Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
April 15, 2010
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 15, 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, Vice Chair, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of April 1, 2010 were reviewed.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Mark George to approve the minutes of April 1, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan , Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Public hearing: Request of BVS CORPORATION for Definitive Subdivision Plan and Waiver from Frontage to allow the construction of a new cul-de-sac and related utilities to serve two (2) new house lots on the property located at 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET (Map 15, Lots 315 and 567). Attorney William Quigley.
Chris Sparages of Hayes Engineering, Engineer for the applicant, said that they received a variance last year to create lots in this configuration with these setbacks. Frontage is a little less than the required 100 ft. We will make improvements to Scotia St. to support the needed utilities and extend the sewer line to the end of the street. City Engineer David Knowlton asked us to check the water line for pressure and fire flow. We did, and the results were favorable. We prepared a drainage mitigation study. Existing conditions are bare and unvegetated. We removed contaminants. Or proposal includes an increase in impervious area and a cul-de-sac. Roof structures will be tied into an underground infiltration system. We conducted test holes and results show
favorable soils for the infiltration system. Our calculations show reduction in both peak flow and total volume of runoff. By adding lawn area, we reduce runoff.
Mr. Puleo asked if driveways will be tied into the system. Mr. Sparages said they are proposing a treatment swale as shown in the construction detail. Water will be treated before leaving the site. Mr. Puleo asked if the water will drain into the street. Mr. Sparages answered yes. Mr. Puleo asked if there are catch basins. Mr. Sparages identified them on the plan. Mr. Sparages said that they submitted the plan to Mr. Knowlton and provided responses to his concerns. Mr. Puleo asked who will maintain the road. Mr. Sparages said it will be the city. Mr. Puleo said they are waiting for comments from several departments.
Mr. George asked about the asbestos removed from the site. John Sullivan, said all the asbestos was removed and this was documented. Lead was removed too. Mr. George asked where the slope leads. Mr. Sparages showed the flow on the plan and noted that water flows in three or four directions. Mr. George asked if the house footprints will be the crown from which water flows. Mr. Sparages noted their spot shots and showed flow on the plan. He said new landscaping will reduce peak flow and total runoff. Mr. George asked how close abutters are to the rear of the site and whether there will be an increase in runoff on that border. Mr. Sparages said there will be a reduction, including in total runoff, which is unusual. If we had more than four lots, it would require
additional storm water management. We did it for this one because of the neighbors’ concerns at the ZBA and from Mr. Knowlton. Originally, four houses were planned for this site, but the client saw problems with density and drainage. This plan with two houses has 28% less impervious area than the plan with four houses.
Mr. Puleo asked if the curbing will be granite. Mr. Sparages said they propose an asphalt berm. The existing pavement edge has no berm, so this is one of the waivers we asked for. We are asking to have applied to us the guidelines for a two lot subdivision with no possibility of expansion. Ms. Hanscom asked how far the new houses will be from rear abutters. Mr. Sparages said they will be 13.5 and 15.5 feet. Ms. Sullivan noted for the record that the building inspector recommends granite curbing because bituminous is easily destroyed by a snow plow—not to mention it looks better.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Larry Olcott, 23 Summit St., said he is a direct abutter and everything he heard about drainage doesn’t mean anything for us. They brought in loads of fill and the site is now eight feet higher than us. I have pictures of our floods. I put a pump in my back yard. It is a complete goldfish bowl and I have a house full of mold. Water runs directly toward three houses on Summit St. I also have a letter from the party at 25 Summit St. Ms. Hanscom asked to see the letter and photos, and Mr. Olcott submitted them to the board. Mr. Puleo asked if what has been done so far is the final grade. Mr. Sparages said it is not final. We balance grading to equally distribute storm water. Mr. Puleo asked what elevation Mr. Olcott’s property is. Mr.
Sparages said it is lower than the project site.
Mr. Ready asked if Mr. Olcott has had any dialog with the developers. Mr. Olcott replied that he has not. I have called and emailed my councilor with no response. I don’t know how to get a hold of the developers. Ms. Hanscom asked which storm he photographed. Mr. Olcott said it was the most recent. Ms. Hanscom asked if it has always flooded like this. Mr. Olcott said that since excavation, water now comes directly towards him. I’ve had $3,000 worth of damage. Ms. Sullivan suggested that for the sake of time, Mr. Olcott could talk to the developer and get back to the board.
