Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 11/06/2014
City of Salem Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, November 6, 2014

A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:11 pm. ~

Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Ben Anderson, Vice Chair, Kirt Rieder, Helen Sides, Bill Griset, Matthew Veno and Noah Koretz. Absent: Dale Yale and Randy Clarke.

Also present: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner, and Pamela Broderick, Planning Board Recording Clerk. ~

Approval of Minutes
October 16, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes
October 20, 2014 Joint Public Hearing with City Council Minutes

Minor corrections were made by the Planning Board members to the October 16, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes.

Motion and Vote:~Matthew Veno made a motion to approve the October 16, 2014 revised Regular Meeting Minutes, seconded by Kirt Reider. ~The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor and none (0) opposed.

Motion and Vote:~Ben Anderson made a motion to approve the October 20, 2014 Joint Public Heating with City Council Minutes, seconded by Noah Koretz. ~The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor and none (0) opposed.


Regular Agenda

Location:               4 Milk Street (Map 35, Lot 577)
Applicant:              4 Milk Street Trust
Description:    The applicant is seeking approval from the Planning Board for an Approval Not Required Plan. Please note: This is not a public hearing.

Documents and Exhibitions:
Plot Plan of Land, Salem MA, 4 Milk Street Trust, revised July 20, 2014

Attorney Joseph C. Correnti of Serafini, Darling & Correnti, LLP, 63 Federal Street; presented for the applicant. Parcel Parcel D (approximately 379 square feet) is to be joined with Parcel C (approximately 8,211 square feet) to become one contiguous lot and squaring off the lot line between Parcel C and Lot B. This is a friendly conveyance between neighbors. The proponent has been to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of the variance created.

Board Discussion:

The Board asked what precipitated the request between neighbors. Atty Correnti advised the owner of lot A wants to buy lot B and both parties want a straight lot line.

Motion and Vote:~~Ben Anderson made a motion to endorse the  Approval Not Required request as submitted, seconded by Kirt Reider. ~The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed.



Location:       72 FLINT STREET AND 67-71 MASON STREET (Map 26, Lots 91, 95 & 97)
Applicant:      RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC
Description:    Continuation of the public hearing for an application for an Amendment to the previously approved Site Plan Review decision, North River Canal Corridor District Special Permit, and Flood Hazard District Special Permit. Specifically, the application proposes changes to the proposed buildings, landscaping, and parking, primarily in order to meet the requirements of the required Ch. 91 License issued by the MA Dept. of Environmental Protection. The number of residential units and square footage of commercial space remains the same.

Documents and Exhibitions:
Riverview Place Site Plans, revised June September 14, 2014
Riverview Place Landscape Plan, revised September 23, 2014
Comparative Drainage Analysis Riverview Place, revised September 21, 2014
Riverview Place Parking Connection Plan SK-1, dated October 24, 2014
Stormwater Report for Riverview Place, dated September 21, 2014

Atty Scott Grover of Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, 27 Congress Street, presented for the applicant. Additional speakers included:
  • Richard Williams MSCE, P.E.; Williams & Sparages, 189 North Main Street Suite 101, Middleton, MA (civil engineering)
  • James Emmanuel; James K. Emmanuel Associates, 22 Carlton Road, Marblehead, MA (landscape architecture)
  • Stephen Feinstein; Director of Finance, Symes Associates, 50 Dodge Street, Beverly, MA (primary developer)
  • William Ross P.E.; Principal Engineer, New England Civil Engineering Corp., 120 Washington Street (civil engineering peer reviewer)
Atty Grover provided an overview on the status of the project. The applicant has revised the pedestrian connection to the City-owned parking lot. The City requires a “right of entry” agreement be executed by the proponent to work on the City-owned lot; which the proponent is prepared to execute.  The City has deferred to the Planning Board to define and approve the actual work to be done on the City property. Regarding the Essex Sewer District right-of-way easement, the City Solicitor contacted the Sewer District attorney. Sewer District is concerned that the proposed pin oak tree roots might interfere, so the proponent has removed these from the plan and will replace with shrubs. Still pending is approval from the Design Review Board (DRB) with regard to compliance of the North River Canal Corridor overlay district requirements. The applicant is scheduled to appear before the DRB on December 3rd and will present with 3D model. They expect to make a final appearance before the Planning Board in December and receive a decision at that meeting.

