Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
September 16, 2010
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, September 16, 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, Mark George, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, and Tom Devine, Staff Planner. Absent: Nadine Hanscom.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the August 19, 2010 special meeting were reviewed. Mr. George noted a typo.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of August 19 with revision, seconded by Mark George and approved unanimously.
Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building). Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St., attorney for the applicant, said they are again running the two hearings together. We will ask to continue the pharmacy plan to the October meeting, and then seek a decision on the non-pharmacy plan. We received comments from Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) and the public, and met with two Design Review Board members.
Ed Bradford of The Architectural Team, Inc., architect for the applicant, presented the updated plan with a PowerPoint presentation. We have tweaked the distribution of units. The new building will have 51 instead of 54, with three shifted to the school. This is to increase slightly the number of three bedroom units in the new building from 4 to 7 without changing the building size. We have also modified the architecture in response to comments.
Mr. George asked if they need more parking with the addition of bedrooms. Mr. Correnti said the requirement is based on units, not bedrooms. And with a PUD, the Board determines the requirement. And we don’t yet know how the school will be configured. The goal is to benefit the community with more 3 bedroom units.
Mr. Puleo asked if any parking is designated for commercial space. Mr. Correnti said there will be no assigned parking.
Mr. Bradford displayed the landscaping plan. Mr. Puleo asked what happens with the 3 residential buildings on the site. Mr. Bradford said they propose intense screening there. Mr. Puleo asked what type of plantings. Mr. Correnti answered that they will plan 8-10 foot arbor vitae.
Mr. Bradford described the waste removal plan and fire truck access. He identified locations of fire hydrants. He displayed the updated architectural renderings. We incorporated comments from Historic Salem and the 2 DRB members. We removed the bay windows and created a more unified retail base. He displayed the rear and side elevations and described proposed materials. We have added a wall and fence at the Dow/Lafayette corner, as suggested by HSI.
Mr. Puleo asked how HVAC will be screened on the roof. Mr. Bradford displayed how it is proposed to appear. It will not be completely screened, but it will take the curse off. And the architectural features screen the view on the front side. Ms. Sullivan said the landscaping in the renderings differs from the landscaping plan. Mr. Bradford said that the renderings do not show all the trees, but the landscaping plan will prevail. Mr. Puleo noted that an amended plan will show the arbor vitaes along the property line with the neighboring residences.
Mr. Puleo said he doesn’t see lighting in the renderings. Mr. Bradford described the proposed lighting. Mr. Puleo asked what the pole height and lighting type will be. Mr. Correnti said the parking lot light poles will be 12 feet and they will submit the details. Ms. Sullivan asked how they will avoid dark corners. Mr. Bradford said the first floor unit entries will have lights. Mr. Clarke asked if they will have security cameras. Peter Roche, development consultant for the applicant, said they will not have any cameras outside, but the commercial spaces will likely have cameras inside. Mr. Puleo asked how tall the trees will grow. Andrew Truman, civil engineer for the applicant said the red maple trees can grow 20 feet high.
Issue is opened up to the public.
James Sowers, 15 Lynde St., asked what kind of sound deadening there will be for the HVAC. Mr. Bradford said they work with an acoustic engineer to minimize impact on the building and the neighborhood.
David Pelletier, 12 Crombie St., asked if the meetings with the two DRB members were public. Ms. Duncan said the DRB has jurisdiction in the Urban Renewal Area and the North River Canal Corridor and this is in neither. This was a compromise to have DRB expertise enhance this building. Mr. Pelletier asked to have better windows in the storefronts. We need parking for the stores. Will the stores have rear entries into the parking lot? Mr. Bradford said they will not. Mr. Pelletier suggested moving the building back to provide angled parking in front to support the stores. Ms. Duncan said to create an urban fabric we want buildings built up to the street, like we require in the NRCC. The commercial space is small and neighborhood oriented. The urban design is important.
Ms. Sides said she agrees.
