Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 10/21/2010
        
MEETING MINUTES 10/21/10

A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 21, 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, Nadine Hanscom, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh.  Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.

Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:08 pm


Approval of Minutes
The minutes from the September 30, 2010 meeting were reviewed.   No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.  Helen Sides moved to approve, Christine Sullivan seconded.  Approved 9-0.


Continuation of 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.  APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 18, 2010.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, requested that the Board allow the matter to continue to the second meeting in November in order to internally vet the changes to the pharmacy plan.   

Helen Sides moved to continue, Mark George seconded.  All approved, 8-0 with Nadine Hanscom abstaining from voting.

Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for an approximately 4.8 acre part of the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7, Lot 79), Salem, MA (proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space).  

Public Hearing: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY (Map 7, Lot 79), Salem, MA (proposed construction of a two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space).  
      
Donald Seaberg, the project’s engineer, presented the plan, which is on file at the Department of Planning & Community Development and hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.  He stated that they eliminated spaces from 108 to 78 with the expectation that the land can be developed later.  The revisions presented also included a retaining wall, and the catch basins which have been moved, as a result of their meeting with the Conservation Commission.

After describing the changes in the parking, Mark George asked if the snow removal would remain in the same areas, to which Mr. Seaberg responded in the affirmative.  Christine Sullivan asked if the paving would still occur and Mr. Seaberg stated that it would continue on the road to allow trucks to get in.  

Chuck Puleo asked how this would affect the drainage system capabilities, and Mr. Seaberg stated that the drainage capabilities are improved because there’s less pavement.  Mr. George asked about the results of their meeting with the Conservation Commission.  Mr. Seaberg stated that they are scheduled to have a site walk on 28th of October with the Conservation Commission.  He additionally stated that they have gone before the Board of Health and the conditions were approved.

Issue opened up for public comment

Dennis Colbert, 37 Clark St, asked about the height of building with regard to the cliffs in the back and if there were mechanicals on the roof?  Mr. DiLullo described the height of the building at different points and stated that the mechanicals will be built inside of the building.

Motion to close the public hearing by Christine Sullivan, Mark George seconded.  All approved 9 – 0.

Danielle McKnight reviewed the draft decision for this portion of the project.  There was a brief discussion about what the Board would like to see included in the plan and the decision on curbing.  Mr. Puleo asked if there is a plan for sloped granite curbing in the parking lot?  Mr. Seaberg said no, that he is proposing a bituminous berm internally throughout.  Mr. Puleo then asked if details for slope granite can be included instead, which Mr. Seaberg agreed to include. Mr. Puleo recommended that this should be included in the decision; specifically that the curbing matches the other side of the street.  Ms. McKnight made a note that the applicant is to submit a curbing plan to match the other side of Technology Way in the plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

Ms. Sullivan stated that she would like the City Electrician to comment on the lighting plan in regards to safety in the back parts of lot.  Ms. Duncan recommended including language that stated that the plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Electrician for safety purposes.

Motion to approve by Christine Sullivan, seconded by Chuck Puleo.  Approved 9-0.  (Decision is attached to these minutes.)

Request for Endorsement of a Plan Believed Not to Require Approval – Form A: Request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY. (Map 7, Lot 79).

Mr. Seaberg presented the plan, which is on file at the Department of Planning & Community Development and hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.  Board members had questions about the lot numbering, since the Land Court lots on the plan are different numbers from the lots assigned by the Assessor.  Mr. Seaberg clarified that the Land Court designated Lot 739 as the new lot (which was 727 & 728 formerly), where the building and parking area are.  Mr. Seaberg explained that more of the land would be parceled off and separated as new projects were proposed for 4 Technology Way.

Motion to approve by Christine Sullivan, seconded by Randy Clarke.  Approved 9-0.  (Decision is attached to these minutes.)


Continuation of discussion: Request of ANTHONY TIRO for an insignificant change to the previously approved Approval Not Required and Waiver from Frontage Plan at 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE to eliminate the required guardrail and retain an existing rock wall, or to move the guardrail inwards.

Chuck Puleo read an email from the city engineer who based his decision on Mass Highway’s opinion, confirming that the state does not mount guardrail to ledge for safety reasons.

