Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 10/18/2012
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 10/18/12

A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 18, 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
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Mark George.  All approved 9-0.

September 20, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Lewis Beilman motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Randy Clarke. George McCabe and Mark George abstained.  All approved 7-0.

October 1, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. John Moustakis motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Ready. All approved 9-0.

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.  Site plan has been revised to include two additional parcels, 1 & 5 HARMONY GROVE RD (Map 16, Lots 377 & 378), with no change to the number of proposed residential units.  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:
  • Letter from James R. Treadwell, AICP, dated October 18, 2012
  • Letter from Rinus Oosthoek, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, dated October 16, 2012
  • Letter from Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St., dated October 18, 2012
  • Legacy Park Apartments, Salem
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners from MRM Project Management and stated that this is their 11th public hearing on this matter.  He said there is something new that they want to discuss, which is the addition of the adjacent parcels, 1 & 5 Harmony Grove Road, and the incorporation of the parcels to the plan.  They have plans that demonstrate this.  These are vacant parcels which are beneficial in a number of ways as they are a natural fit for the site.  If there are any further questions, they can answer them after Bob Griffin’s presentation.

Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, showed a graphic with the landscaping plan and where the additional parcels will be added to the plan.  1 Harmony Grove Rd. has potentially developable land though currently the applicant is proposing no activities on either parcel at this time.  He identified the city boundaries on the graphic as well.  The total area for the 2 parcels is 65,000 square feet which reduced the percent residential space to 40.7% and the total project area is 8.3 acres.

Mr. Puleo asked if the shaded area over the canal is their property and Mr. Griffin said yes, and he showed this on the graphic.

Mr. George asked what is the commercial use to which Mr. Griffin stated that this hasn’t been hatched out yet, but the non-residential is 59.3%.

Mr. Correnti stated that they have completed their presentations and will answer any questions.

Issue opened to the public for comment
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, asked about the 1 Harmony Grove site.  She understands that the area is designated as a floodplain, and in the initial application, a lot of the vegetation is considered part of the natural area and asks that the Planning Board require that the applicant maintain the area as a natural area.  Her second question was about the sewer treatment easement location, and the third part of her question is about the canal tidal section, which makes the location of the commercial site even smaller.  How does the developer plan to build on 1 Harmony Grove - it does not seem like a real commercial addition.  Mr. Correnti stated that it is being proposed as open space.  The frontage will now allow them to have space from the Peabody line to the Moose Lodge.  

Ward 3 Councilor Todd Siegel, 28 Brittania Circle, asked if the proponent could break down the percentages of commercial buildable space.  He noted that there is no such place in the ordinance that is called non-residential.  Mr. Siegel asked of the 59.3% of the property that is designated commercial, what is buildable and further asked what can be built commercially.  Mr. Correnti said that, regarding “non-residential,” that is not a correct statement, and he quoted from the ordinance as well as the PUD requirement.  He continued, stating that until they actually do soil tests they don’t know what would be buildable and could not give a clear answer on that; but they can give a clear answer that this meets the ordinance requirement.  He also noted that this is also the opinion of the Assistant City Solicitor and Attorney Bobrowski, who both determined that it meets the ordinance.  Mr. Correnti concluded by stating that the answer to the question is that they meet it.

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, feels that it would be very easy to calculate the commercial space based on what is shown on the plan.  He agrees with the zoning ordinance.  As a planner he would not build on those areas as they are on floodplain.  He showed a graphic demonstrating the floodplain designation location.  He then quoted from the applicant’s environmental impact plan, spoke of “natural area” and keeping the area in its natural state.  He then reviewed his letter to the Planning Board which included a list of his concerns:
  • the requirements of Site Plan Review
  • the floodplain management issues in relation to the Peabody project with the Army Corps of Engineers
  • environmental condition of the site and reminded the Board that they are still waiting on the reports from Luke Fabbri (the Licensed Site Professional), and recommended the Board being provided with those reports before making a decision
  • the pedestrian bridge was not included when the review was done by the engineer
  • weatherproof areas for the bicycle racks, and he has not seen the plan for that
  • the adoption of 7.3.1
  • the environmental impact statement should be considered
These are things that he thinks are still outstanding and these issues are all included in a letter he submitted to the Board.