Richard Morrison, 4 Riverbank Rd., asked if the developer will provide funding for that eyesore we call Lafayette Park. Mr. Correnti said they want to improve the park. Funding was included in the previous decision, and we anticipate it will be included again.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St, said he is happy the DRB is involved. The laws say environmental and historic review happens early in the process, but none has concluded yet. I ask the board members to attend those hearings as citizens. A respected firm concluded the church is National Register eligible. The law and the process should be respected. There has to be a 5 foot screen of solid wall or evergreen adjacent to this project. Landscaping is important and this is an entrance corridor. Lack of parking is a stress on this neighborhood. Site plan omits work do be done under the Public Works and Economic Development grant. Should talk about subsurface parking. A traffic study could be done for the drive through, as zoning permits the board to request.
Emily Udy, 7 Phelps St., representing Historic Salem, Inc., said she appreciates the architect having taken their comments into consideration. We hope to advocate for the preservation of the church in a separate forum. We request to see lighting as part of the public process.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., said she supports the comments of the two previous speakers. I am an interested party in the historic review process. I hope we do not make the mistake of losing another historic landmark.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St., said she moved to the city partly for its historic architecture and is disappointed that the applicant hasn’t explored alternatives to demolition. I urge the board to request that the applicant conduct a reuse study.
Ms. Duncan said the proposed redevelopment has been around for years. The applicant initially spent a year talking with nonprofits about reuse options. This has gone through much review and analysis of alternatives. The 106 and other required reviews will go forward regardless of the Planning Board’s action, and the board doesn’t supersede their rulings.
Michael Connery, 17 Johnson Ave., Peabody, said he attended this school and church. I think this would be good for the city and the plans are fair. Derby Lofts was built without parking. I understand why people want to save the church, but it just sits vacant and the city can make money on it.
Ellen Galligan, 22 Cleveland Rd., said it is time to move forward and get the building built. The place is vacant and looks awful. No viable alternative came up at earlier meetings. As a social worker I know many people need housing and want to stay in Salem. Please do what you can to move this along.
A member of the public said the church is worth preserving and we have three other buildings to put housing into. My college art professor in 1950 told us to go to Salem to see this church. There is also a statue buried there. I am totally against destroying the church.
Linda Sarris, director of Salem Cyberspace, 98 Lafayette St., said she supports what Ms. Galligan said. I think this would benefit families living in The Point.
David McKillop, director of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, said he strongly supports the project. The scale of the retail will revitalize the neighborhood. There could be more parking for retail, but you could designate some spaces for that. There is need for housing for workers, not just for the poor. A high density helps downtown.
Vicky Sirianni, 6 Botts Circle, spoke as a member of Historic Salem. I want to know what the process will be and when it will happen. Mr. Roche said they filed with Mass Historic in December. We don’t run the process. Mass Historic and the Department of Housing and Community Development will establish the process.
Molly Ekerdt of the Planning Office for Urban Affairs said the review is triggered by public funding and a memorandum of understanding is needed. It takes place over a few meetings. We will deliver a case report in about 10 days.
Mr. Puleo asked what the construction schedule will be. Mr. Correnti replied that no work will be done until the process is finished. Mr. Puleo asked if this impacts financing. Mr. Correnti said it doesn’t. Ms. Duncan added that the Salem Historical Commission was identified as an interested party and the department looks forward to playing a role. Mr. Puleo asked if all the people present tonight can attend the meetings. Ms. Duncan said it is limited to people identified as interested parties.
Tom Furey, 77 Linden St., Councilor at Large, said this project has a good balance and is a win win for the city. Five years down the line it will be a jewel in this working class neighborhood.
Lucy Corchado, head of The Point Neighborhood Association, 1 Chase St., said she supports the project. I think the design is improved. As an alum of the school and a former parishioner, this has been years in the making. I was involved in the earlier process to keep the church open and then for reuse. But now I urge the board to act.
Joseph O’Keefe, Ward 7 Councilor, said there has been much study of this and it is time to move on. I supported the senior center at this location and now I urge the board to act favorably.
Robert McCarthy, president of the City Council, said he agreed with Ms. Corchado. I thank the parishioners who built and maintained the church. I thank the developer for sticking through a long process. The applicant accepted the DRB review when it didn’t have to. I think they will get it right and create an asset in the neighborhood, especially in conjunction with the road improvements.
Mr. Puleo asked if the pharmacy option will need a historic review process. Mr. Correnti answered affirmatively.