William Quigley, Attorney for the applicant, said this is the interim condition and forthcoming improvements will help. Mr. Sullivan said asbestos was removed about a year ago and a hole had to be filled for safety purposes. Mr. Ready said he encourages Mr. Olcott to discuss this with the developers and we will revisit it at the next meeting. Ms. McKnight summarized the letter from 25 Summit St. They report flood problems and are concerned about drainage. They recommend evergreen trees be built as a barrier.
Brett Coughlin, 29 Summit St., noted that the board saw pictures of his walkway.
Susan Kao, 14 Scotia St., said she heard Mr. Sparages say there is no catch basin but she sees two of them on the plan. I am concerned about runoff if there are no catch basins. Mr. Sparages said the symbols she saw are not for catch basins. Ms. Kao said she is concerned about how the grade of the new houses will send runoff into the street. It will go into my driveway and into my basement. We don’t have water issues now, but this could change that. Without catch basins, I am very concerned. And what about access to my home during utility work? I will soon have a new child, so I will need more feedback on what happens when. And will there be a gas line? Mr. Sparages said there are no plans for gas and he is not even sure if it is available. Ms. Kao
asked about the grade in the runoff study. Mr. Sparages said a treatment swale will catch runoff so it doesn’t hit your street. Ms. Kao said there is nothing to prevent water from getting to her house. Mr. Sparages said the completed pavement will honor existing gutter lines to prevent that. We will work closely with city departments, and we can provide information to Ms. Kao for full communication.
Jerry Ryan, Ward 4 Councilor, said he apologizes for missing Mr. Olcott’s call. I suggest a meeting with neighbors. Drainage will be a huge issue. The slope toward the neighbors is a concern. I hope the project will fix these water problems. Developers and neighbors can exchange contact information and plan a meeting. Mr. Puleo said they will have to continue this and have a site visit. He suggested a dialog with neighbors.
Mr. Ready said it appears that there are legitimate neighbor concerns that haven’t been discussed. I encourage all of you to work through your councilor and have that discussion. The developer seems inclined to work with the neighbors. Hopefully some of these issues will dissipate with dialog and we can progress with more serious issues.
Ms. Hanscom asked about the inspector’s recommendation for granite. Are you willing to use it if the board recommends it? Mr. Sparages said they would entertain that. Ms. Hanscom asked about brick pavers versus asphalt. Mr. Sparages said they haven’t discussed that at all. Ms. Duncan said this is under the purview of the City Engineer, and we need his comments. I think he will echo the Building Inspector on granite. Mr. Sullivan said there will be some cobblestone in the driveways and it will help with water. Mr. Quigley asked what other issues should be addressed during the next two weeks. Mr. Puleo asked for progress on road markings, and to resolve issues of Mr. Olcott’s fence and mold so when we return we can continue to work in goodwill between
developers and neighbors. Ms. Sullivan said she would like to see them look at catch basins and driveway water.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the May 6 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Continuation of 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.
Ms. Duncan spoke about the board and the department’s process for reviewing traffic proposals. The city has hired traffic consultants Ken Petraglia and John Mirabito of the Beta Group. They are here tonight to listen to the presentation and hear questions and comments from the board and the public. The developer will present the traffic plan as submitted, and the engineers, on behalf of the city and the Planning Board, will review it. They will look at the plan’s assumptions, estimated traffic generation and proposed mitigation. They will submit a memo with their initial findings and the developer will respond to that. The process should take a couple meetings.
Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., Attorney for the applicant, discussed the previous meeting’s project overview. He said that traffic will be tonight’s subject. We have also filed with the state. We want to show what has been done to date and hear what, if anything, the board has questions on and respond accordingly.
Jason Plourde, Traffic Engineer for the applicant, said that the team has met with MASSDOT to see what is going on in this corridor. They asked us to look at the southern signals on Highland Ave. We also determined the relevant time periods. We looked at weekdays, 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., and Saturday 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. He displayed an aerial image of the study locations and close-ups of existing conditions.
