Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Draft Minutes 7/30/2015
City of Salem Planning Board
DRAFT Meeting Minutes
Thursday, July 30, 2015

A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

Chairman Anderson opened the meeting at 7:10 pm. ~

Roll Call
Those present were: Ben Anderson, Chair, Randy Clarke, Kirt Rieder, Dale Yale, Bill Griset, Matthew Veno , Noah Koretz and Carole Hamilton. Absent: None

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

Chair Anderson acknowledged several City leaders in attendance and introduced new Planning Board member Carole Hamilton, and thanked her for her volunteerism.  City Councilors present: Arthur Sargent, Beth Gerrard, Joseph O’Keefe, Josh Turiel, Elaine Milo, Heather Famico, and David Eppley.

Approval of Minutes
June 18, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. ~

Motion and Vote:~Bill Griset made a motion to approve the June 18, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes, seconded by Kirt Rieder. ~The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor, one (1) abstained and none (0) opposed.

Regular Agenda
Location:       20 WEBB, 4 SZETELA LANE, 3 FORT AVENUE, 1 FORT AVENUE, 1 REAR FORT AVENUE (Map 41, Lots 245, 244, 235, 236,243)
Applicant:              CITY OF SALEM
Description:    Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to combine five (5) lots to create one (1) lot.

Documents and Exhibitions:
  • Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval dated July 23, 2015
  • Szetela Lane and Fort Avenue ANR Plan dated July 14, 2015
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, City of Salem, presented for the applicant. Ms. Duncan advised there is an activity and use application that needs to be applied to this group of parcels; the City would like to consolidate and pay only one filing fee.



Board Discussion:
The Board asked if it is typical and normal that the City should appear before the Planning Board for this type of matter; Ms. Duncan confirmed it is. The Board asked to know the planned usage of the space. Ms. Duncan advised it is designated for passive green space as part of mitigation on a prior project.

ROLL CALL Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clark made a motion to endorse the plan believed not to require approval (ANR) to combine five (5) lots to create one (1) lot, seconded by Noah Koretz. ~The vote was unanimous with eight (8) in favor ( Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton) and none (0) opposed.


Location:               36 FELT STREET (Map 27 Lot 608)
Applicant:              ESTATE OF JAMES TREADWELL
Description:    Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to take away area from one lot and add that area to another lot.

Documents and Exhibitions:
  • Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval dated July 23, 2015
  • 36 Felt Street, ANR Plan dated December  14, 2012
Atty Scott Grover of Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, 27 Congress Street; presented for the applicant. The property is the old Ropes Estate, whose original subdivision was to create three (3) lots. Mr. Treadwell bought one of the three lots and combined it with his existing lot on Felt Street. The plan now is to take a portion of the Ropes Estate lot acquired by Mr. Treadwell and convey it to abutter Mr. Michael Blier.

Board Discussion:
No detailed comments or questions were offered by Planning Board members.

ROLL CALL Motion and Vote:~~Dale Yale made a motion to endorse the plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control (ANR) to convey area (approximately 4,696 square feet)from one lot and add to the abutting lot as shown on the ANR Plan, seconded by Kirt Rieder. ~The vote was unanimous with eight 8) in favor ( Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton) and none (0) opposed.


Location:               46-48 SCHOOL STREET (Map 27, Lot 7) (Map 27, Lot 5)
Applicant:              MICHAEL BECKER
Description:    ~Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide a portion of the existing two lots at 46 and 48 School Street (Map 27, Lot 7)(Map 27, Lot 5) to create one additional lot.

Documents and Exhibitions:
  • Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval dated July 20, 2015
46-48 School Street ANR Plan dated July 20, 2015

Atty Joseph Correnti of Serafini, Darling & Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem; presented for the applicant.  Atty Correnti advised these are two bowling alley lots over 300 feet in length. The applicant has received variances issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the lots to be truncated with a third lot added in the back. The remaining two lots were granted relief for lot area and frontage.