Ms. Udy asked if there will be funding for the park. Ms. Duncan said the city has set aside CDBG money for park improvements. And a condition will require the developer to commit money as well. It is an important part of the neighborhood and the front door of the development.
Mr. McCarthy said he supports this project but thinks the drive through option needs some tweaking. Mr. Puleo asked if the financing is only for this plan. Mr. Roche said we would have to amend that plan. Ms. Duncan said they wouldn’t have to apply again, but merely request to amend. And the housing plan is tonight’s focus.
Mr. Treadwell asked for clarification about the type of housing intended. Ms. Galligan said she is concerned about not just the homeless, but the unemployed and underemployed. People can’t keep their houses and they seek other housing options. Mr. Correnti said the main building will be restricted to at or below Area Median Income, with rents from $700 to $1100 per month. Working families are the target—people who are employed but need help. The two renovated buildings will be market rate, and we are exploring the ownership option.
A motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to continue the Public Hearing for the proposal that includes the pharmacy and drive through at the October 21 meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke and approved unanimously.
A motion was made by John Moustakis to close the Public Hearing for the proposal that does not include the pharmacy and drive through, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved unanimously.
Mr. Devine read the draft decision aloud. Mr. Puleo asked who is eligible to vote. Ms. Duncan said everyone is, since the two members not present at the previous hearing have reviewed the materials and signed the affidavit. Members clarified the conditions regarding screening between the project and the residential abutters and the wall and fence on the corner of Dow and Lafayette Streets.
A motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan in accordance with the decision letter as revised, seconded by Mark George and approved 8-0 (Puleo, Moustakis, Clarke, George, Kavanaugh, Ready, Sullivan, and Sides 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.
Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Nadine Hanscom, recused from the previous agenda items, arrived.
Mr. Correnti said the focus tonight is on traffic, with GPI’s response to BETA’s peer review comments. We are also looking at drainage and have had meetings with abutters and Lynn Water and Sewer to look at flows and see what can be done. The present condition is probably unacceptable and we would like to find ways to improve it. We will address civil engineering at the September 30 meeting.
Jason Plourde of GPI, traffic engineer for the applicant, reviewed the document responding to BETA’s concerns. Mr. Puleo asked if Meineke customers driving southbound would have to go beyond the store and enter in the Meineke drive. Mr. Plourde answered affirmatively. Mr. Puleo asked if single axle trucks will be able to make a northbound u-turn. Mr. Ploude said it would only work for passenger vehicles. Mr. Ploude said that MassDOT is still monitoring the intersection at Marlborough Rd. Left turns there stack up to Swampscott Rd. Mr. Puleo asked what is holding up MassDOT. Mr. Plourde said they didn’t want to only count summer traffic. Mr. Puleo said the technology allows the system to account for changes in traffic volume. Mr. Plourde said they can detect the
volume and work with that, but the coordination between signals can be adjusted.
Ken Petraglia of BETA Group, traffic peer reviewer for the city, asked what kind of improvements result from the timing adjustment. Mr. Ploude said they were able to mitigate some. Mr. Petraglia asked how much of a queue reduction. Mr. Ploude said it brings it to no-build status. It is less than once vehicle, but it mitigates the impact. Mr. Moustakis remarked that Marlborough Rd. is very difficult. Mr. Petraglia stated that a reduction of one vehicle is not enough. Mr. Correnti said that another way to look at it is to say there is no impact. The city and state have a problem at this intersection and they are looking for us to assist. We are reviewing it and continuing to talk about it. Mr. Clarke said this is a MassDOT issue that remains whether the development happens or
not. We don’t have a right to put this on the developer. Mr. Moustakis said he thinks they are just having a discussion. Ms. Sullivan said this has been discussed before and needs to be addressed. Ms. Duncan said the applicant has stated they are willing to look at it.
Mr. George asked to see the camp access and Mr. Plourde displayed it. He said that all changes will be reviewed with MassDOT. Mr. Puleo asked if the north driveway will be used for truck deliveries. Mr. Plourde said all delivery trucks will be directed through the main site drive. They currently enter through the existing main drive. Ms. Sullivan asked if a modified driveway will allow people to access the site from the neighboring shopping center. Mr. Plourde said the internal connection will remain. We accept BETA’s recommendation to put in signs at the Camp Lion drive. Ms. Hanscom asked why there is no median strip at the camp drive. Mr. Petraglia said the fire department was concerned about fire trucks being able to make the turn if the median were extended. Mr.
