Puleo, Chair, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and T.F. Ready. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair, and Timothy Kavanaugh.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of December 17, 2009 were reviewed.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Sullivan to approve the minutes of December 17, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and T.F. Ready in favor, none opposed).
The minutes of January 21, 2010 were reviewed.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Sullivan to approve the minutes of January 21, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and T.F. Ready in favor, none opposed).
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.
Charles Puleo said that the applicant has requested to continue at the next Planning Board meeting, scheduled for February 18, 2010.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the February 18 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and T.F. Ready in favor, none opposed).
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.
John Keilty, attorney for the applicant, referred to a letter from City Engineer, David Knowlton, stating that he believes the letter brings closure to outstanding engineering issues. Mr. Keilty said that the letter states that each of the changes the applicant has made are satisfactory. He said that DEP questions are still outstanding, and a letter from Pat Donohue of the DEP addresses the DEP’s process.
Mr. Keilty noted that there are not enough board members to vote on a request for a special permit, but there is a quorum to vote on the definitive subdivision. He said they would like to address outstanding issues to bring closure to them.
Lynn Duncan said she did not expect a vote at this meeting, but would like to read aloud the letter from Ms. Donohue and comment on it. Ms. Duncan read the letter aloud. She noted concerns from board members and residents regarding the site’s cleanup and stated that she had wanted to understand the DEP process herself. She noted that the DEP is looking at what is there so they can be prepared to review an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) amendment and remediation plan. She said that the DEP has received calls from residents and the planning department and that the department is in communication with Ms. Donohue.
Mr. Puleo opened the meeting to questions from board members. Ms. Sides asked whether the document the board has is adequate. Ms. Duncan said the fact sheets DEP provided were very technical and detailed and she requested the letter because she wanted something concise that we can more easily understand. Mr. Puleo asked when the DEP will review this. Mr. Keilty said that first the applicant has to buy the land. Then they apply to the DEP with Michael Geisser, LSP. Mr. Puleo asked if the DEP could decide that the remediation isn’t sufficient, and Mr. Keilty replied that they could and that a DEP audit could determine whether it is appropriate or not before starting any construction.
Ms. Sullivan asked whether, in a level 1 AUL audit, the applicant will have to remediate if the DEP finds a problem and Mr. Keilty said that that is the case. Ms. Sullivan asked if additional submittals will be required prior to a change to residential use that shows there is no significant risk before start of construction. Mr. Keilty replied affirmatively. Ms. Sullivan expressed concern over whether the DEP will actually visit the site. Ms. Duncan noted that it is unknown whether they have come to see it, but she knows that they review the submission. Ms. Sullivan said she is concerned about the safety of future residents and worried that the DEP hasn’t been to the site in years.
Mr. Clark said that we take the LSP at his word. Ms. Sullivan noted that the LSP is licensed by the state and he can lose his license of his work is not dependable.
Mr. Ready noted that this is on the DEP’s radar screen and that correspondence with the neighborhood has heightened attention to the situation. He stated his confidence in the LSP’s recommendation, which is subject to audit and which the board will ultimately approve or reject.
Ms. Hanscom asked whether there is an apples to apples report discussing another similar site. Mr. Keilty answered that there is not, but they are seeking one through Mr. Geisser. Ms. Hanscom asked for a clarification of whether the DEP visits the site for a level 1 review. Mr. Keilty stated that that the DEP will only look at Mr. Geisser’s work, and with him they have indentified contaminated spots and excavated them. Next they will work to bring it to an acceptable standard. Ms. Hanscom noted that she wants an apples to apples report because contaminated sites remain there so long without being checked. Mr. Keily remarked that they can do a retest for contaminates in the level 2 review and file it in the report with their plans. Ms. Hanscom said she does
not understand why an apples to apples report would be difficult to find.
Ms. Duncan notes that the department accepted the view of Mr. Geisser when he was the city’s LSP and she doesn’t know how he could hide information. Other brownfield sites have come before the board and gone through the same DEP process. Ms. Hanscom said that she would like to see a report with ten single family homes on contaminated land and that this is different than large condominiums on concrete. Mr. Clark stated that he is satisfied with the LSP program and thinks that the board is in no position to question the LSP program.
Ms. Sullivan asked what the difference would be between single family homes and large buildings, such as residence halls. Ms. Hanscom said that residents of residence halls come and go, while people live for 30 years in a single family home.
