Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 02/02/2012
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2/2/12

A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanagh, Helen Sides, George McCabe, and Tim Ready.  Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair, and Randy Clarke.

Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:00 pm.      

Approval of Minutes
January 5, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Lewis Beilman motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Helen Sides. Approved 7-0.

January 19, 2012 draft minutes
Will be reviewed at the next meeting.

Request of PAUL DIBIASE for the STRONGWATER CROSSING (AKA OSBORNE HILLS) subdivision off Marlborough Road for: acceptance of a new tri-party agreement for Phase 2A, release of lots 18, 39, and 41 (in Phase 2A), and confirmation that the remaining lots in 2A will be released upon satisfactory installation of the Marlborough Rd. traffic signal.

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Correspondence from City Engineer David Knowlton dated 12/21/11 regarding approval of surety amounts
  • Plans titled “Intersection Improvements Project, Marlborough Road at Osborne Hill Drive in the City of Salem, Mass.,” prepared by BETA group, dated May 2007.
  • Tri-Party Agreement to Bond Construction of Ways and the Installation of Municipal Services, dated 2/2/12
Paul DiBiase, Trustee of Osborne Hills Realty Trust, stated that they started the second phase of the project and have installed enough road to accommodate 13 more homes which they are calling “Phase 2A”.  He has put together the cost of Phase 2A, which has been approved by the City Engineer. He distributed documents which show the schedule of funds.  They have come to an agreement with the Planning Department and the Engineering Department that the three lots will be released which will bring the lot total to the limit of 20. This was part of the original agreement, until the traffic light at Marlborough Road and Osborne Hills Drive will be installed.  He stated that he is awarding the bid for the traffic light installation next week.

Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the location of the traffic signal, and clarified that the purpose of this signal will be for traffic going down Marlborough Road towards Peabody, and turning left, to which Mr. DiBiase said yes and stated it is also for traffic in and out of Osborne Hills.  Mr. Puleo asked if it includes striping as well, to which Mr. DiBiase said yes.  Mr. Puleo asked if that included the pedestrian cycle and the sidewalk to which Mr. DiBiase said yes and that will replace the current lights.  Mr. DiBiase stated that those plans were done by a consultant hired by the city.

A member of the public spoke, and Mr. Puleo reminded him that this was not a public hearing, but asked if he was an abutter.  Gregory Kozubek, 60 Marlborough Road, said yes, that he lives adjacent to the opening of Osborne Hills and is concerned about his driveway getting blocked by a traffic light.  He noted that Osborne Hills is the biggest road off of Marlborough Road.  He is concerned about car accidents, illegal u-turns and speeding.  Mr. Puleo responded that he recalled his concerns during the public hearings, and stated that the only safe place to put that light would be in the intersection of Osborne Hills and Marlborough.  He thinks that based on Mr. Kozubek’s concerns the light will make people stop and keep them from making illegal u-turns; additionally, anyone who will need to make a left turn will be able to trigger the signal.  He stated that he asked about striping due to the concern of the width of the road.  He noted that this was laid out by a consultant who was hired by the city, and named this specific spot as the safest place for a signal.  He recalled that Mr. Kozubek had a concern about the noise from the pedestrian signal which really would only be used during the day.

Danuta Kozubek, 60 Marlborough Road, stated that their concern was that the city wants to put the light directly in front of their house, on their property.  She also stated that the light will be coming into their bedroom.  Mr. Puleo stated that it would all be done on city property.  Mr. DiBiase responded describing the location of the traffic arm in relation to the Kozubek’s property. Mr. Kozubek asked how he is going to safely exit his driveway if there is a pole in front of it.  Mr. DiBiase stated that it is not going to be right in front of their house, and that the whole purpose of the light is to slow down traffic.  Mr. Puleo stated that this is not a public hearing and if there is a question about how to alleviate the issue with the light, they can ask Mr. DiBiase to ask the contractor to look into putting something in your driveway to trigger the signal.  Ms. Kozubek asked how to get in touch with Mr. DiBiase as he did not meet with them when he was contacted by their attorney.  Mr. DiBiase said he did not recall that, but would gladly meet with them.  Mr. Puleo recommended that the Planning Department contact the consultant firm, BETA, to meet with them to clarify the considerations for the location of the traffic light.

Roger Leger, 64 Marlborough Rd., stated that he was there in 2007 when the discussion of the signal came about, and the signal was supposed to be left alone.  He stated that he was upset that he wasn’t notified about this meeting.  Mr. Puleo reminded Mr. Leger stated that this is not a public hearing and also noted that the original approval from 2007 is the minutes, which specifically stated the location of the traffic signal.  

Tim Ready recommended that when the meeting takes place between Mr. DiBiase and the abutters that Councilor Jerry Ryan be present for that meeting.  Councilor Ryan was in the audience and agreed to be there as well as review the original decision from 2007.  Mr. Ready stated that they would make all of the needed documents available to Councilor Ryan.

Mr. Puleo then asked about the bank that has the tri-party agreement.  Mr. DiBiase said that it is a new bank, but is the same one that has the tri-party agreement for the first phase, Enterprise Bank, and with the Board’s favorable vote on it tonight he will execute it tonight.  Mr. Puleo then asked if the Dave Knowlton, the City Engineer, agrees with the cost of the remaining items, to which Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, responded that he has approved the amounts for the tri-party agreement.

