City of Salem Planning Board
Regular Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 2, 2013
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School, 25 Memorial Drive, Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:06 pm. He introduced Dale Yale and described her experience.
Those present were: Chairmen Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Anderson, Mr. George, Mr. Clarke and Mr. McCabe.
Also present: Mr. Sexton, Staff Planner, and Ms. Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
March 21, 2013 draft minutes
Mr. Rieder noted that his name was incorrectly spelled on page 3.
Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. George, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 8-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Dale and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Clarke abstained. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Project: Request for release of Lots 1 and 3 from Covenant of the Definitive Subdivision Plan at 18 Thorndike Street
Applicant: PATRICK DEIULIS
Location: HUBON and THORNDIKE STREETS
Patrick DeIulis, 31 Collins Street Terrace, Lynn, stated that they have begun preliminary work and they have a buyer interested in the two lots on Hubon Street. He noted that they are not working with a lender, so there is no surety and they propose posting a cash bond. He said that the City Engineer is working on a reasonable estimate and they are here asking for the consent of the Board to sign off on the release so they can release the lots. They will be performing all the site work for the builder and will be pursuing all the remaining work. Chairman Puleo asked if the work that needs to be done is on the street or on site, to which Mr. DeIulis responded that the work would be done mostly on the site. He went on to describe how the storm drains tied into the catch basin, but stressed that they
would be tying in the utilities only, everything else will be primarily on the site.
Mr. Sexton, Staff Planner, explained that the City Engineer still needed to finalize the surety amount and have the release approved to form by the City Solicitor, and the document should be ready for the Board to sign document.
Motion: Mr. Ready made a motion to approve the requested partial lot release as presented, seconded by Mr. McCabe, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 9-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready, Mr. Clarke, Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Dale and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Mr. Ready asked Chairman Puleo to recognize the city councilors in attendance, which included Councillor-at-Large Tom Furey, Ward 5 Councillor Josh Turiel, Ward 1 Councillor Bob McCarthy, Councillor-at-Large Bill Legault, Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, Ward 2 Councillor Mike Sosnowski, and Councillor-at-Large Arthur Sargent.
Project: Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit Public Hearing
Applicant: INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS
Location: 12 POPE STREET
Tony Germanetto presented on behalf of the applicant. He explained who Industrial Communications is and who they service. He stated that they were in attendance to seek a special permit in relation to the equipment they would like to place on top of the Salem Heights apartment building at 12 Pope Street. He described the equipment they would like to put on the roof as a digital two way radio, four omni-directional whip antennas, along with an associated radio cabinet. They believe that this is consistent and compliant with Ordinance 6.6 in relation to design and they feel that 12 Pope Street fills a gap in the digital network. There are two existing wireless facilities already on the roof and the equipment will meet all setbacks and height limits. Additionally, the antennas will be painted to fit in
with the current color scheme and they will all be installed and operated in compliance with federal and state regulations.
Chariman Puleo inquired about the dimension of the dish on section 7 of application.
Mr. Anderson asked if the drawings are to scale to which Mr. Germanetto responded that they are not to scale, but they are the best example of what they are going to look like.
Mr. Rieder asked for clarification on how many antennas will actually be on the building as it sounds like there is a conflict in his April letter the Planning Department and what he is presenting this evening. Mr. Germanetto responded that it will be 3 on ballast mount and 1 on penthouse.
Ms. Sides recommended that anything that projects above the roofline should be dark. Mr. Germanetto responded that they found that they are blended better into the skyline if they are white or a sky blue color, to which Ms. Sides disagreed. Mr. Rieder asked if they could be a darker grey as opposed to black, to which Ms. Sides responded that they could be any of those colors from bronze to black. Mr. Germinetto offered to bring paint swatches to the department, to which Ms. Sides agreed.
Chairman Puleo asked if a suggested condition already in the decision should that be changed to which Ms. Sides said no, and stated that if things are attached to the building should blend, but if they extend they should be black. Ms. Sides further recommended that they could add that language as it always comes up. Mr. Sexton read from a re-worded condition, and includes language stating that any equipment that is visible above the roof line will match that of existing structure above the roof line, and further will be colored black, bronze, dark brown black, non-glossy.