Mr. Emmanuel continued the presentation and described changes to the landscape plan. The walkways have been aligned to provide a connection from the Mason Street side of the property to the walkway along the North River Canal. The proposal has been updated to maintain the pines along the boundary with the City property; the pin oaks have been eliminated due to Southern Essex Sewer District (SESD) concerns. The connector path to the existing parking lot path is a more direct route. All scrub brush will be cleaned up on the City property.

  • In response to a Board inquiry, Atty Grover clarified that the Essex easement is 25-feet wide. The SESD communication indicated a 35-foot parameter to preclude plantings. The Board noted the SESD is establishing a buffer zone on property that is not their property; it is important their request not be interpreted as an extension of the formal easement. The Board pointed out large trees currently exist along the edge of the easement. The proponent is prepared to clean up the scrub brush on the easement and will plant only shrubs adjacent the easement.
  • Mr. Feinstein offered that the applicant is crossing the SESD easement with paving and willing to accommodate their request with regard to tree placement.
  • Mr. Emmanuel continued with a detailed review of the different types of proposed fencing, as illustrated on the updated Landscape Plan. Along the southern boundary, Flint Street and the City parking lot they are planning ornamental fencing, black aluminum.
  • The Board expressed a concern about quality issues with aluminum fencing, paint can flake pretty fast and the fence may take a bit of abuse given the location. The Board asked to know the manufacturer’s guarantee on the finish as early deterioration is a significant concern.
  • Mr. Emmanuel noted plantings are planned for either side of this portion of the fence which will provide some protection from snow removal equipment.
  • After discussion of various options for fencing material, the Board agreed with Mr. Emmanuel that the need for an upscale appearance is critical and plantings will offer some protection for the proposed fencing.
  • Fencing around the dumpster station will be wooden stockade with concrete filled bolsters on the inside. Stockade fence may be stained, with swing gates and post.
  • Ornamental fence (black aluminum) will be adjacent the wall on the north side of the property.
  • Board asked if the abutters on north side of the property have fences on the boundary; noting there is a grade difference along this property line. Mr. Emmanuel clarified the edge is a slope not a drop-off.
  • The Black chain-link fencing will be pvc-dipped.
Mr. Williams led a brief discussion regarding lighting and distributed spec sheets to Board members for parking area lighting and campus-style lighting. He reviewed placement; colonial fixtures will have Arcadian base and classic finial (chosen from spec sheet options).
  • 5 mongoose-style lights are in parking lot, 4 of these at 18-degree angle to face away from residences and onto parking lot. These will be silver.
  • Colonial lights along driveway and adjacent to the building.
Overspill onto abutting properties is less than 0.5 foot-candles, generally at 0.1 or 0.2. Board requested that staff determine whether City code allows any overspill or if proponent must be required to select lighting that prohibits any spillover. Mr. Williams advised most towns use 0.5 footcandles at the property line.
Board asked that the site plan to specify colors and trim for lighting fixtures.