Plourde said they are moving forward to provide access to Camp Lion through the main site drive. Mr. George said this makes the most sense and it will not significantly increase flow through the site.
Mr. Moustakis asked who they make recommendations to on the Lynn side and what reaction are they receiving. Mr. Plourde said they are talking to MassDOT and have received preliminary feedback.
Mr. Plourde said we provided additional traffic counts to BETA, which were taken in June 2008 when school was in session. Mr. Petraglia said we asked for the counts to make a rough verification of the data just for due diligence. We wanted midweek counts and we haven’t seen these yet. We have 10-15% fluctuations, so we are only looking for the numbers to reasonable match up.
Mr. Correnti said that for the sake of time, we will focus only on the unresolved issues. Mr. Petraglia said that in their peer review they first identified 26 issues. Ten were not significant, and of the remaining 16, we quickly came to an agreement on all but three. The camp lion drive, if it is to remain, should have signage. Currently drivers make the turn despite the striping in the road. The applicant has agreed to add signage if the driveway remains. We asked for a 48 hour traffic count. GPI has given us something and I will be satisfied if it roughly matches what we are looking for. Mr. Puleo asked if BETA will return with a recommendation once they see it. Mr. Petraglia said the main drive u-turn needs a closer look. The inside of the two left turns would be used for
a u-turn and only a passenger vehicle could make that move. I am concerned that a truck behind a car making the u-turn would try it as well. I don’t know if the signage would be clear, but if police and MassDOT are satisfied, we will yield to them. Mr. Puleo asked how Meineke customers would enter without a u-turn. Mr. Petraglia said he understands the value of it, but the concern is safety. The customers would have to come through the site. Mr. Clarke asked if BETA Group has a recommendation for a better sign. Mr. Petraglia said he doesn’t know of an appropriate sign. We would have to think about that.
Mr. Petraglia said the applicant has looked at the 4 intersections we requested them to review. We would want to know about capacity of the roundabout on Stanwood Avenue. GPI submitted a credible report and has been cooperative. We are down to just a couple points to work out.
Mr. Ready said it seems that the two Lynn intersections have considerable problems now. What you are proposing at least will mitigate existing problems with help from MassDOT. A Salem project can go a long way to mitigate problems on the Lynn side. Mr. Petraglia said the signal is recommended by CTPS regardless of the project. Mr. Clarke asked if the CTPS recommended project does not happen, will there be a net increase in traffic and decrease in level of service. Mr. Petraglia said just one additional car can increase delays. Mr. Plourde said there is an issue with looking at it with a computer model that can show infinite delays past some point of additional traffic. We are getting toward mitigating to the future no-build level. Ms. Sullivan asked whether BETA thinks the CTPS solutions
are reasonable. Mr. Petraglia said the Eastern Ave. signal would be a significant improvement. Ms. Sullivan asked if CTPS missed anything. Mr. Petraglia said they only looked at Eastern Ave. Mr. Moustakis asked if someone should be in touch with the state regarding Eastern Ave. Mr. Plourde said that would be Lynn. Mr. Correnti said they are done for now with traffic. We will look at BETA’s comments and get back to the board. We would now like to hear public comments.
Nadine Hanscom left at 10:24 p.m.
Issue is opened up to the public.
Willian Trahant, Ward 2 Councilor for Lynn, asked for a show of hands in opposition to the project. He read a letter aloud from children opposing the project. I am concerned about traffic. We spent money to make improvements and this will damage our investment. They are threatening to abandon some improvements if the Eastern Ave. signal doesn’t go in. Mr. Petraglia said he didn’t intend to give that impression. Mr. Trahant said the area has many accidents and traffic will get worse. There is no easy way to fix that.