Ms. Sullivan asked if they looked at mid-afternoon, which is the busiest time in Salem. Mr. Plourde said they put down measurement tubes and found that mid-afternoon has lots of traffic, but not as much as weekday evenings. We also looked at accident data and found that all the intersections have a lower than average accident rate. We looked at sight distances and they exceed requirements. We found that traffic has actually decreased from 1997 to 2004. Mr. George asked him to confirm that he said it had decreased. Mr. Plourde confirmed that he indeed said it had decreased, based on MASSDOT data. We don’t think it will continue like that, so we overestimated with a 1% annual growth rate over a five year period. We also added traffic associated with other local
developments.
Mr. Plourde said that today there is less traffic than standards would predict. This could be the location, with competing opportunities to the north. Mr. Puleo asked if they have actual counts of the current traffic. Mr. Plourde answered yes, based on 2008 data. We had to decide how to look at this. We used the higher estimates of shopping centers. Standards say that pass-by trips can only be 25%. That is a car already on the road that would pass the site anyway but visits the site. The other type is completely new trips. Based on our study, pass-by trips are higher than the state allows us to use. This means the new trips are lower than we estimate, as our study exaggerates new trips.
Mr. George asked if there is a clear relationship between building size and increase in traffic. Mr. Plourde answered yes. Mr. George asked what the ratio is. Mr. Plourde said he does not know the answer. Mr. George said that if there is such a relationship, we can do some simple math and predict the increase. Mr. Plourde said it is different with multiple uses. If we only expand Wal-Mart, you could do that. Mr. George said that with the Meineke expansion, if the traffic is X now, it will be X plus some factor of X later. Mr. Plourde said one of the improvements will be a connection to allow people to get to Meineke from Wal-Mart or Lowe’s without using Highland Ave.
Mr. Plourde said that on a daily basis you have a car that enters and exits the site, so that one car is two trips. There will be an increase in new traffic of about 4400 new trips, which translates into 2235 new cars, or about an 8% increase. If we could use the higher pass-by rate and lower generators for individual uses, that would be 1020 new cars, or a 3.7% increase. But we don’t use that. We evaluate peak hour impact. We are held to a standard, but I want to be clear about that standard. Mr. Puleo asked how the state arrived at the standard. Mr. Plourde said he has heard many stories on that. He was told that a room full of officials said 25% sounds good. You have different types of retail development, and they took this as a general rule of thumb.
Mr. Puleo asked if traffic counts are behind the standard. Mr. Plourde said ITE is based on actual data. Mr. George asked if it is use specific. Mr. Plourde said it is. We did a study using existing facilities and ITE was able to use that in their most recent eddition. We did that because Lowe’s stores were new and generated more traffic than they do now. Mr. Puleo asked when the 8th edition was published. Mr. Plourde said it was published in 2008.
Mr. Moustakis asked how many cars come from Marlborough Rd. to the Lynn line each day. Mr. Plourde said they their study does not go as far as Marlborough Rd. Mr. Moustakis asked why they hadn’t gone that far, since it is where the traffic will be. Mr. Plourde said he knows based on the study that it will be roughly 100 cars per hour in each direction.
Mr. George asked if the new light will be coordinated with other lights. We have big backups at peak hours. I am wondering if traffic can be moved all the way through the area. Mr. Correnti suggested they continue with the presentation, as some of the answers are in the next slide. Mr. Plourde displayed the site plan and noted the water tower and the improvements to the camp. Today we have the northern driveway where the signal is. We will close the existing signal driveway and move it to where the southern driveway is now. Based on feedback from neighbors, we will modify the northern driveway to get truck drivers to use it. We will provide a left turn lane and the possibility for u-turns. At the northern driveway we will add a second left turn lane, which will
require less green time. Mr. George asked how many northbound lanes this will leave. Mr. Plourde answered two. We know the merge area is difficult and lacks signage. We will straighten it out to allow the two lanes to continue through and we will add signage. There will be a way to turn left on Highland Ave. coming out of Meineke.
