Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
April 1, 2010
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were Chuck Puleo, Chair, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of March 18, 2010 were reviewed.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the minutes of March 18, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA (proposed new Lowe’s Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Mr. Puleo addressed the public before opening the public hearing. He said that the hearing will be limited to one hour and the board will defer comments in order to give the public a chance to comment. He asked people to be courteous. The city tries to close meetings by 10 p.m., and the hearing will be continued to future meetings, so there will be sufficient time for everyone’s input. In response to some emails the Board received, he said that the project it not related to Salem Woods, which is protected from development.
Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., attorney for the applicant, said that tonight they will present a general PowerPoint overview and details will be forthcoming in future meetings. The plan for tonight is to take questions and comments after the overview. The project’s five elements include the new and expanded Wal-Mart, a new Lowe’s, a small expansion to the Meineke Muffler shop, the city water tower, and the camp site improvements.
Mr. Correnti said the project has been in the works for some time with support of the city. The City Council has amended zoning to allow business park development in this Planned Unit Development (PUD) application. The was also a memorandum of understanding regarding their land swap with the city. An approximately four acre city parcel would be swapped for a site in the rear so the project can go forward and the city can build its water tower in an appropriate location. The Council was also supportive of the Lowe’s TIF application. The project is big but will have some positive impacts. It will bring jobs and revenue to the city when those things are in short supply. After tonight’s overview, we want to cover traffic at the next meeting. We believe that will be a
full night presentation. We will show you that traffic improvements don’t stop at the Lynn line. Civil engineering, architecture, landscaping, and drainage will be covered in subsequent meetings. Lastly, our team has met with neighbors from Lynn.
Rob Jess, Lowe’s Project Manager, said that Lowe’s is excited to come to this location. They are cautious with their plans and have rejected other sites, but are keeping this one. He said he will be here throughout the process and can answer questions about Lowe’s.
Karen Westfield, Manager of the existing Wal-Mart, said she has been with the company 15 years and is excited about the possibility of expansion. She said the prospect of expansion is one of the reasons she chose this location.
Austin Turner, Civil Engineer of Tetra Tech Rizzo, presented a PowerPoint overview of the project. He said that they are only using about a third of the property, some of which is already developed. He displayed a map indicating property lines. He showed a wetlands map and stated that they intend to work with the city on mitigation and impact issues. He then showed a site plan depicting the extent of the PUD. The proposed Lowe’s will be 150,063 square feet with 378 parking spaces. The existing Wal-Mart will be demolished and replaced with a larger store at 152,192 square feet with 611 spaces. They will relocate a traffic signal and change the traffic configuration for more efficient circulation. They are working with the camp to identify what it wants for improvements,
such as an increase in square footage and more modern facilities, with 50 parking spaces, a relocated pool, and a pickup and drop off area. They have been spending time with the Mayor, City Engineer and a consultant on design. The engineering staff signed off on the water storage tank. The very small Meineke expansion includes an additional service bay and a storage component. Landscaping will include 1600 new plantings. The goal is to minimize the footprint and maintain the vegetation buffer.
Mr. Turner said that offsite improvements include relocating an outdated traffic signal. He stated that they are accommodating the concerns of condominium owners about access points for truck traffic by accommodating it in access points. The city’s new water tank will have a gated, dedicated drive, accessible from the project’s driveway. He displayed a map depicting the land swap with the city. The current city parcel will be incorporated into the project, and the city will receive a parcel that is for all intents and purposes identical. The Meineke improvements include better access to the intersection, allowing for a left turn upon exiting, which is not currently possible. With the road improvements, their sign will have to be moved. He presented a map displaying
proposed changes and improvements to Camp Lion.
Mr. Turner showed elevations of the proposed Lowe’s and Wal-Mart. He then displayed 3-D renderings and a grading/elevation map. Lowe’s will be higher than Highland Ave. to minimize disturbance to the land. The new Wal-Mart will be slightly higher than the existing store. The city water tank is at the same elevation as the previous proposal. He presented maps of proposed drainage areas and storm water management areas. He noted that presently all storm water drains to Highland Ave. and that they will be providing some offsite drainage. He then displayed a map of the site’s proposed lighting, stating that lights will dim when stores are closed to provide only the minimum light needed for security. Lighting will be zero at property boundaries. He
presented a map of proposed utilities.