Jean Pelletier, Ward 3 Councilor, said private developers have improved this roadway before, and we expect the same with this proposal. If you believe this isn’t allowed here, where is it allowed? Salem needs commercial growth to ease residential taxes. This will increase revenue and add jobs. A significant amount of woodland will be left undeveloped. It is not projected land and it is not close to Spring Pond. There will be a big buffer. The zoning text amendment allows the projects to be heard together. As a private citizen I trust this board. We do everything right in this city and we have good development. A lot of these facts going around are not true. I don’t know any we are talking so much about improvements in Lynn, but that is ok if the applicant is
willing. Let them try to stop this project. I would like to see meeting minutes from the Lynn officials’ meeting with Camp Lion.
Dan Cahill, Lynn Councilor at Large, said he is concerned about the state traffic study. The study says heavy traffic is a regional issue. How many daily trips are expected? Mr. Plourde said between 1000 and 2000 per day. Mr. Cahill said these are added to a bad intersection. We are concerned about impact on property values. We want economic development, but not at the expense of other interests. Our assessor gave us the opinion that the impact on traffic and drainage will lower property values. There is no commitment as to where the workers will come from. We want better planning and we want this built somewhere else in Salem.
Joan Lovely, Councilor at Large, said she supports this and supported the Tax Increment Financing and the text amendment. I disagree with Councilor Pelletier. We have a responsibility to make sure this works for both cities, including the residential streets in Lynn. I am happy with the level of detail before the board. I will talk to our assessor about whether property values will be impacted. This is an opportunity for tax revenue and a water tank. I have received 800 emails from a listserv. Maybe 1% are from Salem residents and many are from out of state.
Kevin Mahar, 150 Lynnway, Lynn, said he is concerned about traffic impact. Highland Ave. will be like Halloween all year long.
Tim Fandel, a business representative for a union, said he thinks many of the concerns raised are valid. My industry is in a depression, with workers unemployed for years. Lowe’s is committed to working collectively with us. I support this project and I think the issues will be addressed.
A member of the public asked what impact the increase in truck traffic will have. Mr. Plourde said they were applied to the projections.
Andrew Carr, 7 River St. said traffic is not the biggest issue. Salem does need the water tower, and the city has money for that. It can be built without Lowe’s. The inclusion of BPD in the PUD opens the floodgates for big box developments on Salem’s precious remaining open land. You are elected to be spokesmen for the people, not the developers. Mr. Moustakis said the board is appointed. Mr. Carr said that is a scary thought. I think you should reconsider this proposal.
A member of the public said she is concerned about u-turns and the driveway between Wal-mart and the neighboring shopping center. There should be signs to alert the elderly pedestrians of the traffic. Otherwise the developer has worked with us abutters and they have addressed our issues.
Richard Morrison, 4 Riverbank Rd, said he is in favor of the project.
Rich Antonelli of the electricians’ union said his union asked him to speak in support of the project. The developer agreed to hire only from the community. Our industry has 30-40% unemployment. We support the project for the good paying jobs it will bring.
Mary Ellen Polermo, 57 Sailor’s Way, Lynn, said this is the wrong place to put Lowe’s. Traffic and drainage will be pushed into Lynn. The Eastern Ave. traffic signal will be very close to an existing one. Mr. Clarke said that is purely a state recommendation and is separate from this project.
Deborah Smith Walsh, 16 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, said nothing has changed. There is no solution for these intersections.
Eric Arsenault, 24 Basse Circle, Lynn, said he has been out for work for a year. This project would mean a lot to the construction trades. 2000 cars throughout a day is not that big of an increase. I think the solutions proposed are a great improvement. I have all the confidence in the world in the workers to address the drainage issue.
Paul Campbell, 35 Travis St., Boston, said he is a business agent for the union. I am confident the developer will find adequate solutions. There is a significant jobs component in this project.
Jim Kearney, 1 ½ Cambridge St, said he is concerned about how the buildings will look. I agree with Ms. Duncan that it is good to have buildings built up to the road. I don’t want to see the sea of parking from the street.
John Roth, 49 Gallows Hill Rd., said let’s get this done and get it done right. The concerns of Lynn should be addressed. I am in favor of this because of how many workers are unemployed.
Joseph O’Keefe, Ward 7 Councilor, said we need to move forward with the project.
