SALEM PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES 7/25/13
A rescheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Tim Ready, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, George McCabe, Dale Yale, Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke, Mark George, and 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
July 18, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
Motion: Tim Ready 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 9-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder and Mr. George] 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 applications for the select demolition and redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site. It is anticipated that discussion will focus on any outstanding concerns, with the potential for a vote at this meeting.
Applicant: FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP
Location: 24 FORT AVENUE
Chairman Puleo read into a record a letter from Ed Moriarty, 29 Winter Island Road.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, representing the applicant Footprint Power, stated that they felt they have addressed all the outstanding concerns and will be looking to potentially close tonight. He summarized the discussions from the previous meeting. They have no new presentation; however they submitted a revised public access plan into the record and distributed it to the Planning Board Members. He noted that the revised plan shows a short-term plan including the secure accessway connection to 10 Blaney Street (Salem Wharf property), and a longer-term plan showing public access to the water’s edge once the facility is constructed. This is a conceptual plan as they have no development plans for the surplus property. He emphasized that Footprint supports public access on their site and
to the water’s edge and will work with the City and State Regulators to provide such public access. Chairman Puleo asked if this will be part of the submittal, to which Mr. Correnti said yes, this is part of the project.
Chairman Puleo asked the SATV cameraman to state his name for the record as he arrived after the meeting began. Allan MacMillian, of SATV, also stated that he was here with the usual set-up to record the meeting for SATV and will do so in a manner that will not disrupt or interfere with the meeting.
Randy Clarke asked Attorney Correnti about the completion of Phase I, particularly in relation to the secure accessway through their site to the dock. Scott Silverstein, COO Footprint Power, responded that the City has proposed to create a secure accessway from Blaney Street to their site in order to utilize their deep water dock for cruise ships. He stated that Footprint is not constructing this, just providing access. Mr. Clarke then asked about other public access areas shown on the plan. Mr. Silverstein stated that that land is best suited for industrial use; however they don’t know what the industrial use will be, thus they’ve left blank the areas that they don’t know about. Mr. Clarke then asked if they are providing an easement to the City in Phase II, to which Mr. Silverstein responded
that they have to work that out with the City. He stated that the City was founded on the harbor, and they want to allow as much access to it as feasibly possible. Mr. Clarke recommended that for clarification for approval that there is an easement. Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the Draft Decision includes a provision for public access which speaks to the easement or whatever would be the appropriate means to execute one. She explained the City’s intent is to have access to Footprint’s wharf before Phase I is completed, which was articulated in the MEPA filing.
Chairman Puleo asked about the area of Webb Street in the plan, and in particular asked if Webb Street will be extended into the site to the water’s edge in the future. Mr. Silverstein responded that Webb Street is the natural southern access point into the site and it will likely be extended into their site however, ultimately it depends on what the use of the surplus site will be.
Chairman Puleo asked David Derrig from AECOM to review their final set of peer review comments.
David Derrig, AECOM, briefly summarized their work since the last meeting. They reviewed the remaining outstanding items from July 17th and stated that they modified the matrix to highlight the outstanding issues. They had received information back and forth from Footprint Power. He explained that approximately thirty or so comments were not fully resolved since the last meeting; however those items have since been addressed by Footprint to their satisfaction. Following that, they summarized the items that were addressed which are the basis for their recommended drafted conditions. He then reviewed that document which was provided to the Planning Board.
Chairman Puleo asked if the fire suppression plan was part of pre-construction or post-construction, to which Mr. Derrig said post-construction. George Wilson, Director of Development Footprint Power, concurred.
Mr. Clarke asked for clarification on the relocation of the drain line and the pump station. Ms. Duncan stated that Footprint needs to relocate the 48 inch drain line, which has to be a condition. She further explained that the City is fairly certain that they need a pump station, with a permanent easement of about 5000 square feet. The City Engineer may want to make a definitive determination towards that end which will be discussed as part of conditions. Ben Anderson asked where it would be located to which Ms. Duncan responded that it is unknown at this time, but it need s to be somewhere along the newly relocated drain line. Mr. Anderson then asked if they will get an opportunity to review the proposed location to which Chairman Puleo responded that it will be part of the City Engineer’s work.