Board Discussion:
No detailed comments or questions were offered by Planning Board members.

ROLL CALL Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clarke made a motion to endorse the plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control (ANR) as shown on the ANR plan, allowing for truncation of the existing lots and the creation of a third lot, seconded by Matt Veno. ~The vote was unanimous with eight (8) in favor ( Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton) and none (0) opposed.


Location:               401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305)
Applicant:              HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC
Description:    Petition for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District~Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. ~

Documents and Exhibitions:
  • Salem Community Life Center & Multi-Family/Retail Development Boston & Bridge Streets slide presentation dated July 30, 2015
  • Gateway Center Application Amendments dated July 9, 2015
  • Site Plan Review Decision, dated May 24, 2010
  • Site Plan Review updated Narrative dated June 30, 2015
  • Environmental Impact Study dated June 30, 2015
  • Transportation Impact Assessment, prepared by Vanasse & Associates Inc., 35 New England Business Center Drive, Suite 140, Andover MA 01810, dated June 30, 2015
Amended Site Plans prepared by Hayes Engineering, 603 Salem Street Wakefield MA  01880, unless otherwise notated:
  • Site Plan Review Decision, dated May 24, 2010
  • Watershed & Soils Map Gateway Center pre 1995 conditions
  • Watershed & Soils Map Gateway Center existing conditions
  • Watershed & Soils Map Proposed Gateway Center
  • Grading Plan Gateway Center, C5 dated June 19, 2015
  • Site Plan Gateway Center, Grading Plan GR  dated July 14, 2015
  • Site Plan Set, C4 – C8 dated June 19, 2015
  • Gateway Center Illustrative Landscape Plan , dated July 2, 2015, prepared by Blair Hines Design Associates, 318 Harvard St #25, Brookline MA 02446
  • Gateway Center Mixed Use Residential/Retail Elevations 01, 02, dated July 2, 2015, prepared by The Architectural Team, 50 Commandants Way, Chelsea, MA 02150
  • Mayor Jean A Levesque Community Life Center Proposed Elevations prepared by Gundersen Associates, 20 Central St #2, Salem
Prior to the presentation, Chair Anderson advised the audience this agenda item will have a period to receive public comment. He reminded the audience the City’s process to record public comments is to require each speaker to state their full name and address for the record, and to legibly sign the attendance record. Given the large number in the audience, he asked that comments be as concise as possible; if an individual wishes to make a comment similar to a point already made, kindly state your position (in favor, against) and keep your comments brief.

At the suggestion of the Board, Chair Anderson also reminded the public audience the role of the Planning Board is to hear and consider application submissions with regard to the legal requirements.
Atty Joseph Correnti of Serafini, Darling & Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem; presented for the applicant. Other presenters included:
  • David Sweetser, principal,  High Rock Bridge Street, LLC; 70 Walnut Street, Wellesley, MA 02481
  • Peter J. Ogren, O.E., P.L.S., President, Hayes Engineering Civil Engineering, 603 Salem Street, Wakefield, MA 01880
  • Two architectural teams:
  • Chris Semmelink,  LEED, AP, The Architectural Team, 50 Commandants Way, Chelsea, MA 02150
  • Harry Gundersen, owner, Gundersen Architects, 20 Central Street #2, Salem
Atty Correnti opened the presentation by reminding the Board and audience this project has received prior approvals and review. In the end, due to changing markets and lack of demand for this much office space, the developer determined it necessary to reconfigure the project, keeping in mind the commitment to create a Community Center and the City’s desire to move forward on this commitment.

The owner of the site is committed to development; it is now a two-building project. This presentation is a general overview; details will be presented in subsequent meetings. Traffic studies, the environmental issues, civil engineering and landscape architecture will all be presented at future meetings. The LSP (licensed site professional) for the environmental matters was immediately consulted to participate in developing feasible revisions to the site plan.