Jerry Ryan, Ward 4 Councilor, said he is totally in support of the project. I believe there should be a fair share of mitigation on the Lynn side. But without this project none of these issues would be brought to light. A key issue in my support is that the camp sold the land. We need the water tower and the project will improve traffic and bring jobs.
A member of the audience asked what the Lynn residents are doing to give the consultants ideas for improvement. What are you doing to help? Maybe your insights could help them.
Aikaterini Panagiotakis, 150 Ocean Ave., Lynn, said she is concerned with the area’s history. I think crime will be an issue. There is no breakdown lane between Marlborough and Swampscott Roads on 107. I don’t think big box stores help the economy. We are not creating new jobs, but transferring them from other places. What happened to helping local businesses? I am learning as an architect to be responsible. Clearing the tree buffer will allow traffic noise to reach spring pond. We are going to ruin a beautiful place.
A member of the audience said he is in favor of the project because it will create jobs. They are addressing concerns just like Stop and Shop did.
Steven Pinto, Councilor at Large, said the project has been in the works for some time and looked at carefully. I appreciate Lynn officials advocating for their people. We can find a happy middle. Nothing is perfect. I support the project, even though I didn’t support the TIF. We can reach out to make this work.
Andrew McNiff, 21 Bridge St., said he has been out of work for 2 years before his current job that is winding down now. I am glad they will hire local union workers. The work will be done right and money will stay in the community.
David Pelletier, 12 Crombie St., said Western Ave. was rebuilt ten years ago and it didn’t increase capacity. No grand improvements will happen here. This isn’t Endicott St. in Danvers. There is nothing beautiful on Highland Ave. The face of Highland is ugly but the profile is beautiful. You should make a more consolidated plan with shared parking. Do smarter development.
Robert McCarthy, president of the city council, said he supports the project. I would like to thank everyone who comes out to make this work, as well as the Planning Board.
A motion was made by Randy Clarke to continue both Public Hearings at the September 30 meeting, seconded by Helen Sides and approved unanimously.
Old/New Business
Final Endorsement of Plans and Execution of Covenant: BVS CORPORATION, for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, 15 and 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem, MA.
Members signed the plans.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Randy Clarke to adjourn, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Devine
Interim Staff Planner
Approved by the Planning Board with corrections to pages 4 and 7 on 9/30/10.
In addition to applications before the Board and related materials, the following documents are referenced in these minutes and are available at the Department of Planning and Community Development:
St. Joseph’s redevelopment PowerPoint dated 9-16-10
PowerPoint from GPI dated 9-16-10
Letter from 4th grade students at St. Pius School dated 6-2010
GPI’s Response to Traffic Review Comments dated 9-2010
Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision
135 Lafayette Street.
September 17, 2010
Salem Lafayette Development, LLC
C/o Joseph Correnti, Esq.
63 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 135 Lafayette Street/Former St. Joseph’s Church site
Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development
On Thursday, August 19, 2010, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing under Sections 7-3 and 9-5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review, at the request of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC (the applicant, its successors and assigns), for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street. The proposed project includes the razing of the former church and convent building, the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new four-story building on the site. The mixed-use development will include 76 dwelling units (51 in the new building, 17 in the renovated school, and 8 in the renovated rectory), 4560 square feet of commercial space, and a 1,000 square foot community center.
The Public Hearing was continued to, and closed on, September 16, 2010. The Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, sec. 7-3 and 9-5 as follows:
- The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section through mixed use redevelopment of the site in a comprehensive manner.
- The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district. Specifically, the project incorporates affordable housing, providing substantial public benefit.
- The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. Based on the information from the Environmental Impact Statement and plans, the project will result in a decrease in peak stormwater discharge rates and will improve the vacant site significantly from its current condition.
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on September 16, 2010, the Planning Board voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Puleo, Moustakis, Clarke, George, Kavanaugh, Ready, Sullivan, and Sides), and none (0) opposed (Member Names) to approve the Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development application subject to the following conditions:
Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the plans entitled, “St. Joseph’s Redevelopment, Proposed Concept: Mixed Use with Neighborhood Commercial, 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA” Sheets T0.01, A3.01, A3.10, A4.01, A4.02, A5.01, C-1.1, C-2.1, C-3.1, C-4.1, C-4.2, C-5.1, and C-6.1 prepared by The Architectural Team, Inc., 50 Commandment’s Way at Admiral’s Hill, Chelsea, MA 02150, dated July 30, 2010 and revised September 16,2010. Revised Plans reflecting all conditions and incorporating by reference this decision must be submitted to and approved by the City Planner for consistency with this decision prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Amendments
Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board for review and approval. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board.
