SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 6/7/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, June 7, 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, Lewis Beilman, 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.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:04 pm.
Approval of Minutes
May 3, 2012 Planning Board and City Council Joint Hearing minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Lewis Beilman motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 8-0.
May 17, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Lewis Beilman. All approved 8-0.
Request of Paul DiBiase for release of all remaining lots in Phase IIA of the Strongwater Crossing (AKA Osborne Hills) subdivision (Amanda Way, off Marlborough Road).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Email from David Knowlton, City Engineer, dated June 6, 2012
Paul DiBiase, Trustee of Osborne Realty Trust, updated the Board on the next phase of his project, which included the relocation of a street light for a street they created, and he noted that they have put the light in, which has been inspected and is fully operational. He asked for the release for the remaining lots of 2A. Mr. Puleo asked how many lots are in 2A, to which Mr. DiBiase stated that it is 13 lots. Mr. Puleo asked if he did anything else to work out issues with the neighbors, and Mr. DiBiase stated that he hasn’t done more than what the plan called for. Mr. Puleo noted that the light is functioning and it seems to slow traffic down. He also noted that they have a letter submitted by Dave Knowlton, the City Engineer stating the light was installed properly.
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, stated that the lots included in this release request are lots 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 37, 38, 40 and 42. Mr. Puleo reminded the board of how Phase 2A of this project was previously split into A and B sections.
Helen Sides made a motion to approve the release of the lots, seconded by Mark George. All approved 8-0. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Tim Ready asked to acknowledge that Mr. DiBiase has brought a great thing to the City with the light which has helped improve the safety of the area significantly.
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 James Treadwell, AICP, dated 6/7/12
- Letter from Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St., dated 6/7/12
- Email from Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St., dated 4/25/12, to Department of Environmental Protection
- “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 and he reminded the Board of the last meeting where they heard from the city’s peer reviewer and their site engineer, Bob Griffin. He stated that their presentation will include a presentation by Bob Griffin which will address some of the concerns from the peer reviewer’s comments. He stated that their responses to the consultant will be submitted to the city at a later date, but they want to go through some of that tonight. They also want to state that their presentation is coming to a close and they have nothing new to report tonight. He also briefly reminded the Board of the previous presentations from the other people on the team and the types of presentations that they
gave. They feel that this has been a comprehensive presentation, but they are open to revisiting other issues if the Board would like them to.
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, began addressing past questions raised: first in regards to the percentage of impervious paving. He explained that it will be 43.7% of the area, and after the paving of the of the bike path it will be up to 48%, which is an increase from the current 31%. He then they are proposing to use Portland cement concrete for all sidewalks. He moved on to address other issues that they are currently dealing with which includes water and sewage, which are continuing to be worked out. They are still working on hydraulic rate calculations, as requested by Woodard and Curran. He noted that most of the revisions are minor. He then presented a graphic of the Grove Street driveway, which, in response to the peer review comments, they moved about 7 feet from the previous alignment.
There is still a 90 degree angle, but they noted that the change will be better in case of flooding. Mr. Puleo asked if the graphic is showing current or proposed elevations. Mr. Griffin stated that it’s a little bit of both and explained further where the grade will change. Mr. Puleo asked him to clarify further the changes to the grading. Mr. Griffin described the changes to the grading and the driveway. He moved onto other comments about groundwater and explained the process with the infiltration field being developed which will move the water away from the area. They are using larger infiltration fields which will help with the stormwater management further by using larger chambers under the parking lot. He pointed out the locations of the infiltration fields on the graphic and stated that these will prevent pushing pollutants into the river. He then described the areas where the stormwater would be treated by their
system. He noted that they have put in a new catch basin, which will provide better flow for water leaving the site, and they are also adding a drainage system. From Harmony Grove Road there is some water that they can’t catch, but they will have better catch basins with higher capacities which can catch more than what is currently being caught. They are increasing the span of the bridge to 38 feet, and there is erosion protection added in the area of the bridge. Mr. Puleo asked about the recommendation for increasing the height of the wall, to which Mr. Griffin stated that this was not one of their comments. He stated that the walkway will be at the same grade as the wall for drainage reasons. Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification of how the widening of the canal will occur. Mr. Griffin said that they didn’t know about that as that is a project run through the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Griffin then described the stormceptors and treatment tanks and pointed out the various locations. He also noted that they worked with the manufacturer of the treatment tanks to make sure that they have done the calculations correctly.
