Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 6/20/2013
SALEM PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES 6/20/13

A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Cafetorium of Bentley Elementary School, 25 Memorial Drive, Salem, Massachusetts.

Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:07 pm.  

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

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

Approval of Minutes

June 6, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Chairman Puleo noted that the date was mislabeled and the minutes did not include the meeting ending time.  On page 4, Helen Sides noted that she is Ms. Sides, not Mr. Sides.  No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.  

Motion: Kirt Rieder made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Helen Sides and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 7-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, and Mr. Rieder] in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke and Ben Anderson were absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Other Business
Discussion and Vote on the requests of PAUL DIBIASE for the partial reduction of the surety bond for Phase I and Phase IIA, and approval of an Insignificant Change to the approved subdivision plan to construct culvert crossings as opposed to bridge crossings over two stream channels for the Osborne Hills Subdivision located off MARLBOROUGH RD.

Paul DiBiase, trustee of Osborne Hills Trust and the developer of the property, stated that the project is progressing nicely and they have started Phase IIB.  He noted that they have completed many of the improvements and they are at this meeting regarding phase IIA, which has been previously submitted for reduction.  Mr. DiBiase began by presenting the surety for Phase I.  He pointed out that they have finished 95% of curb installation, 95% of the sidewalk construction, and 100% of the installation of trees; and the only remaining item to be addressed is the final lift of asphalt on the roadway.  They are here tonight asking for the reduction in the percentages of those items with 10% of retainage for the  $91,914 in a surety reduction leaving a balance of approximately $64,000.  He then asked for any questions on Phase I, to which there were none.  Mr. DiBiase continued describing where they are in the construction of Phase 2a, which he noted is half of phase 2.   They have completed half of granite curbing, driveway inlets, along with street tree installation.  They are here tonight asking for 100% of the balances retained for the front pump for the sewer ejection and emergency generator, for a total of $125,603 leaving $45,364.50 for the total retainage.  Mr. Puleo asked for a clarification on the costs to which Mr. DiBiase explained each of the costs.  Mr. Puleo read from a letter from Fay, Spofford and Thorndike (FST Engineers), which was reviewed by the peer reviewers.  He then asked for the need to vote on this issue.  Dan Sexton, Staff Planner, reviewed correspondence from the City Engineer that concurred with the peer reviewers’ findings and they would allow the reduction and maintain 10% of retainer to cover the installation.

Mr. Rieder asked about the two issues in addition to the bridge. Chairman Puleo responded in the affirmative.


Motion: Dale Yale made a motion to approve the partial reduction of the surety bond for Phase I and IIA, seconded by Tim Ready and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 7-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, and Mr. Rieder] in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke and Ben Anderson were absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Ben Anderson arrived at 7:17pm.

Mr. DiBiase stated that they are asking for a substitute for the location of the culvert in two locations and they are proposing to replicate a 6340 square foot area.  This process is being overseen by Epsilon Associates to ensure the optimum result for the wetland area.  Part of the process is the identification of the groundwater for this area.  He noted that the Conservation Commission already approved it and they are here tonight asking for approval, noting that the only infrastructure that changes is the culvert, which is 8’ x  4’.  Chairman Puleo asked about the location of the locus, and Mr. DiBiase described it.  He noted that Phase IIA and B will be increased.  Chairman Puleo asked about the reasoning behind the fill and Mr. DiBiase described the size and the need for it.  Chairman Puleo then asked about pre-cast concrete on site, as there was nothing referencing the size on the plans.  Mr. DiBiase stated that civil, not structural, engineers designed this and the Ameche Brothers out of Vermont will build the bridge.  Chairman Puleo recommended including more of these details for future reference of the work and the changes.  

Mr. Rieder asked for the original design of bridge to which Mr. DiBiase provided the dimensions.  Mr. Rieder expressed concerns about the size in relation to the habitat and the volume of water.  He then asked about the outcome of the Conservation Committee’s meeting on this issue. Mr. Sexton stated that it was approved at last meeting. Mr. DiBiase added that this was engineer-designed.

