The URL can be used to link to this page

64-26 - Pickman Park - CONSERVATION COMMISSION Pickman Park (pL`p3)4� 7 4Sr I f c. S � �Q �L�ATc`i, r� 6 Qti ��✓�i' ul1l �` a r rn 0 trm z im rn to m CO) rm -A-1 .L7 2 rm rn O V Z _ O Z i w SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION a=o9o` ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM, MASS. 01970 3 P-P)7 7 I :�IS Pm. Pog- Ga. l e' o-rl ir-sk. 2�-- . . Mnro�- ki . 6c Lepn ll eXVii boe -5 P-eon c< in, )tiaf o iL `I Cp-yS y-lkc+i<s+ti eLl ( vvt oafs ber kt ej CL (r A- � b itiSS i neSS : T-At r I 7 u e S w arnin . SalinSKt /Will Zetjt `(-d � �W .l Y`�. esv�e��c. - �-cw�m;ss;On e.�S •2 ti:�t�w c,af�- sEJ,.ni ki - - a4 tt)&/i 1/S-7Al 02 __ �_..___._.�_... .__�_______.._...._.__...T�,._.___.....�.._,e.:.� ,.r,...�:.,,�.. Y -;. =` a=- a °� . � N � �. .00N0f7q O� ,Z m T n '�Aep1MINE Do R Ti#g of "$aIrm, ttssttcl�use##s 11epartIntrit of Public Porks One 'f§ttlem Green ANTHONY V. FLETCHER, R.P.E. RICHARD P. SWENSON, C.E. CITY ENGINEER Assistant Engineer September 5, 1978 Salem Conservation Commission One Salem Green Salem, MA. 01970 Mr. B. Northrup, Chairman RE: Pickman Park Dear Mr. Northrup: The following changes or revisions are required for final engineering approval : 1. Guard rail or approved barrier at Fillmore Road embankment. 2. Rebuild M.N. at Jefferson Ave. interceptor to receive new sewerage line. 3. Submit drainage calculations and depict drainage areas. 4. Cradle(s) for sewerage line crossing at South River to be constructed of concrete. 5. Side slopes noted as 2:1 are unacceptable. Suggested, but not required, is that the drain swale along the railroad be culvertized. There are no other requirements of the engineering department outstanding. Very truly yours, A. V. Fletcher, PE City Engineer Director of Public Services AVF/cc cc: Planning Board/Dept. Carter & Towers i APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF SWAMP STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS PICKMAN PARK - SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS The storage characteristics of the swamp on Parcel 1 and 2 on Fillmore Road have been reviewed to ascertain that no considerable decrease in runoff storage characteristics will occur as a result of the proposed regrading of these parcels. The basic storage requirement as set forth in the 1968 Camp Dresser McKee Report is 8. 3 acre feet. A field review of the area under investigation produced t!ne following data: 1. The average invert elevation of the three culverts under Jefferson Avenue is 9 . 3, not 11. 3 as indicated in the CDM report. Also, these culverts are 48 inches in diameter rather than 54 inches . 2. The free water profile during normal dry weather con- ditions is as shown in Figure 1. It is assumed that backwater curves during high flow conditions will follow a similar gradient. The following conclusions have been drawn: 1. The three culverts under Jefferson Avenue are adequate in size for the proposed development of Pickman Park, since the major runoff con- tribution is controlled by the culvert under the Boston and Maine Railroad. 