Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 05/17/2012
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 5/17/12

A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

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

Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:18 pm.      

Approval of Minutes

May 3, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Tim Ready motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Mark George. All approved 6-0.

Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96) and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26, Lot 2). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.  APPLICANT REQUESTS TO OPEN THIS HEARING ON JUNE 21, 2012.

Helen Sides made a motion to continue to June 21, 2012, seconded by Randy Clarke.  All approved 6-0.

Public hearing: Application of ICECAT LLC requesting a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law for the property located at 18 FELT ST, Salem, MA (Map 27, Lot 69).  Property is proposed to be divided into three lots, one of which lacks the requisite frontage.

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Application date-stamped 4/26/12 and accompanying materials
  • Plan of Land, 18 Felt St., Salem, Property of Icecat, LLC, dated January 12, 2012, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation
Scott Grover, 27 Congress Street, representing ICECAT LLC, which owns the property at 18 Felt Street.  He reminded the Board of the previous publicity this site has received and noted that this is part of the Ropes Estate.  The original intent was to divide the lot into three lots with three new houses, but after speaking with the neighborhood, they decided to preserve the historic house.  He described the three lots and explained that one requires relief from the frontage; a Variance has been granted by the Board of Appeals.  He comes to the Planning Board tonight asking for relief from the frontage requirement and for Form A approval.

Mark George asked for clarification on what buildings are still standing.  Mr. Grover described the current buildings on the property.  

Issue opened to the public for comment
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he is speaking in favor of the project.  He noted that they have worked closely with the Historic Commission to come up with guidelines for this project and he is enthusiastically in favor of it.  He described it as a win-win situation.

Tim Ready made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mark George.  All approved, 6-0.

Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the waiver from frontage requirements, seconded by Helen Sides.  All approved 6-0.  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Request for endorsement of Approval Not Required:  Request of ICECAT LLC for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control.  The property, located at 18 FELT ST, Salem, MA (Map 27, Lot 69) is proposed to be divided into three lots.

  • Application date-stamped 4/26/12 and accompanying materials
  • Plan of Land, 18 Felt St., Salem, Property of Icecat, LLC, dated January 12, 2012, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation
George McCabe made a motion to approve the endorsement, seconded by Mark George.  All approved 6-0.  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Tim Kavanagh arrived at 7:25 pm.

Continuation of 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:

  • Site Plan Review application, date-stamped 12/22/12
  • Planned Unit Development Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/12
  • Wetland and Flood Hazard District 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 Ward 2 Councilor Michael Sosnowski, dated 5/16/12
  • Letter from Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, dated 5/17/12
  • Letter from James Treadwell, AICP, dated 5/17/12
  • Letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services, dated 4/12/12
  • “Letter Report – Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove Peer Review,” prepared by Woodard & Curran, dated 5/10/12
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners from MRM Project Management.  He stated that since the last meeting they had a site walk-through earlier this week.  Their presentation will include a presentation by Bob Griffin, the site engineer, who will show cross sections.  They will be ready at the next meeting to address issues raised by the Peer Review Consultant.  Finally they will also review the site design renderings with Brian Beaudette, the site architect.  

David White, Vice President at Woodard Curran, 35 New England Business Center, stated that his firm has been assisting the City on other drainage projects, including the flood mitigation on the South River area.  He conducted a peer review and submitted a letter of 28 items to be addressed.  He reviewed the highlights of the 28 items on the letter submitted to the Board:
1. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.1.5.2 requires as a condition of site plan approval that “There are adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and property, particularly in the event of flooding of the lot(s) caused by either overspill from water bodies or high runoff.” The FEMA 100-year flood elevation is shown on the plans as 10.8. The Applicant states that the Grove Street driveway can be used for egress during this extreme storm event. It appears that during the 100-year storm event, the driveway connecting to Harmony Grove Road will be flooded and the driveway connecting to Grove Street will be partially flooded.
Recommendation: The Applicant should evaluate the potential to adjust/move the Grove Street entrance towards the south to take advantage of the higher roadway elevation along Grove Street.