Mr. Plourde displayed a diagram of Fays Ave. We found problems with signal equipment. We propose to restripe the southbound approach to allow right turning cars to get out of Western Ave. so they have their own lane to turn right. We propose to upgrade all signal equipment at the intersection. It won’t fix everything, but it will mitigate more than the impact. Mr. Clark asked what level of service change there will be. Mr. Plourde said Fays Ave. is now level E or better, and this will bring it to C and no worse than D. Ms. Sullivan noted that the project depends on moving lights and doing construction on a state road. What assurances will you have that the state will let you to that work? Mr. Plourde said that these are still the beginning steps. We
submitted the traffic study with the Expanded Environmental Notification Form. Now we file the Environmental Impact Report. But ultimately, when we get to MEPA. We continue with the construction documents and access permits. It won’t happen tomorrow. This is a private development and the developer foots the bill for these improvements. Mr. Correnti said they have no assurances. The state only assures us that they will review all carefully. Mr. Duncan noted that Irving Oil on Highland Ave. went smoothly and quickly and the developer got approval for a new turn lane.
Mr. George asked if it is theoretically possible that we could end up with a better situation without backups? Mr. Plourde said that based on the traffic study, they were able to show that improvements will make operations better than the no build scenario, but not better than the existing conditions. With the totality of improvements, we are mitigating our impact. Mr. Correnti explained the locations of the Lynn streets.
Mr. Ready asked to see the plan again. He remarked that the planned configuration is similar to the entrance to the North Shore Shopping Center on Route 114. Traffic moves well there. Mr. Plourde said he does not know the traffic volumes there. Mr. George said he sees the similarity. I think if we can coordinate the lights, there would be a lot of mitigation. Mr. Ready said there was success with the DOT and Irving Oil, as well as with Home Depot. Also, a rep from MASSDOT said that the real problem on Highland stretches all the way to the Saugus rotary. At the shopping center entrance on Route 114, there is often a large police detail during high traffic times. Mr. Ready stated that there is often a traffic jam in mid-afternoon leading in and out of Salem, and a lot
is based on school bus traffic with its frequent stops. The road widening may improve that.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, said they need to be attuned to what is happening at the nearby shopping center. There is a new eye doctor with elderly customers. It seems dangerous to me with trucks and the elderly. Presently that driveway is not active. They now walk down the hill to Wal-Mart. I am just concerned for them.
John Sawyer, 5 Barnes Circle, said they are not happy. We do lots of walking. Cars come through at 40 MPH, and there is some drag racing. Motorcycles are at full blast in the summer. The sidewalks are inadequate. Riding a bike here is life threatening. This is a poor proposal in general. Streets are inadequate for what is there now. People are in a rush to get to their destination to make money in our bad economy. It is a very tricky area and I think this is overstepping it. This hurts the woods. It is a heck of a piece of land. People living in the area will not be happy. Construction will be disruptive with blasting and noise. And Salem’s Home Depot is not doing well. I don’t know why the Lowe’s is
coming.
William Trahant, Ward 2 Councilor, Lynn, said the area is bad now. Let’s face it, there will be more traffic. You have to address the streets where you can’t get out now. I think the Fays Ave. signal works now and the signals are synced. This will still be in gridlock. The design of the road is terrible and there will be some bad accidents. I disagree with the data showing fewer accidents.
Aikaterini Panagiotakis, 90 Spring View Drive, Lynn, said with Lowe’s on the hill, there will be an increase in general traffic noise in the morning. By blasting and clearing the earth, it will expose the pond to the road noise. Also, there is a duck crossing at the bridge, and I have stopped several times to let them pass.
Jeanne McAuley, 11 Western Ave., Lynn, said he does not think there has been a traffic decrease. It has increased. Will the camp be relocated? Mr. Plourde replied that the access will remain at the same location, but it will change inside the site. Ms. McAuley said this will not work. The merger into Lynn has no breakdown lane. I fear getting into an accident. It now takes me five minutes to get out of my driveway. Sidewalks are inadequate for pedestrian traffic and I can’t imagine an improvement.
Sandra McMaham, 2 Madeline Ave., said she agrees that the traffic is deplorable. There is no easy way out of Salem. Between 2 and 6 it is impossible to get anywhere. And the transfer station will be bad too. Traffic has increased tenfold.
