Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 5/16/2013
City of Salem Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 16, 2013

A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School, 25 Memorial Drive, Salem, Massachusetts.

Vice Chairman Ready opened the meeting at 7:02 pm.  

  • Roll Call
Those present were: Tim Ready, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke and George McCabe. Absent: Dale Yale, Chuck Puleo, Chair, and Mark George.

Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.  

Councillors Legault, Turiel, Sargent, McCarthy and Furey presence were acknowledged.

  • Approval of Minutes
May 2, 2013 draft minutes

Mr. Rieder noted a couple revisions on page 7 including:
  • Restating that , Kirt Rieder seemed to suggest that Footprint is removing trees rather than the original owner doing this, would like his comment to be
  • The word “shooting” should be reworded as “percolating”;
  • Clarified that he was not suggesting that they move the building back, rather use the berm as a buffer.  
No further comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.  

Motion: Mr. Clarke made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Rieder and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

  • Regular Agenda
Mr. Ready introduced the first agenda item.

Project:        Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 40-year extension from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A, with the applicant maintaining an option to terminate such exemption after the first fifteen (15) years, for the property located at 12 POPE STREET.
Applicant:      SALEM HEIGHTS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LP
Location:       12 POPE STREET

Lynn Duncan, Director of Community Development and Planning, stated that the public hearing was closed last night and this is the opportunity for the Planning Board to discuss the findings and it’s up to the Planning Board to deliberate.  Dan Sexton, Staff Planner, stated that the Board needs to adopt findings and make a recommendation in order to approve the application. Mr. Sexton read some draft findings for consideration by the Planning Board into the record. The findings read by Mr. Sexton stated:  

  • The proposed project area is qualified under the statutory definition of a “blighted open,” “decadent” or “substandard” area established in Section 1 of Chapter 121A.
The Salem Planning Board has determined that the Salem Heights development was constructed in 1974 to address a blighted, open and substandard area on Pope Street in Salem, on a difficult to develop site with substantial ledge.   Over the years, the 283 unit multifamily building on the site has experienced the degradation of aging, inadequate original systems, high energy costs, and heavy use from the families who have lived there over the 40 year period since original construction.  Capital needs studies have shown that the building continues to require substantial investment, for basic infrastructure as well as for the rehabilitation of the interior of apartment units on turnover.  Due to the inability to raise rents or to increase mortgage proceeds from the property for capital needs as a result of the multiple affordable housing restrictions which encumber the property (including a 100-year restriction held by the City of Salem), it is critical to the preservation of this affordable housing resource and the prevention of blight and substandard conditions on the site and in the surrounding neighborhood that the assistance of Chapter 121A be provided to the project.  The project has experienced mortgage default and workout status.  The owner has diligently pursued all available public and private sources of affordable housing funds to address the blight created by inadequate capitalization, but Chapter 121A status is essential to these efforts to prevent blighted and substandard project conditions.  Therefore, the Salem Planning Board finds that all of the above factors qualify the project to meet the statutory purpose and intent of the definition of a “blighted open,” “decadent” or “substandard” area.

  • The project is not in contravention of any zoning, subdivision, health or building ordinance or by-law or the rules and regulations of the City of Salem (the “City”).
The project is in conformance with local zoning, subdivision, health or building ordinances, by-law and rules and regulations of the City.

  • The project does not conflict with the City’s master plan, or if there is no master plan, with a local or regional plan, as appropriate.
The Salem Planning Board finds that the project is in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of the City, as a much needed affordable housing resource for the City, and as an anchor of stability to prevent blight and decay in the surrounding neighborhood.  The City has made a major commitment to the viability of this multi-family apartment development and the families who live there, through the lawsuit brought to block the conversion of Salem Heights to market rate housing in the late 1990s, and the 100-year affordable housing restriction the City obtained as a result of that lawsuit.  The financial stability of the project will be supported with the consistency of the payment formula under Chapter 121A agreement; the City will benefit financially as well, by sharing through the statutory formula in rental increases permitted by the affordable housing restrictions, and avoiding the need to have annual negotiations, and, potentially, time-consuming and costly annual appeals of real estate tax assessments.

