 |
Minutes 5/20/2010
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
May 20, 2010
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 20, 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: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of April 15, 2010 were reviewed.
There being no comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of April 15, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed).
The minutes of the April 28, 2010 Planning Board/City Council Joint Hearing were reviewed.
There being no comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of April 28, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Mark George, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Randy Clark, and Christine Sullivan abstaining).
The minutes of May 6, 2010 were reviewed.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the minutes of May 6, 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).
Discussion/request to re-phase subdivision: Paul DiBiase – Request to change phasing of Osborne Hills/Strongwater subdivision.
Mr. Puleo asked if all board members are familiar with the location. Paul DiBase, representing the developer, said they are currently building the first phase off Marlborough Rd. Phase 2 will be 26 homes. I am here now to request approval to split phase 2 into 2 phases, 2a and 2b. This would allow us to continue with 13 more homes. There would be a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of 2a. There are 13 lots, but the temporary cul-de-sac would take up one of them, so there would be 12, not 13, homes. This does not in any way adjust infrastructure. Utilities would remain the same. Mr. Puleo asked how many lots are in 2b. Mr. Dibase said there are 13. Mr. Puleo asked if the existing cul-de-sac would remain. Mr. DiBase replied affirmatively. He said we will have to return to get the lots released if the board sees fit. Mr. Puleo asked about phase 1’s paving. Mr. DiBase said it is at about 80%. I would like to propose that we put the final asphalt on phase 1 and 2
simultaneously for the sake of traffic. Ms. Sides asked to see where the existing houses are. Mr. DiBase identified them on the plan. Ms. Hanscom asked if the existing homes are occupied. Mr. DiBase said they are occupied and the road is paved. Ms. Hanscom asked who plows it. Mr. DiBase said that until the city accepts the street, he is responsible for all maintenance except trash collection.
Mr. George asked if this will have an impact on the bond. Mr. DiBase said the bond is for phase one. There is still a bonded list of outstanding items. We will work out a bond amount for the remaining work. Mr. George asked if this includes curbing. Mr. DiBase said it does not. It is important to build the houses to know where the curb cuts will be and not have to realign them. Mr. Puleo noted that a traffic light will be installed when the 20th house is built. Mr. Puleo asked what the timeline will be. Mr. DiBase said it is market driven and we have had a setback with the economy. One reason we are requesting this is financing. We hope to get this going as quickly as we can. Ms. Sullivan asked to confirm that the reason
they are voting to change the timing is because the decision laid out that this has to be done in a certain time frame. Mr. Puleo said that is the case. Ms. Sullivan said the recession has a lot to do with this and this is a good development. Ms. McKnight said the department is supportive of the proposal. The installation of the temporary cul-de-sac changes the configuration so that if drainage becomes a concern, it should be addressed. That can go into the decision.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the request to re-phase the subdivision, 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).
Continuation of 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.
Brian Sullivan, owner of the property, said he presented to the board on April 15. He said the board was uncomfortable moving before Mr. Knowlton has submitted final comments. Since then we have met with neighbors and Councilor Ryan, and the board made a site visit. We also presented to the Board of Health last week. They have submitted comments. Yet we are still waiting for Mr. Knowlton’s comments. I understand the board wanting to wait, but my understanding is that the presentation has been made, neighbors made comments, and I believe we have addressed their concerns. I believe that if Mr. Knowlton had made his comments and it were issue free, we would get approval. I can’t help but wonder if there is a way to get this done. Mr. Puleo
said we would still like to have the comments in front of us. Mr. Sullivan said that Mr. Knowlton revised the drainage plan himself. If I have to come to the next meeting, there is still a 20 day appeal process before I can start, which could hold me off until next spring. Mr. Moustakis said we could have a special meeting for this project. We have done that in the past and it only takes about 20 minutes.