Mr. Puleo asked if the bridge has been moved and asked Mr. Griffin to clarify, to which Mr. Griffin said he was correct. Mr. Puleo then asked Mr. Treadwell if his concern was about the construction or the moving of the bridge.  Mr. Treadwell responded that he concern centered on the fact that the bridge was not included in the engineer’s peer review.

Randy Clarke said that he thought the bike rack issue was resolved.  Mr. Correnti said yes and that they do not provide interior plans as part of site plan review.

Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, asked if their decision would coincide with the Conservation Commission reviews.  Mr. Correnti stated that they will apply to the Conservation Commission as soon as this is resolved and then they will go to Chapter 91.  Ms. Riley-Goggin asked if the Planning Board can make a decision without all of the decisions in.  Mr. Puleo said that their hearing becomes part of the project’s records.

Councilor-at-Large Tom Furey, 36 Dunlap Street, stated that he grew up on Boston Street, and it’s hard to picture what the commercial footprint will be in ten years.  Commercial development is premiere and it’s really depending upon the market and the economy, which will be the lynchpin to the development.  That whole area will be the new frontier for Salem.

Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, asked if the term “usable open space” is a term that has always been used or if it is something new, in relation to Attorney Bobrowski’s review.  Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, clarified that open space is a separate land use category. She stated that the percentage of residential land does not exceed 50% and the remaining land use is commercial and open space, which is acceptable to count open space as a land use category.  Mr. Prevey stated that his concern for the overall project is the density and agrees that commercial development is premiere and that is not what this development is about.  He stated that they had come up with restrictions to residential with the belief that the rest of this would be developed commercially and this project misses that.  They are concerned about traffic in the area, combined with the other projects in the area are creating a problem.  He said if this is approved, who then can work through the problems which should not be shouldered on the neighborhood.  He said he went to the Salem Moose last night and was surprised at the amount of traffic and that was without the project.  The Council wanted the Planning Board to have a say in how projects like this are built and the Board is in a position to mold this project into a better project. He feels that the neighbors’ concerns are very valid.

Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, thanked the Board for their hard work on this Board.  As far as this project, he thought that this would be more commercial.  He feels this is too much residential and he understands that the developer needs to make money for the cleanup effort, but the Board doesn’t have to accept this.  He asked the Board to make the best decision for the City of Salem, and this is too much residential for this area.

Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver Street, stated that as the sun set today, she reflected on this whole report and reminded the board of the previous projects in the area and wondered if there was this kind of oversight during those projects.  She asked if the height of the buildings could be reconsidered to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood.

Tricia Meyers, 14 Beaver Street, said she thought that the PUD was a tax thing to help cover the numbers of the kids going to school here.  She asked how many were two bedroom units, to which Mr. Correnti did not know the exact number.  She said if she had known that this development would have been there, she never would have bought her home.

Ward 5 Councilor Josh Turiel, 238 Lafayette Street, said that there are some great things to develop in the area, we have plenty of residential inventory; the factories are not coming back but they are hopefully going to bring in more commercial opportunities.  He would like to see a bigger commercial component and they don’t have enough of it here.  It’s good to see there is life coming to the area, but they can do better.

Ward 2 Councilor Mike Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, noted that there are 7 councilors here tonight and there are 7 councilors who want this developed and there are at least 5 of them here tonight that would vote against this.

Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, stated that they have had different opportunities to build commercial units where they did not follow through and spoke of the Salem Suede site, as well as Salem Oil & Grease.  They are now going to have a gigantic residential space instead of commercial.  It seems to her that the administration and the Planning Board seem to be pushing for the CPA and a tax increase, yet they are not taking the opportunity to build good commercial property to increase our tax base.

Ms. Duncan stated that if they had a choice of commercial or predominantly residential development, they would choose commercial, but this is not the choice before them.   In terms of tax revenue, she listed the biggest residential projects in the city and their significance of the tax rate.  She also spoke of the ripple effect of the spending and taxes. For this project, in terms of construction, they expect that 56 jobs will be supported; in terms of supporting the wholesale and retail trade there are 12 jobs; in terms of the ongoing effect, over 9 jobs.  She says this will have a net gain in tax revenue.

Mr. Clarke stated that the Board has not discussed the CPA.

Councilor-at-large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue, thanked the board for going through this review.  He stated that the residential tax rate is a losing proposition by Massachusetts state figures and they don’t want to go too far with that.  The other thing is that he does not see how this will pay a 50% commercial rate.

Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, read a letter from Rinus Oosthoek, Director of the Chamber of Commerce, into the record.   