Mr. White recognizes that there is a challenging intersection just south of the site and that the Planning Board has retained a Traffic Consultant - this recommendation should be shared with the Traffic Consultant as part of their review to evaluate if this change can be accommodated safely.  Mr. Puleo asked if there is anything they can do at the Harmony Grove entrance.  Mr. White said not unless they were willing to do some vertical raising of the elevation on the public right of way.

2. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.1.6.1 requires a site plan at a scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet be submitted as part of the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Application. The Applicant has provided plans at a scale of one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet.
Recommendation: The Applicant submit site plans at a scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet to conform to the Ordinance or request a waiver from the Ordinance.
3. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.1.6.2 requires testing for the seasonal high water table is performed during the last two (2) weeks of March or the first three (3) weeks of April. The Applicant submitted testing performed on October 17, 2011 to determine the seasonal high water table.
Recommendation: The Applicant should perform testing to determine the seasonal high water table during the time period specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The logs of the test pits observed on October 17, 2011 did not indicate groundwater, redoximorphic features or other evidence of seasonal high groundwater was observed and the seasonal high water table was estimated to be at the lowest elevation of the test pits. The Applicant should consider a groundwater adjustment to the bottom of the test pits and in future test pits at the site.

Stormwater Management Standards (SWMS)
Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges
4. The Applicant has proposed four new outfalls to the North River. The stormwater management plan proposes to utilize deep sump catch basins with oil/water hoods and proprietary separators to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge. The applicant has also designed rip rap erosion control at the stormwater outfalls to address the proposed discharge velocities.
Recommendation: The Applicant meets the requirements of Standard 1 provided
comments pertaining to Standard 4, outlined below, are adequately addressed.
Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation
5. The Applicant has provided design calculations indicating an approximate 3 percent increase in post-development peak discharge rates for the 2-, 10- and 100-year storm events. The stormwater management system discharges to the North River Canal, a tidally influenced water body. The SWMS specify that Standard 2 may be waived for discharges to land subject to coastal storm flowage.
Recommendation: This standard has been met.
Standard 3: Recharge
6. The Applicant states that the on-site soils are mapped as Urban Land by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey for Essex County MA, Southern Part. The USDA has not specified the hydrologic soil group (HSG) for Urban Land. The Applicant assumed a HSG C for the site and calculated the required recharge volume based on this designation. The project may be considered a mix of redevelopment and new development. The Applicant has proposed to infiltrate the required recharge volume for the increase in impervious area under proposed conditions in accordance with the SWMS. W&C is unable to determine if two (2) feet of separation between the bottom of the proposed infiltration systems and the estimated seasonal high groundwater (ESHGWT) has been provided.
Recommendation: The Applicant should address comment #3 above to verify the ESHGWT. The Applicant should also provide a copy of the aforementioned USDA Soil Survey.
7. The Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1 requires a mounding analysis on a site that has, or is adjacent to a site that has, an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) that precludes inducing runoff to the groundwater, pursuant to MGL Chapter 21E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan 310 CMR 40.0000. The Applicant has indicated in the stormwater report that portions of the site have AUL.
Recommendation: The Applicant should depict the location of the AULs on the plans to confirm that the proposed infiltration system is not restricted by AULs on-site. Also, if there is an AUL on-site, that precludes infiltration of stormwater, a mounding analysis should be provided for the proposed infiltration system to confirm that the infiltration will not cause or contribute to groundwater contamination.
Standard 4: Water Quality
8. The Applicant has calculated the stormwater quality volume required to meet the Standard by applying a ½-inch runoff depth over the total proposed impervious area. The Water Quality Volume calculations included in Attachment B of the drainage report indicate there are impervious areas that do not receive treatment for TSS removal and that these areas should be considered “de minimis” in accordance with the SWMS. The TSS removal calculations provided by the Applicant use a weighted average to comply with the 80 percent TSS removal requirement based on this “de minimis” assumption. The Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook (the Handbook), Volume 3, Chapter 1 details the conditions to be met for an impervious area to be considered “de minimis” and allow the use of a weighted average TSS removal calculation to comply with Standard 4. The following conditions have not been met or documented by the Applicant:
