SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 10/17/13
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 17, 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, Dale Yale, Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke, and Mark George. Absent: George McCabe and Kirt Rieder.
Also present: Dana Menon, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
July 25, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
Chairman Puleo asked about the litigation in regards to the power plant approval. Dana Menon, Staff Planner, explained the litigation process and where the suit is in process. She then stated that the appeals process will likely not proceed while Footprint Power’s application to the EFSB is being considered.
Chairman Puleo pointed out a correction on page 5 regarding Scott Silverstein’s clarification that use of ammonia is the industry standard, and he was not aware anyone who was using urea instead. Tim Ready noted that in a previous meeting, Mr. Silverstein stated that ammonia was the industry standard.
Chairman Puleo also noted that there was a typo on Mr. Brooks’ final comment on page 6.
No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Helen Sides. The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Clarke) and none (0) opposed.. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Project: Endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control (ANR)
Applicant: CITY OF SALEM
Location: RILEY PLAZA EAST AT WASHINGTON AND DODGE STREETS – WASHINGTON STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
Ms. Menon reviewed her memo, explained that the parcel in question was part of the Washington Street right of way. She further explained that the State used to own the traffic circle on Washington Street. The State gave a portion of the right of way to the City. She described her handouts which included two views of the parcel map, showing the areas that were part of the right of way, which are now used as City-operated parking lots. Previously, the city put out an RFP for development of parcels at Washington and Dodge Streets, which RCG won and RCG has since submitted preliminary plans. She said that RCG is currently in front of the Design Review Board to work those plans out. The parcel being proposed in the ANR application will not be sold to RCG until RCG’s plans are approved and permitted. She has RCG’s response to RFP available for review but reminded the Board that the included plans could change before they are brought before the Board.
Chairman Puleo asked for clarification on the lot lines. Ms. Menon then reviewed the full-size lot plan. Mr. Anderson asked how much of the right of way the City owns, to which Ms. Menon responded that she would have to go to the Registry of Deeds to confirm. Mr. Anderson asked what precedent this might set, and re-iterated that he’s not terribly concerned but just wants to understand what the ramifications would be for the Board and the City. Ms. Menon reviewed the bidding process in relation to this project and requirements such as parking spaces.
Randy Clarke stated that the City Council has to approve this so it’s a political process as well as a city process. He further pointed out that it has to be vetted by a lot of other people before it gets to the Planning Board.
Chairman Puleo reminded the Board of when Liberty Street was given to the Peabody Essex Museum, utility structures had to be removed by the City. He would hope that this time, the responsibility for moving of the utility structures would be borne by RCG. Mr. Clarke asked what was in the purchase and sale agreement to which Ms. Menon stated that the sale has not been completed yet. Helen Sides then stated that according to RCG’s work with the Design Review Board, RCG will be responsible for moving the city water line that runs across the proposed parcel. Mr. Anderson then asked where the water line would be moved to, and how it would impact the neighbors, to which Ms. Menon said that she could not answer that question at this time. Mr. Clarke said that he thought that this would
come back before the Planning Board, to which Dale Yale agreed.
Ms. Sides noted that RCG is also proposing to realign the entrance to Dodge Street at their cost.