Councilor Todd Siegel asked if they are going to hire Salem residents to work the construction jobs.

Victor Ramos, 15 Thorndike Street, stated that in the area where he lives, all of the construction vehicle plates were from New Hampshire.

Councilor Sosnowski quoted from the PUD ordinance.  Ms. Duncan clarified that she was speaking to the fact that the Board does not have a commercial proposal before them.

Mr. Puleo asked about the improvements on Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road.  Mr. Griffin stated that they have proposed to reconstruct the sidewalk along the property line.  Mr. Puleo clarified if they would get new sidewalks where there aren’t any, to which Mr. Griffin said there would be sidewalks from end to end on this project.  Mr. Puleo asked about the catch basin improvements at 3 Harmony Grove Road and about the drainage on the driveway over the bridge.  Mr. Griffin stated that they will upgrade the catch basin at the location in question.  On Harmony Grove Road, they will add a second catch basin.  He noted that most of the water is stuck at the railroad tracks, and will flow out to the North River Canal.  Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to clarify if they are replacing the pipe and if that will help with the flooding in the area. Mr. Griffin said that with the second catch basin there will be a significant improvement.  

Mr. Puleo asked if they would do any clearing on the opposite side of the site with the new parcel.  Mr. Griffin stated that they were not proposing anything off of #1 or #5 Harmony Grove Road.  Mr. Puleo asked if it will be improved.  Mr. Correnti stated that sidewalks will be replaced and repaired and brush will be cleaned up.  They will make sure it is safe and clear.

Mr. Puleo asked if the pipe is clear, to which Mr. Griffin said the design capacity is adequate but they have not put a camera in there.  Mr. Puleo said they either need to improve the pipe or replace this.  He asked if this is the lowest point in the street.  Mr. Griffin said it is and if there is a problem, they will repair it.

Mr. Clarke asked about working with the city on the bike path, and also what traffic mitigation would be.  Mr. Correnti said for 5 Harmony Grove to the Peabody line, some of the land is wide enough for a path, but some is not.  The sidewalks can be put in excellent shape, but requires an engineering look.  In terms of the second part about traffic remediation, there will be a condition about that.

Mark Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, stated that he works for the Town of Danvers and if something like this came before him, he would not be happy about it.  He is concerned that his house is four stories from the ground level and they are proposing something four stories higher than his.  The commercial plan is of great concern and should be for Salem as it seems like it will cost more to take care of those people than it’s worth.  The money is not going to be collected in taxes.

Ms. Riley-Goggin asked about AULs on the property.   Mr. Correnti stated that there are many AULs on the site and the cleanup will continue.  The site has to be remediated to a level that is approved by DEP and there is a lot of work that has to be done.  

Celeste Ross, 20 Beaver Street, noted that when it rains significantly, there is flooding beyond their driveway.  She noted that traffic is a nightmare in Salem and can’t imagine how much worse it will be with all of these added residents.  She asked if they are going to keep up with the rodents or does she have to call the Health Department.  Mr. Puleo said the developer will have to have a pre-work requirement for rodent control and then monitor them on a bi-weekly basis.

Michael Ross, 20 Beaver Street, thanked the Board for coming out for the site visit.  He noted that the visit was when there were leaves on the trees and recommended that somebody should look at the area when there aren’t leaves on the trees as they will see what a nuisance it will be.  Mr. Puleo said that their goal is to not make it that way, and they usually have a condition in there about landscaping which the Planning Department will look at.  He used Swampscott road as an example, explaining that over the course of ten years they planted the spruce trees because of complaints about the rock wall, and now this isn’t seen.  Mr. Ross said that he is also concerned about tax revenue, which they could turn it into Boston or Lynn.  

Mr. Correnti said that this is a development on a brownfields site and there are impacts and opportunities.  This is a real plus for this city.  He thanked the Board for the long process and they have a better project than what they started with due to the input of the public and the Board.  He spoke of the site visit and said that no one is arguing that this shouldn’t be developed.  He pointed out that this is an opportunity and this has to be weighed in a thoughtful way.  No aspect of this project has not been reviewed by an expert.  Woodard & Curran concluded that this site meets all the criteria for Site Plan Review.  He noted that this is a tortured site with the canal and the railroad running right through it.  Traffic has always been a concern, and this has been peer reviewed by Fay, Spofford and Thorndike and their comments have been incorporated into the plan.  When the Board decides on if this is an appropriate and proper site, he asked the Board to think about what the experts have said.  These are 141 market-rate units and if approved, there will be a percentage of affordable units, as requested.  They believe that they have met all of the requirements.