  • The project is not detrimental to:
  • the best interests of the public or City;
  • the best interests of public safety and convenience; or
  • consistency with the most suitable development of the City;
The Salem Planning Board has determined that the project will further the best interests of the public and the City by providing much needed, safe and decent affordable housing to families, through the support provided by the predictable amount of taxes payable under Chapter 121A, as well as providing a predictable source of tax revenue for the City, and participation in any increase in rental income under the statutory formula of Chapter 121A.
 
  • The project constitutes a public use and benefit; and
The Salem Planning Board determines that the project meets this criteria by supporting a much needed affordable housing development subject to a 100-year restriction held by the City, and will benefit the surrounding neighborhood by enabling the project to address the maintenance and capital needs of the project notwithstanding the limitations on rental income created by the affordable housing restrictions held by the City and federal and state governments.

  • No relocation of residents is required since the ongoing maintenance and capital repairs programs being undertaken by the Applicant are being performed with tenants in place.
Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to accept the findings as stated by staff and recommend approval of the Salem Heights Chapter 121A application for 12 Pope Street, seconded by Mr. Clarke and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Mr. Ready introduced the second item.

Project:        Discussion and Vote on the request for approval of a M.G.L. Chapter 121A designation for LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and for approval of a 25-year extension to the 15-year period of exemption from property taxation under Section 10 of Chapter 121A for the property located at 1000 LORING AVENUE.
Applicant:      LORING TOWERS SALEM PRESERVATION ASSOCIATES, LP
Location:       1000 LORING AVENUE

Mr. Sexton stated that staff was asked by Loring Towers Salem Preservation Associates, LP and Councilor O’Keefe to continue this item to the next meeting so they may have time to resolve the issues raised during the joint public hearing.

Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to accept the request for a continuance of the Loring Towers Chapter 121A application till the June 6th regular Planning Board meeting, seconded by Mr. Clarke and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 6-0 vote (Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder) in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Project:        Continued Public Hearing on the 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

Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the applicant Footprint Power, said that this is the second in the series of meetings that they are presenting the proposal for Footprint Power.  He reviewed the presentations from the previous meeting.  This evening they are going to continue their presentation on new materials.  As they continue to present this, and as questions come up, the specified consultant will respond to those issues.  He introduced Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Power.

A member of the audience asked if they could film this presentation, to which the Vice Chair said yes.  Mr. Ready reminded the audience that there is an official audio recording of the meeting which is available through the Planning Department.

Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint, stated that in the discussion regarding the minutes that the trees in question are not scheduled to be removed, which he also confirmed with National Grid.  The other issue came up in the meeting in regards to concerns about the plant in Everett.  The concern that was raised were about explosions and gas coming out to the stacks.  They looked at the new reports which stated that National Grid was doing maintenance on the line and they did the flaring on the Mystic site which was not related to the plant, and was a safe and controlled event.  

The other point that he wanted to make was about the scope of the project, specifically the kind of inner workings of the site as well as what they have gone through on the permitting front.  They have gone through the Siting Board hearing over ten days, which included thousands of documents and testimonies.  Others will be vetted before the Department of Environmental Protection, as there is an ongoing MEPA process, and they expect the Secretary of Energy to issue a certificate on the process.  Many of the issues are being vetted elsewhere.  They hopefully have answers to all the questions that will be asked as they have spent a great deal of time thinking about this project.  The city has been involved in each of these proceedings and these issues have been seen by others.  He concluded by stating that there is a packed agenda tonight, along with slides that will demonstrate their plans.

Brian Marchetti, TetraTec, is the civil engineer on the project, focused on stormwater management and facilities.  He reviewed the size of the project and explained how it currently operates under EPA multi-sector general permit.  He then described slides that showed the current and proposed outfalls on the site and the direction of the stormwater floes.  He spoke of the treated wastewater on the facility and how that impacts day-to-day functions. He stated that it was important to note that currently, on the entire facility, there are no drainage connections to the city’s 48-inch drain line and they are not proposing that.  He then showed a slide of the proposed stormwater management system, noting that none of the stormwater runoff will be directed or discharged into the surrounding streets.  He described the plan for the new stormwater collection area and said that there would only be 7 inches of water in the basin, and will discharge in process stormwater into Salem Harbor. Oil water separating technology was described.  The northeast part of site will largely remain unchanged, but they will replace catchbasins at the beginning of the parking lot, and will add catchbasins up the driveway, along with water quality units.  Additionally, in that same section they proposed some demolishing at the site, but the slabs will remain.  Catch basins will be there to collect drainage before outfall.  All outfalls are being proposed to remain to clean stormwater runoff from the property.  