a. Physical site conditions must preclude installation of a TSS treatment practice.
b. The 2-year, 24-hour storm event discharge from an individual outlet must be less than or equal to one (1) cubic foot per second (cfs). The stormwater calculations indicate the 2-year, 24-hour discharge from subcatchment P4 to the North River Canal is 1.56 cfs.
c. Standard 2 and Standard 3 must be achieved on a site-wide basis.
A significant portion of the site is considered a redevelopment and therefore is required to comply with Standard 4 to the “maximum extent practicable”. The Applicant is proposing to provide storm water treatment to a majority of the site which currently provides little to no treatment, at equal to or greater than 80% TSS removal efficiency. It is our opinion that the propose storm water management system, if sized properly, would provide an improvement to the overall water quality from the project site.
Recommendation: The Applicant should address item a above and the size of the
proposed units should be determined in accordance with the MassDEP design criteria
(see comments #9 & #10 below).
9. The Applicant is proposing to treat stormwater runoff for TSS removal with Stormceptor water quality units, models 900 and 450i. A Technology Assessment Report describing the TSS removal capability of different size Stormceptor water quality units is included in the Drainage Report as Attachment H. The Technology Assessment Report indicates the maximum treatment flow rate in gallons per minute (gpm) for the STC 900 model to be 285 gpm, or about 0.64 cubic feet per second. Information on the STC 450i model is not provided in the report. The HydroCAD analysis results show that the maximum flow rate is exceeded in all the proposed STC 900 models for all the design storm events.
Recommendation: The Applicant should provide water quality units sized to meet the expected TSS removal design rate at the design flow rates from the HydroCAD analysis.
10. The Technology Assessment report also establishes a maximum impervious drainage area guideline for the STC 900 to achieve 70 percent TSS removal at 0.55 acres. The Stormceptor water quality units labeled WQS1, WQS2 and WQS3 receive stormwater runoff from more than the 0.55 acre guideline.
Recommendation: The Applicant should provide water quality units sized to meet the expected TSS removal design rate for the impervious area that drains to the water quality unit.
Standard 5: Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads
The Applicant has stated that the site is not a land use with higher potential pollutant loading.
Standard 6: Critical Areas
The Applicant has stated that the site is not a tributary to an environmentally-critical area as defined by the SWMS.
Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum extent practicable.
11. The site is a mix of redevelopment and new development. To the extent the project includes development of previously undeveloped areas, the project must comply fully with the Stormwater Management Standards. Woodard & Curran is unable to confirm compliance with Standard 7 until the Applicant has provided documentation showing compliance with Standards 2 through 6 to the maximum extent practicable, and a pollution prevention plan and a long-term operation and maintenance plan in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standards 8 and 9.
Recommendation: The Applicant should address Comments #6-14 appropriately, to document compliance with Standard 7.
Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sediment Control 12. The Applicant has stated that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) consistent with the NPDES Construction General Permit requirements will be prepared and submitted to the City at a later date.
Recommendation: The Applicant, as a condition of approval, should provide a SWPPP to the Planning Board prior to any land disturbance.
Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan
13. The Applicant has provided an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. The Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook specifies that a plan that is drawn to scale, showing the location of all stormwater BMPs along with the discharge points should be provided. This plan was not included in the O&M Plan.
Recommendation: The Applicant should provide the plan described above as part of the O&M Plan.
Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges
14. The Applicant has provided a blank Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement form.
Recommendation: The Applicant, as a condition of approval, provide a completed and signed Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement to the Planning Board prior to the seeking an occupancy permit.

Mr. Puleo asked if standard 8 applies during construction and 9 and 10 apply after construction, to which Mr. White said yes.  

