Overlook Acres, LLC - More Responses to Public Comment and Questions
Reminder: Overlook Acres, LLC will be appearing before the Planning Board tomorrow, Thursday May 7, at 7:00 PM. They are second on the agenda. Details for joining the meeting are included on the agenda and the meeting will be carried live on SATV, channel 22. Utilization of the “raise hand” feature on Zoom will help to allow more public comment on the project.
In the following responses, which are directly from the developer, there are references to documents submitted to the Planning Board. Those documents can be found in this post. The responses related to traffic concerns can be found in this post.
Responses to questions submitted by D. Colbert:
The plans submitted show 25% preliminary design. Can the Planning Board issue a PUD special permit based on these plans or will the plans need to be at a higher level of completion? If a PUD special permit is granted based on the submitted plans, what happens if there are changes to the plans as they reach a higher level of completion? Would there be additional public hearings on the changes? The plans will be at a higher level of completion but these sets currently presented are meant to show the concept of what we intend on producing. We need to gather more information on the site that we will then provide a comprehensive plan that can be peer reviewed by a 3rd party hired by the city at our expense. Once the Planning Board issues a special permit any changes made deviating from what was approved would then have to go back to the planning board requesting those changes - open to the public.
1. Who will build the park and playground?
Response: The Developer
2. Who will maintain the park and playground, e.g. clearing sidewalks of snow, mowing grass?
Response: We (the developer) will build the park/ playground at our expense and then intend on gifting this to the city. Which will follow the same park maintenance as any other park in the city. Scott Cameron is working on drafting a figure illustrating the donation of the land/ park/ playground to the city. All improvements proposed are at the developers expense.
3. Plans show a guardrail near the top of a 10 ft high retaining wall. Will a guard rail be sufficient? Perhaps a fence is needed.
Response: Our apologies for not relaying this more clearly, when it comes to walls/building code, guard rail means “fence”. It will be a 4’ fence in compliance with the mass building code. The term guard rail is commonly thought of as only a vehicle guard rail.
4. The only connection between the development and the linear parkway is at the development's exit drive on Barnes Rd. Would it be possible to add another connection to the development via a set of stairs or ramp near the other end of the linear parkway?
Response: Due to the topography and change in elevation from the playground down into the site, we will not be constructing stairs on the side opposite Barnes road driveway. Scott Cameron (engineer) reviewed this and a stairway would be extensive, at least 50 steps would be needed, plus 5 landings and causes significantly more adverse concerns. Currently there are no means to access the site from that area of the property now, the fill slope is far too steep and unstable, however we are building a handicap accessible route into the site via the Barnes road driveway so this is a considerable improvement to the site access for pedestrians.
The following questions/comments are a compilation of everything from both Planning Board meetings and emails after the meetings. They have been grouped by topic:
CIVIL/ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS
Abutter Comment: This is a site, since the Forest River flows through it, to require the best stormwater practices. LID, porous paving, rain gardens etc. No chemical fertilizers, low nutrient, or herbicides and pesticides. (Barbara Warren)
Response: The site design will comply with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Handbook and Salem Stormwater Ordinance. As such, mitigation measures such as subsurface retention and renovation measures such as hydrodynamic particle separators will be implemented in meeting the rate of runoff and water quality standards outlined in the handbook. If possible, LID measures may be implemented and are always a primary consideration in the stormwater management system design process. However, given the nature of the existing conditions of this site being almost entirely filled/altered land or bedrock, LID measures are not likely to be practical as these require suitably well draining soils to be effective.
Abutter Comment: Our neighborhood has varying water pressure. Currently the water pressure is good 30/31 days in a month but approximately once a month the city water pressure is terrible and seemingly for no reason. Adding all of these developments to the same water supply will have a pretty substantial impact on the water pressure issue that currently exists. (David Labbe)
Response: The site design will comply with both domestic water and fire suppression requirements the City of Salem, MassDEP and NFPA-ISO. A hydrant flow test will be conducted in the coming weeks once the service connection points have been designed and reviewed by the City.
Abutter Comment: There is contaminated land in between this plot and the Cinema World plot that needs to be cleaned up as it could be dangerous to not only the new residents but also to the existing residence. A contingency should be added to at least 1 of these 2 plots being planned to clean up this contaminated area. (David Labbe)
Response: Removal and mitigation of any illicit fill material will be overseen by a licensed site professional in accordance with MassDEP Regulations. This work is overseen by MassDEP.