Issue opened up for public comment

Susan Howland, 3 Thomas Circle, recommended that the conversation should be focused on the width of the road. Currently, there is not enough room on the road to allow fire engine and car on road.  She implored the board to devise a solution to make Thomas Circle a 20 foot wide road.  Mr. Puleo stated that had the engineer looked at the state requirement for widening and blasting out the ledge and noted that had the original engineer looked more closely at the plan, he would have realized that the guardrail could not go in.  Ms. Howland again stated that she would like something to be done to widen the road, which is a safety issue.  

Ms. Sullivan questioned if she could still donate her land to the city, would it only widen road at corner, to which Mr. Puleo said only at the corner could Ms. Howland donate her land, but that would not create a 20 foot wide road.  Mark George asked if this would create a zoning issue by creating a nonconforming lot, to which Ms. McKnight responded that there was no definitive answer on that yet.  Ms. Duncan stated that the building inspector asked the assistant city solicitor about this but does not have answer at this time.  John Moustakis reminded the board that the request for an insignificant change – to eliminate the guardrail - is before the board, not the question of the land donation.  

Randy Clarke questioned and discussed with the Board the options available at this time in terms of boulder removal.  Mr. George stated that all the Board is charged with determining for this meeting is relief from the guardrail.  Ms. Sullivan questioned what the original decision was in 2000.  The board reviewed the original decision from 2000 and continued discussing the requirements.  The board discussed the layout of the road and what options are available. Tim Ready stated that the most relevant issue, which is the recommendation of the city engineer, is that the plan will allow for an 18 to 19 foot road in this area and it is acceptable.  Mr. Puleo read from the original decision which stated that Thomas Circle should be widened no less than 18 feet in that area.  Ms. Howland stated that there was a Memorandum of Understanding issued later for the plan dated on 4/4/2006.  She reiterated that she wants to move forward and have road done correctly.  Mr. Clarke stated that the original decision is very clear.  Mr. Puleo further stated that the Memorandum of Understanding was not worked out with the Planning Board.  Ms. Howland stated that there were other plans approved in 2006.   Ms. McKnight stated that Mr. Tiro made attempts to do the installation of the guardrail and then brought it to the attention of the board when he realized that it was not feasible to do it as approved.  Mr. Puleo said that the fence installation people and MassHighway stated that Mr. Tiro made efforts to put in guardrail but found it unsafe.
 
Tim Ready presented a motion to allow an insignificant change to eliminate the guardrail, as recommended by the city engineer and the Department of Transportation, Mark George seconded.  Approved 9-0.


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.

Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing Kennedy Development Group, provided a quick update on the plans.  They have worked closely with both peer review consultants (engineering and traffic) responding to recommendations regarding the big issues, particularly the drainage concerns and the revised site layout.  The big feature is the Camp Lion driveway that has been proposed to be removed.  The benefits of the driveway removal were particular to drainage and noise-buffering.  Traffic implications have been part of the Department of Transportation review.  It is his expectation that in the next meeting or two, they will have the best proposal and the final proposal.  Tonight’s focus will be on the landscaping plan which will show different views of project presented by Austin Turner of Tetra Tech Rizzo and Matt Smith of Bohler Engineering.

Austin Turner, Tetra Tech Rizzo, 1 Grant St, Framingham, showed a powerpoint presentation; slides are on file at the Department of Planning & Community Development and are hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.  The discussion focused on landscaping features as well as a visibility analysis, which was a balloon test conducted at the end of August.  A focus of the landscaping efforts was examining how to maintain a significant buffer around the project, which included minimizing the footprint of the development.  Site improvements included: a site entrance amended to include a larger and longer median, added plantings in back of Lowes building, the parking lot to be landscaped with vegetation, a solid ledge wall as part of water improvements, and a tiered retaining wall to support the Lowes parking lot.  

