SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 11/21/13
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:01 pm.
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Tim Ready, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Ben Anderson, Randy Clarke, George McCabe and Kirt Rieder. Absent: Mark George and Dale Yale.
Also present: Dana Menon, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
October 17, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
On page four, Mr. Clarke that his statement should have read that he recommended not using CPA funds for municipal or school athletics.
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 Ben Anderson. The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe.) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Old Business/ New Business
Request of PAUL DIBIASE, TRUSTEE OF OSBORNE HILLS REALTY TRUST, for a vote to approve the tri-party agreement as surety for Phase IIB, and a vote to release lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 in PHASE IIB of the DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN OSBORNE HILLS, 57 MARLBOROUGH RD
Ms. Menon stated that they added lot 7, which is laid out in the tri-party agreement. She also clarified which of the remaining lots were previously released.
Paul DiBiase, trustee of Osborne Hills Trust, 57 Marlborough Road, cleared up the confusion with Lot 7, explaining that it was not released in the last phase, as it should have been. He is happy to report that they have completely constructed the first loop and Osborne Hills drive and Amanda Way now connect by a paved road. They also converted the bridge to culverts, Masterson Construction, the general contractor, is putting the roads in. The whole process was viewed and inspected by Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, who are the Clerk of the Works on this project and have the full reports. They have pavement down and it is in complete working order, along with the pumping station. He also stated that the inspection company for the pump station is Weston and Sampson, and they have noted that it is working well. Mr. DiBiase also stated that sales are picking up a little bit and they are moving forward. Chairman Puleo asked if this completes the loop to which Mr. DiBiase said yes,
thus they are asking for the release of phase IIB. They had to divide phase 2 up into two parts due to financial reasons. They are working on the streetscape and are prepared to work on the next phase (phase 3).
Chairman Puleo clarified that the goal is to release the lots, to which Mr. DiBiase responded that they have a tri-party agreement which has been executed by himself as the trustee and from the bank as well.
Ms. Menon stated that Jim Rivard from Fay Spofford and Thorndike reviewed the surety bond and found the quantities and the cost to be reasonable and Dave Knowlton, the City Engineer, agreed. Paul directed the Board to exhibit A in the informational packet to the Board for the quantities and cost details.
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the tri-party agreement as surety for Phase IIB, and a vote to release lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 in PHASE IIB of the DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN OSBORNE HILLS, 57 MARLBOROUGH RD, seconded by Kirt Rieder. The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe.) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo asked if the walking paths that go around the property will become public property. Mr. DiBiase explained that the open space will be held by the homeowners association but will be open to the public, and the path will be constructed in this phase. Mr. Rieder asked for further clarification to which Chairman Puleo described the location of the walking path.
Project: Site Plan Review for the conversion of the existing building to six (6) residential units and associated parking and landscaping.
Applicant: RENEWAL VENTURES LLC
Location: 3 WEBSTER ST (Map 36, Lot 0466)
Dan Ricciarelli, Seger Architects, 10 Derby Square, Salem presented on behalf of the applicant, David Pabich, and described the site. He added that some years ago there was an approval [zoning board] of a plan with six residential units and three parking spaces. They are proposing one more parking space inside the building. Chairman Puleo asked if the plan had been approved for someone else (a different developer), to which Mr. Ricciarelli responded yes, and they have moved the approval forward through the years. He then gave a history of the property and described the location, explaining that it is currently vacant. He noted that the building is on the state and the national historic register, so they are applying for historic tax credits. He then described their plans with remodeling the façade,
stating that they will open up the former overhead door opening. He described the visuals that he provided and explained the location of the project in the neighborhood, noting it as a mill building.
Chairman Puleo asked about the location of the building from the lot line. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that it’s less than one foot in some places, and described it. Chairman Puleo then asked about rear access, to which Mr. Ricciarelli explained that there is one door but it will be abandoned. Dan continued orienting the Board to the location of the units and described the unit layouts. He explained that they will restore the interior as they are brick walls. He then described that the units will be around 1400 square feet for townhouses, 1000 square feet for the flats. Chairman Puleo asked about parking spaces, to which Mr. Ricciarelli responded that they will not be not assigned. He continued describing the units.