Mr. Correnti said he knows this is a lot of information at once, but he hopes the overview is helpful. Mr. Puleo said there is another access road on the site and asked whether it is active. Mr. Turner said they plan to maintain the connection to the shopping center next door and the dirt path belongs to the camp. Mr. Puleo asked it is serves a purpose. Mr. Turner replied that it doesn’t, but they have to maintain the connection to the camp.
Mr. Puleo said there will be half an hour for general questions and comments.
Issue opened up for public comment.
Kathryn Byrne, 3 Lions Lane, Lynn, said she knows the access lane isn’t being used, but it is the fire department’s only access to brush fires. Mr. Austin stated that the road will be maintained. Ms. Byrne said that there are many elderly traversing this area and they might not be accustomed to the new traffic flow. She said her concern is that it should be user friendly. Mr. Turner said they are working to make it smoother.
Denis Colbert, 37 Clark St., said there is a city sewage pump station that he thinks is overcapacity. Mr. Turner said they are working with the City Engineer to address that. Mr. Puleo said they were aware during a previous project that it was at capacity.
Katerina Panagiotakis, 90 Spring View Drive, Lynn, asked if the developer is working with Peabody to address wetlands issues. Mr. Correnti said the project does not abut the wetlands in Peabody.
Gregory Demarcus, trustee at the abutting Apple Hill subdivision, said the project sounds like a disaster for his subdivision. We put $22 million into infrastructure for the 16 lot site, and now this monstrosity will be behind us. The goal to keep the high elevation is disturbing. He said he is concerned about noise, appearance, and traffic, and asked what will be done to buffer the Lynn boundary so people’s property will not lose value.
Mr. Turner noted that other Lynn residents have raised similar concerns. The purpose of the elevation is to minimize the footprint and make for the most efficient earthwork. The new water tower location is further from the Lynn boundary.
Mr. Demarcus asked if Wal-Mart will consider doing something to enhance the buffer near the subdivision. Mr. Correnti said that they are aware of those lots and they will look at the relationship between the project and those lots. There is a buffer now that they will maintain, and they will have more answers on that.
Mr. Puleo asked if the camp’s driveway is being relocated. Mr. Turner said they are maintaining the intersection, but pulling a bend back to accommodate the project. Mr. Puleo asked if they have the elevation of the nearby Lynn lots. Mr. Turner answered yes, their survey goes a couple hundred feet past the Lynn line.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., asked what the status is of the environmental impact report. Mr. Turner said they filed a MEPA application in December and have since received comments from state agencies and the team is working to address those. Mr. Treadwell said state agencies will be making a site visit and that the public is welcome. Mr. Turner said there has already been one MEPA visit. Mr. Treadwell asked if there will be another. Mr. Turner said he believes so. Mr. Treadwell asked about the geographic extent of the project, noting that the PUD requires a plan for the entire property. He asked if there will be a plan for the upper one or two thirds of the site. Mr. Correnti said there won’t be because that is not the project site and they do not own or control it. Camp Lion will maintain ownership of the 50 plus acres behind the site. We show it to demonstrate the relationship. Mr. Treadwell asked whether the board will see what is planned for the remainder of the site.
Mr. Correnti said that is not their parcel. Ms. Sides said she doesn’t understand the difference between the areas. With a map displayed, Mr. Correnti said that Camp Lion owns the bulk of the yellow site, and they have a small portion under agreement. Mr. Clark asked what the extent of the PUD is, and Mr. Turner displayed a map depicting it and noted that it coincides with the zoning boundary.
Mr. Treadwell asked what is in which zoning district. Mr. Correnti said the PUD is outlined on the map in red and everything outside that is not the project. Mr. Treadwell asked if anything he has heard about conservation easements up there is not well founded. Mr. Correnti said they have not gotten to those details yet in their presentation.