Chuck Puleo asked about the elevation behind the top of the wall at the parking lot level and Mr. Turner stated that the plantings are about 4 or 5 feet above parking lot.  Mr. Puleo stated that when the Planning Board approved the Home Depot, they put double row of trees to fill in faster; he asked if that is an option.  Mark George asked for clarification on the height of the retaining wall.  Mr. Turner stated that it’s about 15 feet each which is 30 feet in total from street to parking lot.  Mr. George clarified further that if the building is included, there is about 60 feet above access roadway grade to the top of the building, to which Mr. Turner responded in the affirmative.  Mr. Turner further clarified that Meineke will not be moved.

Matt Smith, of Bohler Engineering, said that Wal-Mart is not as dramatic in grade change but there are some grade changes, increasing from 0 to 8 feet, which is done with sloping.  Youngstown Junipers will be planted, so when entering the site one will see trees rather than cars.  Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the grade changes.  Mr. Smith stated that the parking lot is sunken, and from parking lot, the grade increases by one foot.  Mr. Puleo recommended that the Board see a straight-on view of the proposed Wal-Mart store from Highland Ave, similar to what was presented for the Lowe’s site.  Mr. Clarke asked if the Board can get a better picture that shows how high the new wall will be from the street.  Ms. Hanscom asked for clarification of what she would see driving into Wal-Mart.  Mr. Smith described the view, stating that the grade goes from 117 at low point and then comes back up to 124 and looks flat.  Mr. Turner stated that as a whole, the project incorporates 150 trees and 1350 new plantings and vegetation.  He then moved on to the visibility study.

Mr. Turner described the visibility study which was conducted at the end of August.  The study analyzed the visibility from ten different locations with balloons in three locations (Grapevine Circle, Belleaire Avenue, Apple Hill Lane) that were raised to the height of the roof line of the proposed building.  Ms. Sullivan asked if this was the equivalent of 60 feet above Highland Ave, to which Mr. Turner responded in the affirmative.  Mr. Turner further explained that if you could see the balloon, you would see the roof.  Mr. Moustakis commented that the pictures showed what the vegetation looks like in summer, but asked what it will look like in the winter.  He also asked if they are going to add anything to the vegetation in anticipation of the winter.  Mr. Turner stated that not all of the vegetation is deciduous, there is a significant amount that will be coniferous and that they will have landscaping along the back half to three-quarters of the Lowe’s building.  Mr. Puleo asked for the reasoning behind putting vegetation halfway down, to which Mr. Turner stated that at the time, it was thought that this would be the most visible.  Mr. George stated that it is difficult to get a handle on how the building is going to look with these pictures.  Mr. Turner stated that this was the reason that there were 6 foot wide balloons flown at a height of what the building would be.  Ms. Sides, Ms. Hanscom and Ms. Sullivan commented that the pictures show that the building will not be seen.  Mr. Clarke asked about planting more deciduous trees so as to not see the building during any other time of the year.  Mr. Turner stated that they are planning on planting coniferous trees around the site.  Mr. Turner also presented a cross-view of the project to highlight the elevation, the buffers of the existing vegetation and the future vegetation in relation to the distance of the neighbors.  Mr. Clarke asked for clarification on the existing camp road.  Mr. Turner stated that the camp road is being removed and landscaped, and with the driveway removed, they can enhance the buffer while keeping the existing vegetation.  Mr. Correnti stated that the cross-section diagram presented helps describe the sequencing of the two developments together.  He acknowledged that the balloon test is not the end all-be all.  He will not ever say that this building is not going to be seen.  The developers are trying to be cognizant of the visual impacts on the neighbors.  Mr. Moustakis commented that vegetation is very important and shrubs take years to grow, which means that the landscaping should be left open to improvements.  Mr. Correnti stated that they get the point about screening and they are continuing to work on this.  Ms. Sides stated that the pictures do show what the Board asked for.  She said that by the nature of the topography, the site is very visible from Salem side, and less so from the Lynn side.  Ms. Hanscom stated that she can see how far everything is and is glad they did this with the balloons.  She also said that the Board is not just going by pictures; the Board has done hours of homework visiting and looking at the area.  Ms. Sullivan echoed Nadine’s comments adding that the vegetation adds quite a lot of buffer.  Mr. George asked if there is a buffer between the Highland Condominiums and site.  Mr. Correnti said yes, there is quite a buffer of trees there now and will remain there.  