Tim Kavanagh made a motion to approve the release of the lots and the schedule of the costs connected to it as approved by the City Engineer, seconded by Mark George. All approved 7-0.  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.


Public hearing: Request of BARTLETT & STEADMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. for Modification of a Definitive Subdivision Decision for WITCH HILL (DELL STREET, Assessors Map 14, Lots 30, 31, 33, 34, 53, 54, 55, 144 and Map 9 Lots 259, 260) by waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for completion and establishment of a schedule of subdivision completion requirements, release of Lots 211, 210, 213 and 214 on Martin Lane, and acceptance of a new tri-party agreement.
Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Request letter of Bartlett & Steadman for Release of Lots and Tri-Party Agreement, dated 2/2/12
  • “Release of Lots, Witch Hill Subdivision”
  • “Tri-Party Agreement to secure Construction of Ways and the Installation of Municipal Services,” dated 2/2/12
  • “Tri-Party Agreement Itemization,” dated June 19, 2009
  • “Declaration of Easements, Agreements, Restrictions, and Homeowner Association Re: Witch Hill Subdivision, Salem, Massachusetts”
  • “Declaration of Trust Establishing Witch Hill Homeowners Association Trust”

Chuck Puleo recused himself from this agenda item and appointed Tim Ready as Chair for the duration of this item.

Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street, representing the applicant noted that this is a public hearing as they are asking to amend the original decision.  He stated that this is registered land and is subject to Land Court approval.  They also had to ask for an easement from National Grid.  Previous Board members had allowed this project significant time to complete the project and that was when Mr. Steadman ran into the recession and the crash of the housing market.  They are asking to break the project into three phases: the first phase is completed and they are asking for the release of four lots; the second phase is to be to be completed by July 31, 2012; and the third phase is to be completed by July 31, 2013.  He showed the Board the outline of the project that was approved.  Martin Lane is the first phase that they are asking to be released; the second phase ends with/includes Good Circle; and the final phase goes up Nurse Way.  They all include cul-de-sacs.  All of the utilities have been installed on Martin Lane, and have been approved by the City as well as the Clerk of the Works; and they already have a binder coat of pavement laid down.  There is also an approval by the Conservation Commission as three of the lots are within the wetlands boundary.  Mr. Steadman has also completed off-site improvements, which were part of the original agreement, including the removal of the cul-de-sac at the end of Durkin Road; there was also some drainage work required on Highland Avenue that has been completed.  He was required to contribute $5000 to the equipment at DiBiase Park.  He now is presenting a list of amendments that are being requested, which includes an extension for the project completion date.  He then explained what is allowing them to do this: Mr. Steadman entered into an agreement with a local builder who has built single-family houses in Salem that have sold.  They want the lots released to build homes on those lots which will then create a flow of funds and will then allow for the marketing of this project.  They hope this will produce a phase one, rolling into a phase two and then rolling into a phase three.  The next two items are in regards to open spaces and trails and they are asking to be completed prior to the issuance of the building permits for the third phase.  He noted that the open spaces contain drainage in some areas that will have to be built and they feel this will be completed by Phase Three.  Then they can file a Conservation Restriction will the Registry of Deeds which will protect the areas as open spaces and trails.  Paragraph 19 of the original decision has to be changed as it includes stop signs, and they have to go to the Salem Police Department and the City Council to get that approved, and those are scheduled to happen prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for Phase Two.  Similarly, the light poles will be installed after the work is done, in order to protect the poles from potential damage by construction vehicles.  He noted that part of the decision had to do with the land located next to DiBiase Park, which they had to deal with in Land Court, and Mr. Steadman agreed to grant that land to the City of Salem for park space. There is also a park that was requested by the Board as part of the project and they are going to meet with Park & Recreation to discuss what type of park they would like in that area.  They believe they can get that completed for Phase Two.  Finally there is an item of the decision that states that Mr. Steadman will pay $15,000 towards sewer improvement, which they have tied to the Certificates of Occupancy in Phase Two.  

Helen Sides asked if Phase One was completed, to which Mr. Atkins said yes except for some minor things, like light poles and sidewalks, and they are waiting for the houses to be complete before doing that.  Mark George asked to clarify if this is the first cul-de-sac, to which Mr. Atkins responded in the affirmative.  He further noted that the only items that the Board would be approving for release will be those four lots on Martin Lane, which would constitute Phase One.  Mr. Atkins then described the documents he has drafted as part of this project including a Homeowners Association document, as well as declarations and easements.  He noted that he also has a Tri-Party Agreement to be executed, which is $500,000 and includes the release of the four lots.  This covers itemization of the subdivision through Phase Three.  They are awaiting the City Engineer’s approval on these documents.  He is specifically asking for the Board to approve the amendments tonight and to execute the Tri-Party and the release of the four lots to be held by the Planning Department on the condition that the Homeowners Association and Declaration are recorded and the City Engineer approves the $500,000 surety.  He concluded stating that if the City Engineer does not think $500,000 is enough then they will re-issue the Tri-Party Agreement for another amount.