2. The storage characteristics of Parcel 1 and 2 will be as indicated on Figure 2. This rating curve is based on the grading proposed for the site, rather than that which exists today. No effective storage will occur directly in the proposed pond under flood conditions. The grading of Parcel 1 has been proposed such that temporary flooding can occur and then recede after the end of the storm. } a o ' o � I I a d4 � � � I ia5n�npl•7•a _' � I • 3 i LL Uri I i r 5 �- 3 00 I ' 0 � Q Y 1131�•1 C1J R6� G3�aOGCJ tf� W E 11TY � J I1¢•fl =•nn\ n d no r � e � a a � o m � a p O I , L v r / f 1 6.L R,E; Z. `-J'iO1C�GE ��1 Qe Pc.'C�Q�SY�CS . - ' �CK Yh�1J PdR.K. 1r�,op. ��_ _ LE?�-f_I_.'fY'1o43S.t�S_wOSEYtS I i i W tom. 14.8 W / Sto¢oar = 9.9 ex•ettt IL ' `J p Y 4 W 12.00 N o q, STo2�6e VowmE �- ricn.E 'Ct.,E-C 2 �TaR�6E. ?RY�U6 rsasE? o�J P2.oS�OSEo. a2r>o.Vc� e){AQAcfE2�ST�c.9 i<S8E S�TjE �49�J� L i I �gc1c QY.EQ S-ro2._LafoE eL@l`o B.'3 'Ac - -sz j `Cb.r`rl �Z�Poz-;) ggcicWa-[Fz sivn�a Ac.-F� -fo s.�.• �.4�� , - I I I ' i I n.emuC uHE 10 5621 KEUFFEI.Q ESSER CO. I b.P� 5 F 3 TO THE INCH - M.nf�M n f • .0 COrn psQ541'r ► Nj STOR /-*jrz trio �. Im ►7 ►►�Ic� � ucYa�c�+•� E►JT eo►.1"(ov� _ �(o CAV-np, "DRESSE'L '�OKEE 2E'Poe) 'rli•1ZOV6tL GojJSTR.uC.T ►oU ap 1.1ckoNLr,.s( 12o.t,A ; S`l , Cmo0 cV- I.ts -r —rq zooro. Wr Sfws¢. ►aoJ�cEu-� -ro ►SOoo c-r 'IT, Gpo cp- Cts+�� pE�,1SpT11JC1 S'[oR.,a6E r ►. '►JourAwRSt 4sscT►ot4 -Pc�. 2 : 3SOZ50 cF 2 • oR-M ws%l SEc Y ►twwl 1 1, 43 , 20o cF �OTC,�. Csw�Ptew1�ATIWC S'� OR�GE• : 1E, 4S0cv She ATTcc�1�© ^P�oU �'o� ►uc �v►•�"o� o� boS. i CARTER & TOWERS ENGINEERING COR((Ppp. �p Jcu�e�, 7�acuxeP.Lcrzc�c�e�zo"f°' Joseph D.Carter Professional Engineer 6 FAIRVIEW AVENUE Registered Land Surveyor SWAMPSCOTT, MASS. 01907 Tel. 592-8386 August 16, 1978 Chairman Conservation Commission City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Mass, 01970 Dear Sir: Enclosed are copies of Proposed Construction Program for Pickman Park which you stated you had not received. ery truly yours JDC;FLW Joseph D. Carter CIVIL ENGINEERING PERCOLATION TESTS SEWAGE DISPOSAL DESIGNS SURVEYING CARTER & TOWERS ENGINEERING COR��Pp/. �p �7'cuuae�d., ToacuzeP.Lar[c��e`e°"fd� Joseph D.Carter Professional Engineer 6 FAIRVIEW AVENUE Registered Land Surveyor SWAMPSCOTT, MASS. 01907 Tel. 592-8386 September 5, 1978 Mr, Brian French Conservation Commission 26 Pickman Road Salem, Mass. 01970 Re: Piekman Park Salem Dear Sir; Attached are the computations that your requested recently, PrulyJDC:FLW D. Carter cc: P,Beatrice CIVIL ENGINEERING PERCOLATION TESTS SEWAGE DISPOSAL DESIGNS SURVEYING H CARTER`AND' TOWERS� ENGINEERING,CORPORATION _ - 6.FAIRVIEWAVENUE SWAMPSCOTT, M ASSAC H US ETTS 01907 PHONE 617-592-8386 'h, h August 1 'J1978 .'e ` city of Salem Conservation Commission'a One Salem Green' Salem, Massachusetts,- 01970, w entlemen.. PROPOSEDTCONSTRUCTION,PROGRAM EROSION- CONTROL -MEASURES PICKMAN PARR `. `SALEAI, MASSACHUSETTS PHASE I lA Development of"Marion Road to tot- 12,6, Halsey Way and' ' Nimitz Way., `Siltation,to 'be controlled by:- discharging ,,drainage ,into ,natural',"'swale _at approximate -intersec- O Lion of Hart Wily. and Marion Road and constructing, a hay, balesyediment trap' across said ,swale. fF ' az , iB-, Construction.