Issue opened to the public for comment
No one from the public was present to speak on this issue.
Motion: Mr. Rieder made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Sides, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 9-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready, Mr. Clarke, Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Dale and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Motion: Mr. Rieder made a motion to approve the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit as conditioned and presented, seconded by Mr. George, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 9-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready, Mr. Clarke, Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Dale and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Project: Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Public Hearing. Specifically, the requested petitions concern select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the construction of a new state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the Site.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
Mr. Sexton, Staff Planner stated that AECOM and Sazaki are the Peer Reviewers and will be present at a later meeting to provide comment to the Board.
Atty Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, stated that he is representing the applicant Footprint Power, and they are very pleased to be here. They are going to present the thoughts behind the project and he introduced the team from Footprint as well as the consultants that include Peter Furniss, CEO Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint. They have met with many of the neighbors and obviously this is a huge presentation. They want to give the overview as to how this project lays out on the site. He will also introduce the architects, Bob Fox and Stephen Tupa. He noted that part of the filing also includes traffic, environmental impact statement, site plans, and storm water management plans which will also be presented to the Board. He specifically pointed out that they are asking for three different
approvals: a Planned Unit Development special permit, Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard District special permit. He stated that the PUD is for entire site, which comprised about 65 acres, and the residential part of the site, which is about 1.1 acres, is not included in the PUD. PUD part of the site is less than the whole site and in the presentation the Board and audience will see more of what he is describing, which is the layout for the power plant, which is about 20 acres. He expects that through the presentation, the Board and the audience will come to understand why they can’t build this whole site all at once and noted that virtually everything currently on the property will be demolished. He described this as a new opportunity on this oceanfront property that will come to life over the course of the project, and noted that this will be the most significant project in their lifetime. He concluded by stating that at the end of the
presentations, they will have better understanding of how this project compares to other projects in the state.
Chairman Puleo reminded the public to sign in and stated that they will get an opportunity to speak on general comments after this evening’s presentation and after the Board has asked their questions.
Peter Furniss, CEO, Footprint Power, introduced himself and gave a brief overview about who Footprint Power is and where they are at the state level. He stated that Footprint Power has been in the community for three years and they came to Salem because they saw the promise of this new site and are invested in moving old coal-fired plants to new life. They like Salem because they feel it is a community that is extremely educated about power and they were impressed about the site itself due to the location. They started their conversations about three years ago and they have been listening ever since. They were impressed by the work that Sazaki did, and so they approached Dominion, where they had a long negotiation process and ultimately they purchased the property. He noted that they are eager to get
the new property up and running. The existing plant will be entirely dismantled save for three small buildings, which are the Guard House, Turban Hall, and 1950’s-era building. In connection with demolition they did a full environmental study of the site and there was a lot of discussion about what was there. They determined that the site was relatively clean, though there is some remediation that needs to be done. He emphasized that the groundwater is clean and they will be working on the remediation process.
Mayor Driscoll stated that she wanted to come before the Planning Board based on the importance and complexity of the project. She wants to stress how much they appreciate the volume of volunteer hours that have been and continue to be put into this project. Secondly, she wants to recognize not only the long term and short term benefits, but that there is a terrific upside to this which includes the development of this site. The applicant started this process two years ago to better understand the obstacles and benefits of this site and they are doing everything they can to put the best foot forward. They have one chance to get this right. The state process is underway and they are close to wrapping up, and she did note some duplicity in this process. She said that the local power plant stakeholders
are tracking what is happening on the site, and are serving as a clearinghouse as they are identifying how land is used then tackle issues beyond Planning Board. She discussed some of the more unique issues on the site including the port, and pier to bring in cruise ships, as well as off-shore wind. These are part of the number of items that cannot be lost for long-term benefits. She noted that although there are many eyes, local eyes are the most important eyes, and state eyes. She welcomes everyone to dive in and really make sure that this is something that we can be proud of. She wants protection and preservation at the focus. She concluded by thanking everyone for the volunteer effort.
Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Power, stated that they have been here for 3 years now talking to residents and he wanted to go back to the beginning the process, specifically addressing why here and why Salem. He talked about how they could look at older coal sites and envision new use, and combining that with finding the right communities where power is needed and people are thinking about how to utilize power. He stressed that they want to be clear why plant is needed, and went on to explain that within Route 128, is a separate zone for ISO New England. They attended an auction for power needed beginning on June 1, 2016 where they looked at what units were out there and what would be needed. They realized what was needed in this area, and NEMA Boston needs this power for reliability in the Boston area. Mr. Silverstein also explained where they are in the state permitting process, stating the there is a final environmental impact report to be filed with MEPA and should be
completed this month, along with a Chapter 91 license due this month.
Bob Fox, architect, introduced Zach Kron, who stated that this project is about the whole site and their goal is to do the best thing on the site that doesn’t just make power and is also good for the neighborhood. The site is identified as industrial port and it’s an incredibly important site which is zoned industrial except for one spot that’s bigger than Salem Common and the downtown business district. He noted that they are filing the whole site as a PUD, when in reality what they are using is only twenty acres which leaves the rest open for future development. He further explained that to actually re-do just the plant they only need thirteen acres. The remaining seven acres is slightly smaller than Salem Common which they hope will be enjoyed by the people of Salem.
Stephen Tupa, the project’s landscape architect, stated that this is an unusual site and it is interesting what is happening here. He described the main structural elements of the landscape which included an acoustic gabion wall that wraps around the buildings as well as a landscape berm. He showed a graphic from the perspective of someone standing on Derby Street, and stated that they are hoping to use some of the demolition material as fill. He presented other slides that showed the lawn, wildflowers, and lines of sight from various points of the site, and included an early conceptual sketch of the site. He stated that they thought about what are the possibilities of the berm and they want to have areas of lawn and openness. They plan on crushing up materials to use as paths which will also be
used as an acoustic wall. He also discussed areas of meadow, plantings and security barriers, and showed the amount of fill added to make acoustic berm is which will be done on top of what is remediated. Showed slide in regards to water system, and explained that they will use stormwater to irrigate the landscape which will connect back into existing stormwater system. Overall they did a major rethinking of landscaping and it was important to remove the chain-link fence to create new openness and access to the site, which is important to talk about. They are proposing a new walkway and bikeway to get people off of Derby Street, which will also allow access to the site as well as new views westerly back towards Salem. There are also going to be new views out across the harbor and h showed graphic on how this is really sunny site. He then showed the potential of the path system, and how people can move over the path system, and described the large
area of open lawn where they are hoping to build some habitat. There is great potential for the site and they can plant a lot of great plants that will be good for the site. This is a maritime zone ideal for juniper grass and will be good for maple trees. Their goal is to create an upland meadow and the idea is that looking through the site from Derby Street they are looking at a multilayered habitat which will change with the topography. He then showed graphics describing what would be in the line of sight including Black Eyed Susans and other plantings. He concluded by stressing that they will be creating a layered landscape.
Bob Fox stated that this is something that Peter and Scott have been saying all along: no chain link fence. They thought about how they use the site in a creative way to create an acoustical site and make it appealing to the public. Mr. Fox then described the proposed site plan, which will be to compress it to use less land. He described the main plant and how the electric production will work and will go through various buildings. They are taking as much energy out of the gas to make it more efficient and to keep it cooler. In terms of the site access, the facilities will be accessed by the same route for employees. For anything large it will come from the harbor. There are 160 million gallons of seawater utilized daily in the current plant, which is equal to filling 3 Fenway Parks, and the new
site will not use any seawater. This is not comparing the new plant to what is there now it is comparing it to the New England ISO. Once this plant is up and running, it will reduce the harmful emissions for the whole New England ISO and the new plant will be a major contributor for the entire micro-area.
Mr. Fox continued, and showed pictures describing what the new plant will look like including the heights of the stacks from various areas around the site. He talked about how this is going to be a green site and how they will make the whole size of the plant green. They are going to harvest the rainwater and use it for irrigation and other processes. The facilities will include solar panels, so drawing power from the grid will not be necessary. They are looking at every way possible to make it the greenest facility possible and they are looking at current LEED ratings, and thinking about how this plant can set new LEED standards.
