City of Salem Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals (“Salem BOA”) was held on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m.
Chairwomen, Ms. Curran, called the meeting to order at 6:48 p.m.
Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair), Richard Dionne, Tom Watkins, and David Eppley (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St. Pierre, Director of Inspectional Services and Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner.
Absent from the meeting were: Annie Harris and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate)
Ms. Curran: Explained to the board members and public in attendance that the meeting is being recorded.
- APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Ms. Curran asked if there was a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the May 15th meeting.
Motion: Mr. Watkins made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 15th regular meeting of the Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Eppley and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 4-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins and Mr. Eppley) and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Mr. Duffy arrived at the meeting.
Petition of FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT, LP for a Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site for the property located at 24 FORT AVENUE (I Zoning District).
Ms. Curran introduced the requested petitions and opened the public hearing for the applications. She then noted that Mayor Kimberley Driscoll was present, and she has asked to say few words.
Mayor Kimberley Driscoll: Thank you. I had the opportunity to see much of the presentation you are about to see this evening a number of times. I appreciate the chance to comment on this project before you this evening. I spoke at the Salem Planning Board meeting where the discussion on this item was opened. In one way or another, this project will be reviewed by most of the City’s regulatory boards and commissions, many of which have or are in the process of reviewing this project. Clearly this project has the potential to impact the community in many different ways, such as through the generation of tax revenue, jobs and the redevelopment opportunities for the remainder of the site. Most importantly, we are anxious to see a revived and expanded port facility of this site. In terms of vetting, many different state and
federal agencies, in addition to our local processes, are reviewing this project. It stated with Stated Energy Siting Board and the regulatory processes associated with the Chapter 91 review. Each step of the way, there are different sets of eyes reviewing this project to ensure it will be a good fit for the community and that ancillary impacts of the project are addressed. In effect, making sure the proposed project is a great benefit to the community that what is there now. The City has been part of every review process from the Energy Facility Sitting Board to the MEPA process. Every step of the way, the developers have been conscious to the community’s needs since they began the permitting process. I’d like to take a moment to thank you for everything you do and your time as volunteer members of the Salem BOA. To support your reviews, the City has brought on board AECOM and Sasaki Associates, Inc. consultants to conduct peer reviews of this complex project for the
City regulatory boards and commissions, and a stakeholder group. The City is also collaborating with Footprint to develop a Community Benefits Agreement for the project. So as you can see there is a lot going on that involves this project. We’re really trying to think 20-30 years down the road, and ensure this project is developed as proposed. Are there any questions? We’re excited
Ms. Curran: Are there any questions for the Mayor?
Mayor Kimberley Driscoll: Thank you again for your time.
Ms. Curran: So the Salem BOA is looking at the Special Permit for the use on the site, as Essential Services, and Variances, for the height of the buildings. We are not looking at other items that are being reviewed by other city boards and commissions. If you have any comments, please keep them relevant to the applications at hand. Is the applicant or their representative present to speak on the requested petitions?
Atty. Correnti (63 Federal Street), representing the applicant Footprint Power Harbor Development, LP, noted that the City has been a good partner to this permitting process. This is a big project that has gone through a lot of process and continues to go through other review processes. As the Mayor indicated, Footprint Power has been in the community for a number of years. Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Power, will be before you shortly to discuss the history of the site the permitting process to date. We appreciate the Chair’s statements. This is such a large project and it’s hard to know how much information to give you. It’s absolutely correct that we are requesting relief from two items in the City’s Zoning Ordinance: a Variance from the height requirements of buildings and a Special Permit for an
Essential Services use. I’m sure everyone is familiar with the property in questions, most importantly the existing stacks on the power plant and the impact those structure have on the community’s skyline. Tonight we have with us Bob Fox, of CookFox Architects, and his associate Zack Craun who will show you a comprehensive presentation on the project. During their presentation, they will discuss the thought that has gone into the facilities designs, and why a variance to the 45-foot height limit is necessary. We’ll also talk about the use. This is a unique site. In addition to local regulations, state regulations dictate what uses can and can’t be on this site because it is a Designated Port Area (DPA). This site is the only property within the City of Salem that is designated as a DPA. We will also discuss how the proposed use is consistent with the Harbor Plan. Here is a copy of the presentation for the record.
Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint: Thank you members of the Salem BOA for allowing us the opportunity this evening to come before you to describe our project. We’ve been working on this project over three years. We formed Footprint with the prospect of purchasing and redeveloping existing coal and oil power plants that were reaching the end of their useful life expectancy. As such, this provided use with a unique opportunity to transition these facilities that benefits the communities they are operating in and the electric grid in the region. As owners, we’ve found that very clearly in Salem. The important this to recognize, is the story of the site. It has played a role in power generation from its beginning. The best way to understand this is by looking at the site over time. Mr. Silverstein began to discuss the
history of the site by way of discussing the slides in the presentation, starting with an image of a map from the 1700’s. Mr. Silverstein discussed the shipment of whale oil through the site to coal. This site has been used to power the north shore. As the region’s energy needs grew, so too did the site. The largest expansions occurred to support an enlarging coal pile and oil storage. The site is 65-acres, of which 20-acres will be used for the power generation facility. This, then, opens up the remainder of the site for redevelopment and opportunities for expanding the harbor for other marine industrial uses. The reuse committee, in many ways, came to the same conclusion as us. The natural gas power generation facility has always been seen as a viable redevelopment option for the site, so that’s what brings us here today. It is also important to remember when it comes to the development of any power facility that you need two things: a way to get fuel to the
facility (Beverly Harbor pipeline) and a way to get power out (National Grid’s switchyard). This site has both. Earlier this year, ISO New England held an auction for companies to bid supply power starting in 2016. Through that process, ISO New England determined that Footprint was essential to providing the Greater Boston region load zone with its power generation capacity needs. Shortly thereafter, the State Department of Public Utilities determined that there would be a power generation deficiency if the proposed Footprint facility weren’t operational. A slide was shown laying out the site. The location and accessed through the deep-water harbor, makes the redevelopment of this site unique. The City’s Harbor plan calls this site as a power generation facility, which is supported by the City and State. I will now let Mr. Fox present the facility’s design.
Robert Fox, Principle at CookFox Architects: Back 80-years, architects designed power plants. Many of these old powers plants were developed with beautiful architectural detail. Now engineers design power plants. The goal of this facility is to understand the equipment and its interactions within the facility. From this examination of the facility, we were better able to design a facility that has a better relationship with the surrounding residential neighborhood, harbor and also makes it work. Without that we don’t have a facility. So from a facility that uses the whole site, we designed a plant that used as little space as possible. To ensure the plant was a good neighbor to the rest of the neighborhood, we conscientiously placed the plant as far away from residences and shielded it with a vegetated berm, 25-feet high in
places (visualizations were shown to present this). The plant functions by creating powers from two natural gas turbines and steam turbines, which is then sent to the switchyard. Mr. Fox then should the Salem BOA three different visual comparisons/perspectives of the proposed and existing facility (the visuals were shown from Bentley elementary School, Marblehead and Cat Cove). All these heights and perspectives were developed by using a project datum of 16 feet, which will require much of the site to be raised to achieve this. The height impacts of this facility were minimized as much as possible, keeping in mind that certain pieces of equipment within the facility need a certain sized enclosure. The facility is also shielded by a louver system that is designed and laid out in a manner to mimic the local clapboard building material. No chain link fence. Mr. Fox stated the facility’s building heights. This is considerably shorter then the facility there now. A number of
different visual perspectives were shown to describe these heights. I’d be willing to answer any questions the Salem BOA may have.
Ms. Curran: Why the height Variances? What is in the facility that requires a building of this height?
Mr. Fox: The building heights are needed to accommodate the equipment, such as the turbines, within the facility. Everything is shrunk down as much as possible. The engineers originally designed the facility with two big stacks and two box style buildings with plenty of room.
Ms. Curran: So it is the equipment that is dictating the size of the building.
Mr. Fox: On the other hand, the height of the stack is dictated by emission requirements.
Ms. Curran: What materials are used in the louver system?
Mr. Fox: The louvers are made of a recycled product with wood as the primary component. The product is called “Woodn”. The louvers will be installed as 15-foot strips that are 2-feet wide. Near the bottom of the buildings, the louvers will be closer together. As the height increases, the louvers will open up.
Ms. Curran: What is the color of the stack?
Mr. Fox: The stack will be made of concrete, and is unpainted. The exact design is still under development.
Ms. Curran: Do other Salem BOA members have questions?
Mr. Dionne: Does this facility generate much noise?
Mr. Silverstein: The facility’s noise generation has been modeled so we could determine ways to minimize the off site impacts. ADCO are our noise consultants. In collaboration with Mr. Fox, ADCO and the architects have developed an acoustic mitigation system to reduce noise emitted from the plant and to ensure it is architectural pleasing. In the end, the noise generated by the plant will be very similar the noise produced by the existing plant.
Mr. Dionne: Is the stack painted or natural concrete?
Mr. Fox/Mr. Silverstein: It will be natural concrete. When stacks are painted, they can cause more problems.
Mr. Eppley: Will the proposed stack be able to accommodate the existing and future antenna for the City’s Harbor Department? Also, there have been past discussion of placing a camera on top of the existing stack. Could the new stack be equipped with such a camera? It would provide great views of the City.