Abutter Comment: I have endured countless battles with the school department over busing for my kids. Ultimately, my kids were made to walk about 1/3rd of a mile to a bus stop on Barnes Rd (at the corner of Clark St). I had to decide not to use the bus because of the way the trucks drive going to the construction site on Woodland Rd. There are no sidewalks and the way the grade of the road is on Barnes Rd it was not safe for my kids to walk home from there being so young. No sidewalks. (Wayne Silva)
Response: The developers are proposing to construct a new sidewalk along the property frontage on Barnes Road and replace the existing sidewalks along the frontage of Highland Avenue. The sidewalks will comply with MAAB, MassDOT and municipal standards. Construction vehicles will not exclusively go through the Barnes neighborhood as the site enjoys 2 access points off Highland Avenue, which is wider and an easier access point to the site. There will be periods during the linear park construction where construction activity and truck traffic will be increased in that area, however this will be short term. The construction will follow City of Salem time constraints.
Abutter Comment: The new plan decreased parking spots. Does this make sense as there weren't enough spots to begin with? The residents of the new apartments will be parking in our neighborhood. My house was built without 100' of frontage. Same as my immediate neighbors. If I park in front of my house and my neighbor across the street parks in front of his house- a fire truck can not get by. Will our new neighbors that have to walk 200' to their residence area about this as they park and walk home? The parking is legal... just not right. it can't be fixed as the street simply isn't wide enough. (Wayne Silva)
Response: The development will provide at least 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit in the development and complies with the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance parking requirements. Residents will not be inclined to park in the neighborhood as this would not be practical or convenient for them, not easily accessible from the site with the restricted right turn exit, and there is adequate parking proposed for the development where spillover into adjacent public streets is not anticipated.
Abutter Comment: At the last meeting, there was some discussion about using more of the existing contours and elevation of the land. This new plan does not seem to address this concern. Would it not make more sense to have lower and smaller buildings? (Linda Ferraresso)
Response: Lower and smaller buildings are not practical at this site and would result in a similar degree of alteration of the terrain. The current site design makes use of the steep topography in several ways. Retaining walls were reconfigured to step at increments of no more than 10’. The buildings are designed where feasible to have a walkout on the basement/garage levels. Garages were added to all buildings to decrease the burden on surface parking. These changes to the site design were more closely detailed in a memorandum submitted to the planning board prior to the last public hearing.
Abutter Comment: And I still only see one dumpster for all those units!! (Linda Ferraresso)
Response: The solid waste disposal area has been designed to accommodate 3x30 yard compactors or 2x30 yard compactors and a recycling area. As mentioned at the last public meeting, solid waste disposal is proprietary and unique to each neighborhood development. The development team finds that this area is adequate for the proposed development and works for their solid waste disposal program. The dumpsters are located in an area of least impact to the Barnes neighborhood and also outside of wetland buffer zones.
CONSERVATION QUESTIONS
Abutter Comment: I read about them leaving open space. The open space should be the best land for protecting the Forest River, lots of buffer and no tree or land clearing unless it is actually an ecological improvement. A connection to the conservation land would be nice too. (Barbara Warren)
Response: This comment was addressed in the memorandum submitted to the planning board dated April 30, 2020.
Abutter Comment: It is hard to tell from the re-submission if there are any significant changes to better protect the wetland. Wetlands are vital to land management and they are rapidly vanishing. It seems building 1 has moved a little though it still disturbs some of the wetland. Did I hear that the plan was that the wetland will be relocated? Exactly how do you relocate a wetland?? Since the location of Cedar Road seems to be part of the problem, can it not be moved so the wetland need not be impacted? (Linda Ferraresso)
Response: This comment was partially addressed in the memorandum submitted to the planning board dated April 30, 2020. The only impacted wetland area is the isolated wetland, which is non-jurisdictional under both local and state regulations and has been largely altered in the past with historic filling and dumping of solid waste (see photo in the 4-30-20 memo). There may be temporary or fringe impacts to the large bordering vegetated wetland as a result of the fill-cleanup process. These areas will be replicated in place. The practice of replicating wetlands is commonplace and there are regulations, guidance and best practices that are followed in order to ensure the success of any replicated wetland.. The wetland replication design will be more closely detailed in the Notice of Intent submission to the Salem Conservation Commission.
