SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 10/1/12
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Monday, October 1, 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, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Approval of Minutes
September 11, 2012 draft minutes
Postponed until the next meeting.
September 20, 2012 draft minutes
Postponed until the next meeting.
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:
- PowerPoint Presentation, Legacy Park Apartments, Salem, dated May 2012
- Review letter from Woodard & Curran, dated 10/1/12
- Email from Paul Jacques, Woodard & Curan, dated 9/27/12, and accompanying CAD printout
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners from MRM Project Management and he expressed his thanks for the meeting being rescheduled to move the issue forward with the ultimate goal of wrapping it up. As they stated at the last meeting, they are done with the overall presentation and they are responding to requests and feedback. They will review the engineering peer review tonight as well as present an additional amenity which is a pedestrian footbridge. After they review the engineering calculations they want to discuss the acreage questions that have been previously raised. Mr. Puleo asked if they will review the letter from Woodard and Curran as the Board has not had an opportunity to fully review it. Mr. Correnti said they also just received it. Mr. Puleo asked if they had trash disposal details, a question raised by the Board of Health.
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, reviewed the letter received by Woodward and Curran, highlighting the new comments. In terms of the infiltration systems, Woodard and Curran had no more comments regarding perc tests. They also referred to the catch basin that was on Harmony Grove Road, which Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to the identify the location of the catch basin. He stated this was the one that originally had a typo on the plan. A completed stormwater pollution prevention plan was recommended by Woodard & Curran, which they have promised to do this as a condition of approval prior to any land disturbance. They have been asked to provide a statement that there are no illicit connections made into the sewer system, and prior to submitting that statement they want to tear down the buildings that are
there today as they don’t know if there is something underground that they are currently unaware of. Mr. Griffin then stated that they made improvements to the parking lots and changed the retaining wall to better manage water. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to identify the areas on the plan which he refers to, to which Mr. Griffin pointed them out. Mr. Griffin stated that the bridge crossings have to be addressed with the Conservation Commission in terms of hydraulics and width. He continued to review the letter and noted that the issues were previously addressed in past meetings. There are things that will be done in the future. They have no more comments about the sewer flows, and there were questions about the MDC traps, which ties into the sewer system. Woodard & Curran said that they are an important part of the plan that should be included, which the team has submitted their plans to the city. The sewer will
be inspected during construction, as well as on a quarterly basis for the first year, and they will replace as necessary.
Mr. Griffin then moved on to to comments about a pedestrian bridge, which is located over the North River. He stated that it is intended to be a convenience to the proposed commercial space and he shared copies of the plans with the Planning Board. Mr. Puleo asked if the public will have access to the bridge, and Mr. Correnti said yes. Mr. Griffin then described the location, elevation and the proposed construction of the bridge. He noted that the bridge has been set just above the 100 year flood line and will include handicapped ramps.
He then discussed the CAD file, to which Ms. McKnight stated that Woodard & Curran stated that the CAD calculations provided by the applicant were correct. Mr. Correnti spoke about how the calculations are close to the requirement but are less than the 50% residential area, as required by the zoning ordinance. He noted that they are the first project in the city to do this and they are pleased to hear that their calculations are being confirmed. He also acknowledges that some of this is subjective and there are real concerns about this. They have thought about ways to address this. He says the project has the opportunity to redefine the project site and add land to the site, which adds more non-residential space. He notes that this is a concern that they are addressing, and Mr. Griffin presented a
slide on this issue. He spoke of adding property to the site on Harmony Grove Road, at #1 and #5. They will add 1.5 acres to the 6.8 acres to the project, and he shared a picture of the spacing plan which demonstrated this. Mr. Puleo asked if they are adding in the square footage of these two parcels to which Mr. Griffin responded in the affirmative, and he went on to provide the calculations. Mr. Correnti explained that the two pieces of land are currently vacant and one is an unbuildable lot. They are looking at this as an attempt to clean up Harmony Grove Road. Mr. Correnti continued describing the areas that they are recommending including, which was presented on a slide, and he stated that they are not residential. He noted again that they have heard the concerns and they think this is a solution that they think is possible, and they would be willing to be follow up with. Mr. Correnti stated that both pieces are owned by Harmony
Grove Cemetery.