Issue opened up for public comment

Tom Demakis, trustee of Apple Hill subdivision, said that virtually all of the trees there are deciduous and all the trees shown in the balloon study will lose leaves in another month.  He stated that the balloon test was done on a very hot day, and the balloons exploded due to heat, thus the pictures do not show what it will really look like when the building is completed.  Mr. Demakis asks for another balloon test in a month.  He has retained another engineer, who, along with Mr. Turner, will tell the Board that once the leaves are off the trees the Lowe’s will be visible from most points from the Apple Hill subdivision.  They will not be able to screen the Lowe’s with mature trees. They could lower the grade on the roof from 30 feet to 20 feet but that would be cost-prohibitive.  He suggested another option is to build a berm. He noted that the Apple Hill development has been severely devalued and he is strongly opposed to the project.  He urges the Board that if this is passed, the Board passes this with the mitigation to protect health, welfare, safety, and privacy.  He said that they will need a sound barrier wall and appropriate screening; and for safety it needs a traffic signal for those neighbors directly impacted.

Paul Lynch, Ironworkers representative, thanks the Board for their questions and states his support for the project because it will bring jobs to the area.  He spoke about his members who are in desperate need of jobs.

The Board then asked the audience if there were more comments about landscaping.

Katerina Palengiatakis, Ocean Ave, Lynn said that the balloon tests are useless since the project will be taking away trees.  Losing the trees will cause the sound to be horrible.  Attorney Correnti clarified that the tress shown in the slides will remain.  There are 150 feet of trees behind the project and some will come down.  However the trees in the balloon test will be staying.

Thomas Kennedy, Kennedy Development Grouping, 500 Broadway Everett, MA stated that the road will not be there and the tree line will still exist.  There is part of a subdivision that sits on Highland Avenue and the recommended sound test will not prove anything when there is already a certain sound from Highland Avenue.

Pat Liberti, 3 Lyons Lane, Salem, MA recommended that a double row of trees be put along building.  She commends the developers for listening to all of the comments.

William Trahant Jr., Ward 2 Councilor, Lynn requested that the balloon test be done again in a month.  He also asked about dirt to build a berm into the bushes.  Mr. Correnti stated that this would be taken under consideration.  

Dan Quintiliani, Lynn, stated that they do not need to do another balloon test.  He stated that they do not need to hide the store, they need to build the store before the winter comes and there are more delays.  He said that property values will not go down because of a store, property values will go down because of a lack of jobs.  It’s more important to get people to work.  He spoke of the importance of bringing jobs and tax dollars to the area.     

Tim Fandell, Scituate resident, Vice President of North Shore Building Trades, commended the developer for incorporating design changes and green technology.  

Deborah Smith Walsh, 16 Coolidge Rd., Lynn, asked about drainage issues coming across Western Avenue and the traffic impact.  Mr. Puleo and Ms. Hanscom stated that these were issues that were discussed at the previous meeting and will be addressed again at future meetings.

Calvin Anderson, 12 Concord Street, Lynn asked if they are going to hire local labor, to which Mr. Puleo and Ms. Hanscom stated that it is not a planning board issue.

Denise Quintiliani, Lynn, emphasized the need for building this to create jobs in this area.  She stated that the land behind Camp Lion is very fertile and the trees will grow, so it’s more important to get the project off the ground and bring the jobs to the area.

Ward 4 Councilor, Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, Salem, said that he didn’t think it would make a difference, but thought it would be a good idea to do the balloon tests within the next month.  But he again stressed that he doesn’t think it’s going to make a difference.

Richard Brandell, Ridgeway Court, Lynn asked if they are going to compensate for removed trees and wind blown trees.   
Motion made to continue hearing to November 4th by Nadine Hanscom, seconded by John Moustakis.  Approved 9-0.  



Old/New Business
New Business: Request to extend final action on a Form A plan believed not to require approval, 12 Derby Street (petitioner Ian Hunter) to 11/9/10.

Motion made by John Moustakis to approve to the extension, seconded by Mark George.  Approved 9-0.

Adjournment

Nadine Hanscom made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mark George.  Approved 9-0.