Councilor Sosnowski asked what is the proposed percentage of affordable housing to which Mr. Correnti said 10% maximum.

Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 9-0.

At this time the Board agreed to begin the deliberations discussion.

Mr. George asked if they have sufficient participation to take this to the next level to make sure everyone has been at all of the meetings and heard all of the tapes, to which Mr. Puleo said yes.

Mr. Ready asked Mr. Correnti if there have been 11 meetings and if they have had half a dozen meetings with the neighbors.  Mr. Correnti stated that they have not met with them that many times and went on to explain the process and the associated filings that were required.

Suggested draft findings were reviewed by Ms. McKnight.  Ms. McKnight stated that she is reviewing suggested findings to see if the Board agrees with the wording.  Ms. Duncan stated that it is important that Ms. McKnight read through the conditions and it’s important for the public and the councilors to hear the findings.

Mr. Kavanagh asked about the area of land that they have acquired and the area of the proposed entrance. He said he would like to have a condition where the applicant improves some portion of the land between the bridge and 50 Grove Street and would like to see some development of commercial space.  He would like to have the bike path and commercial space requirements included in the conditions.  The second thing for the Board to think about are the parking locations and sizes as additional parking spaces are going to be developed and we are not imposing a higher parking space requirement.  He recommends giving the applicant fewer parking spaces for the residential area to encourage them think about the parking location.  Mr. Puleo said that the required parking on this site is 1.5, per unit to which Mr. Kavanagh recommended requiring 172 parking spaces and so if a part of the site becomes more commercial that they can make the rest of the parking available.  Mr. Clarke stated that he supports Mr. Kavanagh’s proposal.  Mr. Kavanagh said that they may find that the parcel is desirable and if we build the flexibility in now there is that possibility for developing it commercially.  George McCabe said that he likes that idea.  Mr. Kavanagh suggested wording that included if they just set the minimum for the parking spaces then there could be flexibility in the future for commercial development and associated parking.  Ms. Duncan stated that she thinks it great that they are thinking about ways for a commercial space to be encouraged in the future. If a commercial development is proposed then they would have to come back to the Planning Board to amend the PUD.  Under the Conditions section there could be language where the Planning Board encourages additional commercial development on that site.  She further went on to state that if an additional commercial development were proposed, which would have to come in under an amended PUD, the Planning Board would only require at that time that only 172 parking spaces would be required to support the residential space and the remaining 43 spaces could support the commercial development. This would not change the requirement in the future.  Mr. Kavanagh stated that the area presents challenges and opportunities and at some point someone could want to use that space commercially.  Mr. Puleo said this would be done by an amended plan only.

Ms. McKnight reviewed the draft conditions.  Mr. Puleo asked if the new parcels are included in the total square footage of the project to which Ms. McKnight said yes.  Ms. McKnight continued reviewing the draft conditions.  Ms. McKnight explained the time frame requirements. Mr. Puleo asked if it is part of the requirement that the applicant give the Board a time frame.  Ms. Duncan stated that this standard condition satisfied the timeframe requirement.  Mr. Puleo asked if they would automatically get a two-year extension, to which Ms. Duncan said no and she explained the permit extension law and said this wording holds the project to a specific time frame.  Mr. Puleo asked about the landscaping time frame and Ms. McKnight and Ms. Duncan reviewed the process.  Mr. Puleo asked if they submit an as-built plan, to which Ms. Duncan and Ms. McKnight said yes.  Mr. Puleo asked about the signage location, to which Mr. Correnti stated that there would be signage at two locations, Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street.

Mr. Clarke asked if there was supposed to be a police review, which is what was done for the St. Joseph’s Church project and he thought that would be come a boilerplate requirement.  Ms. McKnight said that this was a requirement on that project and it can be added to this project’s requirements.  Ms. Duncan said it would be noted that they would supply two sets of plans to the Planning Department and the Police Department.

Ms. McKnight continued reading the draft conditions.

Mr. Puleo stated that he was concerned about the catch basin.  Mr. Griffin suggested language for the condition which was that the applicant shall inspect and repair as necessary the 12 inch drainage pipe beginning at Harmony Grove Road extending to the North River Canal that is located on the 1 Harmony Grove Road parcel subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.  Ms. McKnight added that if repairs were required then the applicant would be responsible for making those changes or repairs.  