Mr. Puleo asked whether Mr. Keilty wanted to have the city engineer review some of the changes, and Mr. Keilty agreed.
Christopher Mello of Eastern Land Survey reviewed Mr. Knowlton’s comments. He said tide gate concerns were addressed and that the concern regarding the bulkhead would be addressed by the engineer. He said they have provided a 4 inch inlet to bring draining into the new system, which is lower than the abutting Salem Housing Authority property, so it accepts drainage. He said details have been provided for the catch basin and the oil and grease separator. They have agreed to address concerns about the electric facility on the old rail bed. He said that they have provided detail as requested of the double gate valve. He said they have also addressed the concern of the carrying load of the houses, clarifying that the shallow retaining walls have nothing to do with
the load of the house.
Ms. Sides asked about the question of a fence atop the wall and whether there would be adequate distance for maintaining the space. Mr. Mello replied that he recalled the idea of putting down stone as opposed to grass which requires maintenance. Mr. George noted that there is flooding in the corner by the site. Mr. Puleo asked whether all of the roof drains are tied into the drainage system, and Mr. Mello said that they are, and the new system will manage all the site’s water and some of the abutters’. He noted also that the request for a detail of the vertical granite curb came late and they agreed to address it. He noted that in a revision of the plan, they connect existing catch basins to a new manhole and 24-inch drain, and that they have agreed to provide a
shop drawing. Mr. George asked if any of the water from impervious surfaces will burden Szetela Lane, and Mr. Mello said that none of it will.
Mr. Mello noted that there is an infiltration system for lots 14 and 15 on Fort Ave, and they are the only two with recharge. Mr. Puleo asked if these lots have caps, and Mr. Mello said that he believes the entire site, all with the same AUL, will be capped. Mr. Puleo asked who will be responsible for the drainage system. Mr. Mello replied that it will be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association.
Mr. Puleo inquired about the stability of a house built on filled land. Mr. Mello said that it is a building permit issue, where a building inspector makes a decision at each excavation. Mr. Puleo asked about the concrete as a cap atop contaminated soil and Mr. Mello said there is solid fill reinforcing the cap. Mr. Keilty added that no snow fence is needed for clean fill. Mr. Mello said that this is all sealed once underground work is completed.
Mr. Ready asked Ms. Duncan if she thinks Mr. Knowlton is satisfied with the changes, and Ms. Duncan answered that yes, the revised plans address everything and we have flagged the granite curb, and details for the retaining wall and the floodgate.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Francis Page, 28 Webb Street, voiced concern about storage and debris on the site. Mr. Keilty said there is an agreement with a neighbor over whether they take an easement on the area in question, and that uses would have to be compliant with zoning. Ms. Page added that odorous things are kept there in the summer.
City Councilor Robert McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue, raised the question of whether the neighbor at 1 Essex Street had been promised relief regarding the fence. Mr. Mello said he had met with the Mahoneys to discuss the fence and retaining wall against their property, and the developer agreed to change the fence to a 4-foot height on the westerly said of the parking lot and he had sent them a copy of the change. Mr. Puleo asked if Ms. Mahoney has expressed her satisfaction with the change and Mr. Mello said that he has not heard back from her yet.
Teasie Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, asked how many new homes will have pumps in their cellars and whether that will be addressed. Mr. Puleo said that he thinks they have shown that all drainage will go into the new drainage system and not into the ground. Ms. Goggin asked where the melting snow will go, and Mr. Puleo said that it will melt into the drainage system. Mr. Keilty stated that the homeowner’s association will be responsible for snow management, removing it or storing is as appropriate.
Nancy Riley, 24 Webb Street, noted the area’s high water table. Mr. Keilty said that their tests have taken that into account. Mr. Puleo asked how the grade of the slabs will compare to what is there now. Mr. Mello said the grade will be much higher than other houses and the proposed road grade. There will be no basements and therefore no pumps.
Mr. McCarthy asked if the added height from a change in grade will be deducted from the allowable height, since the topography has been artificially raised. Mr. Mello said that zoning height is based on grade prior to construction.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hancsom to continue the Public Hearing at the February 18 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim. Ready in favor, none opposed).
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.
Joseph Correnti, attorney for the applicant, said that they had met with the Design Review Board since the last Planning Board meeting for the ongoing review.
