Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning board grants TIS waiver for proposed 12‑unit Salem Street project, with condition
Loading...
Summary
The Malden Planning Board granted a waiver of its traffic impact study requirement for a proposed 12‑unit building at 105 Salem Street, conditioning approval on submission of sight‑distance calculations for city peer review before the special‑permit hearing.
The Malden Planning Board on Sept. 10 granted a waiver of its traffic impact study (TIS) filing requirement for a proposed 12‑unit residential project at 105 Salem Street, provided the petitioner submits sight‑distance calculations and analysis for city peer review prior to the special‑permit hearing. The vote was by voice; the motion to grant the waiver with that condition passed.
Why it matters: Planning Board rules (Section E(9)) require a TIS for projects of this size. Granting a waiver speeds the application process for the petitioner but keeps one technical review step — sight‑distance analysis — to be completed and reviewed before the public special‑permit hearing.
Michelle Ferguson, presenting for staff, said the petitioner, Volunteers of America, Massachusetts, through Michael Whitmore of Roundel 47, submitted a memorandum requesting the waiver dated Aug. 4, 2025. The board forwarded the request to its peer reviewer, BSC Group, which issued an initial peer review (dated Sept. 9, 2025) and a follow‑up peer review (dated Sept. 10, 2025). BSC noted several comments had been addressed by revised materials and recommended approval of the TIS waiver after submission of the remaining items.
A remaining technical item is site‑distance and intersection sight‑distance analysis at the site exit on Salem Street; Ferguson said the petitioner agreed to provide that analysis in advance of the special‑permit hearing so the city peer reviewer can evaluate it. Emergency‑vehicle access was raised; Deputy Fire Chief James Dockery reviewed the site plan and wrote on Sept. 10, 2025, “we do not foresee any issues regarding fire department apparatus access to the building.” After the fire department memo, BSC Group reviewer Amy Allen wrote that, “Since the fire department reviewed and found it acceptable, we do not need to review turning movement figure.”
Ferguson told the board that other peer‑review comments had been resolved: a parking space that could have allowed a passenger vehicle to back onto the sidewalk was removed, and the proposed van‑accessible handicap parking stall was revised to address prior concerns.
Ken Antonucci moved to grant the requested TIS waiver with the condition that the petitioner provide the sight‑distance calculations and analysis to BSC Group prior to the special‑permit hearing; Diane Chuha seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote. The board did not decide the special permit itself; Ferguson said the special‑permit public hearing is expected next month and will include the full site plan and required analyses for review.