They looked at the architecture of the local area to think about the design of the building, particularly in relation to layering in the landscape, and they looked at how to add value. The building is going to make noise and there will be an acoustic layer and as well as metal louvers which will add another acoustical layer, and furthermore, here will also be a corrugated metal layer.
For the Administration Building they feel they have done their best to integrate the building into the landscape. They are going to have living roofs and gardens on top of the building.
What they are designating as the Community Outreach Building will get a dramatic facelift. It will be staffed to educate the community on what is going on currently on the site as well as what will be done in the future. He also provided an explanation of what a gabean wall is, and said people should think of it as a lobster pot with rocks. He concluded by describing the main building.
Atty. Correnti stated that this is the bulk of the presentation for the evening.
Chairman Puleo asked if anyone on the Board had questions.
Mr. Anderson stated that he had several questions from review of materials. He works for Jacobs who was hired by the city for the review of the study and he wasn’t involved, and there is no conflict of interest.
He asked about issues that were raised in the draft impact study, specifically when that report is due and requested a copy of that. He stated that he appreciates the view perspectives, would like to see more details of the perspectives, more specifically getting perspectives of the stack and the view from Common, Willows, Derby Wharf on a human scale. He would like to see what are the material boards and the colors of the buildings. It would be great to see a shadow study of where the shadow falls around the neighborhood.
He also stated that he is a little concerned that they are not meeting the flavor of the PUD. As he understood it is intended that it is to develop the entire site. He thinks it’s unfair to show just the power plant site and would like to see how the whole site will be developed in the true spirit of the PUD.
He also had a question about the disaster plan for the ammonia tank. He asked if it will be on concrete and how will tank react in a storm. In some of his research about the power plant in Everett, they have to fire the stack to clear gas build-up in, testing lasts about 8 hours in a day, so he asked about the testing frequency.
In relation to the stack, he stated that 230 feet tall is quite big. He feels that there is a design opportunity to make it better than a concrete stack that could be something more that they can look at the rest of their lives.
In relation to the storm overflow it looks like a lot is being drained back into the Harbor, and he would ask that they think about a gas and oil separator for water going back into the ocean. He is concerned about flooding and flood detailing and would like more info on flooding issues.
He then spoke about LEED certification and asked if it is related to the administration building only.
He noted that a huge component of the facility is related to the gas pipeline, how is pipeline being proposed and how it is connecting to site and how it will impact our city.
Mr. Rieder stated that he was looking through drawings, would like to see buffers on all drawings. He also noticed that the other energy provider is proposing moving some of the honey locusts, so he would like to see more specifically what trees are going to go away. The southern half of site for site infiltration and as he reads the drawings he sees a slight slope, like a gravel racetrack. He recommended that they think about how to influence the team for a landscaped solution where vegetation can work against the contamination instead of percolating the contamination in the soil.
He asked for further detail on the use of the marine dock, and asked if it falls into phase 2 of redevelopment. He noted that landscape-wise there is an existing berm, and asked if any of that can be used on the southwest side to cap in place and re-vegetate or can it be the last thing in place to be demolished to be a buffer for the neighborhood.
He recognized Footprint’s plans in keeping some of the buildings in place as well as keeping fragments of the landscape in place. He also noted the plans to use some of the buildings as a bookend to the larger berm, and wondered if they planned to repurpose it as a buffer between facility and the neighborhood.
He asked about the site in relation to Webb Street, as it looks like they are filling the side of the site up to Webb Street, which he felt that without a catch basin it could create some localized flooding. He’s not sure if it is a site gradient or civil engineering question, as Webb Street is critical to redevelopment area. He would also like them to address the impact of the southwest corner, if it is be a landscape or to remain as a land bank. His big question was if Webb Street becomes the connection, which suggests that there is the intention that there is a road at the southern portion that goes along the discharge channel to access the northern part of the site. He sees that as an issue as it is the most circuitous route and is an inherent conflict where the discharge channel and the pier
meet. He asked about connecting the neighborhood to water. He notes that on the drawings, they have included bollards in order to make it a pedestrian area in the eastern section. He asked the applicant to consider a way to use northern access road as a primary entrance to the redevelopment of the northern part of the site, and extend the landscape towards the discharge channel, which will then become a front dock to the facility. He’s concerned about having a pedestrian use and industrial use in the same space, which kills it for him.