Ben Anderson asked for clarification on a retaining wall and documents stating that it will be submitted at a later date.  DiBiase said it has been submitted and then described the types of materials they are using which is a modular block wall that is made of concrete and is interlocking.  Gravity wall.  Mr. Anderson asked about the reason for changing to a culvert from a bridge, to which Mr. DiBiase said it was economical.  Mr. Anderson asked about the Conservation Commission’s comments to which Mr. DiBiase explained the water flow in perspective, and described the location as well as the direction of the water flow. Mr. Anderson asked if he is replicating it 1 to 1, to which Mr. DiBiase responded that it will be 1.5 to 1.  

Helen Sides said it would be better to keep what was originally proposed as it is a shame to not stay with the original landscape.  Mr. DiBiase then explained how this impacts the availability in filling more wetlands and noted that this new change will be giving back 1.5 times to what they are actually filling.

Mr. Rieder asked if the retaining wall not part of bridge to which Mr. DiBiase responded that the only difference is the bridge is removed and culvert added.  Mr. Rieder clarified that this new change is affecting a larger area.  Mr. DiBiase described the changes which included brush removal.

Tim Ready asked if the Conservation Commission has fully approved the plans to which Mr. DiBiase said yes.

Chairman Puleo asked if there will be any more of these types of changes to which Mr. DiBiase stated that there will be more crossings.  Mr. Rieder asked for further clarification.  Mr. DiBiase said there will be more bridges, and they will have to be bridges.

Chairman Puleo asked about the construction of the bridges to which Mr. DiBiase said they will be made of concrete.

Motion: Tim Ready made a motion to approve insignificant change as presented, seconded by Ben Anderson and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George ,Mr. Anderson,  and Mr. Rieder] in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.



Discussion and Vote on the request of MetroPCS for an Insignificant Change to an approved Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the property located at 12 POPE ST.

Sean Connolly, Metro PCS, reminded the Board that they previously received approval to add 6 antennas at 12 Pope Street and they are here tonight because they would like to swap out old antennas.  The plan is to replace with new ones that are 4 inches wider and 6 inches deeper, but they will be the same color as approved, however he noted that the locations have to be slightly changed.  Chairman Puleo asked if someone installed antennas where you were approved to put them, to which Mr. Connolly said yes. He shared copies of original approved plans and described the locations of the antennas.  He then explained how the changes will affect the roof, pointed out how each antenna will change. Ms. Sides asked if everything will be added only to the penthouse to which Mr. Connolly said yes.  Mr. Rieder asked about the color of paint, to which Mr. Connolly said that they will confirm to what is currently there.  Mr. Anderson asked why weren’t these originally built out, and Mr. Connolly responded that they didn’t need them originally and he explained the cable requirements.  Mr. Anderson asked about a letter from the City of Salem, as they don’t have anything for 27 Charter Street.  Mr. Sexton responded that this was internally approved for this address for insignificant change.  Ms. Sides asked for further clarification on the antenna, clarifying if it is not going any higher than it is now.  Ms. Sides asked about the color and Mr. Connolly said it will be white, to which Ms. Sides recommended that it be dark, preferably black.  Chairman Puleo asked at what point to we set limits on rooftop.  Mr. Connolly stated that they will hand in the structural report when applying for building permit.  Chairman Puleo asked about setting a limitation, to which Ms. Duncan commented about reaching a tipping point of clutter, but this is part of the discretion of the Planning Board.  Mr. Rieder asked about the functional proximity from antenna to antenna. Mr. Connolly stated that it depends on the type of antennas and he explained the limitations with other carriers.  

Mr. Rieder recommended including a mechanism for adding a color requirement.

Chairman Puleo asked if the building inspector goes out and inspects this after it is done, to which Ms. Sexton and Mr. Connolly responded that he does.

Tim Ready asked the applicant to whom he was referring to when he said “you guys”.  Mr. Connolly clarified that he was referring to the Salem Planning Board.  

Motion: Helen Sides made a motion to approve with a matte finish in the grey to black range, seconded by Kirt Rieder and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder] in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Chairman Puleo asked if there were any further business, there none being, he moved onto the regular agenda.