Mr. Anderson asked about the determination on the ANR, and further asked Ms. Menon to explain what an ANR is. Ms. Menon explained the criteria and further described the way it is laid out in the zoning code, which is in accordance with the subdivision control law. The proposed parcel already has frontage on a public way. Mr. Anderson then asked if they are going to require a PUD or if she knew how they are combining the lots, to which Ms. Menon stated that she didn’t know. Mr. Anderson stated his concern that there could be changes to this lot without having to come back to the Planning Board. Ms. Menon stated that this approval is just for parcel D. She further explained that this is a separate issue from a site plan review. They are giving a preview of what the plans are for the lot. If adjacent lots are owned by the same person, the lots are merged. Mr. Anderson stated that he was worried about potential changes made to the lot in the future that wouldn’t have to be
reviewed by the Board. Ms. Yale explained that if the lots were merged, the owner would have to apply to the Board in order to subdivide them. . Chairman Puleo clarified the process that they are adjudicating on (the ANR petition). Ms. Menon said that the city’s current plan is to not sell the proposed parcel until RCG’s plans are permitted. The lots at Washington and Dodge would not be merged with the proposed parcel until they are all under one ownership.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the ANR , seconded by Helen Sides. The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Clarke) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
There was then discussion as to when RCG’s proposal would come before the Planning Board. Mr. Anderson asked who the project architect is. Ms. Sides responded that she thinks it is a company from Somerville. She also stated that they are trying to iron out conflict of interest issues, so she may have to recuse herself from deliberations on the development itself, both with the Design Review Board and the Planning Board. Ms. Menon answered Mr. Anderson, stating that she thought the architect was Khalsa Design Inc. Mr. Clarke stated that he thinks it will be an active review when it does come before the Board. Chairman Puleo talked about how the area (near Washington and Dodge Streets) has filled up. Ms. Sides noted that the development provides some city parking and also includes a hotel, retail, and a
restaurant.
Old/New Business
Community Preservation Act Plan – Request for Comment/Input
Helen Sides stated that Jane Guy is the city liaison. She has worked with Jane on the historical commission for many years. The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) has been working hard. She reviewed some of the CPC’s draft materials with the Board. Ms. Sides stated that the taxation structure is laid out by State legislation. There is no State body to consult with, it is up to the Cities and Towns to write their own documents. There is a website created by the Community Preservation Coalition (a nonprofit), as well as precedents from other communities that have implemented CPA. The CPC is looking for precedents from communities similar to Salem. There are differences, for example - Salem voted for a 1% surcharge where other cities voted for 3%. She continued reviewing materials
and highlighted the salient issues. One of the key points Ms. Sides highlighted is that funding of maintenance (incidental repairs) is not permitted with CPA funds. Ms. Sides and Ms. Menon also referred to Newburyport’s CPA funding criteria as a useful example for a more urban municipality.
Ms. Sides said that the fun thing is seeing the amount of open space that Salem has. Developing the prioritization criteria for use of CPA funds pulls together different things, and references all the different plans together. Ms. Menon stated that they are putting together a summary of the priorities stated in a variety of city plans, so that the Board can see all of the different priorities together. Ms. Sides shared a document showing how other communities have used these funds. Ms. Menon said that the CPC has to first establish a set of criteria to evaluate and select certain projects, then they can create a plan for use of CPA funds, and then use the plan to create an application process that will attract the types of projects that are addressing priorities. The various Boards and Commissions
have been asked to help create criteria. The Planning Board is supposed to take a broader approach, as Boards with specific interests are also reviewing their plans and priorities.
Mr. Anderson asked about the timeline, to which Ms. Menon responded that the CPC liaison would like feedback by November 22nd. Ms. Yale recommended a workshop. Ms. Sides stated that the materials that will be sent out will help get to the meat of it. She then said that Kirt (Rieder) sent out a list of projects since he couldn’t be here. Ms. Menon recommended that Helen review Mr. Rieder’s list of criteria, which is included as follows:
1.~~~~~~~Projects should be accessible to the public~(visible to passersby, physically accessible to visitors).~ Funding should generally not be applied to hidden utilities, or structural improvements that are not readily visible to citizens, visitors.~ In the interest of showcasing the positive impacts of the CPA, preference should be given to readily visible improvements.
~2.~~~~~~~Projects should be pedestrian focused (funding should~not~be allocated to~vehicular parking or roadway improvements, EXCEPT in situations where the improvements are directly related to pedestrian passage, such as stone or brick crosswalks.~ Shall not be used for faux stamped asphalt/concrete, for instance).~ Traffic and roadway improvements already have a dedicated funding stream, and while not always adequate, it should not divert CPA funds for these purposes.
3.~~~~~~~For discussion … should CPA funds be available for~or~restricted from soil mitigation projects?~ Splaine Park, Bertram Field, among others have had soil remediation issues that were costly.~ Should the City be using CPA funds to dispose of ‘dirty soil’ and buy clean planting soil?
-~~~~~~~~~~Pro:~ it does ultimately allow for a positive community resource
-~~~~~~~~~~Con: it does go into what is essentially invisible improvement
4.~~~~~~~For discussion … should CPA funds be limited to public property?~ Include private, but non-profit, and if so, does that properly include or exclude very large non-profits such as Salem Hospital, Salem State, PEM (those with non-profit status but otherwise large budgets)?
5.~~~~~~~For discussion …~ Should CPA funds be prohibited from application to annual sport field maintenance (soccer, football, softball, baseball, courts, golf)?~ Limited to property acquisition for same athletic use?
Ms. Menon stated that synthetic turf cannot be funded with CPA funds. Ms. Sides stated that she is impressed by Kirt’s recommendations. Chairman Puleo clarified that you could use funds for recreation. Mr. Ready and Mr. Clarke discussed the McCabe Marina as an example - public bathrooms should be available there. Mr. Ready noted that there are other facilities in the city that could benefit from CPA funds. Mr. Clarke noted that his personal opinion was that they should not use CPA funds for municipal or school athletics - there are a lot of other funding opportunities out there for those projects. CPA funds should be used for projects that benefit a wider group of users/residents. He stated that the unique qualities of Salem are: 1. Historic architecture; and 2. the waterfront, which
needs to be protected. Mr. Ready supported Mr. Clarke by stating that this is a maritime city. Mr. Clarke pointed out that if we didn’t have the National Park Service at the historic waterfront, it would be a disaster.
Ms. Menon asked if CPA funds for open space and recreation could be used for piers and docks, or other kinds of access that project off of the land. Ms. Sides stated that it depends on who owns it. As long as it is on city land, it could be applied. Mr. Clarke stated that he was not sure if it’s that specific. He noted that clearly they want to focus on public land, not private, in order to make land more accessible to walking, biking, boating. Ms. Sides used the House of Seven Gables as an example of something that is private not public.
Mr. Clarke noted that the annual CPA funds collected is not a lot of money – maybe roughly $300,000 after administrative costs. They have to do things tactically, doing strategic smaller projects each year, and at the same time saving up money for bigger projects. Ms. Sides stated that the funds can roll over from year to year.
Ms. Sides said that she is grateful to have the Planning Department to help with this. Mr. Clarke inquired about matching funds as there could be some value to partner up with non-profits with this. Mr. Ready said that partnering up with non-profits will be great and he discussed this in relation to McCabe Marina. He stated that he had a discussion with the company that laid pipeline under there and noted that it was put in with a little bit of city money. He stated that in regards to that project, for the city it was a huge positive impact, but for the pipeline company it was a small effort. It created great access for the public.
Mr. Anderson asked how often the Community Preservation Committee will review applications. Ms. Sides responded that there will be public meetings. They are still working out the process. Likely there will be a two-step process, with a preliminary short form. If the short-form application is approved, the application would proceed to the long-form application. Ms. Sides stated that she believes the final selection/approval of projects goes to the City Council for review.
Ms. Menon recommended that if they want to continue this to the next meeting, Board members should send her their recommendations and thoughts on the CPA priorities. Ms. Menon will compile the recommendations to present at the next meeting.
Mr. Clarke asked if they will see the finished package, to which Ms. Sides responded in the affirmative. The CPC will arrange a public meeting, which Jane Guy will schedule. Ms. Menon stated that the Planning Board has two more meetings before Jane’s 11/22 deadline.
Tim Ready noted that the power plant review was handled professionally, and it was well- organized, to which Ms. Sides echoed that it was a very professional and well-prepared presentation. Mr. Ready then stated that this process was extremely well-handled by everyone and they made the right decision.
Mr. Puleo announced that he has a citation from the Mayor’s Office to present to Mr. John Moustakis in appreciation of his years of service on the Planning Board.
Adjournment
Motion and Vote: Tim Ready made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. George, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Clarke.) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:04 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 11/21/2013
| 