Leslie Cartemanche, 97 Fellsmere St., Lynn, said the overview seems like a presentation of a done deal and she is concerned that there are no pictures of what they are impacting, such as the environment. It is a sensitive area and I have it well documented that there are threatened species there and vernal pools. The only traffic improvement on Highland Ave. southbound would be to not have this project. I am opposed to the project for its traffic and other impacts.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street #2, asked how much impervious surface is on the site now and how much will be there upon completion of the project. Mr. Turner said he is unsure, but knows it can be found in public documents. Ms. Whitney asked if they will work to minimize impervious surface, with it being a large project on a natural site. Mr. Turner said they are working with MEPA to review alternate playouts, and if there are opportunities for low-impact design, they will look it that. Ms. Whitney asked what the store hours will be. Mr. Correnti said the hours will be per ordinance, which dictates that it would have to close by 11 p. m.
Dan Cahill, 20 Belleaire Ave., Lynn, Councilor at Large, thanked the project team for coming to Lynn. He said he is disappointed with Salem, because unlike the Wal-Mart and Lowe’s, the city is not a profit-seeking corporation. I understand why they want the economic impact of the project, and it is tucked away in the corner of the city where Salem will experience less adverse impact. We don’t like how it is being built right next to us. This will impact property taxes that provide for the neediest people. I am also concerned about people leaving Lynn to spend money at these stores. Cooperation is critical. We will be here throughout the process. I hate this project—no offense to those running it.
William Trahant, 215 Verona St, Lynn, Ward Two Councilor, said he has met with Mr. Correnti and his team. He said it was a nice presentation, but he wishes it had come sooner. Flooding is a concern and this will bring more water. I am also concerned about traffic, with current conditions as poor as they are.
Steve Walsh, State Representative from Lynn, said he works often with Salem, and loves the city. Mr. Correnti has been accessible and professional and is a good man, but that doesn’t make this a good project. More than half of the land being developed has to be cleared or blasted near one of our nicest neighborhoods. I object to having this on the city line, and I question the economic payoff for the city. I hope the developer comes back to address mitigation. We want to know the impact on the regional economy. Wal-Mart and Meineke could grow on their current footprints. Lowe’s doesn’t care about neighbors or regional economic development.
A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing on April 15, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, and 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.
Mr. Correnti, attorney for the applicant, said they want to open the hearing for the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit. We will talk about progress with the DRB, which reviews this because it is in the North River Canal Corridor. We have made some substantial changes to the plan. We do not yet have a final recommendation from the DRB. There is another DRB meeting on April 13, just prior to the next Planning Board meeting. We are hopeful that process will be completed, but we will be back here either way. We will show you changes to the building and to the overall site. We have been talking to the DRB about trying to improve the buffer.
Peter Blaisdell, Registered Engineer of Hayes Engineering, presented the site plans. He noted that of the seven buildings on the site prior to 1995, only one, an auto shop, stands today. He displayed the flood plain boundaries and said there has been no base flood study to give a target elevation, but they do have a 10 elevation downstream. About half the site is in Zone A, a flood zone, but we are convinced that the line is no longer accurate after the Bridge St. reconstruction. We have evidence to support that this area no longer floods. He noted that he has visited the site during high tide following very high levels of rainfall and saw no flooding at the site. All we have seen is surcharged water coming from a sewer in front of Public Storage. I also looked today and it was
bare. Despite clogging, catch basins are still running great. He distributed photographs of the site from today during high tide to the board. He noted that in their improvements, Peabody will be providing some backflow prevention gates to prevent water getting onto Bridge St.
Mr. Puleo asked if they are maintaining what is required despite their belief that the map is wrong. Mr. Blaisdell said yes, they are taking a conservative approach. Mr. George asked if they are looking at proposed new maps. Mr. Blaisdell said he spoke with FEMA and the city of Salem about a year ago, and he doesn’t know if Salem has requested a change or will get a new maps. Mr. George asked if they have seen any new maps. Mr. Blaisdell said no, and that officials said they were not asking for change.