Some minor comments on terrain, which include showing the existing honey locusts clearer. He thinks it was a misstake to say there is only one part of fill when the entire site includes 6 feet of fill. He is also concerned about the acoustical right side as it is not able to be redeveloped. His final comment was about the stacks as he feels they have not fully addressed that and he would like to see a shadow and reveal on that.
Chairman Puleo asked why ammonia is used. Mr. Furniss explained the selective catalytic process, whereby sulfur dioxide is not a big problem, however nitrous & nitrous oxide becomes a problem. Ammonia is used as a catalyst of a chemical reaction for a waste stream leaving the plant and they use 2 parts per million. Chairman Puleo asked how they replenish the supply, to which Mr. Furniss explained that it comes through the streets in a tanker truck, and further stated that the ammonia is covered in a tank that is a concrete enclosure. Further, they have an outer tank that is a size larger in case of breach. They have adopted a system that uses 19% aqueous ammonia which is the most to use in this process, but the real concern with ammonia is with the fumes. They have what he called
“clever ways” to reduce fumes if the tank ever releases. The tank is filled with balls that would reduce the amount of surface area where the ammonia fumes can leak. They went through extensive questions with that.
Chairman Puleo recommended that they schedule deliveries when there is the least amount of traffic. Mr. Furniss stated that they are operating 24/7 and that daylight hours are the best so delivery personnel can see what they are doing. They come less often when the plant is active they have tried to make this project the least impactful of traffic on city streets. All of the major equipment will be delivered on the sea. They have bids out on the street now that try to achieve a level of deliveries that are least disruptive. The sea deliveries will be coming from either the Port of Providence or the Port of Boston into Salem for the least amount of disruption.
Chairman Puleo asked about the height of building in relation to the current height to which Mr. Rieder recommended that the team show the height difference more clearly in a future presentation. Chairman Puleo asked about the difference in terms of square footage, to which Mr. Fox responded that, sq footage wise, it’s smaller. Mr. Rieder recommended pairing up certain pictures together as an overlay to get a better understanding of the size difference. Mr. Fox explained that it will appear bigger or smaller depending from where you are standing.
Mr. Fox addressed the LEED question in relation to LEED for commercial interiors. He stated that there is no LEED certification product for a processing building and he noted that where the building is for people, they are going to be LEED certified. They are shooting for a LEED certification on the buildings where there will be people. They spoke to the US Green Building Council, who said that LEED doesn’t quite fit, but they will work with them to develop it. He stressed that if they can build it they are trying to do it. Mr. Anderson stated that he knows there is no rating system for it, but knows that they are in the spirit of it to which Mr. Fox agreed.
Issue opened to public for comment
Lester Smith, 10 Memorial Drive, stated that he is happy to hear about the question of the catch basin on Webb Street. He feels that the sound currently is very loud and is wondering how loud that is going to be with the new power plant. He appreciates the ammonia tank being addressed and would like to know how stable that tank is going to be and well as how the berm will be affected. He noted that he has a sump pump but heavy rains become a problem in the neighborhood. He doesn’t think there is going to be any problem with the trucks. His big safety concerns are the ammonia tank and how the demolition of the stacks will be done. How would also like to know at future meetings what they are going to do to develop the other parcels, and what will be done with the traffic in the neighborhood. He stated that he has seen a lot of reports, but this is the first time he is hearing about the ammonia tank, and he would like to be more informed. He said he is grateful that someone is
taking over the power plant. He doesn’t think that regular maintenance is a problem, but just wants to know the tank cleaning schedule and asked how that will happen. Mr. Furniss responded that the stacks will be taken down brick by brick, using stack muncher and will get cleaned up at night. He stated that there will be no implosions for the larger stack, but they are still looking at the shorter stack. He pointed out that it is more than 375 feet away from everything else and is a possible candidate for implosion, but safety is the utmost concern. He appreciated the questions about the ammonia and the tank, and again stressed that safety is the overarching issue with the plant. They are doing everything to make sure that is done safely and they will take you through that over the course of their presentations.