-of)- sanitary sewer. From Parallel Street r ► fto.'Fillmore Road: �Hay, bales,will be placed at base of. sl siltation of wetland Dti. until permanent' ground-cover is established r-1' 'Development Hof -Fillmoke. Roadr and Hart Way: Parcel 1. Will be cleaned`of debris and vegetation and used as ' sediment' basin •by�placing; a hay dikeat ,the end of ' a., Tylez"Ri A.E.,this, dike will be removed after-estab- " 'LL liehment of Perm anent: in the, Fillmore toad, area:,.. w 1D Development of ,Marion Road, YSpruance Way' and ,Fletcher way. *, Bay bales, to be used on exposed slopes and .around` catch,basins. to' minimize surface water siltation. - PHASE- II • ` ..j Construction of Grisold Drive using similar methods as . s' "outlined' n .Phase 1D,, folled by construction of Russell k c 'Drive, Eisenhower' Drive and remainder of;Marion;Road.'' �) Diversion channels will be` constructed as,j,required. l h ~ .2 PHASE III 3A Construction of'. Pickman Road up to loop, outlet to pond ~. at.station '64-0 to be -field adjusted to provide best final condition 3B Construction of Stillwell Drive and Arnold Drive. ~ Con- struct temporary sediment basin at terminus of drainage ` system adjacent to Lot 99, Arnold Drive and discharge to existing natural swale, 3C Construction of Johnson Drive and McArthur Drive. The , drain swale to .the Forest River Wand a_ sediment basin will be built on rear lots 122 and` 123. Use of diver- sion channels will be employed as required by specific 'site conditions. 3D ' Construction of Marshall Drive'andVandergrift Drive ^` employing similar measures as outlined 'in 3C.. Local measures', as described "in'Addendum 1, Section 3, appended hereto, will be used during construction ,as required by -specific climatic and ' _ soil conditions. Typical details of recommended sediment basin and diversion channel construction procedures have ilso .been_ appended .Erosion control methods will be developed in accordance with recom-- mended procedures by the following sources: 1. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation -.Service. Y 2. Metropolitan Area'Planning Council 208 Area wide waste Management Study. c .� -4- 1 fi PreKrw,1 .T>c FIs t -ii2- r TABLE 4-2 Control Meagre end Problem Area 0 INDICATES APPLICABILITY OF A SPECIFIC CONTROL MEASURE TO Lr ONE OR MORE OF THE SEVEN y PROBLEM AREAS. A pa y a Control Measure 3 Mlnimrtafmn of stria d ergo • O O Grubb. omitted 0 0 0 Conservation of topsoil 0 M VEASUMIE VE Tempormy mlching end/or feadri MEACUN[Y m _SvedinWnhantl/orHytlrofeedin O O • Sodden ® 0 - 0 0 Rio technical protection of steepNo os Diversion berm O 0 0 DIVERSION Interceptor berm •- 0 0 MEASURES AND Dlveruon ditch ® • - 0 SLOPE DRAINS Berm and ditch Slop,drain O Selective grading and shaping 0 0 0 • Roughened surface 0 • MECHANICAL Com ncl]0n O 0 SLOPE Benches or terraces 0 0 re STABILIZATION Retain i ny wall Stl'oll control 0 • Fall Deflector%and 'enies O STREAM BANK Rinnun nu STABILIZATION R.. Technical promclu n.of wino too ks - O Uvc%rlarm — _ _ tl W.n FBare channels Goued w,tmvmyf SURFACE Lined channels O bRAINAGEWAYS Gratle control structures O 0 Setlimeot i;813 0 0 S,diment basin 0 O • Fite, inlet I 0 I I let Aggregate cover O Curb and gutior O 0 OTHER Windbreak O Filter berm 0 • • MEASURES Traffic control