He then moved onto the traffic-related comments, and reviewed the entrances on 64 Grove Street, which they revised based on the peer reviewer’s recommendations. He noted there were previously two access points, and based on FST’s recommendations, they are consolidating that driveway. He noted that they liked the new design even though they lost a couple of parking spaces, but this is an efficient layout. He then spoke of the grading in the Northern Parking Area and he stated that they would add a small retaining wall. They were asked to check manhole sizes, which they did. They were asked to revisit the roof runoff design and they are going to bypass the water quality treatment device and go into the infiltration bed, which is better than what is currently there. Concerning a 100 year storm
event, the elevation was changed slightly from 5 feet to 5.25 feet. They changed the slope of some of the pipes to protect them during the 100 year storm. He then reviewed the yard drains and the retaining walls – this was based on the recommendations of the peer reviewer. There was a recommendation to conduct a fire flow tests, and they feel that they need to have further meetings with the Fire Department and the City to work out the issues with the water and sewer challenges.
Mark George asked him to expound on the issues on Harmony Grove Road, and stated that he doesn’t want to burden the road further if they can make better improvements. Mr. Griffin explained the design of the pipes and the catch basins currently as compared to their recommendations of larger pipes and catch basins to better handle the drainage.
Mr. Puleo asked a question about the location of the HVAC units and asked to look further at that. Mr. Griffin identified the locations of the HVAC units on the roofs of the buildings. He stated that they are going to add sound dampening blankets and pointed out that the parapets as well as the elevation of the buildings will help with the sound. He feels confident that more noise will come from this project than from other buildings in the area. Mr. Puleo asked if the parapet would hide the equipment, or if additional screening was proposed. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin how many HVAC units will be on the buildings, to which Mr. Griffin responded that there will be individual units, though he does not know how many units will be on the roof or on the ground; he stated that he would get back to Mr. Puleo on
this.
Mr. Puleo asked about the elevation on the commercial building and Mr. Griffin showed a graphic and described the area of the project where the commercial building is being proposed.
Mr. George asked if the HVAC will be on the roof to which Mr. Griffin stated that it will have to be.
Randy Clarke asked about an operations and management plan for the stormwater facilities. Mr. Griffin stated that this has been provided as part of their stormwater management report, and it provides for quarterly inspections and annual cleanouts of the catch basins. Mr. Clarke asked for clarification on who will do the maintenance and Mr. Griffin stated they are on private property, except for the catch basins proposed in the street. Mr. Clarke asked whether the City needed to approve taking on maintenance of those in the public way, to which Ms. McKnight stated that she can find out.
Issue opened up for public comment
Katrina Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, asked about moving the Grove Street entrance closer to Beaver Street. She stated that the move will make the drop from her property more precipitous and does not understand how the retaining wall still is not required. She noted that with the two parking spaces being lost that the parking is already 50% short of the requirement, and is concerned about having parking off site. Mr. Puleo clarified that shared parking has been proposed within the site, not with other sites. Ms. McKnight stated that the traffic peer reviewer recommended a shared parking arrangement in the case that the number of employees in the commercial building exceeded a certain number of employees. Ms. Pattison asked if we wouldn’t expect to have the maximum number of employees working in that space
if the entire space was being utilized. Ms. McKnight said that different types of commercial uses had different parking needs, so it would depend on what was going to be there. Mr. Puleo said the building commissioner reviews parking needs prior to issuing occupancy permits for new uses, and at this time, he would decide if more parking was triggered by the new use. Ms. Pattison asked if she can infer that the use of building would be limited by the number of parking spaces the developer chose to put in. Ms. McKnight said she did not know this definitively.
Mr. Griffin then began his response to Ms. Pattison’s questions by reiterating Ms. Pattison’s question about the need for the retaining wall near her property. He showed the location on the graphic and stated that a retaining wall is not required. Ms. Pattison clarified the height of her property and the proposed building. She doesn’t know where her yard is going to go if she is losing part of it. She doesn’t know how her property is going to be graded. Mr. Griffin stated that they are not going to lower the grade, they are going to meet her grade and described the locations of the buildings. He then said that they are going to remove a building and replace it with dirt, and he described further the grading plan.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, noted the request of the peer reviewer to change of the scale of the drawings. Also, he is concerned that the adequacy of the road system needs to be extensively redesigned and he hopes there is some method to the change. He noted that the zoning ordinance requires a special permit for shared parking. Mr. Puleo stated that Ms. McKnight will research that.
Ms. McKnight then read letters from Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, and Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver Street, addressing their concerns about the project which were entered into the public record. She also read from Ms. Sweeney’s letter submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection regarding this project.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, asked about the unresolved issues in terms of the ownership claim of Harmony Grove Cemetery, the railroad, the Conservation Commission requirements, and the MEPA filing. Mr. Correnti responded that the railroad track process is something they have to apply for, which they will do; he then stated that the issue with the Harmony Grove Cemetery is being discussed with their attorney; in terms of the Conservation Commission, he stated that this is going to be filed in July; and he concluded his responses by stating that the MEPA review is a state filing that has not yet been made, but will be. He noted that this is the beginning of the process.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the flood mitigation planning will not be completed in time for the Board to make their decisions. He stated that there are issues with the planning that still have not been addressed. He asked about the appropriateness reviewing the project if the river will be widened. He suggested that it would make more sense to go through the Conservation Commission review prior to the Planning Board review, since the Planning Board no longer reviews wetland special permits. He also reminded the Board that Chapter 91 and the MEPA reviews recommend that this review be done sooner. Ms. McKnight stated that although the zoning provision has since changed, the applicant has already applied for a Wetland and Flood Hazard district special permit, and the peer reviewer has already given their feedback on
the information submitted.
Councilor-at-Large, Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue, asked if the Board is considering this a PUD in a business park or just a PUD. Mr. Puleo stated that this is a Planned Unit Development regardless of where it is located. Councilor Sargent expressed concerns about not using this property to expand the city’s commercial tax base. He said 50% of this project’s tax base would not be commercial. He said if they are paying 80% of their taxes at the residential rate then this project does not belong in the Business Park Development zoning district. He felt that the first question should have been the definition of the business park and if this project fits the definition of business park. Ms. McKnight responded, stating that she spoke with the Legal and the Building Departments, and no zoning
compliance problems were identified with regard to the residential space. She referred to the plan the applicant submitted delineating the residential and other areas and said the applicant had reviewed it with the building commissioner prior to submittal. Mr. Sargent said it has to be figured out how much of this is residential and how much is business park. He can’t see how this is 80% residential, and if this is not paying 50% at the commercial tax rate then this is an illegal project. They have to follow the zoning ordinance, which says 50% maximum residential, which the Board has to address. Mr. Clarke noted that the legal department was advising. Mr. Sargent stated that as the Board this is their decision. Mr. Puleo stated that he can ask Ms. McKnight to get back to the Board on this.
Mr. Ready asked about the Planning Board’s jurisdiction on this issue. Mr. Puleo says it has to meet the threshold in the zoning; if it doesn’t, we have a problem.
Tim Kavanagh stated that a written letter would be very helpful and he would prefer a written legal opinion on this.
Lewis Beilman said it would be good to get a written recommendation on this.
George McCabe stated that he agrees with getting this in writing.
Mr. George asked if this speaks to site size or building size. Ms. McKnight stated that it’s the land area in this case. Mr. George asked Ms. McKnight to further clarify if she is talking about building footprint. She responded that the building footprint is one thing to consider, as well as anything directly accessory to the residential buildings, like parking for the residents. She said she would get written clarification. Mr. George stated that he’s confused by how this gets delineated. Helen Sides stated that this is not the first time that this has been raised that this is something that they have to consider.
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, stated that when they passed the ordinance allowing the PUD in the BPD they wanted to make sure they did it right. He reminded the Board that they are not required to give the applicant the PUD, and the Planning Board has a lot of power in this matter. Mr. Puleo stated that there is still a lot to their discretion and they are a long way away from reaching a conclusion.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he wanted to clarify what Ms. Sides stated earlier in regards to this issue being raised before. Ms. Sides stated that these issues have been brought up many times and they are important. He then went on to say that his first point is the requirement of the business park PUD is that the amount residential uses and associated improvements cannot exceed 50% of the parcel. His second point is that non-residential use is not used in that stipulation and the muddying of the waters has been caused by the site plan layout of non-residential space; and he is just saying 50% is not clearly defined. He referred to his memorandum and he used landscaping as an example, noting that if that’s not associated with the complex, then he doesn’t know what is. Mr. Treadwell then asked if the open
space immediately adjacent to the buildings is non-residential space. He stressed that they need more of a definition, and he would love to see the City Solicitor’s opinion on this. He concluded by saying that he hopes his memorandum clarifies things.
Mr. George is concerned about this being a precedent going forward and asked Ms. McKnight to speak to the Building Inspector and the City Solicitor further clarify this issue. Ms. McKnight stated that she would get a written opinion.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, asked if the Planning Board decides that this whole development is skewed in terms of the proportion, does that mean that the developer has to go back to the drawing board and redesign. Ms. McKnight stated that if the Board found it didn’t meet the requirements of a PUD, the Board would not be able to pass it. Ms. Strauss asked why they have allowed the developer to continue with their plans without the Board first clarifying if the proportion of residential and commercial spaces was allowed. Mr. Puleo responded that changes will have to be made if they are not found to meet the required proportions. Ms. McKnight stated that when this first came to her she checked with the building inspector on the zoning compliance, and he shared with her that the developer had also spoken with
him about this. The Building Inspector stated that it met zoning requirements. Ms. Strauss then asked if the Board is willing to shelf the whole project if the Solicitor says that the proportion is illegal. Mr. Clarke stated that they could not approve the permit in that case – but this is moot until they get the legal opinion on this.
Mr. Beilman said it’s not as though no thought went into this – the Board had received a memo regarding the allocation of residential space. There may be some dispute about the definition of non-residential space, but it’s not like this was never addressed.
Ms. Sides stated that they are here to listen to the applicant and the public; and this is the first time they are dealing with this type of application. This is the first project to come forward since the Council approved this ordinance, and now they are seeing it in action.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, reminded the Board that at the last meeting they asked to have the Building Inspector come in. She stated that she would appreciate clarification of whether the building met the restriction on the number of stories. Ms. McKnight stated that the only information Mr. St. Pierre could provide on the height requirements was the determination that the parking level is not a story; he cannot give an opinion on the rest of the building because they do not yet have scaled elevations since the building was redesigned. Ms. Riley-Goggin repeated that what she was hoping for was a presentation from Building Inspector at this meeting.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing on June 21, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 8-0.
Old/New Business
Chuck Puleo presented Nadine Hanscom with a gift from the Planning Board and a city seal from the Mayor. Danielle McKnight read from the certificate issued by the Mayor. Ms. Hanscom thanked the Board for supporting her during her years of service and wished the Board good luck.
Adjournment
George McCabe made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:38 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 7/19/12
| 