Mr. David Sweetser, President of High Rock Bridge Street, LLC, addressed the Board and audience; noting it has been six years since redevelopment planning on this site began. Premiere commercial real estate broker Cushman Wakefield was hired to promote the commercial office space; initially targeting the healthcare market. Later their mission was broadened to the general commercial market. Recent growth projections for the City of Salem indicate a need for additional residential housing stock, so this was chosen as the focus when commercial real estate tenants did not materialize.

Chair Anderson introduced Mayor Kim Driscoll who addressed the Board and emphasized the time invested in arriving at a new home for the Senior Center/Community Life Center (CLC). The private/public investment is necessary to carry the expense of this long-desired new center.  The stand-alone Community Life Center is seen as an improvement over the previous design. New construction costs preclude the City from being able to afford a new center building on its own. Moving ahead with this project represents the most time-sensitive path to actual construction and the realization of this long hoped-for amenity. Both parts of this project represent continued enhancement to this neighborhood.

Atty Correnti began the slide presentation with a summary of the existing permits and new permits that are proposed.


BOARD
RELIEF
PERMIT
EXISTING
PROPOSED
DIFFERENCE
Planning
Individual Retail Use Over 3,000 SF
SP
X
X
UNCHANGED
Planning
Fence over 6'
SP
X
X
UNCHANGED
ZBA
Building Height not to exceed 60'
VAR
X
X
UNCHANGED
ZBA
Buffer Zone Width
VAR
X
X
UNCHANGED
ZBA
Total Parking Spaces
VAR
X
X
377 / 298
Planning
MultiFamily Residents Use (NRCC)
SP
__
X
NEW
ZBA
Minimum Lot area per dwelling
VAR
__
X
NEW
ZBA
Maximum number of stories/building
VAR
__
X
NEW

THE PROJECT ALSO NEEDS A CHAPTER 91 LICENSE AND A MEPA CERTIFICATE.

Architect Harry Gunderson presented the former project and compared it to the requested revisions, illustrated by appropriate drawings and elevations.
Of note:
  • Same buffer zone
  • Same entrances and exits to streets
  • The new residential building appears to be two buildings but is one connected by a bridge over a pass-through lane at ground level.
  • The Community Life Center located along Bridge Street, now has green space around the building and some outdoor space.

BUILDING STATISTICS:

OFFICE BUILDING
CLC
MULTI-FAMILY
Building Area:
138,100
20,000
162,900
Stories:
4
2
5
Height:
58
30
58
Units:
117
Parking:
374
298


Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering continued presentation. Project changes have resulted in the following positives:
  • Total imperviousness on the site decreased substantially (by 25,000 square feet), which reduces runoff.
  • Vehicle trips expected to be down, will be detailed by traffic consultant in future presentation.
  • Reduced parking spaces.
  • Drainage is the same, discharge point into existing pipes under Bridge Street do not change.
  • Treatment drains required for storm water management with deep catch basins have been slightly relocated.
  • Planning separate water and sewer to each building; hope to use existing sewer connections.
  • Site traffic circulation (entrances/exits) remains the same.
Architect Chris Semmelink continued the presentation. Mr. Semmelink stated the challenge is to design a special, unique residential building at this important intersection.
Key elements include:
  • Residential entrances from the parking lot
  • Retail space will face Boston and Bridge Streets
  • Exterior highlights are the use of brick, metal tower and bridge
  • Clapboards will be used to break up the length of the building
  • Different exterior finishes will be used to distinguish retail from residential space and break up the façade.
  • The building façade will also step back in relation to the street to provide more interest.
Mr. Gundersen continued with a presentation on the Community Life Center. He reviewed the program needs which have changed over the years of working with the City’s Senior Center Committee:
Social spaces include: (café/lounge) and auditorium
Department spaces
Program space: exercise, games, crafts, dance, art, computers
  • Flexibility is continually emphasized by the City’s Senior Center Committee. Preliminary floorplans have been developed in conjunction with the CLC committee. All second floor space is program space. First floor space includes: reception, auditorium/great room, kitchen, café/lounge and offices.
  • Exterior materials compliment the residential building to provide visual cohesion for the project.
Atty Correnti indicated the overview is concluded and offered to answer Board questions.