TRAFFIC QUESTIONS
Abutter Comment: The access road on Barnes Rd seems like it may be further away from my driveway, it hard to tell just by seeing the drawings, but it does seem to be too close to the driveway of number 5 Barnes Rd. Could the developers address what will be put into their design to cut down on noise from the pool area to not disturb abutters? (Lori Stewart)
Response: The Barnes driveway was redesigned to direct traffic towards Highland Avenue and will be an exit-only driveway. A dense planting buffer was added within the Barnes Road layout, opposite the site driveway, to screen existing and new vehicles from that residence. The developers are donating a significant portion of the parcel frontage for the reconstruction of Barnes Road, the Barnes-Highland intersection and the linear park.
Abutter Comment: Good afternoon , My name is Todd Dunlop and I live at 15 Barnes rd, Salem. I wanted to write to you to express my dislike of this project. I'm sure I share a lot of the same concerns as my neighbors when I say that this project is going to be a complete nightmare. We already deal with a lot of traffic on Barnes Road from all the homes being built on Clark Avenue. The amount of truck and construction vehicles alone on a daily basis is crazy! Now we are talking about a large project directly in front of my home and many others which is really troublesome. The amount of vehicles on Barnes Road is going to be overwhelming and adding this kind of project is only going to create real problems. I am really concerned about this and how my family & neighbors are going to have to suffer for years with this. I have been told that the access to this project is literally outside my front door? I intend on being at the meeting on the 20th and expressing my concerns. I truly hope that these are some things that will weigh on any decisions being made in the near future. Thanks, Todd Dunlop (Todd Dunlop)
Response: Please refer to the traffic memorandum by MDM consultants as most recently submitted to the Planning Board.
Abutter Comment: We have not lived here very long, about 8 month actually, and we moved here because of the close proximity to the wide variety of great offerings Salem has. Unfortunately we underestimated the congestion on Highland Avenue, it is terrible at times. It's not unusual for traffic to backup significantly heading towards Salem as well as towards Lynn. Many mornings, and most evenings, the traffic heading towards Lynn is backed up from the lights at Fays Avenue in Lynn all the way beyond Walmart. The traffic heading the other way is just as bad or even worse, as the intersection at Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road is a disaster. The intersection itself is partially blocked many times as I am sure you are aware. I am curious to understand what is planned to mitigate an already cumbersome and actually dangerous (ambulances traveling to Salem Hospital from Lynn) situation. And how will adding literally hundreds of apartment units within an already congested corridor be addressed? Residential and commercial development is a wonderful thing and I am all for it but it also needs to make sense beyond tax revenue. Again, the infrastructure along Highland Ave is already a real problem and I would like to understand how adding hundreds and hundreds of more cars daily would be handled.I would welcome the opportunity to know more about the formal studies that I assume have been conducted on the traffic and safety impact of these developments. If they are yet to be completed I assume that nothing will be considered for development until they have been, is that accurate? (Kevin Weeks)
Response: Please refer to the traffic memorandum by MDM consultants as most recently submitted to the Planning Board.
Abutter Comment: 33 houses are being added on Woodland Rd. About 10 are occupied right now. We already notice this difference. It is a 10% increase in traffic. 100 houses increased to 110 houses. 23 more houses under construction. This neighborhood will endure a 33% increase in traffic before ground is broken for this new project. There has been no increase in infrastructure. Boston Street has been redeveloped twice while I have been in this neighborhood. The first time Mayor Usovicz was in office and now it is getting done again. Highland Ave- nothing has been done in my lifetime. (Wayne Silva)
Response: Please refer to the traffic memorandum by MDM consultants as most recently submitted to the Planning Board.
Abbuter Comment: How is the complex accessed? It looks like there is only one way in for retail and residents. With the size of this plan, this presents a major problem with the short light at Highland/Barnes for traffic driving south on Highland Ave. The road from the property to Barnes RD states it is exit only; does this mean residents coming from the east need to do a u-turn on Highland Ave to enter on Cedar Street? How will you guard against this exit only road being used for 2 way traffic and further increasing the traffic on Barnes Rd? That is a short light (designed as such to minimize the backups on Highland Ave). Will this become another situation like Swampscott Rd where there is too much left-hand traffic for the light cycle? (Linda Ferraresso)
Response: Please refer to the traffic memorandum by MDM consultants as most recently submitted to the Planning Board.