on construction roads 0 Source: Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc.,op. cit., Ficure 2 r ADDENDUM No. 1 Section 3 Water and wetlands r b. Erosion and Sedimentation Control During Construction', • The procedures to be used on a given project during• the construction phase to minimize erosion and sedimentation are dependent upon several factors: 1. Type of soil and ground slope 2. Rainfall characteristics 3. Construction methods Specific procedures may vary within a given site and are not often not determinable until work within an area has commenced. With respect to Pickman Park, certain procedures will be em- ployed as required by local conditions. Such procedures may ,include but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Placement of a matting of hay on cleared slopes until Permanent vegetative cover is in place. 2. Placement of hay around catch basins to act as a filter to prevent sediment from entering drains. 3. Placement of subbase materials such as crushed stone or gravel as soon as possible. 4. Limitation of clearing operations within the site: D a. The developer has agreed to not seek building permits for more than 150 units in any one year which would limit the annual construction area to approximately 15 to 20 acres. From a practical standpoint it is unlikely that more than 10 acres of land would be undergoing active construction at any given time.. Further, final planting an •.grading within any given phase must be completer 'at the end of work in that phase by agreement. 5. ,. Careful placement of soil stock piles so as.,to ,minimize the likelihood of erosion, and covering of poil stock. , piles as required by weather, soil stability and loca- tion. b., Establishment of a permanent vegetative cover in dig- 1@ '+ 1. turbed areas as soon as possible. , .. 7. Provision for proper channelizatiori of runoff during construction. S. ' Such other procedures as required by local conditions + vill .be employed using U,.5.D.A.' Soil conservitionsServige Guidelines and Technical 'assistance as required. ' rt ko .��y�+.�5i��id7' .i�+w.-a.... -,•.y�wl. •..tir• r - n.-.., v�, uE v,.:«,yF :µ§��'Si�_'r4°f��C`.�+ �w I -105- - // e / Figure 4-1 r Y / mob- � _A • �^ ,'� ' • i.. SILTY SOILS MOST @KO DAOLE I-'1611 ORGANIC GONTANI INCRg ASQS INFILTRATION CArACIT'I bOIL.. STIeplLlty, LOW 01[OOA6IL1T'1, • L .e;iB • qqo e•j 1 i°mB�de'B _ . °ate°•e•e°O�BU9 ee"✓°g , ° BJ e• •O ryO BBJJ U B ° oeY:•Uoa do " o eel U4 PEKMEADI6.1T',' 7oIL 5TA"UCTV K6 C OAI(SE °JAND 5 G2A-ve-L MOST LLAMFY }OILS, POOR IN61LTQ1TIOy PERMrA15LE'•• LOW CPOOA0IL ITS - MOD[R4T[ BR ODg01LlTy too �S �jj GANOP`l /ROTCLTS 501L FKOM (wq .ty �M. A650R 6S RgIrJ'S &N4K4Y MAINTAINS 501L. CAPACITY TO A050K0 Ww?BR ( 4. �• 'FLOWS VBLOGITy OF RVNOiF f T�q Gw?GuaS Sf DII.�FI.It t f19lDUS KOOTO VI RooTS NOLO SOIL PARTICLb•S IN VLw[l VELETA-CION r SLOP[ 4LOP0 bRADlahfT INT®Ngl'N FRIcQU[NL`/ DUKArg O K K/r 11.7 'fOPOG�APN� CLIMATE NATU(ZAL . FAC-fo AFFECTING 501L E�D�ION I i -107- "fV; Figure 4-3 Y� T6MPORARV DIV p 4910 N9 A®OvR VULN6 KAyL! i AREAS TWAT MAY 60 *RP096D DURu•!b - LONS'TRUCTION PGKIOP .t WATlR FLOW P6R.AANCNT Dh/OR91ON9 PART OP OVIRALL. 