Chairman Puleo then asked about the path it takes now to which Mr. Silverstein responded that the issue that they are working through with the City is the path that it will take. Chairman Puleo clarified his response, stating that it is still undetermined. Mr. Anderson asked if this would be part of a future phase to which Mr. Silverstein responded that they have to work through it with the City Engineer to figure out where to locate it as it is required to solve the problem upstream. He reiterated that the drain line needs to be relocated, but it is an opportunity to help solve an existing problem. Chairman Puleo asked if the drain connects on Webb Street, where there are current flooding issues to which Mr. Silverstein responded that he wasn’t sure of exactly where the connection is, but it is in that
area. Ms. Duncan stated that the city has not priced this out and does not have funding for this so it is not on the immediate horizon. Mr. Anderson commented he would hate to see it put in a spot that deters from the rest of the development, to which Mr. Silverstein stated that they all shared his concern.
Katie Flynn, Sasaki Associates, reviewed the third page of the memo.
Kirt Reider recommended that the fence be like a chain link fence but with a one-inch PVC black coated chain-mesh which will allow people to look through it, but not climb it. He thinks the condition should be six to eight feet high without barbed wire. He thinks it’s important to state the height so it’s not four feet and Ms. Flynn agreed with his recommendation. Ms. Duncan shared a document that Ms. Flynn had put together depicting different types of fences.
Mr. Rieder then moved the discussion to the topic of the height of landscaped plantings. He pointed out that every traffic island in town has a planting and they all exceed two feet. He feels that they are unnecessarily impacting over time what that final result will look like to specify this. He would prefer that the restriction be eliminated all together or change the wording to reflect an extension up to four feet. Chairman Puleo that he recommendation was for one area, so that it would not grow to block the view. Ms. Flynn explained that it is a historic view that should be preserved and she recommended that they maintain plantings to four and a half feet to keep the line of sight for drivers and the walkers. The sum total of the berms cannot be higher than four and a half feet to maintain the
sight line. Mr. Rieder it is not specific enough to the area and he could see this as a misinterpretation. He recommends that this section should be accompanied by a plan that designates and litigates the square footage of the area. He realized that he is splitting hairs but it is important.
Mr. Clarke asked about the architectural lighting, specifically asking how do they condition something that is not tangible. Ms. Duncan responded that they have heard comments from neighbors and Sasaki. They can certainly condition the plan for Footprint to work on that as an amendment to the PUD and they can advertise that as part of the public hearing process. The neighborhood might change their mind or hear different avenues of support. Mr. Clarke clarified his comments that if they do conditions that they have to be tangible. Ms. Duncan said that this is fair, but they may want to get more information from Footprint about their commitment to this.
Tim Ready stated that this is a new design for Salem that they can come back and study. This would be an opportunity to embrace the study to see how they respond to it. He gave examples in Boston where light enhances the neighborhood. They should find ways to make iconic lighting appease the neighbors that they should not allow to slip away. Mr. Anderson stated that no one is suggesting that light will extend beyond the property into the neighborhood, and he noted that this is an accent to the structure. Mr. Clarke clarified that conditions should be tangible to force behavior.
Chairman Puleo asked for questions from the Board. Mr. Anderson asked if we now have in the plans for construction for a fence around the property. Mr. Silverstein responded that they are maintaining a fence around the site for the certificate issued by the FSB, which was agreed to during the FSB proceeding. Mr. Anderson then asked about the construction management plan to keep dust from getting outside the property. He then recommended that this should be included in the construction management plan and any material on the site during construction stays on the site, so that it doesn’t go into the harbor. Chairman Puleo then asked about a wash down area. Brian Marchetti, Engineer at TetraTec, stated that it will be included in the construction plan.