General Engineering Comments
15. The Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C-4 does not provide sufficient detail near the northwest corner of the proposed parking area (parking are located west of Building #1 and adjacent to the railroad tracks) to establish the limits of work in this area. It is not apparent if a retaining wall or other soil stabilization measures may be required to support the proposed grading near the parking area.
Recommendation: The Applicant should provide additional grading detail at the perimeter of the parking area.
16. The Applicant has shown drainage structures that are designed with multiple inlet pipes. Woodard & Curran has concern with the constructability of some of the structures as shown on the plans:
Recommendation: The Applicant should evaluate the constructability of DMH 5 and DMH 10 considering the number, size and orientation of pipes being served by the drain manholes.
17. The Applicant proposes to connect the roof leaders into the proposed closed pipe drainage system upstream of water quality treatment structures. Stormwater runoff from rooftops is generally considered “clean” by the SWMS and is not required to be treated for stormwater quality.
Recommendation: The Applicant should consider redirecting the roof leaders to structures downstream of the water quality treatment devices to provide more effective treatment of stormwater. It appears that this suggestion would require minor revisions to the roof drainage pipes on the north side of the buildings. The site layout and topography may result in making such revisions to the roof leaders on the south side of the buildings impracticable.
18. Details for the Stomceptor water quality units are provided on the Details II, Sheet C-7. The details appear to be a standard manufacturer’s detail and depict a single inlet pipe. Stormceptor water quality units WQS1, WQS2, WQS4 and WQS5 are shown on the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C-4 as having multiple inlet pipes.
Recommendation: The Applicant should confirm with the manufacturer that the devices can be manufactured and will function as intended considering the location, size and orientation of the inlets. The details for each structure should be provided to reflect the intended design.

Mr. George noted that we know the drainage in this area is not functioning correctly currently; how do we approach that?  Mr. White stated that there is drainage infrastructure in the street that they know is not working, and the applicant should evaluate the drainage when the river is low.  Nothing drains when the river is high because of the lack of elevation of the road.  Mr. George asked if the additional impervious surface proposed for the site will exacerbate the problem.  Mr. White said he’s not sure if there is additional water being directed into the street – the applicant did not address this – so he is asking them to document this and whether the existing city system can handle this drainage.

19. The drainage analysis does not include calculations for the stormwater runoff from the subject site to the existing drainage systems on Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street.
Recommendation: The Applicant evaluate, what if any, the project will increase the
peak rate of discharge to the public right of way. If so, the applicant should confirm the existing drainage systems on Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street have the capacity to receive the additional flow.
20. The HydroCAD analysis models CB10 and CB11 as 15-inch diameter pipes connecting to DMH9. The Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan, Sheet C-4 indicates a 12-inch from CB 11 to DMH9.
Recommendation: The Applicant should address this inconsistency.
21. The Applicant has included a dynamic tailwater as one of the input parameters (boundary conditions) in the HydroCAD analysis. The Applicant does not provide documentation to support the assumed tailwater elevations.
Recommendation: The Applicant set the initial tailwater condition at a constant elevation equal to the mean high high water (MHHW) elevation for the North River in the HydroCAD analysis. This will allow the HydroCAD model to analyze the hydraulic performance of the project’s stormwater system when the peak stormwater discharge rate occurs during periods of MHHW.
22. The HydroCAD analysis indicates many of the drainage structures will surcharge during the 100-year design storm event. The water surface elevation at the Proposed Building #3 trench drain is 11.42’ during the 100-year storm event. The adjacent garage elevation is 11.0.
Recommendation: The Applicant should revise the drainage system such that the water surface elevation at this location is below the garage elevation.

Mr. Puleo asked if high tide would prevent the pipe from draining.  Mr. White said yes, and added that whatever could be pushed through with two inches of pressure is all that could get through.  Mr. Puleo asked if his recommendation was the larger the pipe the better, to which Mr. White said yes.