Board Discussion:
No detailed comments or questions were offered by Planning Board members in response to this overview presentation.

Chair Anderson indicated several letters were received from the public regarding the sequencing of the permitting process. Prior to opening the meeting for public feedback, he first invited Lynn Duncan, Director of Community Planning and Development for the City, to address the Board on this matter.

Ms. Duncan read into the record correspondence from the City Solictor, Elizabeth Rennard, Esquire. The opinion indicates the applicant has the legal discretion to determine the order of the process of seeking permits from the various Boards, Commissions and entities with jurisdiction over the project.  The order of the permit review does not diminish the jurisdictions of the various permitting entities.

Chair Anderson read into the record correspondence all correspondence received on the proposed amendments to this project.
Against the residential portion of the development as proposed and in favor of moving forward with the stand-alone Community Life Center:
Federal Street Neighborhood Association, dated July 25, 2015
Chestnut Street Associates, dated July 27, 2015
Pam & Jeff McKee, 4 Beckford Street, dated July 30, 2015
Tom & Nina Collins, 155 Federal Street, July 30, 2015
Sharon Sullivan, abutter to the Gateway Project, dated July 30, 2015
Lara & Daniel Fury, 126 Federal Street, dated July 30, 2015
Brenton & Elizabeth Dickson, 135 Federal Street, dated July 29, 2015
Meg Twohey 122 Federal Street, dated July 30, 2015
Darrow Lebovici 122 Federal Street, dated July 30, 2015
Margaret Holmberg 65 Boston Street, dated July 29, 2015
Stephanie Trainor Madigan 14 River Street, dated July 28, 2015
Scott Galber 63-65 ½ Boston Street, dated July 30, 2015
Carol Rice, 1 Hamilton Street, dated July 30 2015
In favor of the Community Life Center and the need to move forward with this aspect of the project:
  • Robin Nathan, social worker at North Shore Elder Services, July 29, 2015
Neither explicitly in favor nor against; with suggestions:
  • Pamela Waldron, 192 Federal Street, dated July 30, 2015
In favor of the project:
  • The Salem Partnership, dated July 30, 2015.
  • Stanley Cahill, 37 Summit Avenue, dated July 30, 2015
Chair Anderson Opened the Agenda Item for Public Comment:
  • David Eppley, Ward 4 City Councilor, 69 Boston Street; his home is an historic building and was saved due to a compromise. Saving our historic aspects and addressing our housing needs is the state of Salem today. Spoke in favor of the project as proposed; most centrally located spot for the senior center as it touches four of the City Wards. This project adds to a coalescence of residential density that will be able to support retail along the Boston Street corridor. Bifurcating the project and building the CLC prior to developing the rest of the development will not work financially.
  • Lynda Coffill 56 56 Belleview Avenue; spoke in favor of the project as proposed. Recognizes the public/private formula is necessary to enable the City to add the CLC amenity. Road improvements in the Goodhue Street area are having a positive impact on the traffic in this neighborhood.
  • Josh Turiel, Ward 5 City Councilor, 38 Lafayette Street; concerned about the AUL modification and reduction in parking inventory—sees traffic as less of a negative factor due to trip reduction. The CLC is a long-standing goal for Salem; appreciates the stand-alone building. Believes concerns can be addressed and spoke in favor of the project. Neighborhood concerns must be addressed but expects this is possible. This project has the potential to substantially reinvigorate the Boston Street corridor.
  • Teasie Riley Goggins, 9 Wisteria Street; noted the senior center has evolved into the CLC for the entire community, no longer a facility just for seniors. If this project moves forward with construction of a City-owned facility, who owns the land it is built on and is responsible for longer term construction-based issues that could develop as a result of the fill and grading?
  • Heather Famico, Ward 2 City Councilor, 195 Essex Street; Asked that all Boards reviewing this project be sensitive to the neighborhood concerns, noting that neighborhood groups that were in support of the project as originally presented now have questions. Ms. Famico added this project is on an entrance corridor— the architecture needs to be improved in light of what was presented in the revised drawings. How many bedrooms are planned for these 117 units? How many handicapped units? These details will shed light on the demographics of residents which will help neighbors understand the burden on city services and impact on the neighborhood.