John Moustakis asked about the location of #5 Harmony Grove Road, and Mr. Griffin stated that it goes down to the Peabody line. He then asked if they own the land going towards Peabody, to which Mr. Griffin described the location of the property in relation to the Stop & Shop.
Helen Sides noted that it is all cleared.
Randy Clarke asked if these lots are big enough to allow for some kind of retail space or would it all be open space; and would they be interested in working with the city on a bike path. Mr. Correnti said yes that making these parcels part of the PUD allows for those options, though they are not proposing anything right now. Mr. Clarke asked if they are amenable to working with the city to get this commissioned to be a bike path, to which Mr. Correnti said that this is so new but they are open to looking at those possibilities. Mr. Puleo asked what the square footage of lot #1 is and if it would be large enough to put a building on it. Mr. Griffin responded that the size of #1 Harmony Grove Road is half an acre to which Mr. Correnti acknowledged that it is nothing large but they do want to keep it open to putting a
structure on there. He then continued stating that once they make it part of the PUD then they could come back to the Board in the future. Mr. Puleo then asked if he could look into what could be done with the property.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, asked for clarification if Mr. Puleo was speaking of the bike path to which Mr. Puleo said that he was going back to Mr. Clarke’s original question in regards to lot #1. Ms. Duncan said that is a possibility if it is part of the PUD. She then stated that if the other newly added parcel is developed that it has to be for commercial use because that is the land that is being added in, even though it was confirmed by the City’s Consultant Engineer that it is under 50% requirement, but it should be clear that is commercial use in the future which would also further the City’s goal toward that end. Mr. Puleo asked Ms. Duncan to clarify if it would support a building or if it’s part of the PUD, so they should not be concerned
about lot size, to which she agreed and noted that it has the appropriate frontage.
Lewis Beilman asked if they have spoken with Harmony Grove Cemetery to which Mr. Correnti said that there is an agreement in place that they will purchase the land if the Board agrees to this.
Mark George asked if this is actually under agreement, to which Mr. Correnti said yes. Mr. George then asked if the total acreage of both lots if approx 1.5 acres. He then asked about the frontage, to which Mr. Griffin said 260 feet.
Mr. Puleo asked Ms. Duncan if this would require re-filing. Ms. Duncan said no, but it would require a new notification.
Mr. Griffin then presented a PowerPoint on the impact of the project on the density of the area, to which Mr. George asked if this is the percent of total site size and included commercial and residential. Mr. Griffin stated that this is based on units per acre based on the plans that have been filed.
Mr. Clarke asked Ms. Duncan about how this impacts the Master Plan. Ms. Duncan stated that there has always been an idea of connecting bike paths between towns and she will take a look at that.
Tim Ready asked Ms. McKnight if they have a formal written decision from the peer reviewer that says the residential area doesn’t exceed 49.5%, to which Ms. McKnight said yes. He then asked if the new parcels would lower the residential percentage down to 40.6%, to which Mr. Correnti said yes.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Ward 3 Councilor Todd Siegel, 28 Brittania Circle, he stated that at the last meeting he asked what percentage could be built on this for commercial space. He doesn’t care that they have a parcel of land that cannot be built on, and he reiterated that this is not what the City Council had in mind. Mr. Griffin stated that he did not have those numbers, and Councilor Siegel stated that he wants to know what can be built and where it can be built. Ms. Duncan responded that they are saying, and what the ordinance says, is that under 50% of the land area can be residential and she understands that the City Solicitor has agreed to work with the Council on amending the PUD ordinance. It should probably be an explicit condition that the new parcel of land should be designated commercial. Councilor Siegel
stated that they originally intended this to have a 50% commercial tax rate and he doesn’t see this as being anything more than a 20% commercial tax rate and he wants the Board to understand this.
Councilor-at-Large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue, stated that he is happy with the way the ordinance reads, he is just not happy with how it is being interpreted. This land started out as commercial and if it isn’t buildable, then it is not buildable for commercial. He asked what 50% of the commercial tax rate is left when this is done. He wants the developer to show him where the 50% is. The way this is being designed does not allow for this.