Ms. McKnight stated that the Planning Department does not have any issue with the proposal to re-phase.  She spoke with Robin Stein who stated that she is reviewing the documents that Attorney Atkins mentioned and had no substantive problems with it, other than some minor edits. The one remaining thing with the Tri-Party Agreement and the release of the four lots is that she does not have a recommendation from Dave Knowlton that the amount of money is reasonable and acceptable for the remaining items.  However, she has only had the list of remaining items and amounts for the last few days and she does not have an answer from Dave Knowlton regarding whether the money is adequate.  Based on the recommendation she received from Robin Stein, it was recommended that the Board does not enter into a tri-party agreement unless the surety amount is approved by Mr. Knowlton.  Mr. Atkins responded stating that they feel that $500,000 is sufficient keeping in mind that the completed portions were not included and noted that this was verbally approved by a City Engineer at one time.  He acknowledged that it was not put in writing and they have not been able to reach him this week.  He still feels that with the approval tonight and the Planning Department holding the documents pending the approval would be an appropriate way to proceed.

Ms. McKnight asked Mr. Atkins to clarify that he is suggesting that they execute the Tri-Party Agreement, but hold it and not record it if the amounts are not acceptable to Mr. Knowlton.  Mr. Atkins said yes.

Tim Kavanagh asked Mr. Atkins to confirm his understanding that this will be conditioned upon Robin Stein’s approval for final drafts of the Homeowners Association and the Declaration of Easements for the subdivision, which is substantially done, and there is some technical/ legal wording to be revised. And the $500,000 would be conditioned upon David Knowlton’s approval that this is an adequate sum of money.  Mr. Atkins added one other technical point which would be with the Homeowner’s Association and the Declaration of Easements have to be recorded.  Mr. Kavanagh stated that the documents would be recorded with the Registry of Deeds and David Knowlton would have to give the Planning Board formal notification that he accepts a $500,000 surety as an acceptable sum of money to complete all three phases or whatever remains.  Mr. Kavanagh noted that if Mr. Knowlton rejects $500,000 and asks for $1,000,000 and the bank rejects it, then we are stuck with a $500,000 surety bond and there will be four lots will have been released that we would be concerned about being released.  Mr. Atkins stated that until they record the documents nothing would be released.  Mr. Kavanagh stated that their decision would not force Mr. Knowlton’s hand and he would be free to determine whatever sum is agreed upon to ensure the proper completion of phases 2 & 3, as what they have right now is a $500,000 surety.  He stated that he does not have a problem with accepting a new Tri-Party Agreement with a sum that Mr. Knowlton agrees is sufficient and for their purposes tonight agrees that $500,000 is a sufficient amount which is all subject to his approval.  And if he disapproves then they are back here for round two.  Mr. Ready stated that he is a little uncomfortable in making a presumption on his behalf, to which Mr. Kavanagh stated that it is $500,000 already so that does not change anything and there is even less work to be done.  Mr. Atkins showed the document to the Board which showed the itemization by dollar amount up to $500,000.  Mr. George asked if Phase One has been sufficiently completed to which Mr. Atkins said yes, and noted that it has also been inspected.  

Issue opened to the public for comment
Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, stated that while construction is going on the street lights should go up first to protect public safety.  

Anthony Pascarella, 27 ½ Crowdis Street, asked how this affects the abutters.  Mr. Steadman stated that nothing is different, and they are not moving anything.  Mr. Pascarella asked how this will affect the wetlands.  Mr. Atkins stated that this is the same plan and only what is approved and stated that the lot abutting his lot will be part of the open space, which will be undeveloped in perpetuity.  He noted that this Board has prohibited the development of the open space, and the conservation restriction will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.

Donald Lord, 29 Crowdis Street, stated that there are parts of his land that he doesn’t want and asked what to do with 300 feet of land and he is paying for.  Mr. Ready stated that the Board cannot answer his question, and recommended speaking with his City Councilor.

Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, stated that she agrees with Polly Wilbert that the lights need to be built for the safety of the families.  Mr. Atkins stated that the lights will be put up before the residents can move in.

Helen Sides made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 6-0.

Mr. Ready asked Mr. Kavanagh to summarize the phasing issue.  Mr. Kavanagh stated that he will frame a motion then discuss.  Mr. Kavanagh made a motion to amend the prior decision in accordance with the itemization of proposed decision amendments presented here tonight, amending paragraphs 3, 10, 13, 19, 20, 21, and 31 of the Board’s decision and in conjunction with those approvals a release of lots 211, 210, 213, 214, and with the acceptance of a new tri-party agreement in an amount of $500,000 subject to the approval of David Knowlton, City Engineer, that is an adequate surety to complete the remaining construction in the subdivision which is mainly Phase 2 and Phase 3, and should he reject that sum of $500,000 as being inadequate and the applicant will come back submit a new request with a Tri-Party Agreement; and it is his understanding that the Board will hold the documents for the release of lots of 211, 210, 213, and 214 and the new Tri-Party Agreement has been approved by David Knowlton and at such time that Robin Stein has agreed to the final language of the Homeowners Association Agreement and the Conservation Restriction and in addition that those items have been recorded at the Southern Essex Registry of Deeds and at that point all conditions for the motion tonight will be satisfied.  Mr. Atkins clarified that it is not a Conservation Restriction but a Declaration of Easements required at this time.

Mr. Ready asked if the Board members are comfortable enough to move forward on this decision.  Mr. Beilman asked if they would usually go to the City Engineer first to get the amount determined.  Mr. Ready stated that they almost universally follow the City Engineer’s guidance.  Mr. McCabe recommended changing the language to show a review of the sum.  Ms. McKnight re-worded the motion made by Tim Kavanagh to read that they are voting to approve the re-phasing as proposed by Attorney Atkins and accept the Tri-Party Agreement which would be subject to final review and approval by the City Engineer, and release the four lots being requested on Martin Lane and subject to the technical review by the Assistant City Solicitor the Declaration of Easements and the Homeowners Association, which was seconded by Helen Sides, all approved 6-0.  The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.


Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399 ½ & 401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities.  The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping.  

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Applications for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Special Permit, all date-stamped 11/10/11, and accompanying materials
  • Site Plan for CVS/Pharmacy #7109, Jefferson Avenue & Canal Street, Salem, MA 01970, prepared by R.J. O’Connell & Associates, Inc., last revised 1/9/12
  • Exterior Elevation drawings prepared by BKA Architects, Inc., dated 11/8/11
  • Stormwater Management Study, CVS/Pharmacy #7109, Loring Plaza, Canal Street and Jefferson Ave., Salem, Massachusetts, prepared by R.J. O’Connell & Associates
  • Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed CVS/Pharmacy, Salem, Massachusetts, prepared by GPI (Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.)
  • Response memo to civil engineering peer review from RJ O’Connell & Associates, Inc., dated 1/9/12
  • Response memo to traffic peer review from GPI, Inc., dated 1/9/12
  • “Follow-up Civil Technical Peer Review,” prepared by AECOM and dated 1/18/12
  • “Technical Peer Review, Traffic Impact and Access Study,” dated 1/17/12
  • Letter from Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O’Keefe, dated 1/30/12
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the applicant and introduced Paul Beck, Jason Plourde and Phil Henry.  He stated that they have been working on responses to peer review comments on traffic and civil peer review, which they will respond to tonight.  Generally it seems like the focus has been the ingress and egress from the site on Kimball Road, Canal and Jefferson Streets, and closing one of the curb cuts on Jefferson Avenue.

Phil Henry, site engineer from RG O’Connell, began the list with improvements to Kimball Road in terms of access.  He noted that there currently is a retaining wall that separates the gas station from the drive through site, along with orange cones from the retaining wall to the telephone pole.  With recommendations from AECOM, they are proposing to extend a white edge line extending from the end of the edge of the retaining wall and wrapping around the existing telephone pole; and to put a stop sign and additional striping to create more of an entrance for vehicular access.  

Mr. George asked what they plan to put in that area to make it look like a road rather than a parking lot.  Mr. Henry stated that it is currently a sea of asphalt, and they feel that if they put down striping and the stop sign, it will create a visual delineation.  Mr. George then asked what they plan to do with those four or five parking spaces near the restaurant, and how will they delineate that area, to which Mr. Henry stated that there were no current plans to delineate that area.  Mr. George stated that he was looking for some sort of delineation that this specific area is parking or a road, in order to get rid of the confusion between what is private and what is public.  Ms. Sides noted that the road is a standard two lane road width and she feels it has to do with grade in so much as there is no built-in curb, and is just a strip.  

Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Henry to point out exactly which lots are included in this PUD application, to which Mr. Henry described on the slides.  Mr. Correnti stated they don’t control the two corners on Canal Street, and those two properties are not part of the project area.  They are trying to pick up off of that street so it becomes controlled access, but they can’t control the two corners in question as those are public streets.  Mr. Puleo stated that he was at the site today and observed cars parked in specific areas around the site and was not sure if the are where the cars were parked were part of the site.  He asked the applicant if these spaces were part of the site, where there were 9 vehicles.  Mr. Henry stated that those were spaces used by employees of the ambulance service.  Mr. Correnti acknowledged that the way things were currently laid out in this specific area were wide open and confusing and they are attempting to channelize the parking and the flow.  Mr. Puleo asked if those specific spaces are part of the PUD then are they planning on leaving those spaces there, and expressed concerns about how traffic gets in and out of those spaces, as well as the inadequate lighting.  He feels that if this is going to be an access point to the site that these areas need to be addressed more clearly.  Mr. Correnti stated that they can get some answers on Mr. Puleo’s questions and concerns in terms of the potential use of those spaces.  He noted that they will be installing more lights that will be appropriate for the site, but not overpowering for neighbors. He thinks that those spaces in question will continue to be used, but they will look further at that area.  Mr. Henry also responded, stating that the access drive associated with the specific spaces in question are 24 feet wide at their minimum, which is industry standard.  Mr. Puleo states that he understands that, he is just concerned that there is a lot of traffic flow for that space and should possibly be restricted for employee use only.  Jason Plourde, with Greenman Pedersen, stated that anyone travelling down Canal Street will use the entrance right on Canal Street, and not right onto Kimball and left onto the site.  Any vehicles that are coming northbound onto Loring Avenue are not going to turn onto Kimball Road, and most, after exiting the site, will turn left on Canal Street out of Kimball Road.  Thus there is a small portion of the traffic that will use Kimball Road.

Mr. Ready asked what the striping will look like on Kimball Road.  Mr. Henry described the striping and the location of the proposed new striping.  Mr. Ready then stated that to Mr. George’s point, why not carry that center line on Kimball Road out as a double line in order to better define that roadway to alleviate some of the wide open space.  Mr. Henry stated that they can incorporate that into the plan.