Construction Practices
All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions:
a. Exterior construction work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM the following day on weekdays and Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Holidays. Any interior work conducted during these times will not involve heavy machinery which could generate disturbing noises.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction of the project.
c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations.
d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site.
e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Salem.
f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site.
- A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Included in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding how the construction equipment will be stored, a description of the construction staging area and its location in relation to the site, and where the construction employees will park their vehicles. The plan and schedule shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All storage of materials and equipment will be on site.
- Special attention shall be paid by the developer to locate the statue of St. Joseph reported to be buried on the site. If said statue is located, the Applicant shall work with the Archdiocese of Boston to resolve its status, and if feasible, as determined by the Applicant, to preserve it in accordance with the requirements of the Archdiocese.
- A traffic management plan shall be submitted by the applicant to the Department of Planning and Community Development and approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Clerk of the Works
A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the Applicant, its successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner.
Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Building Inspector
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector.
Board of Health
The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of the name, address, and telephone number of the project (site) manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the construction of the project.
If a DEP tracking number is issued for this site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for the site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use.
A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector’s Report must be sent to the Health Agent.
A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent.
The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report.
A radon remediation kit shall be installed in each below grade dwelling unit.
A radon test shall be conducted following the installation and operation of the remediation kit.
The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer.
The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator’s invoice to the Health Agent.
The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction.
The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction.
The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction.
The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting.
Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations, including but not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line.
The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project.
The resultant establishment shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operation in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of health.
The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District.
The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
Utilities
- Confirm condition and capacity of 12-inch drain, and down stream piping to Salem Harbor, to convey new storm water flows by cleaning and internally inspecting that system, make improvements as necessary, including but not limited to the installation of a tide gate at the outfall pipe.
- Confirm elevation of groundwater on the site will not impact the perforated drain pipe.
- Confirm no roof drains are proposed from building in northwest corner.
- Provide enough on-site storm water re-charge to groundwater that reduces post-development storm water flows leaving the site to less than pre-construction flows.
- Provide operation and maintenance plan for proposed storm water system.
- Confirm condition and capacity of the existing sewer to convey new sewer flows by cleaning and internally inspecting that system, make improvements as necessary. Specifically evaluate the existing sewers proposed to be utilized in Dow and Salem Street, downstream to the connection at the sewer main in Congress Street.
- Remove existing sewer services to be abandoned in the public right of way, or fill with flowable concrete.
- Confirm through investigations on the existing water mains in City streets, including fire hydrant flow tests, that sufficient capacity exists to eliminate the proposed 10-inch main loop on property. Connect buildings (domestic and fire flows separately) to existing mains in the Street.
- Hydrant on southwest corner of site should have service perpendicular off Lafayette Street, not 120 feet off Dow Street main as shown on the approved plan.
Department of Public Services
The Applicant, its successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services
Signage
Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Sign Review Committee.
Lighting
a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way.
b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
HVAC
If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation.
Lafayette Park
The Applicant its successors and assigns agrees to contribute $10,000 to the City of Salem for the purpose of maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park. Such payment shall be made to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Landscaping
- Trees shall be a minimum diameter of 3 ½” dbh (diameter breast height).
- Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns.
- Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of any replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting.
- A wood stockade fence shall be installed along the property line directly abutting the three residential properties on Dow Street. Details and specifications for the fence shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.
- Evergreen trees approximately eight to ten feet in height shall be planted along the property line directly abutting the residences on Dow Street.
- A revised landscaping plan including the size, species, and number of all plantings shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.
- Details and specifications for the fencing and wall at the corner of Lafayette and Dow Streets shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns.
b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site.
c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the applicant, his successors or assigns. The Applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two- (2) year period, from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
As-built Plans
As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City’s use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer.
Violations
Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded on the owner’s Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering.
Charles M. Puleo
Chairman
| 