41T14 DRAINAGQ PLAN "It PFOTICTION OK y ADJACQNT PKO/I RTY __(`ORIGINAL GRADQ VT C KILL �� 6X/044D OR NYWLN 9990I0 SLOPS DwE[910N DITLN CUT CAN Dp A DA Rp LOM PA CTlD LNA NNQL ' A VFGBTATIVA CIHANNIL, OR ON6 "' pO WKN A NAI[D 9URFIAGS MATGR IAL DIVEP510N P�EfZM - VSED TO CONV64� RUl�IOFF LA+.T&RALL�J TO A SAFE DISCI-IA26E POINT ,1 NVDY WAVE yfA6L9 OUTL4TS FOR SAGE DIOCNAK6G INTO VI'jPO4AL 0E C.00O "P OK WOO plD AREA? OR OR VND&R POOK CONDITIONS KKIP' KAI GONG CI'ft ' A4P4Iq LT PROTILTiVI COMIC COMPACTED 6AKTH FILL '� OR161NAL (a RA DQ' UN STA'SIL12fi0 EMf5ANI(MIf NT SVCPgC■ KVNOPF 4 96 DIM liNT Pu®uC R WAV 1647 OF 1NTEfZCEPTOR PERM - uSED TO P�oTEGT �xPCSED SLo�g, To Low VISLOGITM OF RUNOFF k TO GOL_LEC•T SEp1I,.1ENT RQDUL89_•KO910N WAZJRp9 SV 9LDWIIJOr pOWN VCLOU-fV OF bRSi.TQR j_ry "I t PROVIpIN(� p OPPORTUNITY POR wgTlR TO INFIL2RATL TN! 901E _ PKOVfD69 A FLAT.GON 9IRULTION SITS I �\ CO_MIA.GTSD FILL_._ . $6NCH -r9 ZCACC L5ED TO Ie9OU4fE TI.4r: LENGTH S 6RADrc OF �DIL ER0510N 3ED�►�IENTATIOI�I CONTROL _ -106- Figure 4-2 18VOL(I RD rI 904LA Ifow I (faAo/ aALty ' $ 4� M(TAL OR OR IB"DInM®T6R Lmimvq ODP WAIV OALGS WOOD -i4AIftS fay NOLBS w/IRap -f0 A"OIAMtTb4 WOOOfN POL•S fb NGb 1 OR 9` �'NIO� gPRON TO ►Rt V/w? 1 flout �OLt fd 4MATlON RI►IQP APRON �LYGLDNb Pt N(.Q CIIRAI APRON d"a 4'WOOD PO StS TRAW bAL.E CuEGCaj WIRE rr%NGE eN4&64 - woo 0EN STAKE') WI-rkA 9YQAW P3ALP:S OR 6QU5NwOOf7 PAc�GD eRus. fDIA"Q -ro ROGK� /./bR^Gt tr/KH t1?A¢Gt oIAMgTBR 9�. a i �� II 4 WID6 t/,P gPRON APRON QUS14 6ETWEEN 2 BUMPED 20G 100 Lf?5, rS41IJ126AG QOWS OF 5'(AKES FILTRATION BARRIERS -_U-2ED To FiLTE� �EDIriIEI�I-r FROM RUNOFF MI 96 DIMbF1T TRAPS - `' }TAKbD 9?RAW HAULS ORAINA(/t DITL" SEDIMENT TRAP - ugE � To COt_LEGT S�DIMEN? BEFORE RUNOFF _ENTERS _MAJOR DRAINAGE WA-�. _____alOt_9LaP`b_of BA'JINI _ --''IAAILIISUV_WIT" Vt69TATION 1` .r.'.,.; .....-;a.:4•.,....,� -`--�-�'t.RMy1117H PRO?dGTIV®..GOJB[_ . __ - -J�EDIMRNT_gin A[1N 4. . �TORMy/A'7/K ftuNOP1 Upl"dN_T__9A9W_%. WA,Mot 16 OVBRF.LOW OUTLGT -. RtTAIM@,D Y.LARPaO R_PA12TILL®S ' 49T?L.@?O bOTYOM ' S�DiMEN-T E1A51N -. U-5Ep-. -TO -r�AP_ ZUWOrF. WA-TE2 SEDIMEN'T. .FQOM EI?OPINCP A2!9A'5 ,__eA" F-5E .-MMPOfZAiZY' DU�INP�_G01J52IZUG?ION . O� .Gpttii .�E RETAIrJED_A'S__ PEK0AIJEN"L-9UN0rF CON-FIZOI. FI;A-TURE SW 4AN6.IrJ6i .AREA ,.N 01, � �t ,, [\ • 4 9 �l lac f= S�(LW.^' v} �II 1�1 D• �,. �., , ) �ut �� • II u t r � x. i .I 1.�� c ' 'Irk'• / •-wI ��•j �/i• t All.t�l.}i 1 ,I'sAl ..Inflrl I%^" �Y�^rs1-u•� !��I �i• �{G Ir � / r G ♦ I / I CARTER & TOW FRS ENGINEERING CORP. J1 Joseph 0.Carter D Professional Engineer 6 FAIRVIEW AVENUE Registered Land Surveyor �A�G 9 197� SWAMPSCOTT, MASS. 01907 p Tel. 592-8386 SALEM CONSERVATIQU COMM. August 1 , 1978 City of Salem, conservation Commission f One Salem Greene Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Gentlemen: At your request, this firm has made a review of proposed grading charac, teristics and runoff impact on Parcels 1 and 2 between Jefferson Avenue and Fillmore Road in the Pickman Park Subdivision, Salem, Massachusetts. We have reviewed the Camp Dresser McKee Report of 1968 as well as the impact of the proposed activities on storage characteristics, Our findings are as followsd 1. There exist certain inconsistencies between the CDM Report and Field conditions; namely: a. The culverts under Jefferson Avenue are 48 inches in diameter rather than 54 inches as indicated in the Report, b, The average invert elevation of these culverts is 9.,3 rather than 11. 