Mr. Blaisdell said the applicants were concerned to avoid impacts on neighbors. With permission, they did a topological survey of the neighbors’ properties. He said that none of the project’s runoff reaches any of the Federal St. properties. He displayed an erosion control plan. We are proposing to surround the site with fencing with construction exits. A rim of hay bales will be around the edge. The existing building will come down. Most of the existing drainage system will be abandoned. We will keep an existing wall to intercept water in order to not change its displacement. The existing system will be about nine feet below the grade of the building. There will be tracking pads, a little depression with fresh stone, to pick up dirt and sedimentation
from truck tires and keep it out of catch basins. Mr. Puleo asked if they are bringing in material with the change of grade. Mr. Blaisdell said yes, in some areas.
Mr. Correnti said for the interest of time, they will stop here and come back to it. Mr. Puleo asked the board if there are questions about this, and there were none. Mr. Puleo asked when they will file with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Correnti said it will be April or May.
Harry Gundersen of Gundersen Associates, Project Architect, said there have been three DRB meetings. There has been discussion about the location of the building entrance and some concern from the DRB and Planning Board about outdoor space. There has also been discussion of landscaping and buffer. He displayed the former ground floor layout. The DRB was concerned about emphasizing a minor entry location with the atrium. We eliminated the atrium and enlarged the other entrance. We relocated the health club’s entrance to be along the Boston St. sidewalk. We moved the left half of the building to the right, allowing some outdoor space. So there is a new Boston St. entrance and the main entrance at the other end. We are able to keep the main entrance toward the
center of the site and make it obvious where the main entrance is.
Ms. Hanscom asked if the hallway replacing the atrium offers access to the several parts of the building. Mr. Gundersen answered that it does provide access to the Senior Center and the gym, and to the upper floors with stairs and an elevator. Ms. Sullivan asked why someone would enter the health club on Boston St. when they are parked in the lot. Mr. Gundersen replied that it wasn’t moved very far.
Mr. Gundersen displayed the proposed outdoor space plan. He noted that there was concern about the loss of space with the elimination of the atrium. The Senior Center space will open onto the main lobby, which is 50 by 45 feet with a security desk and outdoor seating. The landscaped patio is adjacent to the lobby and there is quite a wide sidewalk. The DRB feels that the sidewalk is wide enough for tables and chairs. He showed a revised sketch of the new entry. There is a modified canopy fitting with the style of the entrance. Ms. Hanscom asked how deep the canopy is. Mr. Gundersen said it hasn’t been determined, but will probably be in the 3-10 foot range. Mr. Clark asked if they have lost the covered drop off area and Mr. Gundersen said that it is
gone.
Mr. Gundersen said the DRB has spent lots of time on landscaping. It is generally through that the buffer between the project site and the Federal St. neighbors should be densely planted. The neighbors will have input into the height of the fence. The DRB thinks that eight feet might be too tall, but we will do it if the neighbors want it. Our planning takes into account the presence of large trees on the abutters’ property. We propose a dense fence of evergreens and some Eastern Red Cedar by the retaining wall. There will also be some Arborvitae since they are controllable. For accent plantings, we propose Red Maple, Kousa Dogwood, and Shadblow Serviceberry. Ms. Sullivan asked if the width of the buffer is the same. Mr. Gundersen answered yes. Ms. Sullivan
asked on what basis the parking number is determined, since much else is determined by this and we haven’t heard an explanation yet. She asked if this is going to come some time. Mr. Correnti said he will address this shortly.
Mr. Gundersen said one deciduous tree will be planted. The parking lot landscaping will include Laceback Elm in one strip, and Honey Locust and River Birch in the other sections. All street trees will be Callery Pear. This was changed to be continuous at the request of the DRB. Ground cover is unchanged. At the next DRB meeting we will address the corner of Boston and Bridge Streets. We will provide a rendering of the health club lobby.
Mr. Puleo asked where people will enter. Mr. Gundersen said everyone will enter through the lobby or at the new middle entrance. When you eliminate the atrium, the second floor runs continuously through the whole building, so we put an elevator at the Boston St. entrance. Mr. Puleo said this could split people entering. Mr. Gundersen said he thinks only people heading to the upper floor offices will use the middle entrance. Mr. Clark said he does not agree that few will use the middle corridor.