Mr. Rieder asked where specifically the 12 foot high sound barrier wall was going to be installed, and if they could point that out on the plans. Mr. Wilson stated that it will be located inside the existing fence line, on their property, not on the side of the existing fence where the row of arborvitaes is. It will be installed along Derby Street and Fort Ave. Mr. Marchetti stated that is not designed yet.
Mr. Clarke asked about comments from the Police Department. Ms. Duncan responded that there are no specific concerns from them that should be included in conditions as the Police Chief felt that Footprint would work directly with them. Though she did recommend that where this issued is covered should be called Police and Safety.
Issue opened to public for comment
Jeff Brooks, 14 Webb Street, stated that he had some concerns about the construction design. He referenced the last meeting where someone questioned the use of urea and reviewed Mr. Kinkela’s response. He stated that he knows that urea is available. He is concerned about ammonia being driven through the neighborhood and he doesn’t understand why urea, which is safer, is not being used. Mr. Silverstein responded that this is a standard in plants for a combined cycle plant and for NOXs control. He said that the standard in the industry is to use aqueous ammonia in plants. Mr. Brooks said that the current plant uses urea now, to which Mr. Silverstein responded that the current plant is a different type of control technology and different type of plant than what they are proposing. Mr.
Brooks then said that he called a vendor that supplies urea and the vendor stated that the cost of urea is the reason why they are not using it. Mr. Brooks urged them to rethink this and feels that the issue needs further study. Chairman Puleo noted that last week they questioned the applicant on the transportation schedule, in terms of when the ammonia is coming in and out of the City, and they are making sure the Police Department knows about it. Mr. Brooks then asked if urea is a safe option, which is becoming a standard in the industry, he asked why they wouldn’t consider use it to, which Chairman Puleo asked for clarification on if his concern is regarding transportation or storage. Mr. Brooks responded that storing is his concern. Chairman Puleo said that urea may not be any safer than ammonia, he doesn’t know. Mr. Brooks pointed out that they have double walled tanks because it is dangerous, and they have to live next to it. He again urged that further studies need to
be done on it. He thinks urea should be looked at as an option. Mr. Silverstein emphasized that he recalled Mr. Kinkela stating that cost was not an issue in terms of the relative costs of ammonia versus urea. He stressed that their focus was on finding the best control technology to have the lowest NOX emissions.
Mr. Ready asked Mr. Silverstein to clarify if he has a combined cycle plant that is more effective with ammonia than with urea. Silverstein: not aware of anyone in a combined cycle with this type of control technology that utilizes urea. Aqueous ammonia is a standard in the industry. Mr. Ready clarified that ammonia is the standard in the industry, to which Mr. Silverstein said yes.
Mr. Brooks read from an article from Power Engineering titled, “Selective Catalytic Reduction: Operational Issues and Guidelines”, which stated:
“At plants in urban areas, community regulations often ban the use of anhydrous ammonia. A popular alternative is 19 percent aqueous ammonia. This material is safer to handle than the anhydrous version, but the primary drawback is that the plant is paying to ship 81 percent water. In some cases, even aqueous ammonia is considered too hazardous and ammonia is produced on-site by a urea thermal or hydrolysis decomposition procedure. This process, which is more expensive than anhydrous or aqueous ammonia feed, has the advantage of not requiring on-site ammonia storage.”
This is a black and white fact of current uses of SERs in power plants that it is being used which requires further study.
Nick Sobin, 110 Derby Street, asked why the chimney stack must be so wide. Mr. Silverstein explained and described the width of the stack as well as the functionality required for the stack. He also added that the other part of the reason for the width is due to the function of how close the flues can be to each other, along with a set of stairs and elevator.