3 as indicated in the report.. 2. Due to the inconsistencies indicated in (1) above, it is not possible for us to fully ascertain the correctness of our proposed impact on runoff storage characteristics , since the present characteristics are likely to be signi- ficantly different than condition indicated in the CDM Report.. 3. From a practical standpoints the portion of Pickman Park tributary- to Parcels 1 and 2 is approximately 20 acres or 3 percent of the total drainage area (652.73}} acres) . The calculated runoff coefficient is 9 ,57 after development, which is not significantly different from that which presently exists due to the present nature of the site (ledge out--- croppings, shallow soil overburden, and sparse vegetative cover) , Since compensating storage is at: matter of concern to the Conservation Commission, and since the amount of compensating storage which- can be attained on Parcels 1 and 2 is minimal, we are recommending that Salem Acres Inc, do no regrading on Parcels 1 and 2 other than the earth re. moval indicated on the plans to compensate lost storage due to the construction of the 12 inch sewer and Fillmore Road, It is, however, the intent of Salem Acres Inc, to clean the parcels and do such minor CIVIL ENGINEERING PERCOLATION TESTS SEWAGE DISPOSAL DESIGNS SURVEYING h Al .` 2 grading as is necessary to improve flow of surface water from the area to the South River. Very truly yours, JDC:FLW .. a i •_ : --:� it _- - : �A 6,_ _ _ � _ 1 I I I + ♦ r -•1.-+.-t_\�—� -� b..P...��' i�� P�. �(1��+ I �//��.�01h/ � •'•� � �}' ,��/y ��/�� _'ryey��}��,�� .. i K-y/�-�N�I\�ntl+`''• -�-- T---�— t.��+`- ?�/,j �_ �__.. -V,_ .Vv�✓': _ yc"'a^�-^^'; JI \Y��'a'�'.'- is"v_ a - . k - - - e Ct T . r + I I 11_ 1r_ ti 1 _ _ mot._,}__� _.—i � _.{_._• _ I Q i i I n _ _ ♦_�1Q�MQy t I I I ! 1 I r t� 1 _+ JIN !- + r 7. - + +- - 7 1 r I Y` r- - - 4 I I I I I l 11 -• , 1. t U U + I r !! a I I I I 1 f - 1-+ - . + t - r I � I I � I I � � I y _ a I I 4 • , I I _ +_ � I _ 1 —�. � {_�.___ _ I Y " .. �_ 1-. � ._ . .-_l -�» a a r t » .., t — '--.r.- » _. _a ,.._-•- -+___. y_ ' I I ... _ _ _ JL ki I �V I --�7--ram-- � -t--�- -� � �-�-t T T -, ��o.N't1U• .—Q�n.b�` _©1'wl�.B..S' GLS t 4 i-_-- +- '.__ r_ _ a--T 4 _ , r -♦t. Ley- ��,\_'�^�{_oo'�.,i�+r� �_y__�r_._+_�.+ _ � __ __ I Alk- f 1 ck I _ _ Y r _ . I I I I ?_ I I I I I tile ir r 1 r r ---- � -t +f _.__. I O— I I I 4., .y_VY _ _d'�'W*+..V+..Y��Y -��- ,-7'- -.+. 41 I - —At I I I I t� oc T o�' St,P,�; �IL law . 4i1 � — t I T T I I I I II III �I I I I I - r j t— �✓ -- o11?r C . tee Sa UI�- jx� _®. . r + I t- I I _ I I ' , , I tom, T_.�'__Y'. .H _.r—+—�- 1 - � —� �— _ _. -r i' —F -• - , -- -•.__ .. -. _ -. ..�.-_. _ r..., +_. ..—1- a --- - I , I } -.-i�--,"-. +-.{- -. _ �":._�1%'>t..�1 i!_Y''� -�n'Jl-Jam'--F�.`V O��/�%W�'t�-r--��n""'=.T=+- - J-T'--• I Tj Ax _1 ,� I « A,. f I cJ'f(_)-- I ,�~ -- I - - n«�✓-�`T ' '{Q� "9i.!Ob VW=C�Q,,,N�s/�.f�. -1+K7t'•'+-..C?�iy�,�5� - � � � ��_T�-�.�'IV►� �,U.u-fir. Q�.� o�aaA.�t,�o..