Regular Agenda

Project:        Continued 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

Ethan Seplucis, Summer Street, Boston, MA, attorney on behalf of Loring Towers Salem Preservation Associates LP, stated that additional follow-up was requested as part of the RAD program.  They asked Salem Housing authority to participate in the RAD program, but SHA declined.  CTI was reached out to as well, and they declined flexibility with the vouchers.  Chairman Puleo asked where that put us.  Mr. Sexton stated that all members of the Board have the right to vote on this, and they do have the ability to take input from public to vote to continue this discussion.  The Planning Department recommends that they review the draft findings that they applicant recommends.  

Mr. Anderson stated that he understands the City’s position on funding, thus he is questioning if they recommend to approve this, how will they know that the owners of Loring Towers are putting money back into the facility.  Attorney Seplucis responded that there are several income restrictions on the property and reviewed these.  He further explained that the property can’t take all of the money out.   And further explained that what this means is that it is not giving full tax abatement, but gives the certainty of tax payment.  Thus if rents go up, taxes will be increased. Mr. Anderson said that he wants to be assured that tenants will receive the benefits of this and benefits received will be invested in the property.  Chairman Puleo asked if they operate under a set budget, to which Mr. Seplucis responded that he would have to ask the local property manager about how they do that as he does not put together the budget.

Issue opened to public for comment

Ward 7 Councillor Joseph O’Keefe, 28 Surrey Road, requests that this be sent to the City Council for them to work with the AIMCO and the other interested parties on this issue.  He said that these issues will be addressed with City Council in more detail.  He then introduced the representative from the Salem Affordable Trust.

Kathleen Burke, Salem Affordable Trust Fund and the Vice President of HUD tenants, said she is leaving shortly to meet with HUD officials in Washington.  She said that a lot of this has to do with asking for project-based housing vouchers and the people in Washington will advocate to Salem Housing Authority.  They are in agreement with AIMCO to send this to the City Council.

Councillor O’Keefe would like to see these opinions in writing.

Ms. Burke explained that the conflict is because the head of the Salem Housing Authority says that sequestration is stopping this from moving forward while HUD officials have said that is not true.

Mr. Ready commented on how it seems that this issue has reached a stalemate and then asked Councillor O’Keefe if he is satisfied with how this is progressing.  Councillor O’Keefe responded that he is happy with how it is progressing but would like to move it back to the City Council to discuss it fully.

Ms. Burke said that the parties have been engaged in a lot more dialog and they are making 100% more  progress now than they have in the last ten years.

Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, clarified what was before the Board tonight as to how they could make their findings to make a Chapter 121A recommendation to City Council.  

Motion: Dale Yale made a motion to close the public hearings, seconded by Ben Anderson and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder] in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Councillor O’Keefe acknowledged and recognized the efforts of the Planning Board.

Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner, read into record the drafted findings.

MEMORANDUM
Date:   June 2013
To:     Salem City Council
From:   Salem Planning Board
Re:     Summary of Findings for the MGL Chapter 121A Application of Loring Towers Salem Preservation Limited Partnership
  • 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 Loring Towers development was constructed in 1973 to address a blighted, open and substandard area on Loring Towers Road in Salem, on a difficult to develop site with substantial ledge. At the time of the development, the property remained largely undeveloped and the physical aspects of the property were both unattractive and made conventional development too costly. Over the years, the 250 unit multifamily complex on the site has experienced the degradation of aging, 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 restrictions which encumber the property, 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 owner has diligently pursued 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 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.
Specifically, The City of Salem Master Plan Update and Action Plan 1996 (the “1996 Plan”), provides on page 31, that a goal of the City is to “preserve the current level of subsidized housing.” The 1996 Plan also indicates on page 8 that “every effort must be taken to keep up the appearance of neighborhood public spaces and the condition of private housing.”

The City of Salem Five Year Consolidated Plan, published on May 12, 2010 (the “Five Year Plan”), identifies in Section IV.A-6 the high cost of housing as the “greatest problem to homeowners and renters alike.” In Section V of the Five Year Plan, the City promulgates several Housing Objectives, including “Preserving] the City’s existing affordable housing.” A key strategy for meeting this objective is the City’s ability to remove barriers to affordable housing, as explained in Section V.E of the Five Year Plan.