Mr. Fox: I’m aware of a few existing antenna relays located on the roof of one building that will be demolished. We will work with those entities to make sure their equipment is removed properly, and to have space available for those pieces of equipment to be reinstalled once the new facility is constructed. However, there will be a gap of two years during construction.
Ms. Curran: I’m trying to understand why a Special Permit is needed for the use. I feel as though it is an existing essential services use. Since you’re not requesting a substantial expansion of that use then a Special Permit is not really necessary. Are you just being cautious?
Atty. Correnti: Because we are going to discontinue this current use and demolish the existing plant. Although the new plant will be rebuilt in two years and we’re not abandoning the use, the Salem Zoning Ordinance doesn’t specifically call-out a process for reviewing a facility of this nature. I agree, however, that a power plant facility is an essential services use. Before you open the meeting up for public comment, I’d like to comment on the Variance. We wanted to give you enough information so as not to bog down the process, and to ensure you could understand what the facility is going to look like and the uniqueness of the site.
Ms. Curran: Please articulate the hardship.
Atty. Correnti: Without the height Variances, there is no power plant. Why are we over 45-feet? The equipment used in the operation of the plant has dictated the roofline. This site has been identified as a power generation facility historically, by the State’s DPA designation and the City’s Harbor Plan. Thus the Variances are needed to allow the development of this site with a power generation facility. Technically speaking, the height of the stack is exempt within the Salem Zoning Ordinance. We thought it disingenuous to show you only the buildings and not the stack, because it is and will continue to be the most prominent feature of the facility. Across the board, the proposed facility we have shown you this evening is significantly shorter then the existing plant.
Ms. Curran: Are there any further questions from the Salem BOA members before I open the public comment portion of the meeting? Seeing none the public hearing was opened.
Linda Haley (43 Turner Street): I’m not excited about the project. I live in a historic neighborhood and don’t think this is an appropriate use adjacent to residences. While its location on the harbor was important because coal was developed by ship and the existing plant used large amounts of water for cooling, this plant does not need to be located along one of Salem’s most important assets…the waterfront. I don’t necessarily know the difference between this stack and the one developed at the power plant in Weymouth, but the Weymouth stack is wide and ugly. Due to the proximity of this plant to residences, I feel its going to overwhelm the neighborhood. In addition, a higher stack would allow pollutants to be better dispersed. I don’t understand why a 125-foot building is necessary. It too
will impact the neighborhood. Why does the plant need to be so large? Is an approximately 600-megawatt plant needed? I don’t buy the economic argument since the plant only accounts for 2% of the tax base. Also, what is the Woodn product exactly made of and will it cause glare? With the transmission upgrades in the region, I don’t buy the need for this plant on our historic harbor.
Ms. Curran: Please respond to the resident’s two questions: What is the width of the stack. What is the Woodn product made of, and will there be glare? Why is it a large plant?
Mr. Fox: The louver material is made of a wood and plastic composite. There won’t be glare. In terms of the plant’s size, ISO builds into the auction inherent lumpiness. Economies of scale are needed to build a plant. Our configuration and size was based on the type of plant we looked to build. We don’t want to have to come back to enlarge the facility after construction. Our stack is just shy of 56-feet in diameter and the outside edge. The Weymouth stack is slightly smaller. The existing 430-foot stack is about 40-feet in diameter. The size is dictated by air modeling and regulated by state and federal standards. Based on the modeling, there is no benefit to public health and the visual impact of the facility on the community to develop a taller stack.
Ms. Curran: I assume the Planning Board, and their peer reviewers, are examining this aspect of the project. This issue is not within the purview of the petition before the Salem BOA this evening. Are there more comments?
Robert DeRosia (9 Foster Court): I’m the 2013 Chamber of Commerce President and a current employee of the power plant. I support the plans present tonight. Footprint’s designs exceed the industry norms for a power plant of this nature. This facility is the backbone for the future redevelopment of the larger site. We don’t want this facility to become like other abandoned facilities in other communities. This site is a unique opportunity for the City of Salem.
Rinus Oosthoek (Executive Director of the Salem Chamber of Commerce): We feel this proposed plant is a win win for the community. Footprint’s design team has gone above and beyond the standard ideas for a power plant. I encourage the Salem BOA to grant the requested Special Permit and Variances.
Ms. Curran paraphrased two letters that were submitted to staff before the meeting from Senator Lovely and Representative Keenan. Both letters spoke of support for the project.
