SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 7/19/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, July 19, 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 Helen Sides. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Randy Clarke.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:08 pm.
Approval of Minutes
June 7, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. John Moustakis motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by George McCabe. All approved 8-0.
Tim Ready stated that the Recording Clerk is doing a very nice job with the minutes.
July 5, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. George McCabe motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by John Moustakis. All approved 7-0. Helen Sides abstained.
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.
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Site Plan Review application date-stamped 3/13/12 and accompanying materials
- Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit application date-stamped 3/13/12 and accompanying materials
- “Site Development Plans for 162 Federal Street located in Salem, Massachusetts,” dated 1/25/12
- Stormwater Management Report for 162 Federal St. and a portion of 150 Federal St., Salem, MA, prepared by Meridian Associates, dated 1/25/12
- Lighting detail, no date, submitted at meeting
- Photographs submitted at meeting
Attorney Scott Grover, representing the applicant, William Wharff, says Mr. Wharff has an agreement to purchase 162 Federal Street which is the old St. James Convent and is the subject of this petition. He introduced Charlie Weir who is the site engineer from Meridian Associates. He stated that the project consists of two parcels, one of which is owned by Health and Educational Services, who has since moved out, and this is about two-thirds of the site. The second piece is owned by the Archdiocese, which is about 10,000 square feet of vacant land and takes the site all the way back to Bridge Street. The proposal before the Board is to take the office building and convert it to 8 residential condominium units with 18 parking spaces in the back. He gave an overview of the project, which began with the Board of
Appeals in 2009 and allowed for the 8 condominiums with 18 parking spaces. He stated that initially the second piece was not part of the project, which meant there was very little green space on the site due to all the parking. Access to the rear was also only through an easement granted by the Archdiocese. Now, by picking up this piece of property, they now have complete access straight from Bridge St. He showed the parking area and associated green space. In addition to the variances that were granted, the project requires site plan approvals from Planning Board and the Conservation Commission, and it’s in the local historic district. There are very few changes to the building, which include minor modification of lighting and painting, and this will be going before the Historic Commission. He explained the reason for the multiple extensions they requested: they found out that the property is filled tidelands from the North River,
which means that it needs a waterway license and is subject to Chapter 91. They now need to go before the Department of Environmental Protection to get a waterways license. They do not anticipate DEP will require significant changes.
Mr. Puleo asked about the Chapter 91 process, which Mr. Grover explained. He said they have had meetings with DEP and are hopeful to get the license. However, the only issue is the driveway. Mr. Puleo asked him to clarify how the 8 units access the back without exterior changes. Mr. Grover stated that there already is an entrance in the rear. Mr. Puleo then asked if the common hallway was done internally, to which Mr. Grover said yes. Mr. Grover stated that there is the possibility of creating small decks, but it is up to the Historic Commission.
Mr. George noted that these plans pre-date the flood maps updated by FEMA, and asked about how this impacts the project. Charlie Weir said that he doesn’t expect it to change the project – it is still Zone A – but he will discuss this further in his presentation. Even if there is a change, he does not suspect it will be significant – he will look at it further. Mr. Puleo thought that the height of the water line was increased. Mr. Weir said area didn’t have an elevation listed on the old FIRM; with no elevation, they just digitize what’s on the plan. Flood water was predicted to come on the site as shown. He suspected it’s a flood elevation of 10, 11, or 12 feet, and they are holding the grades in the area. He said that they are not really impacting the
flood plain because all they are really doing is removing pavement, putting in landscaping and putting in new pavement. They are also going to add stormwater improvements.
He reminded the Board that this is the remains of the North River, and is not technically a canal, but a river, because it isn’t man-made, only the walls are. The state doesn’t consider it a canal; if it did, it would not be subject to Chapter 91. Through several meetings with the conservation agent, they felt that this would fall under Chapter 91. They are not concerned about the driveway, but concerned about changing the grading of the structure. He noted that the only thing DEP would be reviewing would be the stormwater basin; this is the only portion of the site that is within their jurisdiction. They are concerned with the change in grading, not the driveway.
Mr. Weir then described how they would redesign the site in regards to the landscape plan and the addition of the 18 parking spaces. He reiterated that they are going to move pavement around and add landscaping to the area, which includes a design that is compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act. He described the underground filtration system and explained that there will be a small pocket which will provide pre-treatment and which will then filter into a larger area. In terms of the infiltration basin, he explained that for larger storms it provides treatment, clean water up as required and drain out into the town system. He noted that grading on a particular area is required to show that water won’t go into the neighbors’ properties. He stated that neighbors have requested granite curbing
at the entrance of the site, however they were proposing bituminous curbing. He then moved on to the landscaping plan. He showed what trees they would be preserving, and specifically noted that the saved trees will be mature trees. They are proposing three lighting fixtures for the parking lot, which will not give off light pollution at night. They do have some comments from the Engineering Department, which they can address. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Weir stated that the 3 lights are going to be 16 feet high, and referenced the lighting within the landscaping plan. Mr. Puleo asked if one of the fixtures would illuminate the driveway. Mr. Weir responded that the driveway would be lit up by the lighting on the street. Ms. Sides asked if this was once a playground, to which Mr. Grover said yes, and it was associated with the school.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Weir to explain the curbing in relation to the lights. Mr. Weir described it and Mr. Puleo stated that there concern is that bituminous does not hold up over time. Mr. Weir stated that the experience that bituminous concrete works fine with a low ride Cape Cod berm. Mr. Puleo asked if Engineering is reviewing the plan to which Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, said yes and there were outstanding concerns in relation to the driveway and spillway. Mr. Puleo asked if those are on the plan, to which Mr. Weir said not yet. Mr. Puleo reviewed the concerns and Mr. Weir stated how he would address the issues outlined in Engineering’s report; he then pointed out that they had Dig Safe done. Mr. Puleo asked if he knows the size of the water service that is needed. Mr. Weir does
not know, but says it depends on what is there now.
John Moustakis asked how far away the lights will be from the buildings on Federal Street. Mr. Weir said about 100 feet. Mr. Moustakis asked him to show this on the plan and identify the elevations for each light and he asked if any glare will come off the lights. Mr. Weir said no and shared the specifications on the full cutoff fixture.
Ms. Sides asked about fencing or a grade change on the stairway on the right side. Mr. Weir stated that he believed there is a retaining wall. Mr. Grover and Mr. Weir stated that they believe that there is a fence there. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the property line, to which Mr. Weir pointed it out on the plan. Mr. Puleo then asked about stairway access on the outside of the building. Mr. Weir said the intention is for everyone to enter at the back of the building, which is what the neighbors want. Parking for one of the condos is in the front.
Ms. Sides asked if the fences will be maintained by the condo association, to which Mr. Grover said yes.
Mr. Ready asked about the condition of the structure. Mr. Grover stated that since converting to the office space the interior is not what it should be to accommodate for condominiums.
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, described the building and the intent of the applicant to preserve as much of the building as possible.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Connie Hayne, 17 North Street, commented that when she purchased her condo from the Wharff brothers they were told there was one parking place per resident and one for guests, which did not turn out to be the case. She would urge that there be more parking to be considered and to get it in writing. Mr. Grover responded that there is more parking on for the site than required.
Joyce Wallace, 172 Federal Street, asked who owns the space. Mr. Grover stated that main part of the site is owned by the corporation that succeeded HES and the back part of the site is owned by the Archdiocese. He noted that they are scheduled to close in October.
Mr. Wallace stated that the neighborhood association is fully for this project and they want it to get done as soon as possible. This is a densely populated area and they would love to have this cleaned up. Mr. Ready asked if he is representing the neighborhood association, to which Ms. Wallace said yes, that she is on the Board.
Mr. Moustakis asked if this will be condominiums or rentals. Mr. Grover stated that these will be only condominiums and described them as large 2 bedroom condominiums, approximately 1500 square feet each.
Mr. Puleo asked about where they are in the process in terms of the Historical Commission. Mr. Grover stated that they have not gone before them yet. Mr. Puleo stated that comments by Engineering should be noted on the plan.
Ms. Sides stated that she thinks it looks great and it looks thoughtfully executed.
Mr. Puleo asked if they can have their issues resolved and updated on the plan for them to see at the next meeting, to which Mr. Grover and Mr. Weir said they will. Mr. Puleo asked if there were any comments from the Fire department, to which Ms. McKnight stated that Lt. Griffin misplaced her plans thus the plans will be resent to Lt. Griffin for more specific feedback. Overall, Ms. McKnight felt that her concerns were related to the interior. Mr. Puleo asked if they would add sprinklers to which Mr. Weir said yes.
Mr. Ready asked how many meetings they had with the neighborhood association, to which Mr. Grover and Mr. Wallace said there were several. Mr. Ready said that it seems like there is a lot of community involvement in this project, which he thinks is great.
Mr. Puleo asked for further clarification on the parking plan, to which Mr. Weir stated that they need to update the plan to reflect 18 spaces, as they currently have 17 on the plan and there are 18 including the handicapped space.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing on September 6, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 8-0.
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 6, 2012.
Mr. Puleo stated that there is a letter from the applicant asking to request allowance to continue to the September 6, 2012 meeting.
Helen Sides made a motion to accept the applicant’s request to continue the public hearing until September 6, 2012, seconded by George McCabe. All approved 7-0. John Moustakis left the room and then returned.
Old/New Business
Danielle McKnight stated that there will not be a special meeting in August.
Adjournment
George McCabe made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:59pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 9/11/12
| 