The Chapter 121A designation will allow the City to use one of its strategies to meet its housing objective. By approving a 121A designation, the City will be removing a barrier to affordable housing, which, in turn, will allow the Applicant to preserve and maintain 250 units of affordable housing. The preservation and maintenance of this privately owned affordable housing is key to the City as demand for affordable units remains high.  
  • 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 criterion by supporting a much needed affordable housing development, 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: Tim Ready made a motion to approve drafted findings to be submitted to the City Council, seconded by Helen Sides and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder] in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. 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 stated that the presentations this evening would be focused on responses to questions and comments.  On comment set 3, and they are working on responding to those.  They have the architects and terrain landscapers in attendance to present tonight.  They plan to present on these tonight and probably for the next month and will do this until everyone is in a comfortable place.

Scott Silverstein, COO Footprint Power, stated that he wanted to revisit the noise questions.  Discussed the baseline of a no plant being there.  The numbers were presented and then there were more questions about what it sounds like living next door to it.  He presented a graphic showing two different noise studies, one done by them and another done by a previous owner.  He reviewed the results of studies in the form of a side-by-side comparison.  He gave an overview of what all of this means, specifically that Mr. Lipka stated that the human ear can hear a difference between 3 and 4 decibels, and what all this means is that you won’t be able to hear the difference.  In regards to the question of if it will be heard differently, these numbers show that the answer is no.

Chairman Puleo asked if anyone on the Board had questions.

Darin Reynolds, Architect from CookFox, stated that he was here to address some of the comments form the board previously.  First showed proposed versus existing site comparisons, then showed a graphic comparing stack heights from various directions with overlays of current site and proposed site.  He also showed actual views from different locations, including Derby Wharf, Salem Common, Salem Willows, and Fort Avenue.  He then showed an overlay of current vs. proposed.

Chairman Puleo commented that from Winter Island, it looks like the building is closer to the water.  Mr. Reynolds said that was due to the they way they designed the slide and it will be further back from the current plant.  He continued his presentation.

Ms. Sides stated that his slides are helpful.

Mr. Reynolds then presented on additional responses to previous inquiries.  This included a shadow study based upon June 21st and December 21st throughout the day (7am, 12pm, 3pm, 5pm) comparing the current versus proposed site.

He stated that the stack design is based on functional needs and they thought about how they can make the stack much more visually appealing.  He described the design requirements which included FAA requirements, aerodynamic needs, and structural requirements. Chairman Puleo asked about if they will be building the stack in sections to which Mr. Reynolds described the concrete sleeve created by jack forming, and explained jack forming process.  Chairman Puleo asked if this is what it will look like to which Mr. Reynolds responded that this is a diagram demonstrating what internal part looks like.  He explained that they looked at local inspirations such as other local lighthouses, crow’s nests, the view from current site, and widow’s walks.  Chairman Puleo asked from which perspective was the image taken, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that is was taken from the south east corner over the boiler building.  

Mr. Reynolds continued his presentation, describing current stack design.  He stated that they wanted to make something special and did not want to look like just another stack.  He then presented and described new design, which included smooth and textured concrete finishes as well as an observation balcony and rails in the middle of the stack, creating an axis.  The axis points to Salem Old Town Hall and Misery and Baker’s Islands.  Chairman Puleo asked if there is lighting on this and Mr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative.  He then showed view from Webb Street with new design of stacks, including FAA lights.  He noted that they can now see the sky through the stack, which results in softening the edge of the building.  He then showed view from the Salem Harbor Station Entrance, and a view toward Salem.  

Dale Yale asked about the color of FAA lights, to which Mr. Reynolds responded that during the day, they will be illuminated white, and at night, they will be red.  Ms. Sides said that she likes it.  Mr. Anderson said that it is the best looking power plant.

Steve Tupu, landscape architect, began by addressing questions about landscape in southwest corner He described honey locusts in area on berm.  In regards to the existing trees, in the area in question, there is a national grid easement but they have confirmed that there are no existing trees to be removed, and Mr. Silverstein echoed that Footprint is not removing any trees.