Tim Jenkins, 18 Broad Street, stated that he thinks that the visual lighting is great, but there is a side effect of light pollution. He said that the neighbors would like it if you could light it without lighting up their bedrooms. Mr. Silverstein said he was right and the height of the landscape berm will allow the light to be directed down. This has been part of the thought process. He recommended that Mr. Jenkins and other members of the audience look at the monumental decorative lighting, noting that any lighting scheme is really enhancing that and not impacting.
Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, she would like to emphasize that parking at the site is not the problem, it’s getting the workers to the site. She strongly suggests that this project requires staging of this by ship or by bus from another community. Carpooling sounds good but most people will not utilize it as they will want to use their cars. This is an extremely small bottleneck area. It seems very reasonable to ask this of the applicant. She is thinking about the people who are getting stuck at lights. She thinks that having the traffic study done before or after the season should be done.
She then moved onto her concerns about the acoustic designs. The noise is going to come from all around the project site. They currently hear every sound from the plant and asked if they can have an acoustic wall during construction and demolition.
She states that she doesn’t understand the permitting rules. It seems very concerning to her that of the things they have heard about being reviewed. She asked about what happens in the case of someone throwing a bomb over the wall as they are talking about one guard for a 64 acre site. She feels that they are getting information piecemeal. Why aren’t they looking at the whole thing when this is a PUD and they are only looking at one part. Ms. Duncan responded, stating that things are not being negotiated outside the public hearing process with the Planning Board, and referenced the requirements with the other departments. She emphasized that the Planning Department does not supersede the Police Department and Fire Department. Everything that happens on the PUD would have to come
back before the planning board. The consultants have the most practical methods of seeing this site redeveloped.
Richard Pabich, 35 Winter Island Road, stated that he is an abutter to the site and he owns an inn on Summer Street. He says that he takes about seven minutes to get across town and he has never had the kind of congestion the Ms. Haley has spoken about. This time of year when they are running at 60% occupancy, there are a lot of people but not a lot of traffic. This traffic congestion that is being talked about is a non-issue.
Ed Wolfe, 95 Bay View Avenue, said that he missed out on the noise abatement issues, but he is concerned about the urea ammonia problem. It has to be addressed.
Andrea Mauburquette, 14 Webb Street, asked what is urea made of, to which Mr. Brooks answered that it is made of cow urine.
Mr. Brooks asked after today if there are going to be any further comments allowed to be submitted. Chairman Puleo explained that once the public portion is closed, then no, however if there is any new information. Helen Sides spoke of open comment from the abutters as part of the complex process. Chairman Puleo explained further that there will be a planned method to address this. They will have the city to go to as well as the applicant if there are outstanding issues.
Ward 1 Councillor Bob McCarthy, 153 Bay View Avenue, said that they started this process a long time ago, he wants to thank you for all f your efforts on this and thank the public on this. He thinks that this is an important project as this is one of the biggest redevelopments in Salem’s history. He also thanked the new owners of the plant which speaks volumes to how this plan design has been vetted and designed. When permitted, there is a whole other level at the state versus what happens at the city level. He supports them whole-heartedly through the process. He sat on the reuse study group and Sasaki works with them really well. He hopes that they can get this worked out.
Motion: Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Helen Sides and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 9-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rieder and Mr. Clarke] in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Mr. Clarke said that he wanted to acknowledge that the Planning Department has done fantastic work on this getting done, especially in the last week. Ms. Duncan stated that the Planning Board has to make specific findings related to the PUD and Flood Hazard Special Permit. She said that the Board was provided those draft findings.
Chairman Puleo stated that his feeling is that in regards to the concerns about the ammonia is that this has been looked at carefully. He noted that if it is the least safe product, he does not know, but they can make sure that they transport it safely. The safety of this has been well documented and this type of ammonia is much safer than the other type of ammonia. He stressed that the safety plan has to be in place.
Dale Yale asked for clarification on the number of truck deliveries. Mr. Wilson responded that it could be upwards to two, depending on how much the plant is at operating capacity.