Frank Vetere, of GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., presented a PowerPoint presentation addressing environmental considerations. He explained that the Licensed Site Professional (LSP) has the role of indentifying contamination, determining work needed for remediation, and ensuring that work complies with Massachusetts law as well as the health, safety, welfare and environment. He said that LSPs are licensed by the state, and their work, which is subject to DEP audit, applies to all but the most serious sites. He stated that the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) categorizes sites by accessibility and frequency and intensity of use. Groundwater is characterized by drinking water, indoor air and surface air quality. He noted that assessment takes into account that no one in Salem
drinks groundwater, so a site is not required to have drinkable groundwater. He stated that it must be established that a site has no significant risk and a residential site has higher standards than a commercial site. The AUL is filed with the Registry of Deeds and tells future owners which uses are acceptable. He said that future changes in use could need more remediation or risk assessment. Eighty-six sites with an AUL were listed exist in Salem as of last year. AULs are common in old industrial cities like Salem and there are three around this site in question.
Mr. Vetere said that the site has been industrial since at least 1890. A light bulb factory was established in 1916. It passed through various ownerships and ceased operations in the early 1990s. Oils tanks and contaminated soils were removed in the early 1990s and studies in 1995 and 1996 found contaminated water and soil. Studies in 1997 tested for metals. Mr. Puleo asked when the building was removed. Mr. Vetere said that he thinks it was removed when the tanks were removed.
Mr. Vetere said that his company issued a Response Action Outcome (RAO) with an AUL in 1999, with a risk assessment based on industrial use. It was revised and audited in 2002 and the DEP found no issues with the revision. This was for a drug store and office building being proposed at the time. He said that risk assessment looks as risk to workers and trespassers, including children. Skin contact, inhalation and ingestion are considered. The assessment assumed there would be no pavement. The inside building assessment is based on the amount of time different users would be inside. Since no vapor barrier is assumed, inhalation is considered. An AUL can permit commercial and industrial uses if a vapor barrier and sub-slab vent system are installed and a
specified contaminated zone remains inaccessible. Construction below groundwater requires a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and soil management plan to protect workers and neighbors.
Mr. Vetere stated that the 2009 AUL revision allowed usage as a community life center/senior center, required soil at 2-5 feet to remain inaccessible under fill and pavement, and prohibited residential use and school or day care with a full school day. Construction safeguards ensure that all excavation is done under a HASP overseen by a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and all soils are hauled under a material management plan.
Ms. Hanscom thanked Mr. Vetere for his presentation, stating that it answered her questions about the process. Ms. Sides said she appreciated the clarity of the presentation.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Joan Zabkar stated that they are just now getting a chance to look at this and there should be another meeting since this material has not been made public. She said Ms. Donahue of DEP was unaware of this until this morning. She asked whether they should bring up their concerns now or at a future meeting after they identify issues.
Mr. Correnti said that they will take all comments and will be there to do the same at future meetings. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Correnti if he was ready to answer questions. Ms. Hanscom suggested that Ms. Zabkar could submit questions to be answered at the next meeting. Ms. Zabkar replied that she would prefer to have a live dialog. Ms. Hanscom remarked that with written questions, the applicant could provide detailed, researched answers. Ms. Zabkar said they need time to review this and list questions. Ms. Hanscom said that questions can be submitted to Staff Planner Danielle McKnight.
Mr. Ready asked Ms. Zabkar if she is a member of an organization. Ms. Zabkar replied that she is representing Support Our Seniors (SOS). She asked other members in the audience to raise their hands to indicate that she represented them. Several people raised their hands. Mr. Ready suggested SOS could speak privately with the applicant. Ms. Zabkar said that would be unacceptable. Mr. Correnti also expressed disapproval, stating that they want to do this through a public forum. He said they will address questions from the public and come back as many times as necessary. Ms. Zabkar said Ms. Donohue wants more time because of new technical issues. Ms. Zabkar said she is concerned about the issue of passive versus active air filtration, noting that a vapor
barrier broke at a nearby Walgreens. She also said that the senior center violates HUD rules by not being presented accurately at a public forum, as tonight it was referred to as a senior center and community life center, when before only as a senior center. She raised concern over data from tests for industrial use being applied to the assessment for a different use.
Mr. Vetere stated that all data is taken into account for a risk assessment. Usage might indicate what to test for, but the data is the data.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, said that the document sent to the DEP is stamped 12/18. He asked about a discrepancy between extent of the DEP site and the parcel boundaries. Mr. Vetere said that the DEP defines a site as a contaminated area, and this can be part of a property or it can cross property lines. Mr. Treadwell noted that HUD’s review differs from the DEP, with 36 impact items. He said tonight’s review does not deal with such things as flooring and historic value. Mr. Vetere responded that the health, safety and welfare part of the review does cover such things.
Alexis Ogno, 182 Federal Street, said that as an abutter with children, she has safety concerns. She asked if the plan to mitigate effect on abutters will be made public and what the threshold of acceptable risk is. Mr. Vetere answer that the DEP publishes the thresholds and that the plan to protect abutters is a construction document that is more a manual for construction than a public document. Ms. Ogno asked if neighbors will be able to know what is supposed to be happening at the site. Mr. Correnti said they will make those documents available and make sure the abutters get all the information they need. Mr. Puleo added that the board can incorporate that into a decision.
Ms. Zabkar said she sent a letter to the board and some research to Ms. Donohue. She added that she is concerned about remnants from industrial uses. She doesn’t know how the applicant’s representatives could miss some of the history she uncovered. She said there had been leather processing at the site. She requested a full audit in the area shown on a 1911 map to ensure the area is thoroughly checked. She said Ms. Donohue has maps, pictures and information. Ms. Zabkar then presented an image to Mr. Vetere, asking him about a bump in the land. Mr. Vetere said that he could not begin to speculate.
Dan Foultan, 182 Federal Street, asked if any studies had been conducted on the risk to pregnant women. Mr. Vetere said that there is health research behind the DEP risk assessment that considers toxicity, concentration and exposure. He said the EPA takes this into account, looking at dermal, inhalation and fetal risk.
Ms. Goggin asked whether the site will have a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH). Mr. Vetere said there will not always be one there, but a CIH will review the work. He added that measures to protect workers in effect protect neighbors, because the workers are closer to the risk than the neighbors are. Ms. Goggin said she is concerned about what will be disturbed deep down by pile driving and asked if the city will send out notices to neighbors of the risks. Ms. Duncan said that the city does notify abutters of what is going on, but not for their safety, which is already ensured. She said it is just a matter of wanting abutters to be informed.
Ms. Ogno asked if there is a way to notify abutters if an unforeseen risk comes up. Mr. Vetere said they stop work if they find an unforeseen risk. At that point a whole other report has to be produced and submitted to the DEP. And the DEP considers such a submission public notice. Mr. Correnti added that the Board of Health will be interested in this and there will be provisions on monitoring. He said that there has to be a mechanism to let the city and abutters know. Mr. Vetere said that in the HASP, they can set it up so that neighbors are notified if a threshold is reached.
William Bergeron of Hayes Engineering presented the results of a traffic study. Showing a map of the area, he said the main focus was on the Bridge and Boston Streets intersection with counts done in October. Mr. Clark asked if multiple counts were done, and Mr. Bergeron said that they were. Ms. Sullivan asked whether a 3:00 p.m. count was done, and Mr. Bergeron answered that one was not done for that time. Ms. Sullivan said that the 3:00 p.m. hour is peak traffic in Salem.
Mr. Bergeron said they also did the same counts for the Flint Street and Bridge Street intersection. They projected traffic to 2014 using historic Mass Highway data, assuming a 1% compounding annual increase. He noted that a review of accident records indicates that both intersections have fewer accidents than similar intersections in the state. He said they looked at access points to the site and conducted speed studies. They found that site distances are more than double what is required. The design incorporates exclusive left and right lanes and provides a very good level of service to the site. Mr. Clark asked if there is a graphic displaying this, and Mr. Bergeron answered that there is. He stated that the project will obviously generate some traffic and he
presented projected counts for a.m. and p.m., entering and exiting the site. He said that about 30% of the traffic will come from Boston Street, 30% back and forth on the opposite end of the intersection, and 25% down Bridge Street. He presented a table showing a level of service analysis showing traffic changes for build versus no build, with and without mitigation. He stated that the Boston Street section required more improvement and that a change in the right turn lane configuration will improve the level of service.