Nick Sobin, 110 Derby Street, Unit 1, asked how they know that the steam will not have a negative impact on the environment and the surrounding vegetation. Mr. Furniss responded stating that this plant will have emissions control technology that will keep the pollution levels low and will displace pollutants. They will see a system-wide reduction from this plant. He said that 2 parts per million for nitrous oxide is very low and ozone level reduction is very important. Sulfur dioxide does cause issues for plants. He acknowledged that they will emit negligent amounts of sulfur dioxide which will reduce it for other plants. Their goal is to have a reduction in carbon dioxide, which in turn will displace other power plants that are less efficient and will help the state meet their reduction
goals.
Louise Brown, 60 Derby Street, stated that the noise estimate that was given was 6 decibels above ambient noise, and asked if a 25 foot wall high enough to protect the neighborhood. She wants to start talking about what is going to be done on the rest of the site, as she is not clear on the part of the site that is zoned residential. She also asked what people on Derby Street are going to be looking at. She commented on the landscaping, which she thinks looks absolutely fantastic on the current slides, but asked if what is going to be built along Derby Street is in line with the rest of the character of the neighborhood.
Ken Novack, 42 Osgood Street, asked about protecting the noise on the ocean side of the site. He also asked about various constituents to be removed on site, and asked what those are.
Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, stated that she is trying to figure out this proposal. She feels that once the power plant is built and sold to investors they will be stuck with it and there will be previous dangers that were unrealized before. Her biggest concern to having a gas plant in Salem is the risk to the close-knit community and the school nearby. She raised the issue of previous explosions in other parts of the country and asked why the power plant has to be located here in this community and is there a way that they can be protected from a gas explosion. She likes the idea about the chain link fence, but security has to be paramount. She is happy to look at a chain link fence if it will keep the wrong people out. She is concerned that the two uses are not compatible. Health and
safety are the number one concern during all of the phases and she appreciates the views showed. She stressed that if they are buying this for our community for the next 50 years, she would like to see the other power plants this company has built. She is concerned that the gas deliveries will be coming over land. She noted that briefs are due on Monday to the (Energy Facilities) Siting Board, and she fears that the perception of the Siting Board and Footprint is that the people of Salem want this because no one is screaming about this. So to assess our support is not really fair to us as we are polite and will not scream. She really does not want to get stuck with it, she doesn’t welcome it, and she’s afraid of it. She is concerned about how explosions will impact the foundations of people’s homes.
Ward 1 Councillor Bob McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue, he was smiling at the first few slides as he recalls the old meetings. He is very optimistic about the plan, but as the Ward Councillor he is front and center with the concerns. He stated that the stakeholder committee report will be coming out. He will be at these meetings representing his constituents and addressing concerns. He is optimistic that is it all going to be done right. His early on meetings with Peter Furniss and Scott Silverstein indicated to him that they are also benefitting from this being their first plan. Councillor McCarthy feels that this will help us as a community but they are very cognizant that they want to do this right and they should ask the tough questions to get this done right.
Hans Weedon, 1A Daniels Street Court, asked if instead of transporting ammonia, they could generate it locally. He stated the proposed louvers aren’t right, as he feels they will not absorb sound.
Ilir “Nick” Korriku, 47 Fort Avenue, concerned about sound and the times of day or night that it will be heard. He is also concerned about the gaping wall which will make sound that will be coming right in his window. Overall, he is concerned about Fort Avenue. Chairman Puleo asked to see the perspective from Fort Avenue at their next presentation.
David Reardon, 5 Victory Road, stated that he had questions there were structural in nature. He asked if they will excavate as deeply at the sewage treatment plant and will it require blasting as it will get into ledge. His concern is if they do, he wants know if Footprint Power’s insurance will cover any damage to his foundation if he finds structural faults due to blasting.
Ed Wolfe, 95 Bay View Avenue, suggested that they look at dry exhaust versus wet exhaust. He feels that most of the comments are due to noise but it is going to cost you a lot.