Mr. Correnti stated that the next issue they addressed was the Jefferson Avenue curb cuts, which Mr. Henry presented on.  He stated that they what they have is similar to what they had presented previously.  They took the advice of AECOM and the Board and considered reducing the three driveways into two which includes a landscaped island with curb.  They considered the vehicular access of the current uses and existing operations, which is how they chose which access point to close – the one currently in the center.  Mr. George noted that the use there today may not be there tomorrow, to which Mr. Puleo agreed that they don’t know what will be there in ten years, in terms of the other lots.  Mr. Plourde stated that they have laid out the plan in a way that will accommodate a tenant change.  In the area where the parking is in front of the building, they feel strongly that they are providing a safe alternative, which is why the recommended closing this driveway. They chose this driveway due to the sight distance and the radii of the driveways, which will not cross; and he noted that there are more than 50 feet between the driveways on Jefferson Avenue.  Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Plourde if this was on a state road, would MassHighway allow the applicant to put these driveways this close together. Mr. Plourde stated that there would be a lot of things to be considered, such as the safest alternatives and the layouts, and it is a complicated answer.  Mr. Puleo continued stating that he and Ms. McKnight had some information about the traffic lights, to which Mr. Correnti suggested the team focus their next topic of discussion on traffic.

Jason Plourde, traffic consultant from Greenman Pedersen, stated that Councilor O’Keefe brought up some issues with the traffic signal where Loring Avenue, Jefferson and Canal Streets meet.  As a result of that, they reached out to MassDOT District 4 to have them do some field checks to make sure all of the equipment is functioning properly, which includes loop detectors that detect the cars.  They checked the signal earlier this week and found that everything is functioning properly.  They stated that they go out to check signal functions when they receive a complaint and Mr. Plourde was the first person to call about this signal.  He also looked into video detection in lieu of loop detectors, which have pros and cons.  When construction is being done it can disrupt the functionality of a loop detector, however snow can disrupt a video detector.  The state would take that into consideration due to the mast arms on Jefferson Avenue; however on Canal Street there are no mast arms thus the video detection will not work correctly due to the wind.  The other issue the state had was on the southbound approach where there was an exclusive right turn lane onto Jefferson Avenue that the city created prior to 2005 and the problem is that there is only one set of loop detectors which is not ideal.  There should be one loop detector for each lane.  They are also considering replacing lenses on the lights to reduce the glare.  They are working with the City Electrician, John Giardi, and MassDOT to determine the best solutions for this intersection.  Mr. Puleo asked if there are any planned improvements for this intersection, to which Mr. Plourde stated no.  

Mr. Correnti stated that they were asked to look at the Canal Street entrance, specifically if a car wants to make a left turn into the site if this would prohibit through traffic continuing down Canal Street.  Mr. Plourde displayed through the slides that there was plenty of room for another car to get by a car entering the site from a left turn on Canal Street.  Mr. Correnti stated that AECOM and the Salem Police Department concurred with their assessment.     

Mr. Correnti then addressed the issue on the curb cut in relation to potential restrictions with egress and ingress from Canal Street.  He stated that the left turn in, as noted by AECOM, becomes crucial to the project.  He also addressed the left turns out of the site onto canal Street could possibly be restricted at certain times, like the CVS site at Highland Avenue and Marlborough Road.  This is something that could be agreed to, particularly if they want to have up to a one year trial period.  Mr. Correnti further stressed that if a situation arises after two months, then they would not wait a full year for the trail period before they would come back to the Board to make changes.  This concluded the issues in terms of traffic.

Mr. Correnti then turned the presentation to the issue of units on the roof of the building, and brought pictures to share with the Board and the public.  Kevin Paton, BKA Architects, spoke on behalf of Bryce Hillman.  He described the roof of a similar style building, demonstrating that the roof is essentially a large bathtub.  He stated that the noise measured right at the roof is between 80 to 85 decibels, however the reading taken ten feet away from the roof unit registers at 42 decibels, which is roughly the same volume that two people would have a normal speaking conversation standing three feet apart.  He feels very confident that the unit would not be exceeding the state level of 10 decibels over ambient.  They have the ambulance building at the rear with two units, as well as at least two units on top of the Tedeschi’s and the Eastern Bank building, and they feel that their roof structure in combination with the design of the building, that there would be little to no impact on the neighbors.

Mr. Correnti moved onto the granite curbing issue, which was presented by Mr. Henry.  Mr. Henry stated that there was a recommendation by the Board to extend the granite curbing into the site from Canal Street.  They propose to extend the vertical granite curb on the sidewalk side, to be extended another 50 feet to the first space at the Auto Zone.  Similarly, on the other side, they propose to extend the granite curbing to the radius tip, which was chosen because pass-by traffic looking into the site will get that curb appeal.  Similarly on Jefferson Avenue, they are proposing to extend the granite curbing.  They noted that pass-by traffic will get the visual granite look.  Mr. Correnti stated that this concluded their presentation.

Mr. Puleo asked what the rest of the concrete will be, to which Mr. Henry stated that it will be extruded concrete curb so it is essentially a separate piece which sits on top of the rest of the curb like a tube.  Mr. Puleo then asked if this is the only curbing they are installing, specifically from the entrance to the site on Canal Street to go around the perimeter, with a break for the drive through at the Eastern Bank.  Mr. Henry described on the plan where the vertical curbing will be installed throughout the site.  Mr. Puleo noted that anything that is set in a binder material is going to move after a period of time and the Highland Avenue site has held up well with granite curbing.  His personal feeling is that it is not a lot of curbing and this should be looked at again, to which Mr. Correnti agreed to look at it again.  He then discussed the issue of the driveway, where he stated that they talked about eliminating two entrances and having one opening, which he feels is the safer option.  Traffic-wise he thinks it would make more sense, as well.  He also stated that the left-turn restriction entering Canal Street definitely requires a trial period and noted that at other local CVS sties there are left turn restrictions.  He stated that in terms of delineating the driveway on Kimball Road that he feels it is a safety issue specifically where the parking spaces are along Bertini’s building, and he thinks they should consider moving those spaces.  