� _. ., i�sc _ _ . JLJ Vr -I r - P4_t 4- - - - - _ + 1 +-- I ��fi�-� _'.„G�`.8"^/� �'�� •.b.�.?�V�.W _ai`tts�v�! �:O..r,� _ __ a r t i ___t- 4._. r..a + ..t }. .t r � r. L . r - • -.4 rv. .. Y « _T_ `-_ t r ♦- .r n- • -�- _ - i _ I ' i i. ry r }-- ♦ r r .. _.ry rv- � _ r - -«__-a r. _T.__T .+_ t .. _ _ _. _ i -! -- -- ---- --- - - -- - -- ir I � r 41 711 444444 I jLff,J i --t T-t---fI-._ - J-_1_. -__ 1�' It-�I -�"Tt I ' - - - ' -tom Lt VV - - - _ - - N - t r { t t - -+ �_ I I r 411 - �7JX/ —" -t`_." '� - -� - - r ��^'C►�-Q - Dom-. , �� I ; - - - 1 CA I I I I r I l I I { =-I- �_ f I .. o� �� , . `� • 1� � � ! h � � � 'v �.�,, , �i .a , ', + e ■ w� � ■ � .V 4 r N t •\iv � i � � try � '� o �m� .._ � ��.■ � I f. ' • Ito � � � n � L�a*�eAl:F:�.. ..---o �...... _ ' �� 1 , . . � � I �� -�, oa' � �s � , d.r, e ♦ � i 0` • i _ . , 'tl �, - ,., 1: � ;=�1 ■ ... . �� ... .s...� _� ..._ . ..� ..� �1 .... .. ....... ... . .... .._ . SSCC� _ _� .. �..� _� .■. ■. :.= i� : � � - r - - 1 T - - tt I Qom---- ' 444 I it 1 - - - - -- - L-. -r A -� �bl 0.0 � t �- —- 4-�dye, _ t - - ILdt - - - FLl - ci MEN E ME ON ON Nis M MEN M JIM m M ME son M " - A I APPENDIX A RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS PICKMAN PARK SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS r A CARTER & TOWERS ENGINEERING COR��Pp/. Ju�e�, T�ouneP.Lanc��zo�eo�`fe' Joseph D Carter Professional Engineer 6 FAIRVIEW AVENUE Regisrered Land Surveyor SWAMPSCOTT, MASS. 01907 Tel. 592-8386 September 27 , 1977 City of Salem, Planning Board 1 Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Gentlemen: In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations of 1975, we hereby submit drainage design calculation for the Pickman Park Subdivision Plan, dated March 17 , 1977. Specific reference is made to the plans for details of layout and constructionrof the proposed storm drainage system. The calculation of peak runoff rates has been accomplished using the Rational Formula, which takes into account the size of the watershed, the slope, coefficient of runoff and rainfall intensity at time of peak runoff. The watershed areas , slopes and runoff coefficients are estimates of those properties which are anticipated after completion of the project. Rainfall intensities represent those for a storm having an average re- currence interval of ten years. The hydraulic properties -of the proposed storm drains have been calculated by means of the Manning equation, which considers the slope, roughness and diameter of a pipe flowing full under the influence of gravity. An average valve of "n" = 0. 013 for the roughness of reinforced concrete pipe has been used. It should be noted that it is recommended that the 12 inch drain from Station 1+20 Griswold Drive to the main utility ease- ment be increased to an 18 inch diameter. This will be incor- porated on the final plan after the Public Hearing. We will be available to discuss these computations with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, JHMac:FLW \`Jan+e.2=-- acDowell CIVIL ENGINEERING PERCOLATION TESTS SEWAGE DISPOSAL DESIGNS SURVEYING ;TOR(vl DRAINAGE C0MPUTATIONS CARTER @ TOWERS ENG'R. CORP. PROJECT: ` �� 'ao�c c� �rr Mom. 