He then described the rooftop design and discussed harvesting rooftop runoff.  Mr. Marchetti then spoke of the route of the rainfall from the rooftop.  

Then reviewed the drain line relocation, and said that they are working with the City and peer review consultants for the final design as they would like to relocate portion of drain line.

In terms of water quality, Mr. Marchetti stated that they need to meet DEP requirements in order to promote groundwater infiltration which will be cleaner as part of the proposed development.  Based on the DEP standards they expect to have a net decrease in paved area of approximately 15 acres.  He then reviewed standard DEP stormwater requirements and explained how the development of the site will conform with those requirements.  Explained that this site has some obstacles, but just in the fact that they are reducing the paved areas by 15 acres, the direct result reduces a significant amount of rainfall runoff.  He noted that the water quality units will be tested by third parties; they have been tested and have been found to be at manufacturers requirements, which would allow them to use them on the site.  They are treating a 1 inch water quality volume that is required by the standard.  He described this as a significant improvement over what is currently on the site.  This site is considered a critical site due to shellfish on the site.  They are a re-development project and while they are required to meet certain standards, they are meeting all of the standards beyond what is required.  There are no illicit discharges proposed and there are no illicit discharges known on site.  If there are any then the connection will be immediately shut off.

Mr. Marchetti then showed a slide on the amount of fill that is being brought to the site and described the elevations that will be changed on the site due to the additions of the fill.

He then showed and explained a slide on the conceptual gas line routing plan.

Another slide showed the domestic water and fire water services on the site currently.  He noted that they are not proposing any changes to those lines, but will add lines to supply the water tanks with water to facilitate the fire service needs.  

He concluded his presentation by showing a slide on the sewer connections.

Kenny Kinkela, Bay Shore Services, reviewed the flood zones and associated mitigations.  He reviewed the effect of 100 year flood zones and the velocity zones under the FEMA mapping, which is zoned at 12 feet.  He said that they need to address how to protect these sites and to his knowledge, there has only been one hurricane in 1950s which (breeched hurricane flood elevations).  He showed and described proposed elevations on the site.  They proposed raising the elevations of the site to 16 feet, at a minimum, particularly on the main part of the site.  He acknowledged that while this isn’t a significant change on the northern areas of the site, it will be a significant change at the southern parts of the site.  The current FEMA flood zone is set for 10 feet, and the new facility will give them a safety factor of 4 to 6 feet.

Mr. Kinkela then discussed climate change and stated that from an observational methodology over a 40 year period, they came up with a 15 year rising, which is how they came to that estimation.  He explained that they took the mean high level water and then added in sea level rise.  He presented the NOAA storm surge model for Salem Harbor, which showed a potential of 6 feet in sea water rise during a nor’easter.  He then added in some additional buffer, and that’s how they came up with 16 feet.

He then addressed how fill is going to affect a person’s home.  Mr. Kinkela stated that the site is protected very well from the north and northeast as large wave actions get dampened by the topography.  Any wave action that comes in from a storm will be interrupted by the breakwater, which is what happens currently.  

Mr. Kinkela then presented on construction phasing describing each of the stages. He stated that preliminary staging will take place between August 2013 and March 2014, and at that time they will be removing tanks, as well as electrical systems to try to grade this site down to smoother profile.  He then showed a graphic with the demolition area.  Stage 2 will take place between March 2014 and July 2015, which includes the coal handling conveyer and the stacks. For this stage, the emphasis is on getting demolition done as soon as possible.  Stage 3 is the beginning of the actual site destruction which will take place between July 2014 and December 2014 and at this time access to site will not be much different.  They will limit it to delivery trucks and overall this will make a significant difference to the community. The construction workers will come in from the arterial roads and they will build as much parking as necessary for their workers.