Mr. Ross of NECE, peer reviewer civil engineering, continued the presentation. He reminded the Board this is the fourth review of this project, dating back to 2009. Storm water standards have now been met. Conditions from 2009 review that are still relevant are listed here. The formal letter has just been sent to the applicant so they have not had time to formally respond:
  • Drainage from Mason Street has a condition—must locate the drainpipe, reroute through the site, keep the dedicated City drain and give the city easement for access; prior to approval for foundation permit.
Cut and cap gas lines entering the site; must be reviewed before demolition permit.
  • Need details for storm water and oil/water separators and roof water drainage. As architectural plans are not done, applicant must come back to Planning Board and City staff with final drawings.
  • Valves on Mason Street, need 2 or 3 valves; applicant will be meeting with city engineer.
  • Bio-retention cell comment still stands, needs to review in relation to the updated landscape plan.
  • SESD request for a buffer is to keep tree roots out of the easement.
  • During high tide the river could backflow into the bio-retention cell; need to add a check valve to prevent this.
Mr. Ross continued with a list of new comments:
  • At the time of previous reviews, storm water management permit was not required. A permit application now needs to be filed.
  • Atty Grover advised the proponent has filed this application.
  • Flood hazard district special permit is now required. All utilities must be above the flood plain and there must be access for movement of emergency vehicles and people during flood events. Parking within the floodplain is an issue.
  • Sewer infrastructure new comments; pipe on the site is in poor condition; needs replacement. Flint Street pipe connection can be rehabilitated; it must be done with the city engineer.
  • Five sewer manholes on the site need to be removed.
  • City engineering is concerned about the sidewalks on Mason Street. City could not complete new sidewalk portion adjacent the property due to dropoff. City requests the proponent complete this section of the sidewalk.
Chair Puleo opened the meeting to public comment:
  • Jane Arlander 93 Federal Street; during July 17th Planning Board meeting, Barbara Warren voiced concern that during a flood event water would go into the SESD from the flooded garage. This clogs the sewer pipes throughout the city. Is there any solution to this situation?
  • Mr. Williams responded that the requirement is to provide drainage from the garage into the sewer system. The proponent will install valves to prevent storm water from entering the garage; in this case flood water would recede back into the river. During a flood event, garage could be flooded if the valve is closed to prevent drainage into the sewer system and use of the garage would be dependent on flood water receding into the river.
  • Atty Grover reminded the Board that this project provides 2 parking spaces per residential unit, as compared to the requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit.
  • Board asked how much of the site will be covered in a flood event? Mr. Williams advised the upper deck and spaces nearest Mason Street would be available. Spaces likely flooded would be in the garage and those spaces those closest to the river—approximately 50% depending on the flood level.
  • Meg Twohey 122 Federal Street; please do not permit outside dumpsters on this site and in this neighborhood. At the time of permitting she understood all trash was to be under cover in the building and available to residents by key. There is a real concern with rats in this neighborhood given the river location.  Other projects on the North River have required the dumpsters be located inside a building.
  • Atty. Grover advised the location of the dumpster has not been moved from 2009 approvals. Chair Puleo clarified there will be 2 dumpsters (1 recycle and 1 pickup). Mr. Williams advised each dumpster will hold eight yards of material. Mr. Williams explained the dumpster location is 8-10 vertical feet downhill from Mason Street and concealed with a stockade fence. Dumpster station not visible from Mason or Flint Street.  It will be visible from the river and Bridge Street but is screened by vegetation and distance. Putting the dumpsters in the garage will not discourage rats as the garage is open. The clearance of the garage will prohibit garbage trucks from accessing any dumpsters located there.
  • Board asked if there will be a full-time maintenance attendant at this property as the rat concern seems to be a maintenance issue. Mr. Feinstein advised they will likely staff with a part-time worker, and confirmed residents will be responsible for placing their refuse in the dumpsters.
  • David Zion, represents the landowner at 72 Flint Street; in response to Mr. Ross’ peer review report, advised the demolition permit precluded them from penetrating through the slabs on the property. Atty Grover clarified the Conservation Commission required the slabs stay intact.
Chair Puleo summarized next steps for this project to obtain a Planning Board decision:
  • A few new items need engineering peer review
DRB on December 3rd
  • Atty Grover would like to continue to the Planning Board meeting scheduled for December 4th.  If favorable meeting with the DRB on December 3rd, the proponent would hope to have a decision from the Planning Board on December 4th.
Motion and Vote:~~Bill Griset made a motion to continue to December 4, 2014, seconded by Ben Anderson. ~The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed.



Location:               9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 & 231-251 Washington Street
(Map 34, Lots 0403, 0405 & 0406)
Applicant:              Dodge Area, LLC
Description:    A public hearing of the application for Site Plan Review, a Planned Unit Development Special Permit,  a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and a Stormwater Management Permit for the construction of an approximately 190,000 square foot mixed-use development with residential units, commercial space including a potential hotel, a parking structure, associated landscaping, and pedestrian and transportation improvements.