Tom Demarkis said he is one of the co-owners of the abutting subdivision. We have sold only 4 of our 16 lots. Did you do site distance measurements for Belleaire Ave. and Buchannan Circle? Mr. Plourde said we did the measurements only for the intersections we are responsible for. Mr. Demarkis said those intersections have very short site distances. We have had some fun with numbers. 4470 trips gets condensed to 2200 cars. If you go by twice, it is one car but two trips. He noted that Mr. Plourde said it will be an 8.1% weekday increase but doesn’t mention Saturdays, or if it is spread throughout the day or more pronounced during rush hour. The project is irresponsible on many levels. It is good for Salem, but the city has a responsibility to the abutting
neighborhood. The board should require a traffic signal at Bellaeire, Buchannan, and 107. I don’t agree that this is similar to the 114 example. You are often suck there through 3 or 4 light cycles.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street #2, commended the traffic engineer for making it look like there would be a traffic improvement. We heard the same for the courthouse and traffic has worsened before it has even opened. Low-impact development should be considered. No one answered my previous question regarding the amount of impervious surface. What size is this Lowe’s? Mr. Plourde said it will be roughly 103,000 square feet. Ms. Whitney said that would be classified as extra large. I am concerned about a large, big box store hurting downtown businesses. I don’t think this project on the edge of the city will help downtown.
Deborah Smith Walsh, 16 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said she has been a resident here for 32 years. None of this was here when I bought my home. We now can’t get out of our street. We have to ease out and pray someone will stop. I believe your study was done in a room and not on the road. I believe Western Ave. in Lynn has been left out. Lowe’s will be visible from my neighborhood. I am concerned about traffic merging and general traffic circulation. I hope the city’s traffic consultants will do a good study. Ms. Duncan said that the consultants do not conduct a new study, but only review what has been done.
Norm Cole, 30 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said the presentation sounds good and could even fix the problem. Has anyone read the Expanded Environmental Form? Did you see how many new daily trips are expected? 6000. 18000 daily trips. The state has said these guys need to do more to mitigate traffic. It sounds good, but it is not good for Salem or Lynn. With the transfer station there may be hundreds of trucks coming through per day and that needs to be considered. These are two megastores that don’t belong on a one lane highway.
A motion was made by Randy Clark to continue the Public Hearing at the May 6 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Request to extend final action: MAUREEN GOODRICH, Plan believed not to require approval, 58 and 60 PROCTOR STREET.
Ms. McKnight said that the developer requests to start on May 6.
There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to extend final action to the May 6 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh 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.
Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., Attorney for the applicant, said that they have been busy. The architect will show revised plans incorporating several changes as a result of the DRB process. The DRB is giving a positive recommendation to the Planning Board. We would like to think the design of the building is now situated. We also received a positive recommendation from the Board of Health.
Harry Gunderson of Gundersen Associates, Architect for the applicant, noted the changes to the ground floor, the Boston St. entrance, and the corner at Boston and Bridge Streets. He showed the ground floor plan. The atrium was eliminated and the lobby at the east end enlarged. We changed the Boston St. entrance to confront the parking lot. In the pass through, formerly the atrium, we moved the elevators. We modified the Boston St. entrance to be more of a street entrance. Ms. Sullivan asked Mr. Gundersen to point out all the entrances. Mr. Gundersen identified them on the plan. He then displayed the design of the corner of Boston and Bridge Streets, noting that the DRB spent a lot of time on this. We ran through many designs and found this to be the most appropriate. The DRB was concerned with what happens over time and leaving open the possibility for a corner entrance, as we would all like to see.
Ms. Sullivan stated that she thinks this is a wonderfully handsome building. It is probably the best looking I have seen here in a long time. Ms. Hanscom said it looks great. Mr. Puleo asked if they must come back for review if they want modifications. Ms. Gundersen said they would have to go back to the DRB with details, such as for the canopy, windows, and exterior lighting, since these are not finalized. Mr. Correnti said that the DRB was, however, very clear that they don’t want to hold the process up, so these will be post-approval items, which is typical of the way the DRB works.
Mr. Clark asked if there will be security cameras on the site. David Switcher of High Rock said that there will without hesitation be security cameras, inside and out, and primarily in common areas. Condo owners will be responsible for their interiors, but common areas and the parking lot will have cameras—all tied into the security desk.
Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight about the memo regarding how the Senior Center’s parking requirements were determined. Referring to the memo, she said that industry standards were considered, and this falls near the minimum of those standards. Nearby centers were considered. Mr. Clark said that this is a community life center, not exactly a senior center, so those comparisons are not apples to apples. Ms. Duncan said that whatever we call it, it will include seniors and other activities, and this is true of some of the other facilities. Ms. Sullivan remarked that this will not be a standalone senior center. Ms. Duncan said that the developer has walked through the requirements for the other uses at the previous meeting, so her understanding is that we know how many spaces are needed
for those uses. We were asked how the number of spaces for the Senior Center was reached. Ms. Sullivan said they left the other spaces out of the conversation because they have zoning requirements. The point is that many of us think there are just too many spaces, and seniors want some form of open space. The buffer could be larger without all this parking. Ms. Duncan noted that Peabody’s center has 250 spaces and has had to twice remove some green space for additional parking. There is opportunity for shared parking. Ms. Sides said they have never suggested eliminating 80 spaces, but rather wondered if there was some place to get some breathing room. Ms. Sullivan said this is helpful because we really didn’t know where the 80 came from.
Ms. Hanscom asked how many total spaces there will be. Mr. Correnti said there will be 374. Ms. Hanscom said the big issue is that seniors want outdoor space. Why can’t we take a few spaces from the rear of the lot for recreation space. We are not talking 20 spaces, but maybe 5. Mr. Clark said that perhaps the developer could work with the community outside the planning board to resolve this. Mr. Correnti said that they need a variance for parking. Doctors won’t come without immediate and sufficient parking. We have heard several times before from this board and the DRB about the 7 spaces that could be eliminated. I think that is a different conversation and we could talk about that. A bocce court isn’t green space. You would have to make
sure the city takes care of it outside of the couple months per year it is used. There is also the question of where you put it. We don’t think that would resolve everything. It would be a difficult solution for what will not be a very useful space. Ms, Sides said this brings us back to the quantity of pavement. A little more green space on that corner would be good.
Mr. Sweetser said he does not want to go down a slippery slope if those 7 spaces grow into something entirely different. Mr. Gundersen indentified the spaces in question on the plan. Mr. Sweetser said he would like to know what the issues are and what the board wants so he can know in what context he is deciding. He said he is willing to consider this.
Ms. Duncan said she wanted to review remaining steps in the process. The City Engineer is waiting for a substantially final plan for review, which one can expect now that this has been approved by the DRB. We hope to have the City Engineer’s review for the next meeting.
Ms. Hanscom asked how thick the buffer is before removing the 7 spaces. Mr. Correnti said it is 23 feet at its narrowest. Ms. Hanscom asked where they must go for a variance if they remove the 7 spaces. Mr. Correnti said they are going to the ZBA either way. We haven’t filed there yet without our final plan. Ms. Sides noted that the ground cover would expand. Mr. Clark said a 50 foot buffer is required since it is in the NRCC. Ms. Duncan remarked that that is one of the required variances. Mr. Clark said that removal of the spaces would bring the project closer to the buffer requirement. Ms. Duncan said it increases the size of the parking variance, but reduces the buffer variance.
Mr. Kavanaugh asked if the idea of additional space for seniors is off the table. Ms. Sides said this creates more at-grade, accessible space that could be used. It might be a place to sit under trees. Ms. Sullivan said that the new lobby entrance allows for some tables and chairs. Mr. Kavanaugh said we need to know now if the city is going to ask for additional space. Ms. Duncan said the city is very happy with the plan. As suggested at meetings, there is outdoor seating for seniors. Mr. Sweetser said this proposal was selected knowing it doesn’t have the open space that some wanted. We are kind of twisting this a little to create something. One concern we have is that the vegetation not be too tall to cause line of sight problems. And we never promised a
bocce court.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Robert McCarthy, Ward 1 Councilor, asked what the increase of office space is with the elimination of the atrium. Will it affect the variance request? The topic was brought up about a security guard in the lobby. Parks and Recreation meetings can go late into the night and I can’t see a security guard waiting for us. We might need an exclusive entrance so people can flow freely without going through the lobby.
Mr. Gundersen said there is about 2000 square feet additional office space. When we removed the atrium, we reduced the building’s length and created some outdoor space. Mr. McCarthy asked if the parking numbers affect the increase in square feet. Mr. Gundersen said they are still in the process of making the final calculations.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said he appreciates the board’s efforts with the buffer. He read the zoning definition of the buffer and its requirements. He said the 50 foot requirement was based on a consensus. It should be landscaped to shield residential from nonresidential uses. The purpose is not usable space, but for landscaped space. He read from January 27th DRB minutes, where concerns about the buffer were raised.
Joan Zabkar, 6 Phelps St., said there is a limitation on the AUL for disturbing soil 2-4 feet below the surface. Frank Vetere, LSP for the project, said the AUL refers to post-construction. We can’t build a building without disturbing the land. Ms. Zabkar read from the AUL. Mr. Vetere said going back to the risk assessment, we took account of construction activity, and she is referring to long term, permanent uses. Ms. Zabkar said she seems to understand that going below 2 feet, you are disturbing the land. Mr. Vetere said the building needs to be built. There will have to be reasonable construction activities going into the ground. Ms. Zabkar said the Board has copies of her document. She said she asked in private conversation if the vapor barrier will be
maintained. Mr. Vetere said the barrier consists of impervious membrane with a concrete floor on top of it, and piping that vents to the roof. It is a passive system that doesn’t require maintenance. Ms. Zabcar read from the AUL regarding maintenance of passive ventilation and said that an EPA official said it is important that the system be maintained. Mr. Vetere said past technology involved active systems with a fan, but now you don’t want that because it adds to the AUL and what you have to maintain. We try to have no operational maintenance. These systems are thought to be superior. Ms. Zabkar said she wants to submit a letter from an official saying you must put in maintenance. I am concerned about protecting children from dangerous hydrocarbons. You are telling me that if you put in a state of the art system there are no regulations about maintenance? Mr. Puleo said they are saying that this is accepted
practice. Mr. Clark said Mr. Vetere is a licensed LSP and he is giving his opinion. Ms. Zabkar said repeated requests for information have been ignored and that is going into the record and to HUD. Your number one duty is the health and safety of residents. Is there anyone on board who wants information from higher level officials? We want a clear picture of what is happening here and what are the real issues. Mr. Vetere said there is a guidance document from the EPA for such systems and ours meets its requirements.
Mr. Ready said he wants to respond to the statement that the board is not concerned about health and safety. That is an unfair criticism. We rely heavily upon the Board of Health and the Conservation Board who do reviews for us. We trust them. Ms. Zabkar said they were not told about the Board of Health meeting.
Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane, said there has been talk of a letter from Pat Donohue and I haven’t see that. We have to rely on this expert. I understand Ms. Zabkar’s case, but she has had the opportunity to present the letter. Ms. Zabkar said she will give anyone any letter they want.
Jim Moskavis said this is a good developer with a history in Salem and the city and the boards have worked hard. This developer has done nothing but acquiesce to everything the boards have asked for and we should move on.
Mr. Correnti said there is nothing else to present unless there are further questions. There will be comments from the City Engineer. Could we look toward a draft decision if you are so inclined? Mr. Puleo asked if there is anything left for wetlands issues. Mr. Correnti said there is not. Ms. Sullivan asked if they must go to the ZBA before this board can finish. Mr. Correnti said they do not. Normally that is the process, but nothing says we have to do that. Ms. Sullivan asked if the draft decision is needed for the variance. Ms. Duncan said no, any route can be taken through the boards. Ms. Sullivan asked if the site plan includes the number of spaces. Mr. Correnti said they can show a revised final plan. If you put that into a draft decision, we
can lock it in with the ZBA. Ms. Sides thanked him for putting it in this order because it makes sense to complete with the Planning Board before the ZBA. Mr. Clark suggested putting this at the front of the next meeting. Ms. McKnight said that would make sense.
A motion was made by Randy Clark to continue the Public Hearing at the May 6 meeting, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Old/New Business
None
Adjournment
A motion was made by Randy Clark to adjourn, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 9-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
Meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Devine
Planning Board Clerk
| 