The actual construction will consist of the installation of foundations for the buildings and auger cast piles He noted that the geotechnical work is ongoing right now.  After pile work is underway they will do general slab work followed by underground piping, which will take place between July 2014 and December 2014.  Above ground construction will take place between December 2014 and January 2016; and finally the facility operations will begin in 2016.  He emphasized that the peak of work will only be over the course of a few months.

Mike Hall, TetraTec, gave the traffic study presentation and stated that he oversaw preparation of the traffic project.  He provided a summary of findings and began by stating that during operational phase, there will be a net benefit of traffic during construction phase of project with construction workers.  Workers will show up before peak hours of traffic, which they found to be 7:30 – 8:30am and 4:30 – 5:30am.  They did find that most of the roads have adequate capacity to handle traffic.  One exception Derby and Webb Street, which is where mitigation is being proposed.  In 2012, they did traffic counts in the area, and observed how and when the trucks come in and out of the site.  Currently, there are almost 300 vehicles on a daily basis, and they are expecting about 100 vehicles per day which is a net benefit.  The traffic study then focused on the construction phase if there is going to be an impact on the traffic.  They looked at the total of 6 intersections.  Webb and Derby Streets, Essex and Webb Streets, both ends of Ayube Drive, Fort Avenue and the site driveway, and Bridge and Webb Streets.  They looked at peak times of the days as well as traffic signals.  They asked if these signals can function and handle the traffic and they tested what if scenarios.  They anticipate that 98% of traffic will come through Webb and Bridge Streets.

They looked specifically at July- September 2015 when the most workers will be coming to the site.  They conducted rigorous testing of if the streets can handle the traffic, taking into account a workforce this size and they could be coming from a further distance.  The analysis they did showed everyone coming from their own car.  They looked at number of lanes, traffic signal timings, etc. to determine how well a traffic signal is going to function.  Mr. Hall then explained the rating system and showed that all of the access roads function between levels of service rated A through D.  He noted that there were two routes that did not function at those levels, which were Webb and Bridge Streets, rated level E, Webb and Derby Streets, rated level F.  The mitigation they are recommending there is a positioning of an officer during the morning and afternoon, which will move it up to level C.  Footprint is willing to work with the city to mitigate the light.  Mr. Hall then reminded the Board and the audience that this is during a three month period only.  They want to be a good neighbor and want to work with the city to make this work for all.  He concluded, by saying that there may be some miscellaneous trucks coming in from routes 114, 107 and 1A.

Scott Silverstein acknowledged that it is a complex and difficult project.  Mr. Ready echoed his sentiments and also introduced the Peer Reviewers from AECOM, Kathleen Schaeffer and David Derring.

Ben Anderson stated that he heard a fair amount about materials coming in on barges but would like to know about materials leaving the site.  He asked about the plan for them to queue in the site, and not on the city streets.  Mr. Silverstein stated that everything that is going to off by barge will by able to go by barge.  He specifically stated that they will sort on site, demolish on site, anything that can be reused will be the best option and will be used on site.  Anything that can go off by barge will go off, as they don’t want to add congestion to the streets.  Mr. Anderson asked how that is determined to which Mr.  Silverstein stated that in terms of things being shipped, there are no major issues with things going off by barge, to which Mr. Kinkela added that no materials are leaving the site by truck.  They have been in discussions with the demolition contractors, and they have concluded that loading materials onto barge is easiest and quickest.  Truck queuing at each of the entrance gates will be set back into the site so trucks will be queued off the city streets.  Mr. Anderson asked about the frequency of deliveries to which Mr. Kinkela stated that he believed them to be as many as one a day, which is about the same size of the coal loading ships now.  He said that it will be aggregated elsewhere and brought in, so it should be a pretty controlled and well planned delivery system.

Randy Clarke asked about trucks going to the site. The assumption was how where they would go, can it be a requirement that the trucks take Routes 114 and 107 as Derby is a single point failure.  This is a minor detail but it would do a lot to help the neighborhood.  Mr. Kinkela agreed and added that they can specify arterial routes.

Mr. Rieder would like to enter into the record a set of red-lined drawings, reflecting many of the comments from the last meeting in graphic format to help the applicant understand.  Tim Ready will accept them and the applicant does not object.  Mr. Ready then reminded the applicant and the audience to stand up so everyone can hear.  