23. The Applicant is proposing to construct retaining walls along the south and south west sides of the proposed parking areas. The height of the wall varies, but in some locations reaches 15-20 feet in height. The applicant has provided two retaining wall details, a gravity wall and a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall. They have also provided an “approximate limit of grading” at the top of the wall to indicate the extents of earth disturbance is required to anticipated construct the wall. The details indicate “typical wall sections shown for Planning Board permitting only. Detailed design plans required prior to construction”.
Recommendation: The Applicant should provide the following additional information to demonstrate the appropriateness of the wall design:
  • Basis of the approximate limit of grading shown on the Plan. Such limits are generally a function of soil characteristics, overburden condition, wall height and wall type. The limit of grading is necessary to evaluate the remaining vegetated buffer adjacent to the walls.
  • Additional information as to where/how runoff collected at the top of the wall will be conveyed into the site’s drainage system at the ends of the walls.
  • Evaluation of the location, species and size of existing and proposed planting materials above the wall.
Mr. George asked about the wall systems, specifically what issues are raised with the wall construction in relation to the stormwater runoff.  Mr. White explained that this was part of the next comment and that they wanted more detail on the drainage system on top of the wall that the applicant is proposing. Mr. White spoke of the nature of the planting plan in relation to the proximity of the wall to make sure it is compatible and may have future impacts to this wall.  

24. The Applicant is proposing to construct a vehicular bridge across North River, to serve as the project’s primary access/egress from the property. The bridge is proposed at the location of an existing wood and metal bridge. The Applicant has provided a general bridge cross section and noted that bridge design is conceptual and subject to further geotechnical and hydraulic evaluation. W&C notes, that the applicant is proposing to alter the waterway opening (widen) and cross section (raise) of river at this crossing. As such, it is unclear as to what, if any, impact these alterations will have on the flood elevations along the North River, upgradient of the proposed crossing.
Recommendation: The Applicant should perform a step-backwater analysis for the 10-,50- and 100-year events for both existing and proposed conditions to demonstrate the adequacy of the hydraulic opening, structure depth and profile of the access road. This information will also be necessary to address the performance standards for work proposed in areas of jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and National Flood Insurance Program.
25. As noted above, the bridge plans are conceptual in nature and therefore lack details sufficient to evaluate the limit and scope of work of the proposed alterations to the North River. Recommendation: The Applicant should provide a detailed site plan of the bridge site at a suitable scale depicting the entirety of the proposed improvements, including but not limited to, existing bridge structure, existing bank and streambed grades, proposed bridge structure, proposed bank and streambed grades, construction sequencing, sedimentation and erosion controls, extents of stone riprap scour protection, utilities, etc.
26. The Applicant is proposing a 35-foot bridge span. The US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has conducted a hydraulics analysis of the North River as part of the Peabody Square Flood Mitigation Project. The ACOE is currently performing a cost-benefit analysis for implementing improvements along the North River in Salem. Two principal alternatives currently being considered include;
1) Widening the North River to 38 feet along the north bank from Howley Street to a short distance downstream of the subject site bridge and widening North River along the south bank from the MBTA Bridge, past Grove Street to the existing sheet-pile lined portion of the canal.  Widening along the south bank is currently being considered by the ACOE at the location of the proposed gravel path.
2) Widening the river along the north bank as noted above, however instead of widening the south bank a bypass culvert would be installed from MBTA Railroad Bridge to Grove Street, through the area proposed for the proposed parking area and access driveway.
Recommendation: The Applicant should consider providing a minimum span of 38 feet, subject to verification of the waterway adequacy as noted in Comment #24, to accommodate potential future widening of the North River. This will prevent having to replace the proposed bridge with a larger span in the future and avoid corresponding disruption to the Site’s principal access/egress.

Mr. George then asked if the widening could have a major impact on this project.  Mr. White stated that the area to be widened is relatively narrow and there is adequate space between the area the Army Corps of Engineers proposes to widen the river and the buildings.  