Mr. Anderson asked if there is a security issue to which Chairman Puleo responded that in terms of hauling these materials in and out of the City is our responsibility for keeping the people in Salem safe. The applicant will be held responsible for maintaining the safety regulations, but as far as going through the streets we have to be adamant about safety and they should know what route they are taking. Mr. Anderson asked if is this a current draft condition, to which Ms. Duncan responded yes.
Mr. Ready stated that the fire department is not unfamiliar with these types of chemicals and the fire chief will be on top of this. They will be aware of the dangers of the ammonia. Secondly there are other city entities that will be aware of this, such as the Board of Health. Although he may not be up on his chemistry, he is confident that the right departments are up on these materials as is the proponent.
Chairman Puleo asked Frank Taormina to read the findings of the PUD and Flood Hazard Special Permit into the record.
Motion: Ben Anderson made a motion to approve the findings, seconded by Dale Yale and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 9-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rieder and Mr. Clarke] in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Ms. Duncan explained and reviewed the conditions and amendments, she also noted any changes.
Mr. Clarke asked about clarifying notification to abutters, specifically asked to include the neighborhood. Ms. Duncan stated that the standard for Planning Board special permit notification is abutters and abutters of abutters, up to 300 feet. Mr. Clarke recommended notifying people beyond that standard. Mr. Ready asked for the medium by which people are notified, to which Ms. Duncan said by mail. Mr. Ready recommended notifying the whole city on this. Ms. Duncan stated that there are a number of different notification processes going on here. She directed people to the www.buildingsalem.com website, as well as the www.salem.com website. There is also a notification to notify
abutters in writing, which for the Planning Board is 300 ft. Attorney Correnti stated that they agree with the communications plan. He recommended that they may change it to read that “Footprint shall enter in a communication plan with the City to satisfactorily notify residents on the construction activities,” and they can work out how wide it will have to be as it is a big project. Chairman Puleo asked if they could put it on their company website, to which Attorney Correnti responded in the affirmative. Mr. Ready noted that the City may see it as celebratory event. Ms. Duncan stated that she doesn’t want to lose the standard condition language but agreed to add additional language to the effect of “communications plan to notify residents to be submitted and approved by the City Planner”.
Chairman Puleo asked about adding a provision under street sweeping. Ms. Duncan directed him to section G, construction management, which addressed his question and she read from that. She recommended moving that up to section J. They will move Section G over to Section I, under construction.
Ms. Duncan continued reviewing the conditions and amendments. She noted that the Board of Health submitted conditions which were reviewed.
Chairman Puleo asked about Section I, in relation to noise level, as to if they should reference the noise study that Footprint Power conducted. Mr. Rieder suggested including language about the same times of days.
Ms. Duncan referenced a comment about utility disposition and discussed this in relation to Mr. Derrig’s comments under section C.
Chairman Puleo asked about the bollard lighting on the paths. Ms Duncan stated that it’s enough for safety, but not enough to encourage people at night. Chairman Puleo asked about lighting on the buildings. George McCabe asked about including wording about that. Chairman Puleo asked Ms. Flynn if she thought the language was adequate, to which she said yes.
Chairman Puleo asked if this section covers a Clerk of the Works question, to which Ms., Duncan said that she added this to the conditions. Mr. Anderson asked if the Building Inspector should be included and Ms. Duncan responded that he has his own requirements for the building and these conditions are in regards to the site.
Mr. Rieder asked if it is a state or federal law about discharging snow into the harbor, to which Mr. Taormina responded that it is part of the Clean Water Act.
Chairman Puleo asked if the garage construction should be included in this section of the conditions, to which Mr. Clarke said that he doesn’t think it will impact the project, and will improve traffic flow. Ms. Duncan clarified that these are all projects that impact the roadways. Chairman Puleo clarified that his concern focuses on how the amount of deliveries coming in and out of the site will affect the roadways. Mr. Anderson added that the construction professionals will impact the roadways as well. Chairman Puleo asked if this will be included in the conditions, to which Ms. Duncan said yes.
