Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 07/05/2012
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 7/5/12

A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

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

Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:15 pm.      

Approval of Minutes
June 4, 2012 special NRCC draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. John Moustakis motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanagh.  All approved 7-0 (Mr. George not yet present).

June 7, 2012 draft minutes
John Moustakis motioned to postpone approval of the minutes until the July 19, 2012 meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 7-0 (Mr. George not yet present).

Form A: Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law for 18 FELT STREET (Map 27, Lot 609).  

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Form A application date-stamped 6/20/12 and accompanying materials
  • Plan of Land, 18 Felt Street, Salem, Property of Icecat, LLC, dated June 18, 2012, prepared by North Shore Survey Corp.
Mark George arrived at 7:20pm.

Scott Grover, representing ICECAT LLC, described the location of the site.  He says the owner reached an agreement with Mr. Treadwell with regard to purchasing a portion of the property, and stated that they are here tonight to ask that the change in the lot lines be approved.   

Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the Form A request, seconded by John Moustakis. The Board voted eight (8) in favor (Chuck Puleo, Randy Clarke, John Moustakis, Mark George, George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanagh and Tim Ready in favor), and none opposed, to grant the request for ANR endorsement.  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public Hearing: GEORGE FALLON requesting a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law for the property located at 5 SUMMIT STREET (Map 15, Lot 162).  Property is proposed to be subdivided to create a new building lot with less than 100 feet of frontage, and to reduce the frontage of the lot with an existing house to less than 100 feet.

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Waiver of frontage application date-stamped June 14, 2012
  • Subdivision Plan of Land located in Salem, Mass., 5 Summit Street, prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., dated May 24, 2012
  • Written comments from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, dated 6/15/12
Scott Grover, representing George Fallon, presents the plan, which calls for the division of the land such that a second house lot is created.  He stated that they received approval from the Board of Appeals.  He explained there are 6 parcels created (4 are small and are not building lots).  He stated that Lot C will provide access to the abutters.  He stated that there will be another of the small lots added to another abutter, Mr. L’Heureaux, for no consideration; the abutter currently uses this area for parking.  He also noted that there are problems with encroachments which will be resolved by the changes in the lot lines.  Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification on the locations of the homes on the lots in question, which Mr. Grover described.  Mr. Puleo asked if Lot D gets combined with Mr. L’Heureaux’s lot, to which Mr. Grover said yes.

Tim Kavanagh asked if the waiver issue is a public hearing to which Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, said yes.  Mr. Kavanagh noted that it looks like this new configuration brings clarity to the lots in the area, to which Mr. Grover agreed.

Mr. Moustakis asked about the location of Lot B and the changes in boundaries.  Mr. Grover described this area to him.

Mr. Kavanagh asked about parking on Lot B, and Mr. Grover pointed out on the plan how the abutters will be able to access parking.

Issue opened to the public for comment

No one from the public commented.

Ms. McKnight stated that the Building Inspector was interested in seeing the easement and parking plan.  Mr. Puleo asked about the parking plan, to which Mr. Grover stated that the parking plan was not part of the original plan and they have worked out the parking issues. Ms. McKnight suggested including a condition in the decision that addresses that concern.

Mr. Ready asked if all of the neighbors were informed as he was surprised by the lack of neighbors at this meeting.  Mr. Grover stated that there had been some opposition at the Board of Appeals.

Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing, Tim Ready seconded. All approved 8-0.

John Moustakis made a motion to approve the waiver from frontage with the following special conditions:

1.      A parking plan is to be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
2.      A copy of the easement accessing parking areas is to be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
3.      All requirements of the Health Department and Board of Health are to be adhered to.
4.      All requirements of the Fire Department are to be adhered to.  

Tim Kavanagh seconded the motion.   The Board voted eight (8) in favor (Chuck Puleo, Randy Clarke, John Moustakis, Mark George, George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanagh and Tim Ready in favor), and none opposed, to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 5 Summit Street.  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Form A: Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law for 5 SUMMIT STREET (Map 15, Lot 162).

  • Form A application date-stamped June 14, 2012
  • Subdivision Plan of Land located in Salem, Mass., 5 Summit Street, prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., dated May 24, 2012
Based on Mr. Grover’s combined presentation on this agenda item and the previous item, Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the Form A request for ANR endorsement, seconded by Mark George.  The Board voted eight (8) in favor (Chuck Puleo, Randy Clarke, John Moustakis, Mark George, George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanagh and Tim Ready in favor), and none opposed, to grant the request for ANR endorsement.  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.  

Public Hearing: Request of MARK DENISCO for Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 12 WOODBURY COURT (Map 36, Lot 1).  A new two-family house is proposed.

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Application date-stamped 6/6/12
  • “Plan to Accompany Notice of Intent Located in Salem, Massachusetts, prepared for Mark DeNisco,” prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., dated March 22, 2012 and last revised June 25, 2012.
  • Written comments from Giovanna Zabaleta, Engineering Department, dated 6/21/12
Mark Denisco presented his petition and stated that he has an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission, and approvals from the Fire Department and the Water and Sewer Department.  He noted that he has everything he needs except the Planning Board approval and the required building permits.  Mr. Puleo asked him what the Board of Appeals issues were and Ms. McKnight stated that dimensional relief was required. Mr. DeNisco responded that he made the house smaller and is going to provide parking access for his neighbors.  Mr. Puleo asked about the engineering detail to which Mr. DeNisco pointed out the location of the sewer on the plan.  He stated that this is the plan the Fire Department approved.  Ms. McKnight commented that Lt. Griffin had not given her comments on this project and asked Mr. DeNisco if his previous approval from the Fire Department was a signoff on the routing slip for the building permit, to which he said yes.  Mr. Puleo asked about the width of the driveway, to which Mr. DeNisco said that this had already been approved by the Fire Department.  Ms. McKnight stated that Lt. Griffin is on vacation and recommended that if this is approved that a condition be added that all her conditions would be adhered to.

Mark George asked for Mr. Puleo to clarify his concerns.  Mr. Puleo stated that there may be an issue of the width of the driveway as it is a two-family house.   Mr. Puleo asked if Mr. DeNisco was required to add sprinklers; he said no.  Mr. George asked for clarification on the changes made.  Mr. Denisco stated that additional drains were put in.

Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the location of the project.  Mr. DeNisco described the location and noted that he will be living in the home.

Issue opened to the public for comment

No one from the public made comment.

Mark George made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Randy Clarke.  

Ms. McKnight stated that she got feedback from Engineering that with the conditions they supplied, they were fine with giving approval.  Mr. Puleo noted that there is a revised plan that shows a change in the drainage connection.  Ms. McKnight notes that the date on the new plan was last revised June 25, 2012.

Randy Clarke made a motion to approve with conditions, seconded by Mark George.  The Board voted eight (8) in favor (Chuck Puleo, Randy Clarke, John Moustakis, Mark George, George McCabe, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanagh and Tim Ready in favor), and none opposed, to grant the Special Permit.  The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.  


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.

  • 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 and revised 6/20/12
  • Letters from James Treadwell, AICP, dated 6/14/12, 6/18/12, 6/27/12, and  7/5/12
  • “Letter Report – Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove Peer Review,” prepared by Woodard & Curran, dated 5/10/12
  • Letter to Robert Griffin, P.E., from F. Giles Ham, Vanasse & Associates, dated 7/5/12
  • Email from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer, dated 7/5/12
  • Memo from Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor, dated 7/5/12
  • Memo from Attorney Mark Bobrowski, dated 7/3/`1
Mr. Puleo reminded the audience to direct questions through him and not directly with the presenters.

Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development introduced the Assistant City Solicitor, Robin Stein, and stated that they have two legal opinions to share with the Board and the public, both from Ms. Stein and from Mark Bobrowski, the attorney the city worked with on the zoning recodification several years ago.

Robin Stein, Assistant City Solicitor, says she has prepared a memo; Ms. McKnight distributes it.  Mr. Puleo asks her to walk the Board through the memo.  Ms. Stein says she sees two issues: 1. a general question of how to approach the analysis of this project when looking at the requirements of the PUD section along with requirements of other sections of the zoning; and 2. how to deal with Section 7.3.3.3, which relates to the 50 percent issue specific to a PUD in the BPD.  She went on to explain that as she sees the first issue, the board may, but is not required, to grant the PUD special permit, and it must comply with the entire section of the PUD zoning bylaw.  She explains that the PUD which, as it is written, allows for projects to deviate from underlying zoning if all PUD requirements are met.

Mark George asked about the issue of requirements for percentage of land use, and asked about the intent of the PUD in BPD provisions – he is concerned about precedent setting.  Ms. Stein stated that when one reads a zoning bylaw, the intent is derived from the words.  As written in 7.3.3.3, the residential uses and associated elements cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcel.   Mr. George asks what the minimum is; Ms. Stein says there is no minimum.  She says you then have to look at how the Board interprets that – she says the Board needs to look at the entire project and each piece of the site and analyze how it’s being used.  She gave the example of looking at the access – since the driveway is used to access a residential use, it is counted as residential.  She says the Board needs to look at how each part is used to decide which areas should count as residential or other uses.  Mr. George asks how they determine which parts of the site benefit the residential or the commercial component.  What if a part of the site services both?  Ms. Stein says they need to look at what improvements on the property relate to which uses.  Mr. George asks how you determine the allocation.  Ms. Stein says if parking is for the use of residential tenants, then that is counted as residential.  Mr. George asks how much green space must be allocated to each use.  Ms. Stein says the Board has to make decisions about how each component is used.  

Ms. Duncan clarified that Ms. Stein is providing a legal opinion; what the Board is asking for is a planning interpretation.  She said it might be helpful if they let Robin review the opinion from Attorney Bobrowski regarding whether this plan is compliant with the zoning ordinance.  She says the legal opinion answers the zoning question, but the Planning Board has the discretion to determine whether the plan meets the requirements.  She says based on the legal opinion they were given, and on all the comments they have received, the Planning Department wants to look again at which land would be associated with residential development, and which land would reasonably be classified as open space.  What we’re hearing is that it’s the Board’s discretion to look at that.  

George McCabe asked Ms. Stein about the relationship between the PUD and the BPD.  Ms. Stein stated that if the board makes the three required findings required for a PUD, they can move forward with evaluating a project.   Lewis Beilman asked if these are threshold findings.  Ms. Stein says yes, and says that this is straight out of the bylaw – they must determine if these conditions are present.  Mr. Beilman asked for clarification on evaluating how the threshold is met and refers to the site being 49% residential.  Ms. Duncan stated that the plan as submitted could be compliant with the zoning, per Attorney Bobrowski’s legal opinion; there is nothing in the plan that on its face is inconsistent with our zoning.  The Planning Board has the discretion to find that the plan as proposed meets the findings of the PUD, except the Board can also look at it and determine that there are open space areas that would be better described as being associated with residential areas.  She notes that no setbacks are required for multifamily buildings.  However, she says the Planning Department will look further into how the open space areas are classified.  She notes that parking areas and space between buildings has been classified as residential.  She says we have the ability to look closely at the plan as proposed to determine how each space should be classified.

Ms. Stein summarized Mr. Bobrowski’s letter stating that there was nothing fundamentally inconsistent with the 7.3 and 7.3.3.3 in particular.  She noted that the one challenge here is that commonly when there is a piece of land it is typically for one use and what the Board needs to determine is what is and is not in a residential use, based on the way the bylaw is written.  We have identified residential, commercial uses, and open space that is both usable and not usable.  She says these are categories of use.  She discusses how the Board needs to determine whether areas allocated as usable open space are appropriate to be used by the public.

Mr. Beilman asked how landscaping is counted and Ms. Stein said she can look into this if the Board needs further clarification on this.

Mr. Moustakis asked if the parking under the buildings was considered into this.  Ms. Duncan stated that the parking is considered as part of the residential area.  She stated that there is a portion of surface parking specific to the commercial area. She also noted that the PUD has a requirement for public access to useable open space.

Mr. Puleo turns the discussion over to the applicant.

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 the response to the engineering peer review.  

Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, reviewed their responses as well as previous presentations.  He stated that they spoke to the civil engineer about the comments received to date.  He thinks that they are at the end of the civil engineering comments and they don’t have any major changes.  He reminded the Board of the request to move the driveway and they said they could move it about 7 feet which raised the elevation.  They were asked if that would impact the sight distance and Mr. Griffin submitted a letter from Vanasse stating that the sight distance is not impacted significantly.  They have submitted a new plan with a 1/20 scale, as requested.  Mr. Griffin identified the areas of activity and use limitation.  He then described the locations for the catch water basins and grates to facilitate heavy rains. He then described some of the stormceptor devices to be used. He addressed other concerns from the peer reviewers.  He noted that the Department of Environmental Protection requirement for an illicit discharge statement should be done before occupancy.  He stated that the peer reviewers recommended a check of the manhole sizes, and they are going to increase them.  He noted that there are still some retaining wall issues and related questions to be addressed in the future.  They are going to reinforce the swale with concrete, as recommended by Woodard and Curran.  Mr. Griffin then described widening the river and replacing the bridge, noting that the bridge will not affect flows coming down from Peabody.  He said they are trying to get information from the city of Peabody on water flows, but they haven’t been able to get those numbers, since Peabody is not yet ready to provide that data.  Prior to getting the building permit they will be able to address that.

Mr. Puleo asked what permits are required for construction of the bridge to which Mr. Griffin responded that the permits required are Chapter 91 and Conservation Commission approval.

Mr. Griffin continued his presentation of reviewing the issues raised by Woodard and Curran.  He discussed looping through a water line coming from Beaver Street, and they will test the valve at a later date.  From the sewer perspective, he stated that it carries about 28,000 gallons per day and they will submit their calculations.  He also described the work on the sewer line, including reopening it. If they find it is in bad shape, they will replace it.

Mr. Puleo asked about the driveway on plan C-4A, to which Mr. Griffin described the locations of the catch basins.  He asked about clarification on the granite curbing, and Mr. Griffin stated that the curbing would be coming into the property, and there will be a transition from granite to concrete.  Mr. Puleo asked if it would match both sides, to which Mr. Griffin said that they would run the granite as far as the city would ask them to do.

Mr. Puleo then asked about the plans on Building number 3 and asked Mr. Griffin to explain the location of the flood zone with regard to the basement.  Mr. Griffin explained that the garage floor is just above the 100 year flood calculation.

Issue opened up for public comment

Mary Conley, 38 Beaver Street, asked what they are going to do for rodent control during the building of the project.  Mr. Griffin stated that the pest control is done on the property itself and is based on the Board of Health requirements.  Mr. Puleo stated that the Board of Health has procedures in place for this, and pest control measures are improved today over what was done in the past.  Ms. Conley then asked about the public walkway.  Mr. Griffin stated that this would still be part of the plan.  She then asked about the location of runoff along the walkway to which Mr. Griffin described the locations of the drains on the plan.  She noted that they knocked the retaining wall off her foundation and she wants to know who to contact about fixing this.  Mr. Griffin said that he will look into this, but this is the first he has heard about this.  She asked about the sizes of the trees that will be planted, to which Mr. Puleo pointed out that a new landscaping plan was submitted.

Ward 3 Councilor Todd Siegel, 28 Brittania Court, asked when the Board plans on voting on this.

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he appreciates Attorney Stein’s interpretation.  He says the issue of terminology in land use planning is precise, and what is being used is not the appropriate terminology; he recommends the Board should look into resources to find out what the correct terms are.  He noted that accessory uses are to be incidental to the primary use.  He says there is no reference to nonresidential use in 7.3.3.  All the hatched areas on the plan could be misleading – we’re not interested in how much nonresidential use there is, but in how much residential use and associated use there is.  He references the Collins Cove condo development and says all of it is residential – including open space and trails.  All of it is for the residents and residentially related.  All the uses on this site will be owned and developed by one developer.  He says the developer stated in their EIS that the landscaped areas around the buildings were common areas for recreational activities – he believes that means for the use of residents.  He says this should count as residential.  There are areas they have classified as nonresidential that are landscaped and he believes associated with the residential.  There should be areas there for recreation just for residents.  He thinks it’s important to go piece by piece to determine what is residential and accessory.  He came up with 91%. He also says the Council’s intent was to limit the amount of land not in commercial/industrial use.  

Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, stated that appreciates the present of Assistant City Solicitor Stein and the City Planner.  He notes that no one on the Council got a copy of the legal opinion and noted Councilor Ryan had requested an outside legal opinion.  He said the Board in looking at the development had to consider certain requirements of the BPD, and he reviewed the objectives of the BPD zoning district, which emphasizes economic development through creation of business and industry, enhancement of employment base, and enhancement of the city’s tax base.  He referenced the Lowe’s project which fit these requirements and stated that he does not feel that this project fits those requirements.  He asked if there was a case law used in Ms. Stein’s opinion, and also questioned the interpretation of meeting the requirements in the BPD.  Ms. Stein clarified that the three requirements she referred to were specific to the PUD requirements, not the BPD requirements.  She then described the case law she referenced in her opinion (these cases dealt with how land used to access other land of a certain use is also considered in that use).  

Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, stated that he appreciated Attorney Stein’s opinion and also Mr. Bobrowski’s opinion.  He stated the reasons behind why he voted to allow PUD in the BPD – because the Planning Board has discretion and could evaluate each project.  He thinks that there is too much residential area in this project as planned.  He states that they have not been specific about the commercial uses – all the discussion has been about the residential component.

Ward 2 Councilor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, stated that when passing the PUD amendment, they did not intend to include all of these other parcels in this designation.  There are so many issues on this project, such as the definition of what is a story.  He says the Council did not want the height to exceed certain levels.  He is concerned about when the water levels were tested particularly in light of having an unusually dry year.  He reiterated that this is not what the Council wanted and if he could turn it around they would.  He cited Section 7.3.8, and asked who is making these findings.  Ms. Stein states that it is the Planning Board.  The other concerns he raised were in reference to the size of the bridge.  He additionally asked where the spur is.  He wants to see what happens here.  He does not know where to go with this.  

Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, says she wholeheartedly agrees with Councilor Sosnowski and asked if the Board can rewrite the zoning ordinances.  Ms. Stein reiterated the outcome of the legal opinion by Attorney Bobrowski in which he did not find a fundamental fault.  Ms. Riley-Goggin asked if the memo will be available online.  Ms. Riley-Goggin asked Ms. Stein if she sees this site as 50%-50%, to which she said that there are several uses to consider on the site.  Ms. Riley-Goggin asked about the stories to be allowed.  Mr. Puleo stated that the basement level interpretation was given by the building inspector.  Mr. George said it’s defined as above grade finished space.  

Ms. McKnight read an updated letter from the Building Inspector stating that he has reviewed the new elevation drawings and they comply with the zoning ordinance.

Councilor Siegel asked when they can expect a decision on the findings.  Mr. Puleo stated that they will need to get some answers from the review being done by the Planning Department to which Ms. Duncan explained further.  She noted that this discussion has underscored the discretion of the Planning Board and further stated that the Planning Department wants to look at this over the next week to two weeks. She acknowledged that the next hearing on the 19th conflicts with the next City Council meeting.  She says they want to look at this again, however.  Councilor Siegel asked who is the making the recommendations to the Planning Board in the department.  Ms. Duncan responded that she provides the recommendations, working with Danielle McKnight.  The Board makes the decision.

City Council President Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street, asked for an electronic copy of the Master Plan.  Ms. Duncan stated that the most recent master plan, which is from 1996, will be posted online.  Ms. Lovely asked if the legal opinion can also be posted online.

Mr. Treadwell stated that the Planning Department and Ms. McKnight have been helpful.  He stresses that this must be in compliance with the site plan and the PUD requirements.  They expected that the site would be used for economic development.  He read from his memo that quoted the Master Plan which promotes industrial and commercial use in this area.

Councilor Sosnowski brought the Board’s attention to Council Order 380 to repeal the legislation that allowed this so this type of development never occurs again.

Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, stated that there have been a number of requests for the documents and they hope to have them posted.  He reminded the Board and the audience of a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued document regarding the negotiated resolution and asked if that would impact any changes to the project plan.  Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the DEP decision, to which Mr. Lebovici stated that it is titled a “Final Order of Resource Determination” and further described the document.  He explained that it details the appeals of the conservation commission’s findings by the opponent, and describes negotiations between the proponent and DEP.  He then asked if the plans that they are hearing about today are considered by the proponent to be in compliance with the FORAD or would other changes be necessary?  Mr. Correnti stated that can answer that question at the next meeting.

Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, asked why they couldn’t just reverse the amount of commercial and residential.

Michael Ross, 20 Beaver Street, says he is concerned that his backyard would be all windows.  He worries about his kids and other kids in the neighborhood being watched.

Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street,  said that the first question of a developer should be, does this meet of the needs of the neighbors.  She feels that this fails to meet the needs of the neighborhood.  She feels there will be more people, more noise, and more traffic congestion.  She is concerned that there will be an isolated transient community put in the middle of a tight knit community which is of great concern.  She is also concerned about how many more kids will be in the neighborhood and what it will cost for school services, and other services.  She quoted statistics from the Boston Globe about how much it costs to send children to school; she says Salem’s costs are higher than the state median – about $15,000 per pupil.  She thinks it will cost more than a million dollars to cover the costs of new students living in this development.

Ms. Conley stated that she has a property for rent and asked how much anyone would pay to have a brick monstrosity behind them.  She will have to drop her rents because this will make the area less desirable.

Celeste Ross, 20 Beaver Street, stated that she spoke to a woman who moved here because she thought it was a quaint, suburban town.  She stated that the woman has found this to not be what she expected, and she is dreading this building going up and the extra traffic that will come along.   

Ms. Duncan stated that she is not sure if the developer is available to speak to this tonight, but there is an easement that would be placed for public access n a portion of the property.  She asked if the developer knows where this would be.  Mr. Correnti stated that they have talked about the public walkway and they will work on that for the next meeting.  

Ms. Stein thanked the Board for inviting her and hoped that she helped the Board and others come to a conclusion about the project.

Mr. McCabe asked if the Board could get a briefing on what it takes to change the zoning, just so the Board knows.  Ms. Duncan stated that any zoning change would not apply to this project, but it would apply to future projects, but she would provide this information to the Board.  Mr. Puleo suggested looking at the map showing the rest of the BPD parcels the zoning changed applied to.

Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing to July 19, 2012, seconded by Lewis Beilman.  All approved 8-0.

Old/New Business

Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Chuck Puleo.  All approved 8-0.  Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:49 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 7/19/12