  • Mary Madore 31 Forrester Street; spoke to support the question about responsibility for public/private projects as raised by Teasie Riley Goggins.
  • John Carr, 7 River Street; in favor of the CLC but not the residential building. In his opinion the project as revised is essentially a new project and should not be allowed to go forward with simple amendments to the previously approved plan. It should be submitted as a new project and go through the permitting process again. At the least, the project should go before the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to any other permitting entity. Concerned the maximum density in the North River Canal Corridor is being exceeded taking into account all the recently approved projects. Originally permits for this project were obtained in 2010; these should have expired by now, even with renewals.
  • Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street; raised several concerns with regard to design aspects. Walk-ability of the site is a concern due to entrances on the parking lot side of a big parking lot. Seniors and children using the CLC may not hear approaching traffic due to the echo chamber created by the retaining wall and buildings. Doesn’t want a liquor license in this building with seniors and children heavily using the CLC. Buffer zone needs to be park-like and have usability. Proposed outside area for the CLC is situated in a very sunny, hot area overlooking a parking lot; this is poorly positioned. Bollards are needed to protect all outside use areas from errant drivers. Insufficient snow storage onsite; the City should not pay to truck snow away. This is a busy traffic corner; there will be people tempted to cut through the parking lot when traveling west from Boston to Bridge Street.
  • Marc O’Donald, 7 Lynn Street; spoke against the residential component of 117 units along the North River Canal Corridor. Environmental impact of more tarmac (large parking lot) is quite negative.
  • Joyce Wallace 172 Federal Street; wants project to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to the Planning Board due to the extensive variances the project now requires. Spoke in favor of approving the CLC separately.
  • Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane; Spoke in favor generally adding that the Ward 4 Neighborhood Association voted in favor.
  • Arthur Sargent, President City Council, City Councilor at Large, 8  Maple Avenue; encouraged the Board to do a good job planning the CLC. Spoke in favor of housing with ownership potential, not more rental housing. We need to be building residences for people to stay and put down roots in Salem and to be vested in our community; we do not need to be adding to our rental stock at this point, and overburdening our city services with transient renters. Residential units at this project should be for ownership. The City is giving a density bonus to the developer and should be asking for something in return; an ownership stake to create stronger citizens.
  • Ken Wallace; 172 Federal Street; spoke against the revised plan; 117 units will affect water/sewer and a study is needed. River run-off is a concern; one of the catchments is in the flood plain.
  • Joseph O’Keefe, Ward 7 City Councilor, 28 Surrey Road; rigorously supports this project. Encouraged by the work of the Planning Board and is confident they will work with the developer to move this project forward in a way that will result in a terrific new CLC.
  • Elaine Milo, City Councilor at Large, 181 Marlboro Road; supports the project, and is sensitive to the concerns raised. Believes these concerns and the resulting dialog will improve the project.
Chair Anderson invited Ms. Duncan to address the Board and audience regarding next steps for this project. Ms. Duncan acknowledged concerns with regard to infrastructure (water/sewer) and architecture. The City will be using peer reviewers for traffic and civil engineering. The project is scheduled to appear before the Design Review Board in DRB in August; the DRB has jurisdiction over architecture matters and will be reviewing the project in detail.


ROLL CALL Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing to September 3, 2015, seconded by Matt Veno. ~The vote was unanimous with eight (8) in favor ( Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton) and none (0) opposed.