Chairman Puleo asked about parking lot locations, to which Mr. Silverstein described them.  Chairman Puleo clarified if there is a need to make any changes, unless there is cable work required.  Mr. Silverstein described an inter-station upgrade. Chairman Puleo asked if any changes would need to be brought back before board under the PUD.  Attorney Correnti agreed,  stating that this is a fully proposed landscaped area and if there would be any changes then they would come back before the board.  Chairman Puleo asked about the permanent easement on their property.  Mr. Silverstein acknowledged that this is the nature of permit and easement.  Mr. Rieder asked for further clarification on the easement and asked how do they direct National Grid to come back before board.

Ms. Duncan said that was a good question and that they are going to have to come back to the Board as it is not easy to track what a utility does on their own site.  Mr. Rieder said that in terms of a permanent easement, this impacts all of us.  Mr. Silverstein responded that with respect to the landscaping, they have spoken to National Grid’s project management and they will be watching what National Grid is doing very carefully.  They discussed setting up system where our project manager and their project manager sit down together and check in with each other.  He noted that the Project Manager said it would be impossible to over-communicate on this issue.  

Mr. Reynolds directed people to the visual 3/16th scale model and described location on the site plan.  He further explained the design ideas including the louvers.  Mr. Anderson asked about color to which Mr. Reynolds stated that it will be a metallic silver panel.  He continued his presentation, describing the different colors and materials to be used, and noted that this is not a painted product.  He then moved on to discussing the type of materials; and described the facility materials board.  Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on colors, to which Mr. Reynolds described them. Mr. Rieder asked that they do not match CVS or Walgreens camel color, to which Mr. Reynolds agreed to.  Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the accent, particularly if it is smooth or textured.  Mr. Reynolds explained the proposal of the colors and they are looking at smooth versus textured.  He then discussed renovating the visitors gate house and also showed a graphic explaining what a gabean looks like.  Mr. Rieder asked what they will use, whether it will be rocks, gravel, or crushed concrete, and Mr. Reynolds responded that they will use as much as they can recycle from the current site.  Mr. Anderson asked for further clarification on some of the materials to which Mr. Reynolds reviewed them.

Mr. Rieder stated that he is still not clear on the public ability to share space from south to north along the water, particularly in regards to how they are going to control it as the drawings did not show any control structure.  Mr. Silverstein responded that obviously their goal long term is to bring the public in to get a view of the harbor.  The reason they have not been able to give an answer is that they need to find the right way to address public access. The idea right now is to give people public access along southern edge, but not fully while in a construction state.  They are trying to figure out how to do that.  Until everything is built out it will be difficult to give a clear answer as to how this will be feasible.  Mr. Rieder recommended that they make the jetty publically accessible at some point, which will be fantastic.  Mr. Silverstein said that the design team agrees, but they have to figure out how to do that safely.

Ms. Duncan stated that since they don’t know the timing of the entire PUD, it could be an interim period. She challenges them to find interim safe access.  Mr. Silverstein responded that they will work on that.  Mr. Rieder described an example of working wharves in Rotterdam that have public access. Mr. Silverstein stated that they are looking at that closer, in Brooklyn particularly, and they are trying to figure out how to do that in context with EPA regulations, and to give maximum access as possible.  Mr. Rieder said that he recommends detailing it for heavy truck axis, but it’s operational in relation as to  how to get people through there.

Steve Tupu continued, discussed their built small sectional model of power plant.  He spoke of opportunities to build out habitat plantings.  He then described the landscape models, including the different layers of plantings and the canopies of trees.  He noted that the goal is to create a rich landscape.  Then he reviewed the different types of plantings that they are proposing around the site including shrubbery and trees, including the plantings around the roads.

Mr. Rieder commended their work and told them not be cowed into not being graphically diverse.  He said that there is no reason to strip out and dumb down what will be an excellent addition to the Salem landscape.

David Derrig, AECOM, introduced two other members of the team, from Sasaki, Katie Flynn, and James Minor and provided comments.

James Minor, of Sasaki, reviewed the initial sketch of berm concept and explained the use of the berm, noting that he thinks this is an elegant solution to the site.  The concerns they raised are in relation to safety and access, particularly how the site would be programmed for future public use.  They are also faced with the reality that they don’t know what the future use of the site will be as they are looking at the interim condition.  They want to talk about the viability of a park and how that site gets used.  They see a path system that is related to the function of a power plant, and further described the proposal, showing slides that overlaid the uses for the proposed site plan.  They requested clarity on how this will function in the interim use condition.  He stressed that the community wants to know about future uses.  He spoke of the introduction of the paths in terms of future uses and spoke further about safety concerns and the concerns about the proposed use as a wetland domain.  He thinks the use of native vegetation is commendable.  He moved on to discussing visitor use at the power plant publically accessed path system.  He asked if they could maximize that dimension on the eastern edge to edge of berm and they felt this area is defined by needs of access point.  Thus they recommend minimizing the distance of berm and maximize the slope.

He then described the architecture, stating that they are essentially wrapping entirely around the perimeter in order to make it less of a vertical plane.  It is possible that has been achieved.  In regards to the stack, he said that even though it is dramatically reduced, they think about it in terms of how it will look from other parts of the area.

Katie Flynn, of Sasaki, discussed lighting strategies and stated that they would like to understand lighting strategies.  They see this as an opportunity to make it really beautiful.

David Derrig reviewed the series of comments that have been provided to the Board and the applicant.  They believe that the three sets of comments constitute the complete initial review.  First response to comments received May 21st which many of them were satisfied.  Mr. Anderson asked when do they expect to get the revised plans.  Mr. Silverstein stated that they wanted to make sure that they received all of the comments from AECOM and Sasaki first; so between now and the next Planning Board meeting they will have the new plans to the Planning Board members.  

Mr. Derrig continued, stating that the second set of comments focused on drainage and stormwater and they have received the comments today.  They provided two sets of comments last week and briefly reviewed those.  Chairman Puleo and Mr. Derrig discussed the effectiveness of reviewing the comments at this time.  Mr. Derrig noted that federal and state processes are running concurrently, along with the City’s EIS.  The EFSB filing and MEPA filing has been shared with AECOM.  He is not certain that the Board has had a similar benefit.  Some of their comments continue to reflect issues that have been raised as part of those processes.  Follow-up on some of those other comments may inform the review and the Board’s deliberation of the project.  He gave an example of the previous meeting where air quality measurements were questioned.  He said that the review of these reports may assist in providing a more comprehensive picture.

Mr. Anderson asked if the FEIR has been submitted, to which Mr. Derrig responded that yes, the final FEIR has been submitted to MEPA.  He noted that the certificate was issued on May 17th and has been determined that this adequately and properly complies with the MEPA process.  He noted that this is something that helps inform the Board on this.  Chairman Puleo asked if they get final comment.  Mr. Derrig recommended using this as a resource when it is available, and provided an example of the emissions and stated that there are public documents to review to provide a better understanding of this.  He said that the FEIR gave some insight into this.  He is requesting that where there is something discussed with the Board regarding subject matter, that they share with the Board even though it is not part of the jurisdiction.

Attorney Correnti stated that they struggle with that as well, and acknowledged that it is all public and available for review.  They are offering to sit down with AECOM and Sasaki to figure out what is relevant, and said that filtering sessions are essential.  Mr. Derrig stated that their comments do not indicate that there is any holding back of information, just wants to point out that there is a lot of information out there that can help to make a more informed decision.

Mr. Anderson requested a copy of the FEIR.  

Chairman Puleo asked if the board had any further comments or questions, there being none he opened the meeting up for public comment.

Lamont Beaudette, current plant manager, spoke in support of the project.  He described the Braden Point Station in Swansea, near his home, is so much worse than what they are doing here.  He has been in the industry for about 40 years.  He is financially indifferent to the plant.  He spoke of the character of the individuals of Footprint Power, of which he can affirm.  First he spoke of the commitments of these folks make, and he gave an example of their commitment to training people.  He stressed that they make a commitment and they keep it.  They were recently involved in a plant outage, and in those discussions the Footprint people said, “when you do it right, you can’t be wrong.”  He then spoke of the content of Peter Furniss’ and Scott Silverstein’s character, describing it to be of the highest.  In all of the projects he has been involved in, he has never heard of an owner speak the way Mr. Furniss does, especially with his knowledge of the history of the site.  He knows of no others who consider the visual impacts as highly as they do.

Steve Dulong, Woburn, MA, stated that he commends these guys for coming in to do this project and their honesty with everyone here.

Lou Arak, 12 Abell Avenue, Ipswich, said that he has been in oil fields for many years and has been in Salem since the 1990s.  He feels that there is a huge difference in dealing with these folks as compared to dealing with others, and the applicant has set a precedence.

Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, her and her husband own a commercial property in Salem.  They brought the developer to Victoria’s Station as well as other RCG properties.  She has been involved with this process since learning about the EFSB.  She has worked with 3 different owners and until the administrative order, no one would talk to the Derby Street neighbors about the dust.  She has never done anything like this.  She commends the city for hiring the consultants and the complexity of this blows her away.  She thinks this is a game changer.  She thinks Salem Harbor is a treasure of the national landscape and she doesn’t want to be compared to other communities that do not have the same site characteristics.  She stated that she is concerned because this is the first time that they are going to build and own a power plant.  She then moved onto questions about landscaping.  She asked how much will they clean up that corner of the site to the level that they would let their children run a round on.  Mr. Silverstein pointed out that there is confusion on the location of the site.  The area that is being discussed is a different location all together.  He referenced a presentation given by Mike Billa at the last meeting and stated that by and large the site meets S-1 conditions today.  He noted that there is a place where the two issues come together, where there is a high concentration in the old residential area which would indicate that it was likely from lead paint.  He then reminded the audience that it doesn’t matter how it got here as they own it.  Ms. Haley then asked if it is safe for children to walk on all 65 acres, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that it is not safe due to the construction going on, but environmentally it generally meets S-1 conditions.  

Ms. Haley asked about taxes to which Chairman Puleo explained that it does not fall under the purview of the Planning Board.  Ms. Duncan then explained why taxes were an issue with the earlier agenda item regarding the Chapter 121 statute.  Ms. Haley then asked about bonds and Chairman Puleo explained the bond requirements.  Ms. Haley said that the community is concerned about what happens down the road if the plant closes.  Ms. Duncan recommended that it might be something to talk about under the community benefits agreement.  Ms. Haley said that if the plan changes, you need to know so that you will have a record of what was committed.  Chairman Puleo asked her if she was referring to specific details on another applicant’s plans.  Ms. Haley responded with another question, asking if they come up with a final plan for the power plant to which Chairman Puleo explained that yes, there will be a final plan and if there are changes, they have to apply for another public hearing.  Ms. Haley then asked about inspections.  Chairman Puleo said that the applicant will have to meet the specifications, and recommended Ms. Haley follow-up with the Board of Health who would be more appropriate to respond to those concerns as he doesn’t know if they can go out to do a post survey.  Mr. Anderson said that the design team and City will have opportunity to review in order to get a certificate for occupancy, which is part of the system of checks and balances.  Ms. Haley said that she appreciates their comments.  

Councillor at Large Arthur Sargent, 8 Maple Avenue, stated that he has been a computer technician for the plant for 30 years.  If he didn’t believe that this wasn’t substantially better for the community then he would not be here tonight.  He spoke about emissions and burning gas in his home, which gives off more emissions than anything the proposed plant could ever give off.  So much has been said about everything that has to be read.  What hasn’t been said is that this is all subject to laws, and will be met if approved.

Mr. Ready stated that this Board and all of the city departments are extremely active with the largest development in the city in his lifetime.  He’s not sure if that puts people at ease, but there are a number of standards that have to be met and the developer will have to be in compliance before the work can be done.  

Motion: Kirt Rieder made a motion to continue to July 18th, seconded by Helen Sides and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 8-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Rieder] in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.

Additional Discussion
Lynn Duncan thanked Dan Sexton for all of his work and wished him luck in his new position.

Adjournment
Helen Sides made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Dale Yale.  All approved 8-0.  Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:10 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk