Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bank asks board to approve larger rooftop radiator; neighbors and planners favor relocation and screening
Summary
Institution for Savings sought retroactive approval for a rooftop radiator that exceeded the approved envelope at 93 State Street. After presentations of four mitigation options, neighbors and several board members said relocating and enclosing the unit on the 1980s addition is the preferred fix; the board continued the amendment to March 4, 2026 to allow detailed drawings and alternative evaluations.
Institution for Savings (IFS) told the Newburyport Plan Board on Feb. 4, 2026 that a rooftop radiator installed to serve a building generator is taller and bulkier than anticipated in prior approvals, and it asked the board to amend the special permit for the 93 State Street addition.
Counsel for the applicant (identified in the transcript as Costa) said the generator remains inside the building as originally approved, but the radiator — an external component required for heat rejection — was constructed larger than the envelope shown in earlier submissions. "What is before the board tonight is not the generator itself but is the radiator," Costa said, adding the assembled unit came in taller than anticipated due to manufacturer‑specified surge tank, curbing and vibration isolators.
The applicant presented four mitigation options: (1) shift the surge/expansion tank toward the rear of the roof; (2) extend the existing parapet by 30 inches to screen the base of the radiator; (3) extend the parapet by 40 inches for greater screening; and (4) relocate and enclose the radiator on the lower 1980s addition (which would require crane operations and structural checks). The applicant reported that structural testing showed the 1980s addition could carry the unit if properly engineered.
Neighbors urged the board to prefer the relocation/enclosure option. Peter Macken, who lives across from the addition, said he found options one through three inadequate and told the board, "If there is going to be a solution, it would be option four — the relocation and enclosure — in my mind." Neighbors also raised concerns about noise, day‑to‑day visual impact and loss of light.
Board members questioned whether an alternative, lower‑profile radiator could have been procured and whether supplier/contractor shop drawings had been checked against the approved envelope during construction. The applicant said they had pursued alternate equipment but concluded available lower‑profile models had footprints and structural demands that made them infeasible for the current roof. The applicant agreed to provide the evaluation materials for the alternate low‑profile units for the record.
Several board members said the relocation/enclosure option both reduced visual bulk and responded better to neighbors’ height concerns. The applicant agreed to produce detailed exterior elevations, sections and the structural/engineering documentation necessary to show that relocation is feasible and to demonstrate noise mitigation.
The board voted to continue the special permit amendment hearing for 93 State Street to March 4, 2026 to allow the applicant to submit the requested drawings and supporting evaluations. The board indicated in its discussion that options one through three were of limited interest and urged the applicant to prioritize the relocation/enclosure alternative and to provide the low-profile alternative evaluation requested by board members.
Next steps: the applicant will submit detailed exterior elevations, plan and section drawings showing the relocated radiator in the 1980s addition, a structural feasibility letter, and any vendor evaluations of alternative radiator models by the board’s requested date. The board will consider those materials at the continued hearing on March 4, 2026.