Location:       9-11 DODGE STREET, 217-219 WASHINGTON STREET, and 231-251 WASHINGTON STREET (Map 34, Lots 0403, 0405, and 0406)
Applicant:              DODGE AREA, LLC
Description:    Petition for an amendment to the approved Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to remove the top floor of the West/South Building (residential mixed-use), and remove the deepest portion of the underground parking garage and to increase the depth of the in-line retail along lower Washington Street. As amended, the applicant proposes to construct an approximately 160,000 square foot mix-use development with 64 residential units, commercial space including a potential hotel, a parking structure with 212 parking space, associated landscaping and pedestrian and transportation improvements.

Documents and Exhibitions:
  • Salem Dodge Area master Plan slide presentation prepared by Khalsa Design, Inc., dated July 9, 2015 (version 07-01-2015)
  • Washington and Dodge Decision dated December 22, 2014
  • Washington and Dodge Modification Request correspondence dated July  9, 2015
Seth Zeren, Development Manager for RCG, LLC, 17 Ivaloo Street, Ste 100, Somerville, presented for the applicant. Other presenters included:
  • Jai Singh Khalsa, principal & architect, Khalsa Design, Inc.; 17 Ivaloo Street #400, Somerville MA 02143
Mr. Zeren reviewed the project as initially approved illustrated with appropriate drawings and elevations. There are concerns with constructability and costs of the project driving some of the requested changes. The project has submitted the requested changes to the Design Review Board and received approval.

Key revisions requested:
  • Reduce total units from 84 to 68 by eliminating the top floor of the West/South Building (residential mixed/use); overall ratio of unit types remains the same.
Eliminate the deepest level of the garage and 32 parking spaces
  • Increase the depth of the in-line retail spaces along lower Washington Street to improve commercial viability, resulting in a decrease of 6 parking spaces on each of the garage levels.
  • Changes to result in 212 parking spaces (formerly 255) for the project.
No changes are proposed to the North Building.
Streetscape experience remains the same including the stair connector.
  • No changes are proposed to the overall site plan.

Board Discussion:
The Board confirmed any amended decision maintains the original language regarding the hotel/conversion to residential. Both Mr. Zeren and Ms. Duncan (Director, Community Planning and Development) confirmed this to be the case.

Chair Anderson Opened the Agenda Item for Public Comment:

  • Josh Turiel, Ward 5 City Councilor, 38 Lafayette Street; stated he is looking forward to the beginning of construction; his initial concerns have been addressed. He is enthusiastic about the changes.
  • Jennifer Firth, 3 Carpenter Street; less density is a plus and it looks better. Thinks this site is close to a walkway along the South River Walkway—would like wayfinding  to direct pedestrians to South River Walkway if site lines permit.
  • Nina Cohen, 22 Chestnut Street; spoke in favor, the project is beautiful. Reduction is density is a strong plus. A crosswalk over Lafayette Street is needed and there needs to be an “entry” to the South River Walkway.
  • Shirely Walker,  51 Lafayette Street; footpath worn through Beverly Coop Bank to the South River Walkway. Wants to see this improved and formalized with at least a sidewalk.
Motion and Vote:~~Bill Griset made a motion to continue the public hearing to September 3, 2015, seconded by Kirt Rieder. ~The vote was unanimous with eight (8) in favor ( Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton) and none (0) opposed.

Old/New Business
  • Draft Open Space and Recreation Plan Update
Erin Schaeffer presented on highlights of the City’s Open Space and Recreation Plan Update; a copy of the plan was provided to Board members. The City is seeking a formal letter of support recommending formal approval, from the Planning Board to the state. This matter will be formalized at the September 3, 2015 Planning Board Meeting; kindly review the plan and forward any questions you have. Tom Devine is the lead planner for this matter but comments may also be directed to Ms. Schaeffer.
  • Election for Planning Board Officers (Vice Chair)
Tabled until full Board is present.

Adjournment

Motion and Vote:~ Randy Clarke  made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Dale Yale. The vote was unanimous with eight (8) in favor ( Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton) and none (0) opposed.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:15pm.

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 XX/XX/2015

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