Mayor Driscoll recommended laying out an order to the review process. She gave an example of certain issues relating to construction so residents know which meetings to come to. They want to make sure that they hear from everyone. There are email lists to get on the agendas and they want to make sure that they get the word out to people. She also mentioned other projects such as the National Grid cable replacing project, and she said that some are related, but the new cable project happens regardless of power plant. They are trying to coordinate the projects and they are providing ways for folks to comment and having input. She reiterated that this is going to be a busy summer and the city is working with dynamic consultants who will provide a peer review. They are going to be checking the
math, lines of sight, decibel levels, but reminded the Board and the audience that they don’t own the land as this is not public space. It is amazing space that has the opportunity to stabilize tax base long term.
Atty. Correnti stated that they were laying out a format earlier and the comments were right on point. He said that there is no way to present all this in one evening and understands there is frustration that this can’t be done all at once. They will have experts here for specific parts of this process as this has so many levels including federal, state and city. He pointed out that they will be filing notices of intent with the Conservation Commission in the next month, as well as the Board of Appeals and they will also visit the Historical Commission where they will ask for a demolition waiver in order to take down the tank farm. He noted that some of what they want to get permitted to take down will be done in the summer and early fall. He concluded his presentation for the evening by
focusing on the application itself, in terms of the rest of the site, which includes the construction and lay down area that will be used to rebuild the plant. In future presentations, the Board and the audience will hear the details of the 25 or 30 acre lay down site and this will include everything related to the existing plant being shut down by June 2014 and opening by 2016. He stressed that they need the extensive area to be laid down, which they will talk about in future meetings.
Chairman Puleo asked if there is a similar plant in the are that they can look at, to which Mr. Furniss responded that there are others bigger than this and were specifically designed to be built inexpensively, thus there really isn’t anything like this. Mr. Anderson noted that Everett is partially gas. Mr. Furniss reiterated his point is that they were built by Sythe and while they include all of the functional plant aspects, they were not designed to work with the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson noted that he was using that plant as a scale reference.
Chairman Puleo asked whether the Atty. Correnti would be amenable to continue the public hearing of Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Redevelopment project. Atty. Correnti consented.
Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to continue the public hearing of Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Redevelopment project until the regular meeting on May 16, 2013, seconded by Mr. Ready, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 9-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready, Mr. Clarke, Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Dale and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
ENF Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion
Mr. Sexton provided an update there is a MEPA site visit for the Salem Waterfront Expansion that they are going forward with soon. The site visit is next week, on Monday, and they can attend. Mr. Sexton stated that he can provide a copy for the ENF to the Board members.
Joint City Council and Planning Board Public Hearing
Mr. Sexton stated that this meeting is in regards to two Chapter 121A applications that were submitted to the City. The joint public hearing will be on the 15th and the actual decision will be made during the meeting on the 16th. He asked that members let him know if there is any issue with availability. The meeting will be in City Council chambers. Mr. Clarke asked for the time of the meeting to which Mr. Sexton offered to send out a reminder email. He concluded by noting that with regards to people being gone, he urged Board members to try not to miss more than one meeting otherwise they can’t vote. He noted that Chairman Puleo and Ms. Yale will not be in attendance at the next meeting and they will listen to the minutes at a later date.
Old Project Follow Up
Mr. Sexton provided a follow-up to Chairman Puleo’s question about the responsibility of striping by Home Depot. He stated that it is the responsibility of the city and they will be striping it later in the spring. Chairman Puleo then asked about striping Kernwood Avenue, to which Mr. Sexton said he can ask about that.
Mr. Sexton then reviewed a minor amendment for the US Bio project in regards to the Certificate of Occupancy issues and the internal review on the modified drainage plan. Mr. Sexton said that he reviewed the request with Chairman Puleo and there is a minor modification so they signed off on that. Mr. Clarke asked if the applicant added more parking, to which Mr. Sexton responded in the affirmative. Mr. Clarke stated that he would not have voted for it if the parking had been expanded. Chairman Puleo then asked about fixing the curbing on that site to which Mr. Sexton said they were working on it.
Chairman Puleo asked if there were any further old/new business, there being none he asked for a motion to adjourn.
Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to adjourn the May 2nd regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board seconded by Mr. Anderson, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 9-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready, Mr. Clarke, Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Dale and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:48 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
| 