Mr. Ready wanted to make a note that these are special conditions that are specific to this project, and have come from the participation of the residents of the City of Salem.
Mr. Clarke asked about verbal message signs which could coordinates all of the projects and notify vehicular traffic each day. Chairman Puleo said that the challenge would be where to put them. Mr. Clarke continued, stating that his other point is that a traffic management plan should be overseen by the Salem Police Department. Mr. Silverstein responded that they think that the signs are a great idea, and they will be happy to be part of figuring out where they go. Attorney Correnti offered to coordinate that with the BuildingSalem Coordinator so there is a central office where this will come out of as they want there to be a coordinated effort. Ms. Duncan offered new language, and discussed the section where they need a traffic management piece that they had referenced in past projects. Number 3
starts with the applicant providing a traffic management plan to be submitted to Planning Department and the Police Department. They can say that they agree to provide it. She also recommended that the traffic management plan be on it’s own under number 3. Mr. Clarke stated that the detail management plan is kind of vague. Mr. Ready asked her to read it back, which Ms. Duncan complied.
Mr. Anderson asked traffic management plans in terms of additional measures and specifically asked if this can be worded in a way that would encourage them to explore the number of off-site parking. Ms. Duncan clarified that it’s the city that has the right to do this. Ms. Yale offered some additional language on this issue.
Chairman Puleo asked to tighten up the delivery conditions, specifically the time of day and route. Mr. Anderson asked to include the wording “safety management plan”.
Chairman Puleo asked for clarification on the Public Access condition in terms of timeframe, to which Ms. Duncan said that it’s based on the conceptual plan that is outside the area of redevelopment. Chairman Puleo clarified that the applicant would have to come back depending upon what they are designing, to which Ms. Duncan agreed.
Frank Taormina recommended that the Board consider using the security fence the City used on the Harborwalk. He stated that it has worked well on the Harborwalk fronting Nation Grid’s Electrical Substation. He described the high security fence option as a black vinyl coated chain link fence with 5/8” mesh; mesh size is small enough that people cannot get their figures or feet into the fence which makes it unclimbable. Mr. Rieder stated that he still has an issue about the height and recommended that they do not use barbed wire. Ms. Duncan stated that they will reference the fence spec in the decision.
Mr. Rieder recommended adding public access to the far end of the jetty, as it is a goal to have access to the far end of the jetty. Mr. Silverstein said that he doesn’t have an issue with that, and he doesn’t think it belongs in the Community Benefits Agreement. Mr. Rieder said that if the plan says that you can get to the knuckle of the jetty, then you could get out to the rest of the jetty. Mr. Silverstein said it is not their intent to cut it off there, and the intent is to go the whole way. They think they already have included this as they referenced the plan. Ms. Duncan recommended language related to providing public access out to the end of the jetty. Mr. Rieder said that he referenced the CBA because of the wording used to identify the existing port facility. Ms. Duncan said that
because this issue, along with taxes, are two of the highest priorities of the CBA and the CBA has not been executed yet, and where the approval will be granted by the Planning Board, the Mayor also wanted something in place that tied Footprint to the use of their wharf. Mr. Rieder asked about access to the end of the stone jetty as well. Ms. Duncan thinks it’s great because they’d like to get people out to the end of the jetty. Chairman Puleo asked about the format of the CBA. Ms. Duncan said she can provide it when it’s ready. Attorney Correnti referenced the language that states that they are bound to include the CBA or else the decision is in null in void. He also noted that the CBA will be a public document that will be online and will be everywhere.
Ms. Yale asked if the decision gets recorded at the Registry of Deeds, to which Ms Duncan said yes.
Mr. Clarke asked who is paying for the pump station, to which Ms. Duncan responded that the City is. Mr. Clarke then asked if the City is ok with that, and Ms. Duncan responded that the purpose of the pump station is that it will be serving the adjacent neighborhood.
Attorney Correnti stated that there are a couple of conditions that have to happen prior to a demolition permit. He stated that they went to the Historical Commission for a demolition delay permit, and they now have a demolition permit for the steel tanks. They don’t want to be in violation of this. Ms. Duncan said they will revisit this language. Mr. Silverstein recommended new language including “from this day forward”, to which Ms. Duncan said it’s a great idea.
Mr. Clarke recommended that the wording on the emergency plan exercise to change to “before”, to tie to the occupancy permit. He also thinks it would be appropriate that the proponent fund and work with public safety officials to do public safety drills prior to opening and annual drills. Mr. Silverstein agreed. Mr. Clarke suggested including language that “will be as deemed by public safety officials”.
Mr. Taormina noted that additional language regarding the exact location of the sound wall should be included, pursuant to earlier discussion. Ms. Duncan agreed.
Mr. Clarke asked about adding language to notification. Mr. Anderson asked if this could be tied to traffic notifications to work hours, as he is concerned about work outside of the regular 8 am to 5 pm work hours. Mr. Clarke recommended that this would fall under the traffic management section, which would state that all work related to the site has to follow the same conditions.
Ms. Duncan asked when the applicant plans to move forward on the lighting. Mr. Silverstein responded that it will largely depend on their interaction with the lighting consultant. Mr. Anderson asked if this could be tied to the building permit. Mr. Silverstein said that on the monumental lighting they want to do it right the first time. Mr. Anderson then asked about the Certificate of Occupancy, to which Mr. Silverstein said they can put a time limit on when they need to come back to the Planning Board. Their hope is to do this sooner rather than later. He doesn’t want the ornamental lighting to drive everything. Mr. Rieder asked if the Planning Board can dictate the timing and any extension. Chairman Puleo suggested doing it after six months after it is up and going. Mr. Silverstein
said he is happy to stick to a hard deadline, but he thinks it will be far in advance of that. Chairman Puleo said that they can always extend it. Mr. Ready said that they can accept it and if we have to extend it, we can. Ms. Duncan recommended adding language that this is part of a special permitting process. Attorney Correnti said that there is no way we can tie this to the commencement of construction or creating a new permit. He stated that they may have a neighborhood meeting before we come to you, but that can’t be tied to the construction of the project. If we condition it as a new special permit would be tying it. He engaged in a discussion with Ms. Duncan about language. Ms. Duncan noted that she likes the idea of a neighborhood meeting on this to get feedback.
Mr. Clarke recommended that the fire suppression plans approval will be contingent on the Certificate of Occupancy. Attorney Correnti wants to understand what is meant here inside the building will be part of the permitting process, which is all controlled by building codes. Mr. Derrig said that it’s a comment that came up in their review. Mr. Anderson clarified that what he may be referencing is a fire department hook up. Mr. Rieder asked if the comment came up because it was missing, to which Mr. Derrig responded that it is part of piping plans. Mr. Anderson discussed the different pipes it could be referencing and the site plan will reference those items. Based on the discussion, Ms. Duncan stated that they will take this section out of the conditions and amendments.
Mr. Rieder said he would love to see a web-enabled view of their whole process as this is huge for this city. Mr. Silverstein said he thinks it is a great idea, but he just has to make sure that it doesn’t create any security issues. Ms. Duncan recommended that if this is possible that they could link it to Building Salem website.
Motion: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve with the conditions as read and amended, seconded by Mark George and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with an 9-0 vote [Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. McCabe, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rieder and Mr. Clarke] in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Adjournment
Motion: George McCabe made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Dale Yale and approved unanimously. All the members voted in favor, with an 9-0 vote (Mr. Puleo (Chair), Mr. Ready (Vice Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Anderson, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Rieder, Mr. George and Ms. Yale) in favor and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:01pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 10/17/2013
| 