Documents and Exhibitions:
  • Salem Gateway: Washington and Dodge St Infrastructure Improvements Salem MA—Stormwater Management Report; revised Nov 4, 2014 (DCI Project No 2013-107)
  • Salem Gateway: Washington and Dodge St Infrastructure Improvements Salem MA -- Proposed Site Plan, Project 2013-107, Sheet C3.0 dated Nov 4, 2014
  • Salem Gateway: Washington and Dodge St Infrastructure Improvements Salem MA -- Proposed Utilities Plan, Project 2013-107, Sheet C 4.0 dated Nov 4, 2014
DCI Memorandum Response to peer Review Comments dated Oct 10, 2014
DCI Peer Review Letter dated Oct 21, 2014 and revised Nov 4, 2014
Email dated November 4, 2014 from Dennis Flynn (AECOM peer reviewer) to staff planner Erin Schaeffer; summary of outstanding traffic peer review issues.
Washington at Dodge Development Proposal Presentation to Salem Planning Board, dated Nov 6, 2014

Matthew Picarsic, Managing Principal for RCG, LLC (developer) presented for the applicant.
Additional speakers included:
  • Dennis Flynn, P.E., PTOE; AECOM Transportation, 250 Apollo Drive, Chelmsford MA; peer reviewer.
  • David Giangrande, PE; Design Consultants Inc., 68 Pleasant Street, Newburyport, MA
  • Tom Bertulis PE, PTOE; Design Consultants Inc., 68 Pleasant Street, Newburyport, MA
  • Wayne Keefner, PE, LEED, AP, BD+C; Principal, Design Consultants Inc., 68 Pleasant Street, Newburyport, MA
  • William Ross, PE, Principal Engineer, New England Civil Engineering Corp., 120 Washington Street; peer reviewer.
  • Jonathan Ofilos; Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, PC, 27 Congress Street
Mr. Picarsic provided an overview of the issues covered:
  • Traffic, roadways and on-street parking including peer review by AECOM
  • Utilities and storm water management
  • Program flexibility request updated
  • Housekeeping items (updated photometrics and building exterior materials)
TRAFFIC, ROADWAYS & ONSTREET
As a result of the peer review, a couple of changes:
  • Right turn from Washington Street westbound into the upper parking court removed, keeping on-street parking spaces.
  • Remove dedicated westbound left-turn lane onto Canal due to low volume; wider island provides better pedestrian refuge.
  • Additional width permitting wider shoulder or bike lane along Washington Street.
  • Discovered more width for Washington Street on west side of project providing for parallel parking and bicycle lane plus two 12-ft travel lanes for northbound Washington Street.
  • Added a HAWK signal for pedestrian crossing at Wash crossing at Dodge. Committed to a pedestrian-activated beacon.
  • Spaces on Washington Street will be metered.
Mr. Picarsic advised the peer reviewer and proponent have reached agreement on most issues.

Mr. Flynn of AECOM (traffic peer reviewer) summarized final technical peer review requests related to signage and crosswalks as itemized in the email dated Nov 4, 2014.
  • Board asked if AECOM foresees traffic backup due to the new pedestrian-activated crossing over Washington Street (at Dodge Street Court). Mr. Flynn advised the rapid-flash (strobe) beacon will alert motorists of a pedestrian in their lane, but not require the motorist to wait out a red/green/yellow cycle for full crossing.
  • Board discussed at length the types of pedestrian crossing signals under consideration, their impact on traffic backup and concern for pedestrian safety as vehicles approach the northbound left turn from Washington Street onto Norman Street. The discussion included the relationship of the existing pedestrian crossing at the south end of Washington Street (Canal Street) in relation to the proposed new crossing at Dodge Street Court.
  • Proponent’s consultants and AECOM are still considering the best solution for this crossing. The City will be improving the intersection at Washington and Canal including adjusting light timing to provide pedestrians with adequate crossing time.
  • Board confirmed with Mr. Flynn there is nothing to preclude the developer from using an upgrade of the city standard of
UTILITES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Mr. Picarsic advised there are two items under investigation:
  • Where is the South River conduit under Washington Street; this is important as it will determine the width available to lay out new utilities.
  • Determine whether or not the 42” sewer line where Washington Street curves is in fact abandoned. If not, design will need to be updated to address the flow.
Mr. Giangrande advised they have videoed as much as possible but there are sections that cannot be penetrated; some manholes are filled with debris. They have a reasonable understanding of the location of the South River conduit, but have agreed with the City to cut holes in the streets in an attempt to fine-tune the location of these items so the utilities can be finalized.