Chairman Puleo asked if there will be a new roof, to which Mr. Ricciarelli responded that they will be doing some work on the roof in order to conceal the mechanical units on the roof and they showed this on the graphics. Chairman Puleo then asked about putting [the mechanical] units on the outside. Mr. Ricciarelli described the location of the mechanical units on the roof and explained that there will be 6 units outside, but they will be recessed into the roofline. Chairman Puleo then asked about sound suppression, to which Mr. Ricciarelli described the plan including an acoustic screen. Chairman Puleo asked how close is the nearest building, to which Mr. Ricciarelli described the distances around the property.
Mr. Clarke asked for further clarification on if these are rentals or condos. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that they will receive tax credits if they rent out the units for up to five years. Mr. Ricciarelli continued his presentation describing the engineering to stabilize building. Ms. Sides recommended that Ms. Menon review and summarize what they are approving. Ms. Menon explained what they are approving will be for site plan review due to the area of the building. She stated that they came to the Zoning Board for the appropriate zoning relief, which was granted by the zoning board.. The decision of the zoning board was appealed, but the appeal was overturned by the court. She then sent the plan out for review from other departments and she has comments from those departments, which she can
review.
Mr. Rieder asked about landscaping. Chairman Puleo clarified that they have been relieved from parking. David Pabich, property owner, clarified that strictly because it’s 6 units, it triggers a site plan review in the city. They don’t have much site for them to approve because of how the building fits on the site. Mr. Rieder asked how they will finish the ground plane. Mr. Pabich explained that the “landscape” in question runs along the side yard of the building. Chairman Puleo asked about the trench to the front door, to which Mr. Ricciarelli explained that the curb will be cut to reactivate the second overhead door in the front and to clean up the apron. Chairman Puleo asked about the condition of the sidewalk, and Mr. Ricciarelli shared a visual to help explain. Mr.
Rieder asked if the surface will be restored as asphalt to which Mr. Pabich responded that in keeping with the neighborhood, they will make it asphalt. Ms. Sides recommended using concrete and Mr. Clarke echoed her statement adding that the Board recommends concrete on all projects. Mr. Rieder and Chairman Puleo recommended providing additional information on the granite curbing. Chairman Puleo asked how wide is the building is across the front to which Mr. Pabich stated that it is 48 feet.
Ben Anderson stated that he is concerned that he doesn’t see a site plan that includes the distance to adjacent buildings and the proximity of the neighbors. Mr. Ricciarelli agreed to provide that information. Chairman Puleo asked for clarification on the location and if this is designated R-2. Mr. Anderson was also interested in the number of units and the potential people in the building as he is concerned that it is a dense neighborhood. He’s thinking about how this will impact on-street parking, and asked if they are deeding parking to some of the apartments. He then asked who these apartments are being marketed to. Mr. Pabich said that he can’t speak to that at all in terms of who he’s going to rent it to – there are regulations saying that you can’t not rent
to anybody. Mr. Anderson stated that in the original decision it was included who it would be marketed to. Mr. Pabich said it would ultimately be sold as condos. From his experience, what he typically sees is professional younger couples who don’t have cars, who want to be near the train. That’s not to say that they definitely won’t have cars. In a recent development he did, several two-bedroom units were bought by single women. But that’s just one snapshot in his experience. Can’t define but it will be high end like who is renting at the Salem Jail. It is exceptionally important to him that he has good tenants. Generally, the higher the rents, the better the tenants.
Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the front exterior lighting and then asked how are they going to re-point the brick walls. Mr. Pabich explained that they are allowed by law to do repairs, but he will ask for permission to go on the neighbors’ properties for repairs. Mr. Anderson commented that it seems like a lot of units and lot of people for the neighborhood, then he asked if they could get one more parking space with one less residential unit. Mr. Pabich responded that he would not do this with one less unit as the numbers are tight.
Chairman Puleo requested lighting details at the front of the building, details on the refinishing of the sidewalk, and the HVAC units - decibel levels and proposed screening, when they return. Mr. Rieder asked if it is not incumbent upon the applicant to meet the criteria for site plan review and to have a complete plan. Mr. Clarke asked what’s the expected duration of the project to which Mr. Pabich responded that it will take approximately 9 months.
Chairman Puleo opens the issue up for public comment
Don Tucker, 5 Webster Street, asked where are the air conditioning units going to be located to which Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they will be located on the opposite side of the building from Mr. Tucker’s property. Mr. Tucker then asked about garbage to which Mr. Pabich responded that there will be a small dumpster inside the building. Mr. Tucker asked about the locations of the emergency exits. Mr. Ricciarelli pointed out the emergency exit locations on the graphics. Mr. Tucker noted that historically the sprinklers are bad and have always been bad. Mr. Pabich stated that they are updating the sprinkler system.