Mr. White noted that the Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to widen the canal to 38 feet.  He says the hydraulic capacity of the bridge is defined by the open area under the bridge as well flood waters to pass over the roadway and over the bridge.  The applicant is proposing to widen the bridge but not necessarily to 38 feet.  They are also raising the profile of the existing ground in that area.  Mr. White says he is asking for a detailed analysis from the applicant of whether they will raise the water surface elevation – will the bridge serve as a hydraulic restriction – or is the proposal sufficient to overcome the ability of the river to overtop the bridge, to force the water under the bridge if the bridge – or have they not made it wide enough?  He is asking the applicant to evaluate that.  

27. The Applicant is proposing to utilize existing water mains on Grove Street and Beaver Street to serve the domestic and fire protection demands of the proposed facility. W&C has the following comments and recommendations pertaining to the water system depicted on Sheet C-5, Utility Plan;
A. The Applicant should provide documentation (include fire flow tests) indicating that these demands can be accommodated by the existing City system.
B. The plan is difficult to read. The applicant should revise the plan to clearly depict the existing and proposed infrastructure.
C. The plans depict an existing “MH” at the Grove Street entrance. Please provide clarification as to the purpose of the structure. An evaluation of the condition of the structure/components should be conducted and a detail as to what, if any, proposed changes to the structure are being proposed.  
D. It is unclear as to what valving exists at the Grove Street entrance and the condition of the valves at the existing Grove and Beaver Street connection. The applicant should evaluate the operation of the existing valves to provide shut off alternatives and elimination of possible water service interruptions in the future.
28. The Applicant is proposing to utilize an existing sanitary sewer connection on Grove Street and abandon a service adjacent to Harmony Grove. W&C has the following comments and recommendations pertaining to the water system depicted on Sheet C-5, Utility Plan;
A. The Applicant should provide an evaluation as to the anticipated sewer generated from the project and the capacity of the City system to accept the demand.
B. The plan is difficult to read. The applicant should revise the plan to clearly depict the existing and proposed infrastructure. We also recommend the location of the storm drain system be shown on the plan such that potential conflict between the sanitary, water and drainage systems can be evaluated.  Note, 18” of vertical separation should be provided between sanitary and water pipes.
C. Connection of the MDC traps to the proposed sanitary sewer line should be means of a manhole rather than a service connection.
D. The applicant should provide further clarification as to what activities will occur with the abandonment of the existing sewer pump station.
E. The applicant should field verify the elevation of the existing sewers at ESMH #2 as well as evaluate the condition of the existing service from the property to Grove Street.
After presenting the 28 points outlined in his letter, Mr. White concluded his presentation.

Mr. George asked for clarification on a redirection of the sewer system from Harmony Grove to be directed to Grove Street and they are not sure if the city has the capacity to handle that, to which Mr. White said “Correct”.  

Mr. Correnti introduced Bob Griffin, and stated that most of these points will be addressed in the next few weeks.

Mr. Puleo requested a 1 to 20 scale plan for the next meeting.

Mr. Griffin stated that they are coordinating with the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Peabody.  They can’t address the bridge at this time as it has to go through other reviews.  Mr. Griffin explained that due to questions that came out of the site visit, he is readdressing the site cross-sections.  He reviewed the locations of each of the proposed buildings in relation to the neighborhood.  He began at 14 Beaver Street, Section A.  He described the roof elevations at the proposed building and at 14 Beaver Street, noting that the height varies from 2 to 6 feet over the building and 144 feet between the back of the buildings.  He spoke of the planting plan that Mr. Doe presented.  He then showed the other side of Building A and highlighted a ten foot wide gravel path.  Section B is at 24 Beaver Street and the maximum parapet elevation is 71 feet and is 168 feet from the back of Beaver Street to Building #1.  The third cross section was at 38 Beaver Street and building #1, maximum elevation is 71 feet, which is 138 feet from the back of the Beaver Street building to Building #1.  Elevation at the top of the chimney from the top of the building is 38 feet.  The railroad grade constrains what elevation they can come out at and they are constrained to ten feet above the basement elevations.  He then showed a slide on Harmony Grove Road which is level in the vicinity of the railroad tracks, and showed the proposed bridge.  Mr. Griffin noted that they are raising the structures underneath the bridge by about a foot.

Helen Sides asked where the highest point of the retaining wall will be.  Mr. Griffin said he could answer this question after Mr. Beaudette’s presentation.

Brian Beaudette, site architect, showed the main entrances to the buildings and explained that he tried to design each building to be different from the other.  They all include brick, stone, and stucco.  He showed different views of each of the buildings and explained that there will be black grated fencing.  He then took the Board through each of the buildings, showing the designs and unique features of each building.  He also showed the architectural drawings as well and stated that they will get more detailed as the project goes on.

Mr. Griffin then answered Ms. Sides’ question about the wall height – it is 16 feet at the AOH parking area - and he reviewed other wall heights as well.

Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, stated that she received a letter from Ward 2 Councilor Michael Sosnowski, which she read aloud and entered into the record.  She also read aloud a letter and entered it into the record from Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey.  She also stated that Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, has submitted a letter this evening.  Mr. Treadwell paraphrased the letter for the Board and the audience.  Additionally, he shared a graphic that showed the proportion of commercial and residential spaces as proposed.  He said they are interested in how many uses support the area and how many do not.  One of the provisions that the council approved in 2009 was to limit PUDs in the BPD to 50 % residential space and he says this project is not in harmony with the business park zone designation.  His recommendation is that this should not be granted by the Planning Board in its current incarnation.  He made some suggestions including adding an “Enterprise Center North”.  He said that he is worried about compatibility at the edges as well.  He thinks some of the buildings are 6 stories high.  He said this project would not allow for business park development in this specific space.  He also noted that they are setting a precedent here.

Issue opened to the public for comment
Celeste Ross, 20 Beaver Street, stated that she agrees with Councilor Sosnowski’s letter and submitted a petition and is expecting more signatures, which included comments about the height.  She is concerned about traffic issues and she is worried about violence.  She thinks this will make Salem worse in terms of transportation.  She is concerned about her daughter walking home; who knows what kind of people will be living in these buildings?  She stated that the more people who are moving to the area, the more she wants to get away.  Mr. Ready asked how the petition was described/presented; Ms. McKnight read the text above the signatures.  It stated that they are against the project due to the size, crowding, impacts to schools, and other concerns.  

Katrina Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, asked if the retaining wall will go over her yard, and did not see that addressed in the presentation.  Steve Doe showed on the plan where the retaining wall will be.  Ms. Pattison stated that the building is supporting the current height of her property, and wouldn’t the slope collapse during demolition/construction?

Mr. Griffin shows the extent of the retaining wall along the site.   He explains the area will be filled and graded, and the yard would not collapse.

Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, stated that she sees 6 levels, if you count where the utilities are.

Councilor-at-large Tom Furey, 36 Dunlap Street, stated that this area is going to be considered the new golden triangle of Salem.  He stated that he grew up in this area and they are going to see a whole new Salem in the future.  What you see in this area now, no one should have to put up with.  He is in favor of the development of this area.  He thinks that it is going to be seen as a positive for the city of Salem in the future.

John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that the mechanicals are going to be located at eye level to neighbors on Beaver Street, which is terrible.  He worked on a mayor’s group for this area and they never envisioned this.  This should be a compatible extension of the current neighborhood.  With respect to Councilor Sosnowski’s letter, there is common sense at work here and they have to realize that this is too big for the neighborhood.

Ms. Ross stated that there should be a focus on increasing businesses to help bring in revenue rather than new residents.

Michael Ross, 20 Beaver Street, stated that they need to focus on building business rather than bringing new residents here.  He asked about the widening of the river; to which Mr. Puleo provided a brief explanation.  Mr. Ross asked if the drawings were to scale.  Mr. Puleo stated that the plan is to scale and they have requested a larger plan at a subsequent meeting.  Mr. Griffin showed the cross section slides and reviewed the distances from the homes on Beaver Street.  He confirmed that these are drawn to scale.  