Mr. Ross (peer reviewer) advised the most recent consultation was this morning; formal report to come.
  • Stormwater management plan revised; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Stormwater Management Report to be submitted before foundation permit.
  • Utility relocation is the main issue. The existing parking lot (purchased from the City) is the nexus of several critical utilities including three 42” sewer lines. The targeted relocation zone has the South River S-curving through it. Have reached agreement with the city engineer on a concept plan of relocation. Final plan will be determined by the location of the South River conduit and the disposition of the 42-inch sewer lines.
  • Clay pipe along Dodge Street Court will be replaced with other lines on this street.
  • Comments on the utility design will be revised once civil and architectural designs are further along.
  • Several technical issues remain to be reviewed by the City Engineer to determine whether the conceptual plan can actually be built.
  • Sewer flow rates have been provided; no concerns based on expected peak use.
  • This project falls within flood zone so flood overlay restrictions apply. Emergency vehicles must have access and occupants able to leave via an un-flooded area. Floor of the hotel has been raised above the floodplain.
  • Area of disagreement regarding how to handle pre/post flows for storm water management. There is a tide gate that enables the South River to be treated as non-tidal. Plans being revised to take this into account. Resubmission prior to foundation permit is recommended.
  • Infiltration unit under patio needs to be designed and approved prior to foundation permit.
  • City engineer needs details on how and where this project will tie into City water system.
  • Run-off management plan needed and it must sync with stormwater management plan and civil plans, before foundation permit.
PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY
Mr. Picarsic reviewed with the Board the proponent’s request for approval to include program flexibility for a variety of uses. Five examples were previously provided at the September 4th meeting.  The proponent has simplified the programming options to focus on options A and C;
  • Base program with 111 hotel rooms, 84 residential units and 20,000 (+/- 14,000) square feet of commercial space; overall floor area of +/- 190,000 square feet, 253 parking spaces.
  • Conversion of hotel rooms to retail and/or residential, 145 residential units, 28,000 (+/- 22,000) commercial space; overall square floor area parking and building heights to remain the same.
The proponent requests project approval with the ability to convert to hotel to residential/retail without returning to the Planning Board. The proponent regards this as an insignificant change and presented data to support:
  • Traffic—trip count is reduced with more residential use,
  • Parking—current allocation would accommodate residential use,
  • Water/Sewer loads—slightly higher for water flow and sewer flow if converted to residential, but same service size requirements and sufficient service at the street to accommodate.
REVISED LIGHTING PLAN & BUILDING EXTERIOR MATERIALS
Mr. Picarsic advised the lighting plan has been updated to address the lighting near 257 Washington Street, resulting in a reduction of footcandles to minimize light spillover. Proposed lights have been relocated and changed to provide 0.5 footcandles or less. Fixtures are type SA-1.

Regarding the Planning Board request to view exterior materials, they have been made available to the DRB and approved with some conditions. Presentation boards on display in the meeting room tonight for the Planning Board to review at their leisure.

Mr. Picarsic concluded the presentation with a request to close the public hearing tonight, and move forward with the preparation of a draft decision.

Chair Puleo opened the meeting to public comment:
  • William Legault, City Councillor-at-Large, 2 Orne Street; offered clarification regarding the proposed new crosswalk over Washington Street (at Dodge Street Court). He firmly confirmed the desire path at this location exists because it is the safest place to cross Washington Street, based on his personal experience as a daily pedestrian in the area. He is in favor of the plan to formalize this crosswalk.
Additional Board Discussion:
Chair Puleo recommended if the Board is going to entertain such broad program flexibility, the public hearing should remain open for a bit longer.
  • Mr. Picarsic offered the proponent would be amenable to approval of the base programming, with stated willingness to consider programming change subject to technical review of changes and impacts.
Mr. Anderson expressed concern regarding three issues:
  • Proposed new crosswalk (at Washington & Dodge Court) and potential vehicular backup as a result. No traffic engineering data was presented on this matter.
  • Program flexibility requested is very broad. If proponent cannot build what is approved, they should be required to present a new program for Board approval.
  • Concerned about shortage of parking and losing any on-street parking—but doesn’t see an easy resolution. Parking loss will negatively impact the neighborhood.
  • The Board agreed that the loss of Pond Street parking is not the proponent’s issue; and the City has sold the Washington Street east lot which is now private property.
Mr. Kortez indicated a preference the Board limit approval to a specific program use plan; and encouraged the applicant to return to present their alternative if  the hotel use cannot be finalized.