Arthur C. Sargent III, Councilor At-Large: I am a current employee of the Salem Harbor Power Station. This project goes along with many of the issues I’ve raised in the past, regarding the impacts of new development on surrounding property owners and neighborhoods, and developer always asking for Variances and relief. However, in a case like this, the facility is actually being reduced in size compared to the plant that exists on the site today. At the same time, I will miss the stacks. I grew up in Salem and have enjoyed the amazing views from atop the stacks for many years. Councilor Sargent spoke comparatively of past proposals to expand and redevelop the plant, none of which compare to the proposal before you this evening.
Ms. Curran: I’ll open it up for discussion among the Salem BOA members. I feel this is a very difficult site to permit, especially in terms of the Planning Board. From the perspectives of the Salem BOA, it is a little easier. It appears that you are being cautious in submitting the application for the Special Permit to allow an Essential Services use. In terms of the Variance, I feel there is a quantifiable hardship. This hardship is due to the equipment that is being used on the site to generate power. Practically speaking, because the existing facility is much more out of conformance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance, it makes it easier to look at from the neighborhood perspective. I did have one outstanding question regarding the use of only 20-acres of the site. What is going to occur on the remaining 65-acres?
Atty. Correnti: It is all staying as one parcel. The redevelopment of this site is permitted as a Planned Unit Development to allow greater flexibility for future uses. Additionally, the development of the plant will require that the remaining 65-acres be used as a lay down area for two years. Phase II can’t really take place until the plant is built.
Mr. Duffy: I would tend to agree with your comments madam Chair. Due to the limitations of the site and the building needs for the facilities equipment and operations, the plant could not be developed on this site without Variances to the building height requirements. Given the facts that have been presented, especially the visual profiles of the existing and proposed plants, there doesn’t appear to be any detriment to the public good. In terms of nullifying the intent of the ordinance, it appears this proposed facility is coming more into conformity. It may be that there is more permission being requested here than is necessary, but there also is the request for a Special Permit. In consideration of the application before us and the testimony provided here this evening, it is clearly meeting the needs of community and the
region at large. There doesn’t appear to be any changes to the traffic flow or safety of the site. The design of the facility is attempting to mitigate its impacts on the surrounding neighborhood by installing the louver system and the landscaped berm. This facility appears to provide benefits to the natural environment and visually improves the neighborhood for residents living in the area. There is no questions the conversation from a coal fired plant to a natural gas fired plant will be beneficial to the environment. It also has great potential for positive impacts on the economic and fiscal situation of the city. Based on the application, presentation and testimony, it appears the criteria that we typically review for a Special Permit have been met.
Mr. Eppley: I would concur with Mr. Duffy’s statements and go on to add that this facility, as proposed, provides the best of the past, present and future for Salem. Historically, this parcel has been used for power generation. Your plant is being a great steward to the neighborhood and community by applying for LEED Platinum status from the US Green Buildings Council.
Mr. Fox briefly described the designations afforded by the US. Green Building Council and is working with the Council to develop a standard for power plants. This plant will take from and impact the surrounding environment as little as possible.
Mr. Eppley: This facility is preparing Salem and New England with a responsible and thought full blend.
Mr. Dionne: I would add that the developers will be remediating the site, which is a very expensive proposition. This will benefit the neighborhood and community.
Mr. Watkins: Given that the heights proposed for the buildings are lower than the building heights for the existing plant, I don’t see any detriments to the neighborhood or the public good in general. As many have already said, this is a good project for the community.
Ms. Harris: While I know I can’t vote, I would like to say a few words. The cleanup of the site, the reduced building heights, reduced footprint of the facility, reduced water consumption and the elimination of the coal pile is an improvement for the community and environment. They are also freeing up a large portion of the site for redevelopment and increased access to the harbor.
Ms. Curran: Is there a motion? The applications will be written up under one decision.
As part of Mr. Eppley’s motion to approve the requested Special Permit for an essential services use and Variances to the maximum allowable building height requirement, Mr. Eppley read the applicable standard conditions that will be incorporated into the decision.
Ms. Curran: Are there any Special Conditions that anyone thinks should be added to the requested petitions? Seeing none, Ms. Curran asked for a second.
Motion: Mr. Eppley made a motion to approve the requested Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site at the property located at 24 Fort Avenue as conditioned, seconded by Mr. Dionne, and a roll call vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Eppley) and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public that the decision would be available within two weeks of the hearing and filed with the City Clerk. There is a twenty day appeal period.
Board Elections
Mr. Sexton: Explained that staff has not had the opportunity to examine possible Board of Appeals Rules and Regulations. We expect to bring revisions to this document before the board in the coming months.
Ms. Harris motioned for adjournment of the June 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:13 PM.
Motion: Mr. Duffy made a motion to adjourn the June 19th regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a unanimous vote was taken. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins and Mr. Eppley) and none opposed. The motion was accepted. The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Sexton, Staff Planner
| 