Mr. Rieder questioned the markings on the cherry trees in regards to removal.  Mr. Silverstein said that he checked with National Grid and they are not planning on taking out trees.  Mr. Rieder stated that they would be well suited to make notes that they do not remove trees based on previous lawsuit.

Mr. Rieder asked why stone slope is needed as opposed to loam and seed.  Mr. Marchetti responded that as it is designed now the central portion of the basin was landscaped with loam and seed and the stone surrounding the reservoir.  The thought is that the fresh stone could be used as a construction lay down.  Area has enough volume that will protect trucks and materials in the area from heavy rains.  Mr. Rieder continued his questions, stating that he felt that something was squirrely with the contours, and asked what is the low point as opposed to the high point.  Mr. Marchetti described the inner elevation as 9 stone,  and holds the same elevation 9 up to the center to the collection.  Mr. Rieder recommended that they clarify the drawings.  Mr. Marchetti said that the Elevation 10 is where they want to keep elevation. Mr. Rieder asked about location of fence by Derby Street to which Mr. Kinkela said that he does not know the answer to the question but the intent is to keep it in the area of the chain link fence.  The site does slope up.  Put it near the chain link fence.  Mr. Rieder recommended a web-enabled camera for the residents for everyone to see what is going on beyond the 12 foot high wall.  Mr. Silverstein said that he thinks it would be great to do that, it’s something that they need to discuss with the city and the Coast Guard to make sure they are not running afoul, but it is a great idea.  Mr. Rieder said that demolition would be a great thing to see as it goes away, to which Mr. Silverstein said that they would like to continue the discussion, keeping security concerns in mind.

Mr. Rieder asked what section of PUD is this project on to which Attorney Correnti stated that they have shown all 65 acres of the site which is what encompasses the whole PUD and as this site continues to  develop this will become more clear.  By applying in this manner, this gives the Planning Board ultimate control as to how the site will be developed, and noted that there is no other site or project like this in Salem.  He said that because they have to demolish and build within the fences there is a sequencing of this.  Throughout their presentations they will continue to address how the traffic, drainage, curb cuts, they will continue addressing those with the Board.  Mr. Rieder said that there is some concern that some sort of housing will be shoe horned into this development, to which Mr. Correnti responded that because it is zoned industrial and it’s not a permitted use; they don’t want anyone to stress about this.  Mr. Silverstein added that they know they can’t do a high density development; that cannot happen here and everyone knows it.  He described the northern portion of site, as industrial, and then moving southerly to light industrial.  The site kind of lays itself out, and it should put some fears aide.  Mr. Correnti said they have been having a lot of discussions elsewhere and explained that they have asked for this as a PUD, so if in the future something comes along, then they will ask to amend the site.  If other uses do come in then they will come back before the Planning Board.

Mr. Ready recognizes that future plans will be back before us.  

Ms. Duncan asked a follow-up question in regards to storm water collection area, how does it affect the future development of site, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that it does not impact it. They have to have storm water in place and they need to use all of that.  They need to stabilize that until they are ready to do the next phase of construction.  The one thing they don’t want to do on the site is preclude future uses for marine industrial uses.  They want to make sure that land is safe and secure.  Mr. Marchetti added that any future development that occurs on the site needs to be raised.  The basin is significantly oversized with more than enough capacity than what it can handle.  Ms. Duncan recommended keeping that in mind as they continue to think about where to place the city’s 48 inch drain line, and the increase in the impervious area she recommended that the team be prepared to articulate that response. Mr. Silverstein agreed and said they would work with her office to figure out where to put the drainage pipe.  

George McCabe stated that he looked at the study that was done and uses that as a guide for conditions which will put the project in good shape.

Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the language for Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, specifically on sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.3, and he read from those two sections.  He stated that the key items for him included time limits and complete property.  Attorney Correnti stated that they have provided the total plan for the whole site and recommends looking at what is proposed as this is the site as they have presented it.  He acknowledged that there is the possibility for future development, which they will have to come back to the Planning Board again to present, but they still have more presentations to give.  But they have given a good answer of how this site will be designed and noted that open space is part of the plan.   He emphasized that the PUD is what you have in front of you.  As far as what’s going to come down the road in terms of future development, they don’t know now, but it will be something that fits in the Designated Port Area (DPA).  He said that having open space doesn’t disqualify it from the PUD and they think a PUD from the city’s perspective gives the Planning Board more power to review.  He concluded by stating that they could have gone a different route, but they wanted to come this way.