Mr. Ready stated that he would like CVS to consider how this Board and the city views this site as it is a very visible site and is part of the long term growth of the city.  The other CVS sites in the city have very nice curbing and have their own traffic issues that have been resolved cooperatively by CVS.  He would very pleased to see more attention given to the granite curbing so that it looks good and is compatible to the other CVS sites in the city.  He also stated that in terms of the location of the entranceways on Jefferson Street, the first entrance coming in from Canal Street is as dangerous to the potential customer turning in as is it for the customer entering from any other direction on Jefferson.  He noted that the further away the driveway is from the intersection the higher the risk for a rear-end collision.  He still cannot grasp why the applicant wants the two entrances so close together.  Mr. Correnti addressed this issue stating that if there is no entry to the Tedeschi’s and the Eastern Bank in front of their building then this project is going to be in jeopardy. Having one entrance for all of the businesses is not going to work well.  The curb cut that was chosen to be closed is exactly for a safety reason.  Other options have been modeled and look at and they do not work.  They had peer review look at this and agree that closing one driveway is better than leaving them all open, and additionally the police and fire departments have looked at this and while it’s not ideal, this is what works for the needs of the site and allows the development to go forward.   

Mr. Kavanagh asked if there was a crosswalk located on the plan where the yield sign is, to which Mr. Plourde said yes.

Mr. McCabe asked if the red arrows on the plan are solely to go to CVS, to which Mr. Correnti responded stating that it was a connector to other businesses.  Mr. McCabe asked about signage and Mr. Correnti stated that he doesn’t believe there are any proposed changes to the current signage.  

Issue opened to the public for comment
Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, stated that she has a number of questions including how the snow storage works; the location of the handicap spaces in relation to the incline by the bank (she recommended that handicapped parking on the auto zone side have a deeper buffer from Canal Street, to which Mr. Correnti stated that is where they are).  She also asked about the number of HVAC units needed if they demolish the smaller building on the site.  She also wants to make a point about the outside sidewalk on the Jefferson that she thinks it’s unrealistic as people will be walking with their backs to the traffic to get into the site, and should be on the inside arc, not the outside arc.  Her final concern is in regards to the angle of crosswalk, which should be angled to encourage walking through the crosswalk.  Mr. Henry began the team’s response by describing the pedestrian route on the slides, and Mr. Correnti then described the locations of the sidewalks.  He continued stating that they agree with Ms. Wilbert’s statement that there is going to be a lot of foot traffic, as that is what they are counting on for this site, which is why they are putting in a lot of crosswalks and sidewalks.  He noted that if this doesn’t work then they are going to have to come up with something else, but they do think this is laid out safely.

Ben Anderson, 10 Adams Street, stated that he understands the economics of the driveways in front of Tedeschi’s and Eastern Bank, but his concern is safety.  He does not believe that those driveways are 200 feet apart, as required by Salem zoning laws.  He feels that this development is shoehorning a CVS into the property and there needs to be some accommodation to that.  He commends the developer for going a long way to address his quality of life concerns and he appreciates that.  However, he is concerned about how people will go into that driveway.  In relation to the noise, he stated that at the last Planning Board meeting they were going to test the noise and he wants to make sure that is going to happen and that the levels don’t exceed the levels as required.  He then asked if the Board can limit construction hours on site or if that is for the Building Inspector.  Mr. Puleo stated that the Salem zoning ordinance states that work can be done during certain hours daily (8 a.m. to either 4 or 5 p.m.) and if any other work needs to be done outside of those hours they have to get approval from the City Council.

Jim Rose, 25 Linden Street, asked about the exterior design of the building.  He would like to see a design similar to the one at 426 Essex Street, the former Crosby’s site, or the CVS at the corner of Rantoul Street and Route 62.  Mr. Puleo stating that there is some brick and Mr. Correnti stated that they can get him a set of the plans with further renderings of the design.

Ward 5 Councilor Josh Turiel, 238 Lafayette Street, stated that he would like to go back to the traffic plan on Canal Street.  He states that when he spoke with the Salem Police, he said he would like to see Kimball Road more emphasized as an access point and he received feedback that was supportive of this.  He thinks that the side spaces on Kimball Road could be lost to this project which will help with the traffic usage on Kimball Road and will lessen the usage on other access points.

Jonathan Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street, states that he agrees that the poured curbing doesn’t last and the striping won’t last either.

Anthony Pascarella, 27 ½ Crowdis Street, commented that he frequents AutoZone a lot and entering from Canal Street is difficult.  He asked if there is a light being proposed.  Mr. Puleo said no, that they are proposing cross hatch painting like what is in front of Riley Plaza.  Mr. Pascarella noted that it he doesn’t see that working in front of the fire station.  He also asked when the ambulances will be exiting the site.  Ms. McKnight reiterated that 95% of their use during the night originates from the site, and during the day it’s 40%, and noted that most of the time they use the Canal Street exit when leaving the site.

Jim Kearney, 1 ½ Cambridge Street, stated that the double intersection on Jefferson Street seems problematic and he sees accidents happening there.  He also said that it would be nice if CVS could be closer to the street to eliminate the sea of cars similar to what happened to Public Storage on Bridge Street, which is more pleasing from his perspective.  His third concern was in regards to noise during construction.  He stated that people get around it very easily and it is difficult to enforce.

Mr. Correnti stated that they would like to work with the Planning Staff some remaining issues.  He noted that their goal from day one was to give the Board the best project they can in order to have construction begin in the Spring and have the store open in 2012.  He recognizes that they have a couple of issues left and they would like to get back to the Board at the next meeting on those issues. Mr. Correnti also noted that there is no new information to present so hopefully at the next meeting the Board can draft a decision for the next meeting.  Ms. McKnight stated that there had been a letter submitted by Councilor O’Keefe that encourages the Board to explore with MassDOT improvements to the traffic signal at Jefferson Street, Canal Street and Loring Avenue.

Mr. Puleo then asked about the signage issues that were presented at the first meeting and what has to be brought before MassDOT, and how they can address those issues in the decision.  Mr. Plourde responded stating that AECOM asked for a formal response from MassDOT to address if they needed an access permit for the driveways and they have submitted the formal request to MassDOT.  As far as the signs and the traffic signal improvements, that is something that is in the works and they are working closely with John Giardi.  In terms of what the Board can do, he is not sure, but he stated that the state is aware of the project and the deficiencies identified on the project.  Mr. Puleo stated that the signage is an easy fix.  Mr. Correnti said that they will work the issues out with the city so they have an answer for the Board at the next meeting.  Mr. Correnti stated that they are pushing for a draft decision because they don’t know when the next meeting will be due to the loss of voting Board Members.

Helen Sides made a motion to continue the public hearing until February 16, 2012, seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 7-0.

Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit.  The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.  

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Wetlands & Flood Hazard Districts Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/11
  • Site Plan Review application, date-stamped 12/22/12
  • Planned Unit Development Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/12
  • Plans titled Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development, Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove 60-64 Grove Street & 3 Harmony Grove Road, Salem, MA,” dated 12/20/11
  • Letter from James R. Treadwell, dated 1/30/12
  • Email message from Jim Kearney dated 2/2/12
  • Letter from Ward 6 Councillor Paul C. Prevey dated 1/17/12
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the petitioners on this project, stated that they have a mixed use project that they are very proud to present.  They plan to give an overview of the project tonight.  He introduced the owners of the project including Michael and Robin Hubbard from MRM Project Management, also as a partner is Eric Carlson from the Federated Companies, who is responsible for the housing components of this project; also part of the team is Bob Griffin, from Griffin Engineering group in Beverly who is the Site Civil Engineer and Project Manager; and Brian Beaudette, who is the architect; Giles Ham is the Traffic Consultant; Luke Fabbri is the LSP on the site; and Steve McDonagh is our Landscape Architect.  Both Luke and Giles are here tonight but their presentations will come at a later date.  This evening they would like to give a background of Federated, and they will discuss the unique characteristics and challenges of the site. Mr. Correnti noted that in spite of the challenges of the site they have met all zoning requirements and the site will have plenty of parking.  The proposed project is a mixed use project, though primarily residential, which will be three low-rise buildings that will mostly be residential apartments. There will also be a 17,000 square foot commercial site and will include the construction of a public walkway, which will be built along the canal, and will link to the train station, and link all the way to the Peabody line.  

Eric Carlson, Development Manager for Federated Companies, gives a brief profile of Federated.  

Bob Griffin, Civil Engineer, stated that the project site is made up of 6.8 acres of land, and described each parcel of land.  Mr. Puleo asked if the property weaves in and out of all of those homes, to which Mr. Griffin said yes and noted that in the areas where there are encroachments, they don’t plan to do anything about those.  He spoke of previous uses of the site including a number of industrial uses and he shared atlases of Salem from the 1800s.  He then showed pictures of the current buildings and discussed their uses. He also showed pictures of the areas they are utilizing for this project, specifically Beaver and Grove Streets; and he discussed the challenges of the site with the old industrial buildings as well as the railroad tracks.  He discussed activity and use limitations on the property in relation to the pollutants.  He stated that MRM took over this area in 2006 and have spent thousands of dollars cleaning up the site, and all of the environmental contamination issues have been dealt with.  There are other environmental issues that have to be dealt with which is why they conducted soil boring tests in the fall to advance that portion of the project.  They are concerned about protecting the North River Canal and it is his belief that the environmental cleanup work they are doing here is going to be best for the smelt fish that swim through the canal in the Spring.  They have flood zones in the area and where they are below the 100 year flood line, that is an engineering challenge for the group.  Mr. Griffin states that they are within the buffer zone of the river, thus they have to get permits from the Conservation Commission for anything that they propose for this site.  A considerable effort has been made by MRM to re-use the buildings but the structures are in poor condition and were not well maintained, thus the ability to re-use the site for those industrial uses was not possible.   He then presented a slide on the re-development plan which included saving the 60 Grove Street property for office or storage type uses, and they think this is an important part of the project.  They are proposing three four story buildings which will have a total of 141 dwelling units, which are 1 and 2 bedroom market-rate apartments and will have about 250 spaces of parking.  Their main interest is on Harmony Grove Road where they will reconstruct a new bridge as the current one is not usable, and it will be wider and more suitable for the future use.  The roadways will slope up to hit the front of the buildings.  The project also includes a walkway that is intended for public use, and they think that this is an important part of the project that will connect people to other areas.  The project is 0.8 miles to the T station and 1 mile from Peabody Square.  The commercial site also includes 239 parking spaces and they will re-landscape the area.  They also just met with City of Peabody and City of Salem officials and their consultants to discuss the impact this proposal will have on the Peabody flood improvement plan and the City of Peabody was pleased with the plan, as was the Army Corps of Engineers, which makes their project more viable. Mr. Griffin also pointed out that on the Beaver Street side they are going to maintain the mature vegetation.  There will be retaining walls adjacent to the buildings to maintain the mature vegetation between the existing residences and the proposed development.  They feel that by maintaining the mature vegetation that will naturally screen the Beaver Street side. They will clean out all of the trash in the area as well as remove the waste water treatment plant that is close to some of the houses.  Most of the tall trees on Harmony Grove Street will remain.