Mr. Correnti asked if the documents required in sections A and B are to be submitted to the Planning Department or the Planning Board as they want to make sure they are in compliance with the conditions, and the wording was changed to submit to the Planning Department.  

Ms. Duncan asked about the pedestrian bridge in section E.  Mr. Griffin stated that as it is above the 100 year flood line so it does not have the same effect as the roadway bridge as that is below the 100 year flood line.  Mr. Puleo clarified that the applicant would still need a building permit to construct it.  Ms. Duncan asked about the permit and the analysis required to be done prior to the building permit, and separated out the requirements for the roadway bridge and those for the pedestrian bridge.  Mr. Clarke asked if the information about the pedestrian bridge would be submitted prior to a certificate of occupancy.  

Mr. Clarke recommended wording changes for the approvals required for the bridges.

Mr. Ready asked Ms. McKnight to read Section E back with the new changes, which she did.

Mr. Puleo asked about the refuse plan.  Mr. Griffin stated that they have refuse adjacent to the buildings and in the northern parking area.  Mr. Puleo asked if the refuse will be screened, to which Mr. Griffin said yes.

Mr. Puleo asked if 60 Grove Street will be improved even if there is no tenant, to which Mr. Correnti said yes, the exterior will be done.  Mr. Puleo clarified that all of the landscaping and other associated improvements will be done to 60 Grove Street, to which Mr. Correnti said yes.

Mr. Puleo asked how far they can get into Gary Hebert’s recommendations for road improvements.  Ms. Duncan reviewed the recommendations.  She explained that they are looking for state funds for some of these projects.  She stated that they have about $150,000 from the Stop & Shop mitigation fund, and she described the other monies they are also looking at.

Mr. Puleo asked about the grant fund monies, to which Ms. Duncan said they asked for about $900,000; Mr. Puleo then asked what that would cover, which Ms. Duncan described the locations of the two projects under consideration and she said that they expect to hear by November.  Mr. Puleo asked how they would move forward with the other improvements.  Ms. Duncan said they would talk to the City Council about setting a bond for capital improvements or Chapter 90.

Randy Clarke made a motion to approve with all of the stated conditions, seconded by Tim Kavanagh.  John Moustakis abstained.  Approved 8-0.   The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Public hearing: Application of PASQUANNA DEVELOPERS, INC. for a Definitive Subdivision Plan for five (5) single-family house lots on the property located at 18 THORNDIKE ST., Salem, MA (Assessors Map 37, Lot 38).  Construction of a new roadway is proposed to serve two of the newly created lots on Thorndike St.  Access to one lot is from Thorndike St., and access to two lots is from Hubon St.

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • Form C Application and waiver of frontage request, dated 9/26/12
  • Definitive Subdivision Plan, Site Plan for 5 New Single-Family Houses at 18 Thorndike Street, Salem, Mass., dated 9/26/12, by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering and North Shore Survey Corp.
  • Aerial photo with house renderings, no date
Patrick DeIulis, 18 Thorndike Street, gave the Board a brief overview of the site.  He stated that the parcel is oddly configured, and part of the property was part of the Welch Construction site.  They acquired the property in 2006, and they then had to go through brownfield remediation. They started this process two years ago and they have gone before both the Conservation Commission and the Zoning Board and have received their approvals.  Mr. Puleo asked if they got variances from the Board of Appeals to which Mr. DeIulis responded that they did, and described the variances. Mr. Puleo asked if this was the same plan that they other boards saw, to which Mr. DeIulis showed the graphic of that was shared with the other boards.  He went on to explain that what they would like to do is subdivide this property into 5 properties; they want people to have ownership with their land.  They thought the best approach would be utilizing the services they have while being mindful of the density of the neighborhood.  He described the locations of the five properties and their access points.  The plan shows how the Zoning Board approved the plans in terms of how close they could build to each of the properties.  He noted that the neighborhood was not supportive of this site initially, but changes were made, and Councilor Sosnowski helped mediate.  They are asking for a waiver because they do not have the frontage required.  He thinks the proposed development will fit in with the neighborhood.  He said that the site has become overgrown.  Due to how the land is configured the abutters will now have people behind them.  Mr. Puleo asked if there are lot lines or fences on the property to which Mr. DeIulis said that there is not a requirement to construct fences, and at this time they do not know what they will create.  He said that as part of the stormwater management plan, they are trying to minimize the impervious surfaces on the site.  So for instance, on the driveways they are recommending aqua brick pavers, they are requiring bituminous paving for the private way only.  They are not proposing any curbing on the private way in order to not impede snow removal.  They reviewed this with Scott Patrowicz to make sure they are going to avoid any flow.  Mr. Puleo asked if they are going to raise or maintain the grade, to which Mr. DeIulis said that they would raise it 3 feet.  He noted that in the process of the previous commercial use, the soil became contaminated.  They will need to bring the site up to grade.