Ms. McKnight stated that Mr. Knowlton said he would prefer to finish his comments rather than recommend that the board approve the project with conditions. Mr. Clark asked if they can approve with the condition that there are no outstanding engineering issues and fall back if there are engineering comments. Ms. McKnight said we do approvals with conditions, but the conditions have to be specific. Ms. Hanscom said that we should wait. Mr. George said we could move it along contingent upon successful review. Mr. Clark noted that Mr. Knowlton has already approved it in some form. Mr. Puleo said Mr. Knowlton may have done something in concept, but nothing final. Ms. McKnight remarked that Mr. Knowlton is usually very good about saying go ahead and approve with
conditions, but he needs to be able to specify those conditions. Mr. Ready said that in view of Mr. Knowlton’s concerns, I think we should give him as much time he needs to finish, and when he is done and conveys it to us, we should have a special meeting and approve it as soon as possible. We need to give him time, particularly since there are sensitive neighborhood issues with drainage. We should find a way to meet with a quorum when ready.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Robert Cormier, 25 Summit St., said he lives right next door to the project. We don’t have objections to this project once drainage is straightened out. Our immediate neighbor, Mr. Olcott, really got an incredible amount of water in his yard in the last big storm—maybe a foot. He also had basement damage. We had water in our basement too. We have no objections, but we want to make sure drainage is done right. We are the ones most affected by this. We also request to have a buffer of trees between the new house and ours. It will be a win-win. It will buffer us from them and make the new house look more attractive to buyers. Mr. Ready asked how much water he had in the recent storm. Mr. Cormier said he had none, the sump pump
worked. Mr. Ready asked if he had not already spoken with the developer and the City Councilor regarding the buffer. John Sullivan, co-owner of the property, said they addressed these issues during the meeting with the neighborhood. I think our project will solve their water problems.
Mr. Puleo noted that there have been some minor changes. Mr. (Brian) Sullivan said they have been working to shrink the garages and put them on the side. Mr. Puleo said we want to be sure we get some landscaping detail. Mr. George noted that the quicker this goes, the quicker the neighbors will get some relief. I would like to see what we can do to approve. Mr. (John) Sullivan said if this goes into September and we can’t start, there will be serious rain problems for the neighbors.
Jerry Ryan, Ward 4 Councilor, 4 Nichols St., said the development team has been receptive to the neighbors’ concerns. The two big issues are drainage and screening, and I do think the engineer needs to sign off on this. I’d love to say go ahead and approve, but water is the big issue. Ms. Sullivan said she agrees that we should not sign off on an incomplete plan. I agree that we can’t do it tonight given the seriousness of the drainage issues. I want Mr. Knowlton to know that this is urgent and we are willing to have a special meeting.
Dorothea Cormier, 25 Summit St., said she would like to see a shrub and tree plan, since topography has been raised so much. You will be able to see right into our bedroom. I want to know what kind of trees will go in. Mr. Puleo said this can be a condition. Mr. Cormier asked if the concern’s of the city’s arborist had been addressed. He would be concerned with the type of trees. Mr. Ready said these are issues we have discussed before and it is in everyone’s interest to resolve this on your own so we don’t spend a lot of time on it here. Mr. Puleo asked about required public notice for a special meeting. Ms. McKnight remarked that it needs to be posted several days in advance, so I would need to know soon whether we are having the
meeting. Otherwise it would run into the next meeting. Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight to find out from Mr. Knowlton whether we can have that meeting.
Ms. Sullivan asked if we usually have a landscaping plan. Mr. McKnight said not usually for a subdivision. Ms. Sullivan said she wanted to add that Mr. Knowlton is quite good and I am sure he has a lot going on. If he could just understand, we at least need assurance that we can do it by the next meeting.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing at the June 3rd 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 they concluded their presentation 2 hearings ago with the entire team present. We covered outstanding issues. You have received the DRB’s recommendation. Final plans have been submitted to the board. Last night the ZBA unanimously granted variances for height, buffer zone, and parking. We hope to review final issues tonight and look at a decision. Mr. Puleo said the pedestrian crossings are the only issue he can think of. We don’t know where they would be located, and this can be addressed as a condition.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Joan Zabkar, 6 Phelps St., asked if there was discussion of what happened at the Board of Health. Ms. McKnight said the Board was given a letter from the BOH specifying their conditions, which we entered into the draft Planning Board decision. Ms. Zabkar said an LSP came before you with information. You will not have the information from the DEP until June 9. The LSP was not at the first Board of Health meeting. When you have a Ph.D. nurse on the Board of Health, why does she turn to me and ask if there are going to be children on the site? We finally got the email that was sent to the Board of Health. It was read by Councilor Sosnowski. If you don’t have a copy, I would like to provide you with it. I gave this information to them. Mr.
Clark asked if the Board of Health conditions are in the draft decision. Ms. McKnight said they are. Ms. Zabkar said Ms. Donohue at the DEP said it was not included. Why can’t we say what the reality is? Ms. Sides said this is hearsay. Ms. Zabkar said you are refusing documentation from me. I provided letters on two occasions.