Chair Puleo indicated there is another round of peer review on utilities and engineering matters. Mr. Ross advised the Board could condition an approval with a set of requirements to be met and approved by the City Engineer. Chair Puleo and Mr. Ross both observed the discovery process for the civil engineering issues could take months and a carefully conditioned approval may be the best way to move forward.

Mr. Flynn (AECOM peer review firm) responded to the concern regarding vehicle backup at the crosswalk. To give a formal answer the peer reviewer would need to link traffic flow study with projected pedestrian volume which has not been done.  The desire path has been attested to by several observers and the crosswalk is recommended by AECOM.

Additional Board Discussion of Proposed Crosswalk at Washington Street/Dodge Court:
  • Ms. Sides observed we are introducing a very different type of signal in the middle of a block instead of at an intersection. She believes the presence of the crosswalk will increase pedestrian traffic and add to vehicular backups. Perhaps the improvement to the crosswalk at Washington and Canal Streets will encourage people to feel safer at this crossing.
  • Mr. Picarsic pointed out the consultants are trying to balance interests here between pedestrians and vehicles. The solution is not ideal for either but represents a compromise to accommodate both.
  • Mr. Anderson suggested tying the new crosswalk signal to match the signal at Washington and New Derby streets pedestrian crossing. Mr. Veno agreed, adding that the short left-turn light from Washington Street northbound onto Norman Street could create a dangerous situation. Vehicles queuing to make this turn will back up into the crosswalk.
  • Mr. Giangrande advised the flash beacon cannot be linked to a traffic signal at this time.
  • Chair Puleo asked Mr. Flynn (AECOM peer reviewer) if they will crosshatch “don’t block the box”  at the intersection of Canal and Washington Streets. Mr. Flynn responded it is not currently proposed. Chair Puleo asked if this treatment is helpful in controlling traffic. Mr. Flynn advised it was not proposed for the Canal/Washington intersection as the traffic backup does not warrant it at present.
  • The Board discussion continued, including the possibility of abandoning the proposed new crosswalk in favor of the existing crosswalk at Washington/Canal. The Board reached consensus that both crosswalks are needed and City Departments will need to monitor the new traffic patterns and make adjustments once the project and street improvements are completed.
Concluding Board Discussion:
Chair Puleo directed planning staff to check with City Planner Lynn Duncan about approving the flexible program use. Mr. Ofilos indicated the proponent’s attorneys believe the Planning Board has the authority under statutory framework to decide in favor of the flexible programming request. Counsel has met with Lynn Duncan and Beth Rennard (City Solicitor) who are reviewing the matter.

Chair Puleo specifically asked Planning Board members for their input on the request to close the public hearing. The Board consensus was to keep the public hearing open, noting that two members were not in attendance and closing the hearing would not result in significant time savings to the applicant.  The Board further agreed to delay work on a draft decision until hearing from the City Planner and City Solicitor on the flexible program issue. Staff planner Erin Schaeffer was asked to follow-up.

Mr. Picarsic reminded the Board there will be no change to buildings, just program use.
Motion and Vote:~~Kirt Reider made a motion to continue the public hearing to November 20, 2014, seconded by Ben Anderson. ~The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed.

Old/New Business

  • Board discussion regarding Request for Comment/Input on FY15 Community Preservation Plan—Board comments due by November 20th
Board Discussion:
Collectively, the Board made three general recommendations:
  • CPA not fund anything directly related to parking or vehicular activities.
  • Look for projects focused on preserving and highlighting our maritime heritage.
  • Local neighborhood parks need help with upkeep; this is a great use of CPA funds.


  • Board discussion and vote on a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendment of the Zoning Map of the City of Salem to extend the Central Development (B-5) District to include the parcel located at 38 Washington Square South. Said property currently lies within the Residential Two-Family (R-2) District.
Chair Puleo read the draft ordinance into the record for the benefit of Planning Board members and the public in attendance. The Board quickly reached consensus the ordinance is in the City’s best interests and observed there was no unfavorable public comment received during or after the joint hearing with City Council.

City of Salem
___

In the year two thousand and fourteen

An Ordinance to amend an Ordinance relative to Zoning

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows:

Section I. That the City of Salem Zoning Map be amended, in accordance with the requirements of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 5, by rezoning the following described area of real property located at 38 Washington Square South as shown on the City of Salem Assessor’s Map 35, Parcel 0425, from R-2 Residential Two-Family District to B-5 Central Development District by extending the B-5 Central Development District to include this parcel.

Section II. This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter.
Motion and Vote:~~ Matthew Veno made a motion to endorse the draft amendment and recommend adoption by the City Council, seconded by Helen Sides. The vote was six (6) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed, with one abstention (Mr. Reider).


  • Board discussion and vote on a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendment of the Zoning Map of the City of Salem to extend the Residential Two-Family (R-2) District to include the entire parcel located at 43 Bridge Street. A portion of said property currently lies within the R-2 District and a portion of said property currently lies within the Business Wholesale and Automotive (B-4) District.
Chair Puleo suggested the Board review the zoning map of the neighborhood. The Board identified a primary point of concern:

The Board is concerned the development of the lot provide frontage on the Bridge Street portion that is in character with the rest of the street. Representative discussion points included:
  • The problem is the portion of the lot facing Bridge Street. To front this lot on Planters Street could create a “blank wall” facing an entrance corridor street. The Board discussed treatment examples in other neighborhoods that could address this potential corner lot.
  • The primary uses on the same side of Bridge St are B2 and B4. Some Board members believe a decision to rezone to accommodate this project (and get the lot cleaned up) could be short-sighted and not in the best interests of the neighborhood.
  • It is unfortunate there is no comprehensive plan for the Bridge Street corridor to provide guidance.
After discussion, the Board agreed to recommend adoption of the draft amendment, said recommendation to include a cover letter to City Council to relay additional suggestions:
  • The requested ordinance highlights the need for appropriate zoning reform to address this request and develop a comprehensive plan for the Bridge Street Entrance Corridor. The Planning Board respectfully urges the City Council to request a planning study for the Bridge Street Corridor.
  • Encourage the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider treatment of any lot created that abuts Bridge street be approved in keeping with the character of Bridge Street with no setback along the Bridge Street frontage.
City of Salem
___

In the year two thousand and fourteen

An Ordinance to amend an Ordinance relative to Zoning

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows:

Section I. That the City of Salem Zoning Map be amended, in accordance with the requirements of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 5, by rezoning the portion of the parcel of real property located at 43 Bridge Street as shown on the City of Salem Assessor’s Map 36, Parcel 0238, from B-4 Business Wholesale and Automotive to R-2 Residential Two-Family District by extending the R-2 Residential Two-Family District to include the entire parcel.
Section II. This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter.

Motion and Vote:~~ Matthew Veno made a motion to endorse the draft amendment and recommend adoption by the City Council, said draft amendment to be accompanied by formal letter to City Council expressing additional recommendations: 1) the need for comprehensive zoning reform with regard to the Bridge Street Corridor, and 2) strongly recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals consider treatment of any lot created that abuts Bridge street be approved in keeping with the character of Bridge Street with no setback along the Bridge Street frontage; seconded by Helen Sides. The vote was six (6) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed, with one abstention (Mr. Reider).



  • Board Discussion and vote on 2015 Planning Board Meeting Schedule.
Ms. Schaeffer distributed a draft and advised it is currently posted on the city website. The dates still need to be double-checked against City Council and other key schedules.

Matthew Veno made a motion to approve the schedule as drafted, seconded by Ben Anderson . The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed.


Adjournment

Motion and Vote:~ Matthew Veno  made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Bill Griset . The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed.

Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 11:00pm.

For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at:~http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/

Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Broderick, Recording Clerk

Approved by the Planning Board on 11/20/2014

Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A § 18-25 and City Ordinance § 2-2028 through § 2-2033.