Mr. Anderson asked if there was a remoteness issue for the exits that had to be met. Mr. Ricciarelli responded that there is a criteria, but it is not an issue here.
Ms. Menon read the Fire Inspector’s comments.
Tim Ready noted that the comments submitted by other departments are all public record.
Paul Guido, 15 Pleasant Street, recommended that they install a balustrade across it of some nature so the neighbor doesn’t stare at the air conditioning unit. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that they are going to put an acoustic screen in, to buffer the noise and the view. The Park Service doesn’t want to see anything that changes the original appearance of the building, like a balustrade. They are tucking the units back into the roof pretty far, at least 3 feet, as they are trying to hide them as much as possible.
Chairman Puleo asked for a sample of the material, to which Mr. Ricciarelli agreed to provide one. Mr. Anderson stated that there is some elevation confusion, and asked them to submit something larger, so the notes can be read. Mr. Anderson then asked about the overhead doors for garages. Mr. Ricciarelli said that they are not designed yet as they are waiting for historic information on the original appearance of the doors. Mr. Anderson then asked about the design of the garage and the exhaust from cars in the garage, to which Mr. Ricciarelli explained that it will be like a residential garage, as it will be sealed from the residential areas of the building.
Mark Verkennis, 17 Pleasant Street, asked about the window design plan over the garages to which Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they will be keeping all of them. Mr. Verkennis asked about the types of windows that will be used. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that these will be similar to the Salem Jail building where they will have historical details, and be insulated.
Mr. Tucker asked if they are adding windows, to which Mr. Ricciarelli responded no.
Dave Coppola, 9 Spring Street, described where he lives in relation to project and asked about the exhaust pipe for washer and dryer units. Mr. Ricciarelli explained that they will use brick vents, and they may do them on the side of the building, or out the roof.
Lorenzo Quinones, 9 Spring Street, asked about the abandoning of the rear entrance, to which Mr. Ricciarelli explained that they are going to make it a window. Mr. Quinones stated that the windows stare into their yard, so he would like to know what they’re thinking about for extra privacy. Mr. Pabich discussed how he is contemplating a translucent application on the windows. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that they have to run it by the Park Service. Mr. Quinones then asked about sandblasting of the building, to which Mr. Ricciarelli responded that it will be done on the interior only. They will be repointing the exterior.
Paul Falconer, 17 Pleasant Street, didn’t realize with the historic building tax incentive that all units have to start out as all rental. He asked if there would there be any incentive to offering a rent to own option. Mr. Pabich responded that it’s a model that they have pursued in the past and it doesn’t always work out. However it is certainly something that he would entertain.
Mr. Turner requested that a stipulation be included that during construction they shut the lights off at night, to which Mr. Pabich agreed. Mr. Pabich stated that they are good landlords and they will continue to have a dialogue with neighbors and they will have a phone number to call if there are any issues. Mr. Turner asked if it would be available during work hours, to which Mr. Pabich said it would be available whenever the city requires, however no weekend hours. Mr. Ready said that on behalf of this board, it is important to get the number out there.
Chairman Puleo requested that when the applicant presents again, that they specifically address the HVAC, site plan, lighting, and locating abutters on Spring Street.
Ms. Sides complemented the developer, noting that it is a beautiful building as it has tremendous potential architecturally.
Motion and Vote: Ben Anderson made a motion to continue to 12/5/13 meeting, seconded by Tim Ready. The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
Community Preservation Act Plan – Comment/Input
Ms. Menon stated that she pulled together the comments from the previous meeting and from emails and she stated that Jane Guy and Lynn Duncan reviewed them for compatibility. There were some comments that weren’t quite clear. Ms. Sides noted that there was good attendance at the most recent Community Preservation Commission public hearing, with about 35 people.
Ms. Menon explained that it would be best to not have negatively worded criteria. Ms. Sides stated that most of this is in the document already. Mr. Rieder recommended excluding cleaning up contaminated lands as it is not going to be visible in the future, but it is pivotal. Mr. Anderson said that they could use up the yearly budget on cleaning up lands. Mr. Clarke commented that contaminated lands could be tied into other projects. Ms. Menon asked if it is a priority. Chairman Puleo asked if there could be a certain amount of money allocated. Ms. Sides stated that it is not possible as there are so many things coming our way at once. At least for quite a while there are going to be projects that fall into several baskets at once.
Mr. Anderson asked about the application process to get to recommendations. Ms. Sides described a two step process and said that someone has to be serious about presenting an application and leading it. Then they have to do a long application form with the true costs associated. Mr. Anderson said that some will get vetted through that process. Ms. Sides said that there will be something on the website that everyone can read to understand the process. George McCabe stated that these projects will ultimately be approved by the city council. Ms. Sides said it could be one big project or several small ones. Mr. Anderson reminded the Board that the intent of our exercise here is to give you some ideas. Ms. Sides said that the CPC can look at all of the Boards’ recommendations to see if
they are missing something. Ms. Menon stated that the public process is an important piece, and the CPC is getting input from every board.
Mr. Rieder asked if some of the suggested projects are too specific to which Ms. Sides responded that the level of specificity is at the discretion of each CPC. She used Gloucester as an example. Mr. Anderson used an example, asking who would bring the application forward for “Winter Island.” Ms. Sides gave an example of a man who has detailed recommendations for renovating Winter Island. Ms. Menon stated that the City can bring forward proposals as well. Ms. Sides and Mr. Clarke offered other examples, which included the harbor. Mr. Rieder discussed the shoreline connectivity so it is not specific to just the ferry terminal. Ms. Menon asked about recreational connectivity to which Mr. Rieder said it was important to focus on pedestrians. Ms. Menon suggested adding
bicycle access to that. Mr. Clarke asked \ the Disability Commission has been asked for input on the CPA priorities, to which Ms. Menon said that she didn’t know. Mr. Clarke stated that it is important to include ADA components. Mr. Rieder recommended adding a reference to universal access. He also noted that on the second page, there are references to “studies” which concerns him as the City can spend money on studies and he worries that they may not yield tangible improvements to the City. Ms. Sides responded that Jane (Guy) looked into this and the money cannot be used to update studies that are the City’s responsibility. Mr. Clarke asked if a non-profit could use funds for a feasibility study. Mr. Anderson noted that there may be projects that won’t get kicked off if there isn’t a study done. There may be projects here where the development team isn’t terrifically funded, but it may be
beneficial for the city to develop this site. Mr. Ready stated that he would like to see a proponent of a project to fund a study. Mr. Clarke stated that it is important to keep the study language strong.
Mr. Clarke asked when the first recommendation will happen. Chairman Puleo noted that it hasn’t come on the tax bill yet. Mr. Rieder recommended language changes and additions. Ms. Menon recommended more specificity. Mr. Anderson recommended adding language about green and sustainable initiatives in the general categories. Mr. Rieder recommended that the money should not be used for strictly vehicular initiatives, to which Mr. Clarke concurred. Mr. Rieder recommended that money not be spent to pave parking lots. Ms. Menon asked what about a situation where improving the parking lot would improve access to a recreation area/amenity. Mr. Rieder responded that grinding, milling, and repaving is not helping to improve the recreational area. There was continued discussion about
parking and how it impacts the potential proposed projects. Mr. Rieder stated that the projects should be about improving universal and pedestrian access, rather than the most mundane thing. He emphasized that they not be exclusively for vehicular improvements.
Mr. Ready asked about the process to which Ms. Menon responded that she is bringing it all to Jane Guy who is compiling all of the recommendations. Ms. Sides noted that this is an important part of the process.
Ms. Menon stated that she will be bringing the draft 2014 calendar to the next meeting as January 2nd and July 3rd may be challenging.
Chairman Puleo asked Ms. Menon to look into the lighting situation at the CVS. Ms. Menon stated that the Building department had looked at the Bollards and they are all out. The inspector is guessing it is due to an electrical failure.
Mr. Rieder asked about the status of lawsuit with the power plant, to which Ms. Menon responded that they are waiting for the EFSB to make a determination on Footprint’s application for an approval by the EFSB that would override the local appeals.
Mr. Clarke asked that it be noted the Board congratulates Beth Gerard on winning her ward seat on the Salem City Council.
Adjournment
Motion and Vote: Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Kirt Rieder. The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Ms. Sides, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder and Mr. McCabe. Mr. George and Ms. Yale were absent.) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:32 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 12/5/2013
| 