Site Plan Review and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District
Decision

October 27, 2010


On September 30, 2010, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 4 TECHNOLOGY WAY, Salem, MA, at the request of UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL for construction of a new two-story building with approximately 86,500 sq. ft. of light industrial space and associated parking.  Site is approximately 4.8 acres of the larger parcel.
The Public Hearing was continued to October 21, 2010 and was closed on that date.  

In considering approval of the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, the Planning Board found that the proposed project met the requirements of the Overlay District, as stated in the Salem Zoning Ordinance.

The original application included 108 parking spaces.  However, in the course of Site Plan Review, the Planning Board suggested that the parking area should be reduced, since the size of the project did not warrant so many spaces, and eliminating some of them would increase the amount of green area and pervious surface on the site.  Subsequently, the applicant revised the plans to reduce the parking area to 78 spaces.  Should the building require additional parking in the future, the Planning Board also approves the parking plan as shown on the original plans dated August 17, 2010, prior to revisions.

At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on October 21, 2010, the Planning Board, based on the information contained in the application and presented at the hearings, voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, and Helen Sides), and none (0) opposed, to approve the Site Plan Review application and the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit subject to the following conditions:

1.      Conformance with the Plans
Work shall conform to the following plans: “’United States Biological’” Salem Business Park in Salem, MA,” dated August 17, 2010 and last revised on October 21, 2010, prepared by Benchmark Engineering Corp., 120 Quarry Drive, Milford Massachusetts 01757.

  • 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.  Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board.
  • Landscaping
  • a.      All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans.
  • b.      Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns.
  • The applicant guarantees the vegetation for a period of two (2) years.
  • 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 Electrician for review and approval  for safety prior to the issuance of a building permit.

  • Construction Practices
  • All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions:
  • a.      All provisions in the City of Salem’s Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22, Noise Control, shall be strictly adhered to.
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 demolition and 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, blasting or rock hammering 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
g.   All construction activities shall be in accordance with the “Salem Police Station Construction Management Plan”.
I.    The applicant shall promptly notify the Board of Health of any environmental condition encountered during construction that may adversely impact the abutters to the site.

  • Conservation Commission
a.      All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission.
b.      The applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation Commission.

8. Maintenance of Stormwater System  
Applicant is to submit an Operations and Management Plan for the stormwater system, including a narrative describing the frequency of cleaning and maintenance of catch basins and Stormceptors and clearly define responsible party for maintenance, prior to the issuance of a building permit.   

9. Board of Health
The owner shall comply with the following specific conditions issued by the 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.
  • 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.
10. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.

11. Building Inspector
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector.

12. Utilities
Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

13. City Engineer
Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer, including the following specific conditions:
  • Applicant is to provide documentation to the City Engineer for approval detailing the water needs and sewer flows of the facility, prior to issuance of a building permit.
  • Applicant is to submit revised plan detail showing the retaining wall designed and stamped by a professional engineer to the City Engineer for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit.
  • Applicant is to submit revised plans showing separate fire service and domestic services to the City Engineer for approval, prior to issuance of a building permit.
 
14. Exterior Elevations
Elevations shall be in accordance with the approved plans.

15. Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the developer, 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.  

16. As-built Plans
As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy.

17. Violations
Violations of any condition 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.

18. Special Conditions
Applicant is to provide detail for sloped granite curbing along the street from lot line to lot line to match the other side of Technology Way, for approval by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit.

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








Form A – Decision
4 Technology Way


On October 21, 2010, the Salem Planning Board voted 9-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, John Moustakis, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, and Mark George in favor, none opposed) to endorse “Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required” on the following described plan: “Plan of Land in Salem, MA being a Subdivision of Lots 727 & 728, LC Plan #10802-56”

  • Applicant:  Swampscott Realty LLC
  • Location: 4 Technology Way, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 7, Lot 79)
  • Project Description:  The applicant requests to subdivide the property located at 4 Technology Way, separating an approximately 4.8 acre parcel from the rest of the lot.  

Sincerely,


Charles M. Puleo
Chair


Cc:
Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk

MINUTES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD 11/4/10