Helen Sides asked if the renderings showing the houses are drawn to scale.  Mr. DeIulis said that he believes they are.  Ms. Sides said that they look bigger than the surrounding houses to which Mr. DeIulis said they are.  He said that they are trying to allow for the maximum space for someone to build. Ms. Sides said she would hope that they would stay to the scale of the neighborhood.  Mr. DeIulis said that some people want big houses, to which Mr. Clarke said that it’s about the neighbors.  He responded stating that they will most likely scale down.  Mr. Clarke asked what the square footage of the houses would be, to which Mr. DeIulis said that they are about 2000 square feet.  Ms. Sides said that she is sensitive to the scale of the neighborhood.  Mr. George said that when he walked the property he noticed that the lot sizes are double the size of the other lot sizes.  Mr. DeIulis said he did not want to seek higher density and five seemed to be a compromise.  They are going to keep it somewhat in the character of the neighborhood, but some of the houses are tiny and they couldn’t build something that someone would buy.  Ms. Sides said that it’s too bad that some of the houses weren’t moved up to the street to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood to which Mr. DeIulis responded that this was a similar sentiment of the Zoning Board.  Ms. Sides said there are all kinds of ways to change the plan to accommodate the neighborhood with this, and that’s what makes the Board like these neighborhoods.  

Ms. McKnight summarized the discussion at the Board of Appeals about this issue and they were split between providing more or less relief.  These were the decisions of the Board of Appeals and where they provided relief.  She notes this is before the Planning Board to have the street and the lot lines reviewed.  Ms. Sides said she feels it’s unfortunate that this is coming to the Planning Board after these decisions are made.

Issue opened to the public for comment
Ward 2 Councilor Michael Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, stated that he has been working with this site for ten years and was originally proposed to hold 12 houses.  They’ve had many neighborhood meetings and they neighbors were happy with 5 houses.  A lot of what we are seeing here is because of the neighborhood influence.

Lawrence Timilio, 11 Ames Street, described his house location in relation to the project.

Mr. George stated that when he was looking at this when two neighbors approached and stated that they are happy that this area got cleaned up.  Councilor Sosnowski said that they are a very vocal group.  Mr. George asked how many houses Mr. DeIulis originally tried for to which Mr. DeIulis said they tried for 8 units. They are just at a point where they want to put it all together and then just finish it off.  It currently is an eyesore, so for a number of reasons they want to clean it up.

Mr. Puleo stated that they have to get the City Engineer’s review for this.  Ms. McKnight stated that she has not heard back from engineering but she will check back.  Mr. DeIulis said if there are additional details needed, they will definitely add them.  Mr. Puleo asked about seeing an engineering sheet for site drainage and other issues.  

Mr. Clarke asked about the fire department feedback as the right of way is tight.  Mr. DeIulis said that he didn’t know if a fire truck could get down there.  Ms. McKnight stated that they are waiting to hear back from the fire department.

Mr. Moustakis asked about grading.  Mr. DeIulis stated that they need to bring in fill to bring it back up to grade. He knows that there is still review to be done and he appreciates being opened tonight.

Mr. Timilio described his house in relation to the site and spoke about a drainage pipe off of Thorndike Street. He stated that he does not want to see it all get drained into the ocean.  Mr. DeIulis stated that they plan to keep it all on their site.  Mr. Puleo stated that the City Engineer will review this.  Mr. DeIulis said that they have been to Conservation Commission who recommended building a berm in front of lot #5.  Mr. Puleo asked about their comments and Mr. DeIulis responded that they want them to build some berms with some plantings and they are very cognizant of the drainage issues.
Helen Sides made a motion to continue to November 1, 2012, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 9-0.

Old/New Business
None.

Adjournment
Lewis Beilman made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George.  All approved 9-0.  Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:25 pm.

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://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/.


Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk

Approved by the Planning Board 11/15/12