Mr. Rieder said that there are still some blurry areas and would only like to take the opportunity to recommend a site circulation route, as he sees a big horseshoe as a problem. Mr. Silverstein responded that it is problematic as the site has marine-related industrial uses and the challenge is communication issues, specifically between the northern industrial parcel and the wharf.

Issue opened to public for comment
Hans Weedon, 1A Daniels Street Court, asked if they have taken the National Grid project into account, to which Mr. Silverstein responded in the affirmative that they have been in discussion with the city, and the city has asked them to work with the three other projects and have the project managers communicate with each other.

George Smith, 6 White Street, asked if they were able to restrict coal distribution times to which Mr. Silverstein responded that they haven’t gotten to that level of detail yet.  He continued, stating that this should not be an issue as these will just be a container coming off a barge.  He said that they will vet this with the city, in terms of bringing the fill in and if they need to have the same timing restrictions, then they will do that.

Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, noted that traffic study was done in April, and asked if there has been a traffic study done during the tourist season.  She is concerned that the pipeline is being brought down through the city and is asking that the project not be brought into city, and recommends a staging area.  She is concerned about anyone who tries to get off the ferry, to the willows and other events will have problems getting through the city due to this.  She does not think a person in charge can manage that.  She has looked at other waterside projects and asked about workers being carpooled from a ferry across the way and thinks they should do this in Salem.  She also asked about the timeline for the removal of the tanks, which is important to her.  She asked if repurposing of turbine building is part of the plan, and when can they expect to hear about that.  She also has concerns about the fill they will be using and if it will be contaminated soil.  Mr. Silverstein responded that they will have someone from TetraTec at another meeting who can address this, but the short answer is that it has to be clean fill.  Ms. Haley then asked if they will use contaminated fill on the site to which Mr. Silverstein responded that the DEP will deal with remediation, particularly what stuff needs to be taken off and what needs to remain on site.  He stated that the short answer is that it will be addressed under current regulations.  As far as Turbine Hall, the intent is to take down all the buildings that will not be re-used and noted that there is an architectural interest in structural steel.  In terms of the seasonality of traffic study, Mr. Hall stated that they recognize tourist season and so there are a couple of things to think about - the timing of construction workers and tourist arrivals.  This raises the question of what happens if Webb Street is being torn up.  Trenching could be expected and there may be situations where cars will not be allowed to get on road at certain times.  In that situation, the city can issue what times work can be done on Webb Street.  Mr. Silverstein discussed the challenge of off-site parking options as the site does not have sufficient on-site parking.  He said that with off-site parking, then clock starts earlier which will extend the number of months the process will take and means that they need to add more workers or more time.

Lester Smith, 10 Memorial Drive, stated that they will have traffic problems in October, particularly the last 3 weeks in October from Tuesday through the weekend.  He then asked about how a high powered gas line will be secured; as well as how is a fence going to stop sound on Fort Avenue and asked for more details on the construction and demolition timelines.  He specifically asked if homeowners in the immediate area will be compensated if thee is damage to their foundations due to the demolition.  Mr. Silverstein responded, stating George from TetraTec will answer these questions in more detail when he presents.  He also said that they don’t anticipate any blasting and they’ve heard the concerns loud and clear, so they will direct demolition crews not to implode the structures.  As for the pilings, there is no anticipation for blasting.  In terms of the sound wall on Derby Street, they are speaking colloquially as the whole length of the site which includes both Derby Street and Fort Avenue and he apologizes for imprecision.  In terms of the gas line, Spectra will construct that line, as this is what they do throughout the country.  He noted that this is a fairly small line for them, but recognizes that this is a large line for community.  This will be a whole separate process and lines will be interior to plant, which he emphasized will be better addressed at spectra part of process.