Mr. Correnti addressed parking. He said we have to make some assumptions. Nobody builds spec buildings and this isn’t a spec building. Developers are willing to go forward knowing the Senior Center will be here and they are betting that they will be able to fill the rest of the building. He says this is the only developer willing to do that. It is hard to predict future uses in the building. The Senior Center has the requirement for 80 spaces. We know we will have retail on the corner and there is a formula in the ordinance for retail. Based on square footage, that retail will require 96 spaces. The rest is office and there are two zoning categories for that. We would have to know how much space will be each category. We expect a mixture of both.
We plug this in and we come up with a requirement of about 400 spaces. Our plan calls for 374 spaces, so we have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a relief of 20-30 spaces. I can’t tell my client to get more relief based on the assumption that it will be all one use because the building could be filled in a way that is different than what we assume. We want to make sure that the building ends up with proper permits.
Ms. Sullivan says she respects that analysis, but she still would like to know the basis of the Senior Center number. She knows this is not Mr. Correnti’s problem, but there is a whole set of decisions based on a this number and she doesn’t know how they got there. Mr. Correnti said the existing center has 20 spaces, and they looked at other centers. The real analysis is that the center has all the spaces it needs. In the evening, if there is a function, there will be 200 plus spaces available. While 80 was the number in the RFP and Purchase and Sales agreement, some are pleased that there is more than needed if there is an event after business hours.
Mr. Sullivan said she is just asking to find out where the number comes from, because if it is wrong, we have a chance to expand the buffer or extend the sidewalk. We will kick ourselves when it is built and spaces are empty. Somebody must know where the number comes from. Is there an average number of spaces for Senior Centers? Mr. Clark said he agrees with her. Mr. Correnti said that that it is the number in the RFP and that this question might be answered by the City. Mr. Ready said we shouldn’t be putting this extra burden on this developer. Ms. McKnight says the Planning department can find out.
Joan Lovely, 14 Story St., City Councilor, said other sites were ruled out for lack of parking. There will be city departments and AARP that need parking. Employees alone won’t take up that many spaces. I was on the public opinion committee that had hearings and sent out surveys. Parking came back resoundingly as a priority. We have reports on this that are available. Maybe 80 spaces is too many, but it is in the Purchase and Sale agreement. I would like to see some of that parking instead be a bocce court and an atrium. Ms. Sides said she believes the new entry will serve the role that the atrium did, with sunlight and foot traffic making it an active and vibrant space. Ms. Lovely said the city is the anchor tenant and that the project wouldn’t happen
without the city. Seniors want outdoor space, and the mayor’s idea for the roof garden is a good one, but I understand it would be a huge expense and ok to give up. But we should seek some outdoor space, even at the expense of parking.
Ms. Sullivan said she knows there are reasons for the parking requirements for the other uses and she isn’t going to try to change the law. But the 80 spaces for the Senior Center could be a flexible area where we could find outdoor space. Ms. Sullivan said she doesn’t want to kick herself for not having this conversation.
Ms. Hanscom asked if they need to have this many spaces to build this building. Could you lose 20 spaces? Mr. Correnti said they have to meet the legal requirements or get a variance. Practically speaking, doctors offices require a certain amount of parking and they are very particular about it. We have to offer them enough parking regardless of zoning, or they won’t come. We have to keep in mind the tenants we will be seeking. Some say a variance is a variance, and we could ask for relief for more than 20 spaces. But then we lose the ability to attract tenants.
Ms. Hanscom suggested that outdoor space could be in the back of the site. Ms. Sullivan said it wouldn’t be practical right now with the ocean of parking. Ms. Hanscom said doctors don’t care about spaces in the far end of the site. Mr. Clark noted that in theory outdoor space would be better in the back of the site, isolated and surrounded by trees.
Issue opened up for public comment.