Mr. George asked how bad the contamination is on this site.  Mr. Griffin stated that this needs to be discussed more in-depth than they can discuss tonight.  However, Luke Fabbri, the LSP responsible for this project, has spent a significant amount of time working on this and knows the types of contaminants at the site.  He states that a lot of what he has seen at the site has been metals.  

Brian Beaudette, Architect, will walk the Board through the buildings and their relation to the areas of the site.  He showed the Board the buildings on Harmony Grove and the Grove Street entrance, which is a commercial building.  He stated that where the old grist mill is will be a building with four floors.  He presented another slide that shows the elevations of the site.  He explained that on the commercial part of the site, the idea is to completely renovate the building while keeping the historic shape of the building.  He then showed a slide with an elevation of the buildings and explained that they will use hardy plank on the buildings.  He concluded his presentation by showing the direction of the path and how it weaves through the site.

Mr. Correnti stated that there are one or two slides left then they will conclude the overview.  He said that this project meets the PUD requirement. He noted that this is an investment of $20 million and is the type of investment that can spur growth in the neighborhood.  

Issue opened to the public for comment
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, asked if this project is going before other commissions.  Mr. Correnti stated that nothing else has been filed, but they will need to go to the Conservation Commission, the Historical Commission for a waiver of demolition delay, they will need a Chapter 91 license for the rebuilding of the bridge over the canal, and they are going to file and Environmental Notification Form with the state.

Jonathon Reardon, President of the Board of Trustees at Harmony Grove Cemetery, 35 Chestnut Street, stated that it is his understanding that Harmony Grove Cemetery owns property on Harmony Grove Road including number 3 Harmony Grove Road as well as that bridge.  Mr. Puleo asked him if what he is saying that part of this project is taking place on property that the Harmony Grove Cemetery owns, to which he said yes.  Mr. Correnti stated that would be a problem, but they don’t believe that is the case, and they will look into it and they will come back with an answer on that.

Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, stated that she is glad that there is a proposal to use that site but it seems to her that the density of 141 units are not at all in keeping with the spirit of keeping a historical flavor.  She said that these new buildings are one of the most disgusting things she has ever seen and she was hoping for townhouses and something with more angles that don’t look like railroad cars.  She asked how set in stone is the design of the buildings and can they make comments and recommendations about changing the buildings.  Mr. Puleo said they are just at the beginning.

Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked what is the total square footage of residential space.  Ms. McKnight stated that it is 135,768 square feet of residential space.

Barbara Cleary, 104 Federal Street, stated that she has been involved in planning on the North River Corridor for many years and is pleased to see this development; however she is disappointed with many aspects of it.  She said that originally this wasn’t part of the five year plan, but with the zoning change this became a new residential project and she urged the Board to think about the design principles of the North River Canal Plan.  She says this is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood planning principles.  Under the PUD the Board has the power to really shape this and she urges the Board to consider that.  

Ms. McKnight stated that she had a letter from Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, and asked Councilor Prevey if he wanted her to read his letter from January 17, 2012 outlining his concerns into the record.  He responded that at some point he would like to speak about it, but as long as it gets included the record, it doesn’t have to be read into the record now.  And he will speak about all of his concerns in later meetings.  Ms. McKnight stated that there was correspondence with Jim Kearney with visuals and asked if he would prefer to have his correspondence read.

Jim Kearney, 1 ½ Cambridge Street, stated that so many people live in Salem because of the architecture and this really seems to violate that.  A lot of the buildings that have come before the Board had developers that had seen fit to adhere to these architecture standards.  He would hate to see this set the tone for the rest of the area.

Tim Ready made a motion to continue the public hearing until February 16, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 7-0.

Old/New Business
Ms. McKnight stated that as part of the Urban Renewal Plan the consultants on behalf of the City have filed the environmental notification form.  The Planning Board has received a copy and if anyone is interested in seeing it, it is available through the Planning Department.

Ms. McKnight also stated that they have to sign the Tri-Party Agreement document for George Atkins.

Mr. Puleo suggested that the Board get something for Nadine for her retirement from the Board.

Mr. Puleo also said if anyone has any concerns about CVS to please email Ms. McKnight.

New Board Member George McCabe was welcomed to the Board.

Adjournment
Helen Sides made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by George McCabe.  All approved 7-0.  Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:40 pm.


Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk

For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/ 

Approved by the Planning Board 3/1/12