Beverlie McSwiggin, 30 Japonica Street, stated that she is a lifelong resident of Ward 6 with former employees of the factories that were there, and none of them want the project to the scale that it is currently planned.  Ms. McSwiggin read from the joint Planning Board and City Council meeting minutes from June 20, 2009 addressing the issue of PUD.  Then she quoted from the Planning Board meeting minutes after the City Council that discussed the height restriction.  She also said that MRM will sell to Federated and will not care about the residents here.  She stated that Federated is also building a development in Wilmington and she understands that 28% of it will be affordable housing.  She said they asked Attorney Correnti what the percentage of affordable housing would be for this project; he thought 10%, but she thinks it will be a lot more than that.  She references the old polluting factories and says the neighborhood wants this cleaned up, but the scale should be brought down to something that is more in line with the neighborhood, which has houses as old as the 1800’s.

Councilor-at-Large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue, stated that the intent of the amendment to PUD was to limit buildings to four stories in BPD.  He doesn’t think that anyone should buy the argument that the garage under the building doesn’t count towards the height.  He feels that Pickering Wharf is everything that the PUD should be and the City hasn’t done anything like that since then.  This is going to be a large residential tax base and that is not what our business parks were designed to be.  He noted that not much has been said about the business park, and this is supposed to be a business park.   The city needs the commercial tax base.  

Mr. Carr stated that visuals can be misleading, and asked for clarification on one of the cross sections, and said the peak of the roof is perpendicular to Beaver Street.  He stated that these kinds of subtle things can be misleading.  Mr. Griffin reviewed the cross sections showing the grading.  Ms. Sides addressed the issue of what is a story and what is a level.  She stated that the garage is more than half under-grade and it is not habitable thus the assertion that it is a story is not accurate.  Mr. St Pierre’s interpretation is accurate, and this is part of our zoning.  Randy Clarke stated that it’s the Building Inspector’s interpretation, not the Planning Board’s.

Mr. Treadwell reviewed the designs and said the buildings would be 6 levels.  Ms. Sides stated that the parking does not fit the definition of a level, and noted that it is defined by how much is above grade.  Mr. Treadwell stated that our zoning is not written that way.  Mr. Treadwell then compared this to Hawthorne Hotel.  Mr. Puleo stated that there is a letter from Tom St. Pierre explaining the parking story issue, and this letter is public information.  Mr. Treadwell stated that he reviewed the letter and did not understand it and it would be helpful if Mr. St. Pierre could present at the Planning Board and show a diagram.  Ms. McKnight stated that Mr. St. Pierre’s letter only addresses the parking level, and is not a determination about the total number of stories of the buildings, because he does not have scaled elevations for the new design yet.  Mr. Ready stated that it is not appropriate to question the Building Inspector’s interpretation and we either accept that or it becomes long-term contested.  Ms. McKnight stated that Mr. St. Pierre made it very clear to her that it is not up to the Planning Board to interpret his interpretation and if anyone wants to challenge it, the appeal must go to the state.  Mr. Ready stated the Board has always accepted Mr. St. Pierre’s interpretations on these matters. Mr. Clarke stated that the Board always relies on experts for certain information – traffic, engineering, etc., and this is the same.  Mr. Treadwell stated that the issue is not that he is disputing his expertise but is asking for a further explanation that is clearer to laypeople.

Councilor Sargent stated that he doesn’t see this as 50 % residential.  There is no way that they can achieve the 50% residential and 50% commercial requirement on this site in the current proposal.  

Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, will not take issue with the building inspector’s interpretation as he will not question the expertise of the building inspector.  However, he stated that if he had known that this proposal would occur then the City Council would not have voted for the PUD amendment.  It was crafted to provide limitations and now they see what has happened and the council should probably revisit this.  

Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing to June 7, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides.  All approved 7-0.

Old/New Business

Mr. Puleo announced noted that the traffic light on Marlborough Road by Osborne Hills is up.

Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides.  All approved 7-0.  Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:37pm.

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/ 

Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 6/7/12