Ilir Korriku, 47 Fort Ave, stated that he is concerned about dust issues and in the past he has made phone calls regarding dust.  He asked if there will a point of contact with issues that arise during the renovations and requested that there be an assigned point of contact who will be available to respond to issues.  Mr. Kinkela responded, stating that in terms of dust mitigation, they will use dust abatement measures, including watering down trucks.  Site measures are very clear and they will have people on site conducting monitoring.  Mr. Silverstein added that they want to make sure they have a phone set up and route it to the right person as they are putting every process in place to make sure everything goes smoothly.  The important thing is that there will be someone who can address issues and fix problem.  Ms. Duncan said that there are people in the mayor’s office, as well as on salem.com, or on the city’s Facebook page where these issues can be addressed.

Mr. Sexton asked if, based on the scale of the site, there is any anticipation of additional taps on city water supply.  Mr. Kinkela responded that the existing connections will be sufficient, and they are in the process of developing a storm water prevention plan as part of that process.

Theodora Sobin, 110 Derby Street, stated that she is concerned about fumes, emissions during normal maintenance, plant safety, and an overall huge pile of issues in regards to the relative risk around the neighborhood.  She recommends discussing this sooner rather than later. Mr. Silverstein acknowledged that every topic feel like it needs to be hit the most and this plant is being built and safety is primary concern.  It’s important to them that everyone gets there safely and gets home safely.  The will have future meetings with more details coming soon.  He then reviewed what they have presented thus far in terms of the state of the art emissions, which are going to be 2 parts per million carbon dioxide, ammonia, and nitrous oxide, which exceeds every standard.  The stack height will be optimized and he stressed that this plant is safe and is being engineered to ensure it is safe.

Rinus Oosthoek, Salem Chamber of Commerce, thanked them for their work on this project.  He is concerned about the traffic issues, and stressed the importance of good communication.  He recommends talking to Destination Salem for traffic plans, as well as utilizing Route 62.  He said that there are ways to address that in October as well.  Mr. Silverstein said that they alluded to carpooling, and they will encourage it as they are also planning for the worst.  Past projects indicate that they will see this, but they are assuming the worst.  Mr. Hall pointed out there are going to be two Octobers with a lot less workers.  Ms. Duncan said that the city requested that they should work with the North Shore Transportation Management Association, to which Mr. Silverstein agreed.

Jeff Brook, 14 Webb Street, stated that health and safety issues are a concern.  Last week he spoke to many neighbors who were not aware of what was happening on the site, and asked about what the city is doing to let people know what is going on here.  He is especially concerned about the conversion of tons of emissions and he is concerned about the health of people who live around the site.  He hopes the city will do due diligence in getting message out.  Mr. Silverstein explained the parts per million conversions and stressed that the key for them is to find technology that will reduce emissions for the region.  This plant’s efficiency will reduce emissions in the whole area.  Mr. Brock emphasized that while they are happy they are shortening the stack but the reality is that the emissions are going to be coming out closer to people.  Mr. Silverstien responded that an air modeling expert will be at a future meeting to address this issue and he understands his concern and the local concerns.  Ms. Duncan would be happy to discuss better ways to get the word out about this in addition to the emails, city news, email blasts, city website, and they meet with various neighborhood associations.  She would be happy to hear any other specific recommendations.  Mr. Ready stated that the board is uniquely aware of the concerns of the citizens of Salem which is why the meetings are conducted in such detail.

Ms. Haley recommended SATV to film this.  She is concerned because they had email blasts from Councillor McCarthy on other issues but nothing was about this.

Attorney Correnti provided some closing remarks.  He stated that they will have other upcoming presentations, where they will provide you new information first as well as answering questions from the public.  He said that future topics will include noise, air modeling, specific filings, landscaping and architecture.

Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the next Planning Board meeting on June 6, 2013, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 6-0.


  • Old/New Business
Community Preservation Committee Appointment
Dan Sexton explained that the commission was recently established and he included information about it in the packet.  The Planning Board has been asked by the Mayor and the City Council to nominate a member.  Helen Sides was nominated by Randy Clarke, Kirt Rieder seconded.  All approved 6-0.

Randy Clarke recommended shorter meetings in order to get the public out to them.

Vice Chairman Ready asked if there were any further old/new business, there being none he asked for a motion to adjourn.

  • Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides.  All approved 6-0.  Vice Chairman Ready adjourned the meeting at 10:07pm.


Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk