SALEM PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES 7/18/13
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, July 18, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
There was a presentation of a certificate to Tim Kavanagh for his years of service on the Planning Board. Chairman Puleo personally thanked him for his years of service and help on decisions that were made with his expertise. Tim Ready stated that he was pleased to honor him for his years of service. He stated that a lot of progress and clean-up within the city can be attributed to his participation on the Planning Board. Mr. Ready said that he benefitted greatly from working with him. He then read into the record the proclamation from the Mayor. He also gave him a gift certificate to Opus as a thank you gift.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:06 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Tim Ready, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, George McCabe, Dale Yale, Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke and Mark George. Absent: Kirt Rieder.
Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Frank Taormina, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
June 20, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Mark George made a correction to a word, which should be sewer “ejection” on page 1. Under the motion, Ben Anderson noted that on page 3 he was present for the vote and was in favor. He also stated that on page 5, the motion should read as an “8-0” vote. On page 8, Mark George said the correct word should be “sounds” rather than “wounds”. On page 9 there was some confusion with the wording of Chairman Puleo’s comment. On page 12, Dale Yale pointed out that the name of the power plant should be “Brayton Point”. No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
Motion: Helen Sides made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections, seconded by George McCabe 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. Anderson and Mr. George] in favor and none opposed. Randy Clarke abstained and Kirt Rieder was absent. 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 applications for the select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site. It is anticipated that discussion will focus on concerns raised by AECOM and Sasaki during their review of the applications, and the application supplements provided by Footprint, but other topics may be discussed.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the applicant Footprint Power stated that they are pleased to report that the issues are narrowing and the topics are being addressed. He provided a brief update, stating that they had a meeting with planning staff and the chairman joined them for most of the meeting where they reviewed and responded to the issues in an effort to spare the Board having to do that. Since then they have had further comments and responses to issues. He said that AECOM and Sasaki are here this evening and noted that the applicants are pleased with the process to date. Their goal is to conclude this meeting with a small list of things that need to be continued to be addressed. They are not presenting this evening but they wanted to make a screen available with past
PowerPoint presentations for reference, if necessary.
Chairman Puleo asked if the most recent responses to the consultants have been made available to which Attorney Correnti said no.
Chairman Puleo then asked Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development to provide an update. Ms. Duncan stated that this is a moving target, which includes a 45 page matrix from Sasaki, where they had an all day meeting to walk through these. There were comments and set of plans revised. She spoke of a July 17th memo from AECOM which reflect the current outstanding issues. She noted that they will have responses to our consultants and will choose a point in time to discuss, then Footprint can respond. Chairman Puleo asked if everyone on the Board feels comfortable with this as what they’ve seen most recently is from July 10. Ben Anderson stated that he does have questions but they can be asked later.
Daivd Derrig, AECOM, introduced the rest of the consulting team and stated that they had their working session going over the plans. They have a new set of revised plans from Footprint that they received yesterday. They will be looking over those to see how they match up with the matrix. It’s up to 55 or 57 pages once the consultants’ responses to comments were added. They received these today and after a brief review, he would characterize them as primarily satisfactory. It appears that in a quick read of the comments that most of the issues have been addressed. They will then match these up with Footprint’s responses. They had additional questions and most of those responses will be given. They will review the most critical outstanding concerns in the response prior to
comments. He introduced the consulting team stating that Katie Flynn, from Sasaki, and Kathy Schaeffer from AECOM will review their respective sections.
Katie Flynn, Sasaki Associates, began reviewing her comments. The first outstanding concern is with respect to the Height of Berm on Southern Edge of Site. She stated that the plans show a difference between top of berm and path is 4’. This, coupled with a planting strategy that might reach 3’ in height would prohibit site lines from Derby Street to the water. This poses a concerned with view corridors from Derby Street to the stone jetty and Salem Harbor and potential security issues as the height and dense vegetation could be an area that people hide in. She stated that it was her understanding that based on discussions during the July 10th meeting that the applicant will lower the smaller berms and their associated plantings along the southern edge of the site to reach no higher than 4 ½’ in height. This will
be accompanied by a clause in the maintenance strategy that describes how plantings in this area will be kept low.
Randy Clarke asked the Chairman if there would be a more appropriate time to ask about security. Chairman Puleo directed the question to Attorney Correnti who responded that they would address it later before the end of the meeting.
Ms. Flynn continued her review of her comments. Her next concern was to ensure that there was public access to the water’s edge at the completion of Phase 1 and understand how the eastern edge of the site will be treated. She stated that Sasaki would like to see the dimension of the berm minimized on this eastern edge in order to maximize the distance between the toe of the berm and the seawall. It was her understanding based on discussions during the July 10th meeting that the applicant will tighten the dimension of the landscape berm along the eastern edge in order to maximize the distance between the toe of the berm and the seawall. We understand that the applicant intends to provide public access to the water’s edge at the conclusion of Phase 1 and that the applicant will submit a conceptual diagram of a phased
public access strategy that will help inform our understanding of how the proposed plan fits into a larger site vision.
Ms. Flynn stated that a Security Plan for Landscape Areas was also a critical outstanding concern. She stated that it was her understanding based on discussions during the July 10th meeting that the applicant intends to post signs that indicate the landscape area is open from “dawn to dusk,” allowing law enforcement and power plant security personnel to ask visitors to leave outside of these hours. The lighting strategy proposed for the landscape area is intended to provide sufficient light for security purposes but not to encourage night-time use by the public.
Ms. Flynn stated that Sasaki recommends that the Planning Board include a condition to their approval that ensures the applicant will continue to develop a decorative / monumental lighting strategy for the power plant structures including the stack. It is their hope that the applicant will propose a thoughtful, expressive lighting strategy that capitalizes on the opportunity to illuminate the proposed structures in an iconic way. We would propose that this lighting strategy be presented to the planning board as an amendment to this project.
Lastly, Ms. Flynn stated that Sasaki would like to see a drawing that describes pedestrian improvements along Derby Street. It was her understanding that Footprint was working on a sheet that would show those details.
The floor was then turned over to Kathy Schaeffer, AECOM, where she would walk the Planning Board through the critical outstanding comments primarily focused on the site plans.
Ms. Schaeffer started with the Surface Treatment of Stormwater Collection Area. The site plans indicate that the area adjacent to the crushed stone would be “stabilized surface treatment, (loam and seed or equivalent)”. During the meeting is was indicated that the developer does not intend to loam and seed the area, since the hope is that the development of the southern portion of the site will occur after the construction of the new plant is complete. The plans were being revised to indicate a grassy area adjacent to the southern walkway and the installation of a fence to shield the area from view.
Ms. Schaeffer then moved on to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant has indicated that prior to construction a SWPPP will be prepared. The SWPPP should be submitted to the City for review and comment.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that another outstanding critical concern was the City’s request to relocate a 48” Drain Line. Further design is required on the relocation of the 48” line. The City Engineer had identified the need for a stormwater pump station on the 48” line to improve the drainage in the neighborhood west of Derby Street. The applicant has indicated that they will provide an area for the pump station, if it is needed.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that grading in northeast corner of Stormwater Collection Area is a concern. The existing catch basins are being removed which may create a low area at Derby Street. It was her understanding that the applicant was evaluating the possibility of revising the grading which would result in a minimal amount of runoff being routed to Derby Street. If the area could not be regraded, a drywell may be proposed, as a temporary solution, until the development of the southern parcel commences.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that coordination with Salem Fire Department is still outstanding. The applicant indicated that the Fire Department may want electronic lock box at both entrances into the site. AECOM stated that the exact specifications should be coordinated with the Fire Department.
Ms. Schaeffer then raised the issue about accessible parking spaces at administration building. The revised plans did not show any accessible parking spaces within 200 feet of the buildings and a drop-off area was not shown. The applicant indicated that an accessible parking space will be added at the administration building to satisfy the accessible parking requirements.
Ms. Schaeffer then discussed designated truck routes. It was AECOM’s understanding that most, if not all, construction and demolition materials will be transported by barge to and from the site. However, for some typical land-based deliveries, as well as for contingency planning purposes, pre-approved truck routes should be in reviewed and approved by the City before they are in place.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that a Construction Waste Management Plan / Soils Management Plan is still outstanding. It was her understanding that these plans will be prepared by Footprint Power in conjunction with its selected contractors. A clear process for coordination with and review by the City must be defined to address these activities.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that transportation demand management should be looked at. It was her understanding that Footprint will be joining and participating in the North Shore Transportation Management Association (NSTMA). She stated that AECOM looks forward to Footprint Power’s work with the NSTMA in identifying potential remote shuttle parking locations and participation on other programs that will reduce vehicle traffic on local streets and reduce vehicle emissions in the study area.
Lastly, Ms. Schaeffer discussed Noise Impacts / Action Plan and Noise Control Plan. An Action Plan and Noise Control Plan should be developed prior to construction and clearly identify the appropriate contact person at Footprint Power and the City of Salem, as well as the method to provide comments or register complaints.
Mr. Derrig then concluded the summary of comments from the consulting team.
Chairman Puleo asked Ms. Duncan if they are only looking toward transportation outside of city. Ms. Duncan responded that it can be within the city as well as Salem is member of TMA. Chairman Puleo then asked if they have an estimate of the peak time. Scott Silverstein, COO Footprint Power, responded that when they did their traffic calculations, they assumed one car per employee. Their models assumed no carpooling, though they will encourage this.
Mr. Derrig stated that as a member of the TMA, Footprint would provide zip codes of the workers and the TMA would match them up with carpooling opportunities.
Ben Anderson pointed out that there are going to be several construction projects going on at the same time. He then asked if any of this been looked at where these projects will be vying for city streets; particularly in terms of how residents and visitors will get around the city.
Ms. Duncan responded that the City of Salem has created a website called buildingsalem.com so if you are a resident or visitor, this will be one stop shopping for people to find out what is going on. Mr. Anderson said that the more information that is available is best so if, in the situation of construction workers coming into the city, that information may encourage them to do as much carpooling as possible. Ms. Duncan responded that Beth Debski in the Mayor’s office will be coordinating that and she will share that message. Mr. Anderson concluded stating that he is not sure if there is a lot you can do, as it is just a concern of his. Mr. Silverstein agrees that it is definitely an issue and he thinks that there is a lot that they can do. He noted that this same issue came up with the Energy Siting
Board. They are going to do their best to coordinate in real-time with National Grid’s and Spectra’s projects as the planning is going on. They have already begun this process with National Grid. Their project manager is already in communication and has stressed that there cannot be enough communication on this. Mr. Anderson said that he thinks it’s good and it’s important to communicate with the city. Mr. Silverstein concurred, stating that the city is part of it as it has to be a joint process.
Mr. Clarke recommended sharing information over VMS signs around town to get messages out and he noted that these are used in construction projects.
Mark George stated that the messaging is critical, as effectively this project could cause gridlock. Mr. Anderson noted that all traffic corridors will be affected. Mr. Clarke reminded Board members that the construction workers will be on-site before people are out of bed. The garage project will move people to other stations. The bigger impact is the National Grid project. Chairman Puleo then asked if the applicant has established a staggered construction schedule, to which Mr. Silverstein said yes; the plan is to get everything done on the first shift to keep things from going on later in that day. Mr. Furniss elaborated further by explaining that the plan is to have the majority of the noisy work done on the first shift, then have less noisy work on second shift, which could cut down on traffic.
Mr. Anderson recommended that they coordinate with the Bentley school’s schedule.
Mr. Ready pointed out that Footprint Power is aware of the issue, but it is important that they take the leadership role with the Planning Department and coordinate with other developers in the city as their project is the biggest one since the witches.
Chairman Puleo then turned the discussion to the consultant’s recommendation on the noise impact and asked about recommending a condition to register complaints. Mr. Derrig responded stating that the only way it is going to be feasible is if it is designed as a formalized process. Chairman Puleo then asked if it is the City’s of Footprint’s responsibility to relocate the 40 inch drain. Attorney Correnti stated that it’s the responsibility of the City but they are taking it on. They are proposing to construct a pump station as well and the City is investigating if a pump station is necessary as they don’t know the recommended size yet. Chairman Puleo asked if there is a city drain line going through the property, to which Attorney Correnti said yes. Mr. Furniss stated that
they have had some conversations about it and they would like to have as many conversations about where the best location should be. They have identified where would be a good routing. Wherever it goes they will take responsibility for it.
Mr. Anderson asked about Sasaki’s recommendation about height of berm, to which Ms. Flynn stated that they are waiting to review the newest response from the applicant. He then asked about the view from the corridor, particularly on the path edge to the berm. He is assuming that there is a narrow section that they will see the water from, thus he stated that he is curious as to how much of a view will be there. Ms. Flynn then described the view south to the jetty. They discussed the view on the plans. She described the main berm that shields the power plant all around and showed on the slides the areas where that are bumps up and down all along the southern edge. She feels that it is a view worth preserving and from what she is seeing is that the berms are being lowed just a couple of feet so it doesn’t feel like an isolated cavern. Mr. Anderson requested a schematic that would show the view from that corridor to help people understand the view. Ms. Duncan then asked if he
was specifically requesting this of the applicant to which Mr. Anderson directed his question back to the consultant. Ms. Flynn then described the view corridor on the plans and described the heights of the berms. Mr. Anderson reiterated his recommendation of providing pictures to better demonstrate a sense of where the eye level will be. Ms. Flynn said that they are 2.5 feet high along the path, and demonstrated through the slides where she was speaking of. Mr. Ready commented that this is in an area that currently is a non-existent view. Ms. Flynn remarked that there is an opportunity now with this design. Chairman Puleo said that it is important to maintain plantings.
Dale Yale asked about a Clerk of the Works for this project. Ms. Duncan responded that there is a clerk of the works for sewer or water, or subdivisions, but typically there is not clerk of the works on this type of project. However, she does recognize that we do need a point person who can answer these questions. Mr. Furniss stated that they will also maintain a hotline that will available 24 hours, 7 days a week that will be posted on the gate as well as the website and will usually be staffed with a live person. Ms. Yale emphasized that it is important to be communicated well to the public.
Chairman Puleo asked how the City ensures that we have what is built on such a huge project. Ms. Duncan responded that the city will need additional inspectors on board to monitor the project. She also noted that the Planning Department won’t have a Clerk of the Works, but there will be someone there for this and she will check with the Engineering Department on this.
Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the fence and the grass section and stated that he would hate to see the fence right up against the walkway. Mr. Silverstein responded that this is exactly what they have discussed.
Brian Marchetti, TetraTech, described the plan, which includes a temporary construction chain link fence that’s ten feet off of the walkway.
Mr. Anderson asked about gravel on the site to which Mr. Marchetti responded that the majority of it will be in the lay down area during construction as the intent was to provide some kind of stabilization during the planning. Mr. Anderson pointed out that based on the timing of the stages of the project, dirt and/or sand that may get blown around and it is important to keep the neighborhood clean. He recommended that they use a stabilized material. Mr. Marchetti agreed and said that there will be a stabilized plan with temporary layout that includes a grass strip.
Frank Taormina asked for further clarification about the walkway and the future extension of Webb into the site. Mr. Marchetti explained that where the fence is being laid out now it is almost a ten foot space, which is on the north side of the site and will be temporary gravel. Webb Street could be extended, but hasn’t been developed yet. Mr. Silverstein commented that the assumption was that the access to the site would be an extension of Webb Street and he didn’t believe that they thought about putting anything there until they know more about the access on the site. They didn’t want to do anything that precluded that. He acknowledged that once they have the next phase ready to go they will need to come back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Anderson asked if the pedestrian walkways are for bikes also. Kurt Martig, Terrain Landscape Architecture responded, stating that the concrete sidewalk would be five feet wide and the site pathways vary as you move it along. He then described the walkway widths. Mr. Anderson then asked them to clarify the noted on the plans about the building slabs to remain, and asked why they are not being demolished. Mr. Marchetti pointed out the locations of where the slabs will be left, but was not sure of their exact heights, but referenced them on the plans.
Mr. Anderson then asked about the mechanical and electrical generating houses below the ACC unit. He is curious about the sound attenuation and is concerned that anything that generates electricity makes a lot of noise. Ken Kinkela, Bay Shore Services, stated that they are called Power Distribution Centers and described them.
Mr. Clarke stated that he would like to get more information about the general operations security procedures and how the site overall is protected. He then asked if there is any engagement with the Salem Police Department, and further asked if it makes sense to have input from them. Mr. Furniss responded that power plants are subject to the requirements of the North American Electric Reliability Council as well as some Homeland Security requirements because of the wharf. They have worked with a security consultant, which is the same one that is doing the PEM expansion. The gabean wall was revisited and described. He explained that it is an 8 foot tall with a special mesh over the wiring to keep people from climbing over it. They will maintain the non-scalable portion of the wall. They will have
cameras and equipment to make sure they see what’s going on there. They have a very close relationship with the Salem Police department and they have the same kind of relationship with the Harbormaster. Coordination has always been part of it and will always be part of this project.
Mr. Clarke then asked about the surveillance plan for the park area to which Mr. Furniss responded that they are planning to have park surveillance particularly between dusk and dawn. They haven’t identified what that security system will look like yet, but the main way to address them will be to call the police. Mr. Clarke then asked if there will be a guard tour to which Mr. Furniss said yes, as well as operational staff, and both of these will be 24/7. Mr. Clarke asked if a boat can pull up and get into the site that way. Mr. Furniss said that the way the site will be laid out they have some distance between where the boats come in and access to the site. It is obviously possible to approach the property from at least one side and they currently have cameras. Mr. Clarke strongly recommended
having a table-top exercise to go over this before this opens.
George Wilson, Footprint Power, stated that they always engage with police and fire departments. They are directly connected to fire dept in case of a fire. Security 24/7 to get folks to city as quickly as possible. Mr. Clarke stated that of a facility of this size, there are usually a walk-through. Mr. Furniss concurred that they do actual drills with the current facility and the time to do it is before the power is turned on. Mr. Wilson concluded his response, stating that however they want to do this, they will know what materials they will be dealing with and they will have tours.
Chairman Puleo asked how many deliveries are they expecting per week in regards to the incoming ammonia tanks, to which Mr. Wilson responded that thee will be two maximum. Chairman Puleo recommended a route that vendors should follow and further the scheduling times, along with the route into Salem, should be shared with the Police Department as well as the Fire Department as they should know what routes that they are coming in on. Mr. Wilson responded that he already met with the Fire Chief on this and will review the plans with him.
Mr. Anderson then asked if there is a resident that falls and gets hurt on the property, who will they call. Mr. Furniss responded that they can call any of the emergency services. Mr. Anderson then asked about call boxes to which Attorney Correnti responded that it would be the same that they would be in the public parks in the city, but in this situation the down and injured will be seen quicker than they would anywhere else.
George McCabe asked about the type of piping on the gas that comes to plant. Mr. Wilson explained that the pipe is underground and comes into the site. He then described the gas route into the plant. Mr. McCabe asked about the security for that area in terms of if someone wanted to do something devious. Mr. Wilson responded that the security plan would be the same throughout the site. There will be cameras focused on the gas as well as a regularly-manned security guard station. Mr. McCabe then asked about if someone shot something at the power plant. Mr. Furniss reminded the Board that the security requirements are different with nuclear plants.
Helen Sides stated that they go back to the fact that they are complying with the regulations.
Chairman Puleo asked about the water tank, as well as the location of the ammonia tank. Mr. Wilson described the locations of the tanks and the industrial use on the plant and then showed them on the slides.
Frank Taormina noted that the Fire Department will be providing future comments and conditions and he then reviewed comments received from the Salem Health Department. Ms. Duncan stated that these comments were provided by the Health Agent. Chairman Puleo asked about a remedy for a situation where odors get windblown into the neighborhood. Ms. Duncan responded that there is a noise action plan as to who they would respond to but for the odors there isn’t one specified.
Chairman Puleo asked if the board has any other questions or commeetns, there none being he opened up the meeting to public comments.
Andrea Monburquette, 14 Webb Street, asked about the function of the control room operators. Mr. Furniss responded that the control room operators are responsible for running the plant and the needs on the grid. They will maintain a security guard booth which will be in the exact same location, and they will be responsible for handling security on-site 24/7. Ms. Monburquette asked if they are traditionally responsible for handling the functions of the power plant. Mr. Furniss responded in the affirmative. Chairman Puleo asked if one would have to go through gate to get there, to which Mr. Furniss responded that yes, though he is not sure that they have discussed this. He then showed the location of the gate, guard house, and 25 foot wall, as well the related access points. Mr. Wilson stated that he
met with the fire chief and Mr. Silverstein stated that they will make the necessary modifications. Mr. Furniss said there could be situations where they would not be able to open up gates but they will look into that and they will get the gates open. Mr. Ready asked if the security plan will be coordinated with fire and police, to which Mr. Furniss said of course. Mr. Ready stated that they would like to look at the security plan.
Deborah Lebow, 42 Chestnut Street asked about impacts from super-storms. Mr. Furniss stated that they are looking at several decades worth of data that could create water events. The site will actually be raised six feet up so they are above the effects of the major water events. He notes that Salem used to be a preferred harbor because of how well it is protected, which is natural protection and the proposed berm also provides some protection form the directions of storm surges. Ms. Lebow asked what happens if the plant is flooded, to which Mr. Furniss responded that it doesn’t work. There will be some concrete structures that provide some protection. It’s fail safe in the sense that you can’t have combustion when it’s flooded. There is no danger from the turbines
themselves and the ammonia is very well protected in a steel structure. Ms. Lebow asked about access in terms of an emergency, and recommended that it might be valuable to have a fire apparatus on site. Mr. Wilson said that in the event of a fire they don’t depend on the city for pressurization and they have their own pumps, one of which is diesel drivel and holds over 2000 gallons. Ms. Lebow asked if this would be the same with the police. Chairman Puleo asked for further clarification on she is asking if these are the safety processes in place during construction or when it’s up and running, to which Ms. Lebow responded that she is asking about both times. Mr. Furniss responded that during construction there will be a lot of people on site; the point is well taken and will be part of the safety plan.
Ken Harris, 42 Chestnut Street, asked about the types of ammonia they are using. Mr. Furniss responded that the type of ammonia they use is 98% aqueous. Mr. Harris asked about a spill. Mr. Furniss responded that the dangers associated with it are not as dangerous as other types of ammonia. The routings will be chosen to maximize safety. Mr. Harris asked about delivering by water. Mr. Furniss explained that they would have to bring in more ammonia to utilize the boats and a route by road is the safest and best way. Mr. Harris then asked about other chemicals that will be used on the site to which Mr. Wilson said they will use about one thousand gallons of bleach. Mr. Harris if the building has been rated for tornadoes to which Mr. Furniss stated that they are complying with or exceeding all
the regulations for the foreseeable events. Mr. Kinkela added that the densities are well in excess of significant winds, and the pipes are low to the ground and most are buried.
Ms. Monburquette asked if it would be safer to use urea, to which Mr. Furniss said not to his knowledge. Mr. Kinkela described the plants he has built that use aqueous ammonia and noted that they use aqueous ammonia because urea is not available. He emphasized that it is not a cost issue, it’s the availability. Ms. Monburquette reiterated that her concern is having the ammonia truck going through the neighborhood. Mr. Furniss responded that the safety of our neighbors is critical to us and they are working closely with the public safety departments.
Mr. Harris stated that he was pleased with the information on the Footprint Power website and asked about their stance on fracking. Mr. Furniss responded that they are not opposed to fracking in general; they are opposed to it in terms of the techniques used. Chairman Puleo explained that this line of questioning is not under the purview of the Planning Board and moved on to the next public commenter.
Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, stated that she was really glad to hear about the changing of the landscaping as she had thought that rodents and vagrants can hide in the high grasses, so lower plantings may be better. She inquired about where the existing fences are and directed a question to Ms. Flynn about architectural lighting. Ms. Flynn explained that the stack and the power plant should be appropriately lighted. Their view is that the design of the stack and the plant is very thoughtful and if there is a way to light the stack and the plant, they would be interested to hear what the lighting consultants recommend. And in that situation any lighting strategy comes back to the Planning Board. Ms. Haley feels that the less light pollution coming into their homes would be best. She spoke of
questions that were asked about interior lighting at the Siting Board and she asked for clarification on minor improvements to the Derby Street sidewalks. Ms. Flynn described her recommendations which include improving the sidewalk. Mr. Marchetti explained that included in the plan is the recommendation to replace the sidewalks with the same dimensions and should be concrete sidewalks. Ms. Haley appreciates all the focus on traffic. She really has a problem believing that all the communication can help with as much as they believe it will. She talked about the early morning programs at the Bentley School and how that will affect the actual traffic. She described the current gridlock in Salem and doesn’t understand why they can’t offer off-street or satellite parking. She thinks the community should ask for more and it should be included in the conditions. She was pleased to hear about the health concerns along with public
safety. She would love to see a plan with a clearer timeline as she described the ferry landing issues, and strongly urged a more clearly laid out plan.
Chairman Puleo inquired about an evacuation plan to which Mr. Furniss responded that it is not part of the permitting process, but part of a larger discussion on public safety.
Ms. Duncan noted that they are getting very close to wrapping this up. There are very few outstanding issues, including traffic mitigation issues, which would be conditions.
Attorney Correnti said they would like to work with the Planning Department staff and they will get AECOM and Sasaki everything they need. They would like a decision next week in respect of schedules. He hopes that they are at a level of confidence that these things can be worked out. Chairman Puleo asked if they can get these issues with the Fire and Police Departments, and others worked out in time. Attorney Correnti responded, saying that there are comments coming from the Fire Department, and the Police will be spoken with as well. If the Board chooses to include conditions stating that the applicant shall work with the City would be one that they will agree to. He noted that they won’t have a security plan by Labor Day as there are not enough details to show it now.
Ms. Duncan stated that while things are very fresh in their minds, she would be concerned if they could not make a decision until after Labor Day. Thus, if a decision cannot be reached at the next meeting then she will contact Board Members about holding a special meeting in August.
Motion: Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to July 25th, 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. Clarke] in favor and none opposed. Kirt Rieder was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted.
Ms. Duncan introduced Dana Mennen, the new Staff Planner, who will be starting on July 29th and thanked Frank Taormina for his assistance in staffing the Planning Board in the interim.
Adjournment
Motion: Mr. McCabe made a motion to adjourn the July 18th meeting of the Salem Planning Board seconded by Mr. 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. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, Mr. McCabe, Mr. George and Ms. Yale) in favor and none opposed. Kirt Rieder was absent from the meeting. The motion was accepted.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:22 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
| 