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, noted that this was originally zoned commercial and they shouldn’t have this much residential. He stated that the Board has the power to require this as this is the closest they will have to a business project to Route 128. He stressed that more than 50% should be commercial. He feels that this is getting ridiculous, and they have the power to require this. He concluded stating that this is just playing with numbers.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, he thinks the numbers game is ridiculous. He thinks the zone of land is subject to flooding. As a planner, he can’t see why they are going to add this land other than adding a meaningless lower density statistic. He does not think it accomplishes much. If they are looking to connect to the Peabody system, they need to look at something more focused. He stated that he was assured by Ms. McKnight that the issues he raised during his memorandums would be considered in the Planning Board decision. He revisited the letters and addressed some of the comments of Attorney Bobrowski. He urged the Board to read zoning ordinance 7.3.5 and asked if this was clear to establish a category of open space. He asked about the easement, and how that would be used.
He then discussed the landscaping issues and how that is defined as associated improvements in 7.3.3. He emphasized that those are the big issues and he urged the Planning Board to consider them as they are making their decision. He stressed that these issues are a numbers game. He noted that the pedestrian bridge has been moved several times and that should be looked at more closely. His other issues were in relation to the bicycle storage and the plan does not show any inside all-weather storage; the Conservation Commission has not received a request for an order of conditions; the Chapter 91 requirement has not been fulfilled; and the MEPA review also has not been completed. He feels that it is not in compliance with the Master Plan.
Mr. Puleo asked if they need a Chapter 91 License for the footbridge to which Mr. Griffin said that they do.
Ms. Duncan asked if there is proposed bicycle storage inside the building. Mr. Griffin showed the locations of both indoor and outdoor bicycle storage.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked about the ownership of 3 Harmony Grove Road. She does not know how they can stamp a project if the ownership is not resolved. Mr. Correnti stated that they provided a deed for 3 Harmony Grove Road which was reviewed by the City Solicitor and they are very comfortable with this.
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that this is about how land use is defined, particularly in light of a change in use with a special permit. He stated that the City Council has spoken quite clearly of what their intentions were with this project. The question the Board has to answer with this project is what is the meaning of all those bits and pieces and what is the equitable distribution of that open space.
Mr. Ready addressed a question to Councilor Ryan, and asked if he could clarify if they have the same numbers. Mr. Ryan stated that their intention was to have more than just a small shop or an ATM there, they wanted more business as it is a business park development. He pointed out that this was originally a business park and they wanted more than 50% to be business. Mr. Ready stated that the Board has labored quite diligently to make sure the numbers were correct. Mr. Ryan said that the numbers are in the eye of the beholder and they can make the numbers look the way they want.
Councilor Sargent stated that he does not think that this will be assessed at the tax assessors office as 50% commercial.
Mr. George asked for clarification on what is proposed for 3 Harmony Grove Road, and how it is zoned. Mr. Griffin stated that it is going to be an egress and it is zoned BPD. Mr. George the asked if the lots #1 and 3 were combined and it would only be used in a commercial manner, would that fit in line with the City Council’s intent. Mr. Correnti said that it would go towards that goal, and it was the planner’s suggestion not his, but if it is the Board’s will, they can do that.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, asked about the elasticity of the numbers based on how non-residential is defined. It has to do with the non-residential component. She thinks the new proposals for the parcels are good but she thinks they are in a flood area. She feels that nobody is really addressing what would be built there.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, states that they will be setting precedent on this project and she feels there is not enough clarity on this project. She feels that this could be answered by a court.
Mr. Beilman noted that the ordinance says in a PUD, all the uses or any combination of uses are permitted. He says we have been talking about intent of the council, but the ordinance seems very clear. If this was the intent, then the ordinance should say in the BPD, commercial uses shall exceed 50%, and he doesn’t read that. He says it’s not just a question of interpretation – the language seems very clear. Councilor-at-large Sargent stated that the business park development requirements need to be looked at first, then the PUD.
Mr. Correnti wants to have a clear understanding that the Planning Board likes the plan to add #1 & 5 Harmony Grove Road. They will submit the amended plan before the next meeting on October 18th and he reiterated that that they have concluded their presentation. Mr. Puleo said that he wants to be clear that they are not telling the applicant that they will approve this if they buy the parcels. Mr. Clarke asked if they need to close the hearing, to which Mr. Puleo said no, they would keep it open until they feel they have reached a point of deliberation.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing to October 18, 2012, seconded by Mark George. All approved 9-0.
Adjournment
Lewis Beilman made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 9-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:28 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 10/18/12
| 