Abutter Comment: There did not seem to be an updated traffic study for impact on the weekends. It most certainly will impact the already heavy weekend traffic on Highland Ave as these residents go out shopping, social activities, etc. Since I didn’t see the full traffic report previously submitted, it is hard to gauge the findings in that particular report. Traffic is now and will get worse as hundreds more cars are added to the road. (Linda Ferraresso)
Response: Please refer to the traffic memorandum by MDM consultants as most recently submitted to the Planning Board.
Abutter Comment: First and foremost, though modifications have been made to the original submission, they seem to be modest at best. This project looks like it will still introduce way too many additional vehicles onto Barnes Road which is already ‘oversubscribed’ with the new development in that neighborhood. As well, the Highland Ave corridor which is already heavily congested, has been a traffic safety concern for years. It seems premature to be approving development before the latest Highland Ave study on traffic as well as that is needed in this corridor has been completed and analyzed. Especially since the Cinemaplex parcel will also probably be developed at some point. (Linda Ferraresso)
Response: Please refer to the traffic memorandum by MDM consultants as most recently submitted to the Planning Board.
ARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURAL QUESTIONS
Abutter Comment: My house is only 33 years old and when we purchased it 5 years ago it already had a huge crack in the foundation that we needed to get repaired. Our neighbors have mentioned that they have also had to do similar repairs to their houses. The planned developments are so close to us that I fear that the construction/blasting that will take place may further damage our foundations. (David Labbe)
Response: A preblast survey will be conducted in accordance with Massachusetts Regulations. The development team appreciates any feedback from abutters on pre-existing issues with foundations so that these can be adequately documented during the survey.
Abutter Comment: I attended the developers meeting that occurred in Late November/ Early December at the Salem High School and it was mentioned that the trees are thick and existing properties will not be able to see the new buildings that are being proposed. Attached are 2 photos from my bedroom window and the visibility that exists from my property as well as building#3 that is planning on being built. At the time of that November/December meeting building#3 was estimated to be approximately 50'-60' away from my house and roughly 20' taller than my house (as the developers were using houses on a hill as their benchmark instead of the lowest houses in our neighborhood). (David Labbe)
Response: Early in the design process, the buildings were initially intended to be much closer to Barnes Road. Initial thoughts were to retain trees in this area to provide screening. At the time, Building 3 was not proposed as it currently shows on the plans. Following initial meetings with the neighborhood, significant effort was exhausted in moving the buildings and improving the screening buffers nearest to Barnes Road. Building 3 was added near the middle of the lot, approximately 270’ from the Labbe lot. Building 2B was moved away from Barnes Road, lowered from 4 stories to 3 stories and is 105’ from the Labbe lot. The latest design has the ridge height for Building 2B approximately 22’ above Barnes Road. Essentially equal in height to a 1 ½ story home. With the vegetated buffer and fencing being provided along the linear park, there will be suitable screening along Barnes Road. Behind the Barnes residences that abut the site, the design was further refined to preserve a broader buffer along the rear of these properties. While there are limited mature trees growing in this area now, new plantings can be accommodated where needed to fill in any gaps between existing trees that will remain.
Abutter Comment: I think the buildings are still too large and body to be a good fit for the single family homes right next door. There is still a feeling of us and them. I would like to see the buildings be smaller with more of a village feel to them. (Lori Stewart)
Response: It has been well documented in prior responses and herein that this land is not zoned for single-family residential use. It is in the Salem Zoning Ordinance as a multi-family zoned R3 district that transitions into an industrial (BPD district) and also includes Business B2 zoning. The development team has made great efforts to screen, lower the buildings, break up the roof lines and keep the development footprint and impacts as far from the abutting residences as possible. This has been the focal point of the design for this project. The inclusion of a linear parkway and playground along Barnes Road and other road and intersection improvements proposed in this project are further reinforcement of the care and effort by the development team, to make improvements to this neighborhood for all to share.
LANDSCAPE QUESTIONS
Abutter Comment: There are no sidewalks in the entire neighborhood. What will be done to make sidewalks throughout the neighborhood? (Barnes Rd, Barnes Cir, Barnes Ave, Clark St, Clark Ave and Woodland Ave) (Wayne Silva)
Response: A new linear parkway, inclusive of a new handicap accessible sidewalk, playground, street trees, landscaping and seating will be constructed along the property frontage on Barnes Road for a distance of approximately 750 feet. The sidewalk will then extend down the Highland Frontage a distance of 250 feet including new landscaping and street trees. In total, 1,000 feet of new handicap accessible sidewalk will be constructed for the public benefit.
MISCELLANEOUS
Abutter Comment: By right, they are allowed to build on the area they own. However; by law, they are required to seek and receive municipal approval for some of the above mentioned items before building. Can you tell me from the items above which ones are by right and which ones require approval from municipal offices? For Example: The proposal is to build 324 units. By right, how many units are they allowed to build without municipal approval? and in terms of the access road, is this by right that they can build it or is there a municipal approval needed? (Alvi Ibanez)
Response: Although there are several by right alternatives for development of this site, the approval sought by the developer is under the Planned Unit Development(PUD) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which allows a mixed use development with provision for public open space. Under a PUD, the density allowed is within the discretion of the Planning Board. The project will also require an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission. A by right alternative would be to construct approximately 85 residential units on the R3 portion of the site, a large commercial building on the B2 part of the site and a complex of industrial buildings on the BPD land. Another alternative would be to seek a Special Permit for the R3 which would allow 296 units on that part of the site alone and then use the B2 and BPD land for the commercial/industrial uses mentioned above.
Abutter Comment: Ultimately, the plan is bad. The current residents are not being considered. We have endured 4 plus years of construction and now will have to endure 4 more years of construction as well. Please consider NO ACCESS to Barnes Road at all. This agreement was made for Osborne Hills Rd with restricting access. it is not unprecedented in this City. (Wayne Silva)
Response: Access, use and other concerns were addressed in prior responses and at the public hearing. To summarize, tremendous efforts have been undertaken by the applicant to minimize the impact on the Barnes neighborhood going back to initial plans presented at neighborhood meetings for feedback. Changes include moving the buildings away from Barnes Road, lowering the heights of the buildings, adding a new linear park and dense vegetated screening, road improvements and intersection improvements. This project also falls over 3 zoning districts. It is a Multifamily R3 district closest to the Barnes neighborhood, it is a business district (B2) near Highland Avenue and it’s an industrial district (BPD) north of the R3 zoned land. As stated at the public hearing, this is a transitional property between the single-family neighborhood and the heavy commercial uses to the north.
Abutter Comment: Cedar Road did have houses on it and was a City Street. There were at least 3 homes on Cedar Road. Why can that road simply disappear? Was that road purchased from the City? (Wayne Silva)
Response: Cedar Road is an existing private road (way) that appears on record plans. While the road is private, it cannot simply be erased as other owners have rights to use it, besides the applicant.
Abutter Comment: Are there any other locations in the City where a commercial (apartment style) building exits on a residential side street? (Wayne Silva)
Response: Yes, there are other locations in the city where multi-family housing exists in predominantly residential streets. An example in Ward 3 of this would be Salem Heights. However, we do wish to state that this is not a commercial project. The Commercial aspect of it is only 1 part of a residential neighborhood development. The commercial component fronts on Highland Ave within the B2 Business Zoned land. The residential component of the project falls across multifamily zoned land (R3) and Industrial zoned land (BPD).
Abutter Comment: But mostly at the last meeting, it seemed that the majority of the public and board felt the size of the project was too large and asked to have the plan ‘pared down’. Here’s what I see…(summary of units/parking).... Some garage parking was added (which was asked for) but the size was only marginally reduced in size. Therefore, all the initial concerns about adding to the already horrendous traffic on Highland Ave, the safety of turning left at the light onto Barnes (heading west on Highland), added traffic to Barnes Road, impact on water and sewage management, protection of wetlands, etc have not been mitigated as far as I can see. (Linda Ferraresso)
Response: We have prepared a traffic memo detailing how we plan to make significant changes to the Barnes/ Highland intersection ahead of the proposed MASS DOT plan for highland ave. We have also worked in revising our plans to reduce the density and scale of the buildings, particularly those closest to Barnes rd.
Abutter Comment: And last but by no means least, I have a major concern of the trend for developers to get approval for their projects and immediately turn around and sell to another developer. This only serves to increase the overall price of the project, increase the rents for all the units, while the developers make their money and move on. It doesn’t feel very neighbor friendly to our city and its many neighborhoods. What we need is more partnerships with developers for more moderate and low income housing, not more luxury (and rental heavy) apartments. In fact what is really needed is medium sized (rest of message garbled) (Linda Ferraresso)
Response: We recognize there is a need for more affordable housing in Salem and with this project alone we will be able to produce 29 affordable units - varying in size from 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments. The development team is all local (Salem/ Beverly) and our intent is to remain part of the ownership group.