Doctor Miltiades Vorgeas, 33 Pickman Road, said his primary concern is for the mental and physical health of seniors. He brought a copy of an EPA directive telling buyers to beware of contaminated properties. He is are concerned because he says they eliminated St. Joseph’s because of traffic and this site has more traffic lights than that one. Consequently there are noxious, contaminating gases there. He contacted someone in Maryland who will check the air toxicity in the area. It could cost $3,000. Nothing has been done in this congested area. Our other concern is the pipes and tanks underground. If the developer wanted to take a complete look, he would need an electromagnetic device. There are other methods to go even deeper. I understand the developer
did some monitoring, but you will not be able to find the methane gas in the area. I personally went through one of these buildings years ago. I saw piles of broken glass that they would take to the middle college area and put there in a mound. A lot of it seeped into the ground. If you canoe through the marshland, you will smell the methane. If the developer ever did his job and looked at it completely, he would have to hire someone from Virginia for $1,000 per hour. Approximately 137 pollutants can be in this area. What will we do about the health concerns? The building is nice, but the area is not conducive for seniors. It is not a senior center according to some organizations. To be a senior center it would have to be a separate building. Now the city is buying a condo with local and HUD money. To deal with the area properly, full remediation is required.
Mr. Puleo said that this would be best handled by HUD, because there is an environmental review as part of their process. Mr. Vorgeas said that he is concerned that this is not the best location for a senior center. Mr. Clarke said these issues are not the purview of the Planning Board.
Mr. Ready said he wants to be sure to mention that the official record of this meeting is being maintained by the city of Salem.
Joan Zabkar, 6 Phelps St., said that she expects to have a dialog with Frank Vetere. Will I have that opportunity without having to submit questions? Mr. Correnti said Mr. Vetere can be made available at the next meeting to answer questions. Ms. Zabkar said that would be the dialog. Mr. Puleo said it will be limited by time. Ms. Zabkar said she was repeatedly assured that she will have the dialog. Mr. Puleo said it won’t be an all night discussion. Ms. Zabkar said she would have questions, he will answer, and we will have the dialog. She asked what the time limit would be. Mr. Puleo said it will be something reasonable, maybe five minutes.
Patrick Deiulis, 6 Seemore St., said that people who support these projects don’t break doors down to come to meetings. I think the majority feels it is a benefit to the city. The site has been vacant too long and I credit the developers for this. All these conversations have taken place multiple times in difference forums. I hope the board will focus on the project. I hope for a speedy approval.
A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing on April 15, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP LLC 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, 245, 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, 40 Lowell St., Peabody, attorney for the applicant, stated that the developer has a purchase and sales agreement with three parties. We seek a special permit for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit and a definitive subdivision. This is a reapplication of a past application for a 15 lot subdivision with two on Fort Ave, three on Szetela Lane, and the remaining ten on Shallop Lane. We have approval for our storm water system as well as approval from the Board of Health. There has been an engineering review. All the plans incorporate department recommendations and input from neighbors. My client responded to an RFP for sale of city land. We are expecting an AUL. We have dug out hot spots and removed hazardous waste. Mr. client will provide a
cap system. We have an agreement to provide a parking area which will be subject to zoning. The purchase and sales agreement limits the lot to employee parking. Neighbors have concerns about storage on the lot. Mr. Keilty showed the board locations of the capping. There will be a limit which prohibits people from eating vegetables grown on the site. Other than all this, it will be similar to any other subdivision. The road will be a public way, but we will be responsible for snow removal and storm water management.
Mr. Puleo asked if there will be vertical curbing around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Keilty answered yes. Mr. Puleo asked about the fence. Christopher Mello of Eastern Land Survey said there had been discussion with neighbors. Mr. Puleo asked if the neighbors agreed to a type of fence. Mr. Mello said only the height of the fence was settled. Ms. McKnight said a condition could determine the fence material and it could be based on agreement with abutters.
Mr. George asked whether an existing driveway is being eliminated. Mr. Keilty said it will become paved parking. Mr. George asked what this project will mean for puddling on Szetela Lane. Mr. Mello said there is an existing catch basin and the problem is probably further from this site. The draining along the frontage is good. We will fix broken pavement as part of our work. Mr. George said the drains there have never been cleaned. Mr. Mello said they will clean them if needed. He said they are providing an outlet for Housing Authority drainage at the City Engineer’s request, as well as a tide gate.