Mr. George said he is concerned about the potential gridlock produced by this plan. Mr. Bergeron said that gridlock is managed partly by having very few turns from Boston Street to Goodhue Street. Mr. George asked about egress from the site. Mr. Bergeron said that in their traffic analysis, traffic cleared through in each cycle even though there was some queuing. Mr. George said the new lane is obviously a benefit, but he is concerned about drivers having to break through two lanes of traffic to turn left onto Proctor Street. Mr. Bergeron said that their analysis shows that drivers wishing to go left onto Proctor would choose the exit that does not require crossing the lanes of traffic.
Ms. Sides said that the cars coming down Pope Street to turn left are taking their lives into their own hands. Mr. Bergeron said that the new lane will help to alleviate this.
Ms. Sullivan said that the 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. hour is a serious concern because school traffic creates a dense traffic jam that can be worse than the morning rush hour. She said she is very serious about this and it should be looked at. She asked if a left turn will be prohibited, as it is coming from Walgreens. Mr. Bergeron said a left turn will be prohibited. He added that the proposed uses tend to produce off-peak traffic. Mr. George asked if cars on Bridge Street will be able to leave the site going left or right. Mr. Bergeron said there are two traffic lanes on this stretch that has a low traffic count. Ms. Sides noted that the location could be a good influence on Bridge Street where people often speed.
Mr. Puleo asked why not only have an entrance from Bridge Street. Mr. Bergeron said that the proposed configuration helps drivers avoid the intersection. Mr. Clark asked what the length is of the added lane and whether it will be reviewed by Mass Highway standards. Mr. Bergeron said it is approximately 53 feet now, and they would be adding another 14 foot lane. He also said yes, it would be reviewed by Mass Highway. Mr. Clark asked if there is an island at the Bridge Street access point and what the level of service will be in that driveway. Mr. Bergeron said there will be no island there and the level of service will be C.
Mr. Clark asked how many total parking spaces are planned. Mr. Bergeron said there will be 374. Mr. Clark noted that there could be more spaces than cars entering. Mr. Correnti remarked that they have to get a variance because they are below what is required by 20 to 30 spaces, depending on the uses of the upper floors. Mr. Clark asked how many handicapped spaces there will be. Mr. Correnti answered that there will be 22, an increase from the earlier number of 14. Mr. Clark asked if some of the spaces should be dedicated to Council on Aging and MBTA Ride vans. Mr. Correnti said that the porte cochere can accept two vans loading and unloading people simultaneously.
Ms. Sullivan asked whether the total projected increase in traffic is 3% over five years. Mr. Bergeron stated that it is total, not per year. Ms. Sullivan asked how much this will add. Mr. Bergeron said it will add 1% compounding, over and above, each year. Ms. Duncan said that the 1% increase is without considering this project. Ms. Sullivan asked how many cars will be going to Flint Street. Mr. Bergeron said it will be 24. Mr. Sullivan asked about the consequences of the project on the intersection and noted that no one knows where cars go after Flint Street. She said there has been a big effort to make sure cars from the Salem Suede development do not go up Mason Street.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Bergeron if they could look at the intersection of Federal and Flint Streets. Ms. Sullivan said she wanted to know how many cars will go from Flint Street to Mason Street. She said it is a difficult intersection and she wants to know how the development will affect it. Mr. Correnti said they can find out for the next meeting. Mr. Clark asked if there are other planned projects in the street network that should be included in this analysis. Ms. Duncan said that this ties in with Salem Suede and a project on Goodhue Street. Mr. Bergeron said to bear in mind their opportunity for mitigation because of their unique position. Mr. Clark said he wanted to see cooperation to avoid bad levels of service.
Michael Sosnowski, City Councilor, 17 Collins Street, said that he has been addressing this with another councilor. He said Public Storage planned a lane that was never delivered and something is coming, but he doesn’t know what it is. He said this needs to be addressed. Mr. Bergeron said they did look at Goodhue Street. He said if you make it two way, you reduce the cycle length and add traffic to the intersection. Every new phase changes the cycle.
Mr. Clark said that maybe Mr. Bergeron could put this on paper. Mr. Bergeron said it could be part of a bigger study. Ms. Duncan said that she would get a copy of the relevant memo to the councilors and Planning Board members.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing at the February 18 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Old/New Business
None
Adjournment
A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Devine
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 2/18/10; again with corrections on 3/4/10
| 