Mr. Puleo asked if in the case that the Board of Health held another meeting and changed its view, would that be incorporated? Ms. McKnight said not once a Planning Board decision had been issued, but the Board of Health has its own means of enforcement. We copy their conditions into our decision, but the Planning Board does not have authority over the Board of Health. Mr. Puleo said Ms. Zabkar’s issues need to be taken up at the Board of Health. Ms. Hanscom said the Planning Board is here to approve the building. If the City Council says they want to put the Senior Center there, that is one thing. We are not approving a Senior Center. Ms. Zabkar said you are approving a building with an AUL prohibiting children. Ms. Hanscom said we have checked all
these things and legally the government says we can do this. Ms. Zabkar said the board is participating in a fraudulent application. I am concerned about children.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said he appreciates what the board and the staff has done. Lynn Duncan has taken all my calls. There has to be an environmental assessment because the loan program demands it. The assessment has 26 elements. This must be done before the loan is approved. Another issue is signs and the DRB. He read the site review requirements for signs. He said he believes the requirement is for the DRB to review the signs for the project. The DRB has not made a finding on signs and has asked that a planner make a determination when needed. Ms. McKnight said the DRB did communicate draft language regarding that issue recommending that it be subject to the department’s final approval. Ms. Sides said her memory is that the DRB
would be involved in sign review. Other members agreed that the design elements should go back to the DRB, and not just be subject to review by the city planner.
Mr. Moustakis asked if Mr. Treadwell could eliminate issues that don’t have to do with the planning board. Mr. Treadwell said this is part of site review, which is the board’s responsibility. The DRB has left it with some conditions. Ms. McKnight said it was the DRB’s recommendation that not every issue go back for their review but be reviewed by the City Planner. Mr. Treadwell said he thinks that should be challenged. The zoning ordinance said that if site plan review is required, all signs must be reviewed by the DRB, which makes recommendations to the planning board. Ms. Sides said she felt signage was something we felt we would see at the DRB. The reference to “as needed” was so we wouldn’t review every minor
detail.
Mr. Treadwell said the ZBA was confused about zoning regarding an entrance corridor. Did the site plan go to the Conservation Commission? Ms. McKnight said a copy was given to the Conservation Agent, not the Conservation Commission. The agent passed on comments to the Planning Board on behalf of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Treadwell asked if there was need to revise the notice of intent. Ms. McKnight said that is unknown what filing the Conservation Commission will require. Mr. Treadwell said this is on filled tidelands, and anything within 250 ft. of the high water mark requires a Chapter 91 license. Issues related to tidelands may require the site plan to be modified to reflect public interest related to filled tidelands. If this is
true, then state action is required. The threshold for MEPA review is met with 370 parking spaces—more than the number of spaces at the Salem Commuter Rail station. There will most likely be an environmental review under state and federal law. The issue of hazardous and toxic materials would come up. Also, you were supposed to have considered floodplain issues. I trust that that has been done. The final decision has to be in accordance with the North River Corridor Plan. The zoning ordinance says parking of more than 12 cars must be screened. Also, with the buffer variance they concentrated on Federal St. There is no buffer with the St. James property.
Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St, said in 1888 this land was underwater and filled. It is all on old maps. Once filled, the leather industry came. There was a street named Robinson Rd. there that isn’t shown on maps. It was removed when Sylvania came. The Salem Fire hit the area. I think we should have an environmental impact study.
Mr. Ready said, to go back to Ms. Zabkar’s comment, that this board serves with pride and integrity. This board does not indulge in fraudulent behavior. To say otherwise is a serious accusation and slanderous. Should you have evidence of this charge, bring it forward. Otherwise it is an insult to us and the City of Salem. Ms. Zabkar asked if she can submit that information. Mr. Puleo said she may provide copies.
Mr. Clark asked about the St. James buffer. Mr. Treadwell said zoning requires a 50 foot buffer. Mr. Puleo noted that there is screening there already. Mr. Treadwell said there has been no communication with St. James. Mr. Clark asked what the buffer is and if there has been discussion with the owner. Mr. Correnti said the ZBA waived the buffer. Mr. Treadwell said he understands the ZBA approved the plan as presented, but my concern now is with the Planning Board. You must make determination that this project conforms to the general plan and the neighborhood plan calls for a buffer. Since other property owners were able to consult with the developer, why wasn’t the St. James owner? Ms. Sides said no one has come forward at our public meetings. Mr. Treadwell asked if people from St. James have contacted the Planning Board. Ms. McKnight said they have not, although they were notified as abutters.
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to close the Public Hearing, 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).
The board reviewed the draft decision letter. Ms. Sullivan said in the original site plan approval there was a specific recommendation about fencing on Federal St. I should disclose that I live on Federal St. There was a condition for the type of fence. Mr. Correnti said one of the waivers we asked for from the board was for a 6 foot fence. Discussion with neighbors centered around 6 foot versus 8 foot fencing. The DRB made suggestions to neighbors. We are prepared to do 8 foot if that is what people want. We would like to have a uniform installation, but we do have the ability, if granted the waiver, to go up to 8 feet. We will work with the neighbors.