Mr. Ready asked what the condition of the site is today after the heavy rain. Mr. Mello said he hasn’t seen the site during the storms. Mr. Ready asked Ward 1 Councilor Robert McCarthy if there is flooding at the site. Mr. McCarthy said there is some, but he thinks it can be addressed when they make the curb cuts. Mr. Keilty said there are puddles where hot spots were removed. Those will be graded out. Mr. Ready said the storm water management plan should deal with this. Mr. Mello stated that the plan will take all the water and lead it through a new tide gate.
Ms. Sullivan asked what the houses will look like. Mr. Keilty distributed renderings to the Board. Ms. Sullivan asked if their siding will be hardy plank rather than vinyl. Mr. Keilty said not necessarily. Ms. Hanscom asked where the retaining wall with the fence is. Mr. Mello identified it on the plan. Ms. Hanscom asked why this type of fence is needed. Mr. Mello said it is needed to bring the earth up. The fence is on request of neighbors. We need to block access from the parking lot to the houses. The other fence will be vinyl chainlink. Ms. Hancom asked is there is a picture of the fence. Mr. George asked if there is an alternative to chainlink. Mr. Mello said the neighbors want to see through it. Ms. Sullivan asked if the wall could
be higher. Mr. Mello said they want to prevent people from falling off it. Mr. George asked if there is access from Ford Ave. to the houses, and Mr. Keilty answered yes.
Mr. McCarthy remarked that he is concerned that the road will be a liability for the city. The Association will take care of snow and other issues, but if it breaks down, it falls on the city. If there is a water or sewer break, or the street needs to be cut through, what is the city’s liability? What liability does the city have when we cut through the street? Where does our responsibility end? The buyer is responsible for the contamination, but the cap is on the city. Ms. McKnight said it is City Council’s decision whether to accept the street as a public way. The board doesn’t have anything to do with this decision. The board is giving approval for construction of the street and utilities, and so far this has been with the understanding that it will be
requested to be an accepted street.
Mr. McCarthy said he has no problem with the city picking up trash, but he doesn’t want the liability that comes with a capped site. Mr. Keilty said that if the street has to be opened, the city’s only duty is to put it back the way it was found. If the city fixes a sewer, it doesn’t demean the cap, since you put the cap back. Mr. Puleo said the concern seems to be about city employees handling material under the street. Mr. Keilty said that perhaps the City Solicitor could look into this.
Mr. McCarthy asked if every previous condition will be adhered to. Mr. Puleo answered yes. Mr. McCarthy said he doesn’t like the fence. Mr. Puleo noted that it will be addressed with neighbors. Ms. McKnight said there are some conditions that were discussed during the previous filing that are no longer relevant because they have been resolved and incorporated into this second filing.
Mr. Keilty said the fence issue remains and they are working with neighbors. Mr. Ready said that when they began there was input from the neighborhood, but he is very impressed that no one is here. Is it because everything has been addressed? Mr. McCarthy said he had to explain to neighbors what refiling is, and told them that all agreements will be adhered to. It is difficult because no one likes change. We are at the point where we need to move forward if all conditions are adhered to.
At-large Councillor Steven Pinto said it has been four years since the RFP was issued. It is not perfect, but it will be good to see closure. Sometimes it takes that much time. Mr. McCarthy said we have gone through a process, and not everyone is happy, but he thinks they have something that will hopefully work. I applaud that they are sticking with the project. My trepidation is more with where this is located and what is underneath. I am concerned with future liability for the city.
Mr. Keilty said the street could be completely private. Mr. Puleo asked where the AUL is stated. I know it is on the deed, but I want to be sure. Mr. Keilty said it is on the deed and the purchase and sales agreement.
Ms. McKnight said that if the street is private, it could change the issue of the water meters. Originally when it was going to be private, the Engineering Department said they would not meter every home. Mr. George suggested that a condition should require individual meters.
Ms. McKnight read aloud a comment received from resident Helen Twardowsky, 9 English Street, expressing opposition to the project due to its density.
Ms. KcKnight read aloud revisions in the draft decision letter and members discusses its final details.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan, with standard and special conditions, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Old/New Business
None
Adjournment
A motion was made by Tim Ready to adjourn, seconded by Mark George and approved 8-0. (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Mark George, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Kavanaugh, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Meeting adjourned at 10:56 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Devine
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 4/15/10
| 