Ms. McKnight read aloud from the draft decision letter. Ms. Sullivan noted that the letter affirms, regarding Mr. Treadwell’s concern, that the plan meets the NRCC plan. Ms. McKnight read from the DRB recommendation and said that the Planning Board can require a more thorough review from the DRB if they wanted to, based on their earlier comments. Mr. Clark asked why we would require that if the DRB didn’t require it. Ms. Sides said this is in a corridor and should have some review. Mr. Kavanaugh suggested some specific language. Ms. Sides said she thinks the DRB’s vagueness was somewhat intentional. Ms. Sullivan said it is important to review signage. Ms. McKnight read the proposed language.
Mr. Puleo remarked that we should defer to the engineer for location of pedestrian signals in the crosswalks. Mr. Clark asked if they have to go to the state with this. Peter Blaisdell, Engineer for the applicant, said it is only in the jurisdiction of the city. Mr. Clark said that all timing adjustments are approved by the city as well. Mr. Clark asked if special construction traffic needs to be addressed. Mr. Correnti said there will be a health and safety plan by the LSP and issues like dirt and trucks will be addressed.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Randy Clark to approve the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit and the Site Plan and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, seconded by Mark George and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed, John Moustakis abstaining).
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. Applicant requests to continue until June 3, 2010.
A motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearing at the June 3rd 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).
Old/New Business
Request of North River Canal LLC to extend Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit granted to property at 28 Goodhue Street for an additional six (6) months.
Mr. Correnti, attorney for the applicant, said the project is on a vacant site behind the storage building where there are remnants of a building demolished in 2005. A 44 unit multiuse building was permitted under new NRCC rules. Four units would be affordable. There would be 6000 sq. ft. of commercial space on the first floor. It meets parking requirements. We had many hearings and it was delayed waiting for the passage of the NRCC, but we got it approved and had lots of support. Then the recession jeopardized our funding. It would be an extreme hardship if we were to lose all our permits. They run to June 30 and we are requesting an extension until December 31. The ZBA unanimously extended the variances. Mr. Clark asked if the board voted
unanimously to approve this. Mr. Ready answered affirmatively. Ms. Sullivan asked why not ask for a longer extension. Members discussed the project’s location.
Mr. George stated that he wasn’t a part of the board 4 years ago. I don’t feel that I am in any position to extend this because I don’t have information. I think the view today on traffic is much different than it was 4 years ago. We need to be careful with cumulative impact. Mr. Correnti said nothing is going on there due to horrendous zoning. This this area will look burned out and demolished unless projects like this get in the ground. One of the conditions on this developer is $10,000 to study the intersection of Gove, Mason, and Goodhue. That has been identified as a dangerous spot. Mr. George said his concern is that a whole lot is going on in a half mile radius. I don’t want to delay or turn people down, but we need to
take a look at this whole section. Mr. Clark said he wasn’t there for the previous approval, but he believes he has no right to go against the board’s past vote. With a good economy, this would have already have been built. This was delayed due to the recession, and that is why they are facing a different traffic situation now. I think the department should conduct a traffic study and not put the onus on individual developers.
Ms. Hanscom said we do need to pay attention to traffic. I am glad the courthouse will be done because it will allow us to see the traffic issues. Mr. Moustakis said zoning restrictions are a problem for the NRCC. All you are allowed to put there are multi-houses. Mr. Ready said he thinks it may be acceptable for those not there for the original approval to abstain from voting. I think we have a quorum of people who were there for that deliberation. This was an excellent project, and we considered traffic and approved it. It was delayed under economic circumstances. It is remarkable that they have hung in. Ms. McKnight if anyone wants to abstain that’s fine, but no one is required to abstain because they weren’t here when the project was
first approved.
Ms. Sullivan said we’ve had the worst recession since the depression. This is recession relief and we should do it. I would like to see a discussion about the area’s traffic issues too. There is no way to avoid that, so it would be a healthy conversation to have. Mr. Puleo said Lynn Duncan has offered to do that. And there is still mitigation money from the Stop and Shop project to study and improve the area. The department needs to decide in which direction to go in spending it. Mr. Correnti said there was the same concern on Highland Ave. 15 to 20 years ago. A result of a corridor study was a corridor fund, since no developer can change the roadway.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Tim Ready to extend Special Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed, Helen Sides and Randy Clark abstaining).
Adjournment
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to adjourn, 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).
Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Devine
Planning Board Clerk
Approved with edits by the Planning Board 6/3/10
| |