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. SWAtdPSCOTT,Pv1ASS. MTEM: DESIGN STORM: SHEET NO. 4— iMANHOLE INCR. ; ' su1L CGn►1. ( � PIPE TO AREA C TIME w ? Q DIAM. SLOPE. CAP. VEL. c0lZt_tdTS (MANHOLE ACAZS (ACRES h4im z z C.F.S. IN. % C.FS• FP.S. 1+C 4 ou �F_c IsZ Ls-L o.4Y is 3.`b5 2_�, IZ I.o ¢.o S,o o -rLT.i �0 10 o• 4ln s 3.aS 3,o z 1.0 4,o S ,o `1+50 -ouT�6'i 2.00 2.00 0 4Co IS 3.$S 3"s 4:o A O L I STORM . DRAINAGE COMPUTATIONS GARTER 9 TOWERS ENG'R. CORP PROJECT: Pico_ eoj 2aR�'- 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. SWAMPSCOTT,MASS. SYSTEM: Pc,pctl z_ DESIGN STORM: SHEET NO. z%4 MANHOLE TOTAL CONIC. PIPE — TO AREA AREA C TIME in, = 0 DIAM. SLOPE. CAP. VEL. COMMENTS MANHOLE ACRES ACRES MN. z z C.F.S. IN. % GF.S. FP.S. JZUSS>=LL DY• -- -- To 1+1-j Gr15WOIA 13c> 1 3C. o s4b "Zu 3 35 z ,Co \Z. cj 11 c1J�� V = Z•2 cPs O+o 'cc 1}T5 e�swc:o 2•'� 2.3 o •c,c 'Lu -3.3os 4, Z 2 55 .15 .T.o 1il�j G¢.5 wc.0 To C+9S L.�sti= l•3c.. 3.c-G O , c.c Zo 3. 35 -(. d 14, Zc'/c IG 9 ,lj cy vn� NJ cPS -3490 cRTswc_ri -co G+9S >=osa 3 .Co -3 0 •50 20 '3:3=; c•c 1�" 1 °/c 13 `l•1 3,cc c . 1q S iv G+9S IQ dt99 Tj :Zc� v35 2.c_; 3 -3j 13.d 2a 'V�k ' �'LEZCT�E1 wny - I T° 4y1)5,s1Se \•2 1.2 C 75'6 'U9 'tZ" Z°/c S.S 9-c 4t93 �c2i3s - c •3r� ty �.W �csFTn 1.z p„dc� 0.3C„ 'Lc 3.35 iS.`i -LA" sv¢�ooce wct 'tn.- +3S 6C.9E. 1'Z- 1•Z c ,sd 15 3.5� 2.5 I z% s•s '"l,o -ro 11.47%FTllmc. 1 •Z `'1•(oL O Si., ZC 3.']j lb: l Z4" e;= S T£+rt F c-,.) YYl - 1%0�3 Y.C11b 4i3o -ro 0+90 . YIIRRIov RC�9 1'3V 1.3 Cv O•C.'L 1.7 3.6 2 5 3:Z t ' 2.4% (p $-�90 rnPu�aJ ' -re z+66 AAR-c 0.47 7 .2b o 15, 1 12 z•o s.5 Z'o ;'Z•+C.5 J o4Y Tv +n - r- tl . �, Io 323 os9 15 385 �.4 18 2.c 1C 9 ?,+nb To tc+ac FTlt rno.� 3.24> 1'Z.•g 4- G,SrI 2c 3.31; 'Z4 •Tl 24 •' I•C°%r 'Z.c..•7 i3 •c ID�SC7 C.1l mctie. ' o Ovtle-F 1•roz IA`7to O.'S`l z5 '305 25•c� Zq" I.o°/c 2ce S a' o 1 4 1 U l i 5TORV1 DRAINAGE COMPUTATIONS CARTER 8 TOWERS ENG'R. CORP. (PROJECT: S FAIRVIEWAVE. SWAMPSCOTT,tAASS. (SYSTEM: DESIGN STORM: _ II SHEET NO. 3/4- MN INCR. TOTAL I Cvisi:. I � i PIPE AN -- TO AREA AREA C TIME ' z x 0 I DIAM. SLOPE. CAP. VEL. COMMENTS MANHOLE ACRES ACRES KNI. ? C.ES. IN. % CFS• FRS- °A¢ru�e Oe . 1 0�, l.o� o. 4Cn I 1S 3 sS 1.� 12 ,Q.,p I"1 MPaTuua De• 1.32 132, o. Go \0 4.8S d„ o Iz I.O 4. o S.o 1ag5 �i �r�ov �c , 1 \194 M�P4T uu� �2 �.52 p.Sj 1S 85 3. � \ L $ .o ce 10.Ce 1Q up V�LOC\7 - 10k FPS i 1a94 �'ne oaruv4 p 4.2R o•s4 15 3.cbs 8 �Cs'�w;E UY O „ . a u 1CU 1, O I I - G• 4— 1 S r —_ STORM DRAINAGE COMPUTATIONS CARTER $ TOWERS ENG'R. CORP. FROJECT: 6 FAIRVIEW AVE. SWAMPSCOTT,MASS. SYSTEM ^�� 2n + I�aUOLD DR. ,Sr\L�we L Oe. DESIGN STORM: \o sic eg SHEET NO.. 4 4-- MANHOLE INCR. TOTAL CONC. r I PIPE ? ; �. TO AREA AREA C TIME � s 1 0 DIAM. I SLOPE. CAP. ,VEL. COwMIENTS MANHOLE ACRES ACRES MIN. z C.F.S. IN. %_ C.FS. FRS- "23410- 24.9U — plcicmAV \S 1t4115 O Ityro t> , 1,42 42 o,s2 0 4,bS 3,c. lz z, o S'S 1,0 24+0+a- 1\-R 4u (hcc ay= <) PIcKMPKJ Zo 1�3 z,�2 o 'Sl 1S 3,°bS b'3 24 E vc = �•sFa s 2+'\0 ST1��WELL 'o IC+904�cemhJ I'SZ 1•SZ O.d$ \�J 3b5 2•S �Z 2.6 r7•'S 1'V U Y'�o —1p+2S I ?1cumoz ?ono o.3'S 4,'S o'Sp IS 3,85 6.9 24 2,0 3ri t Co`•jGas 1 7o r e \5 .6. \2.a 24 2,0 '�'� 11 �cT��L JEL.00�2 � �•2�r 0 Pace Mpj 3.00 3.00 3 85 S.$ %b" I-o '}o EC4E \ \IJeL D UD1UG L�oW AVt6 1 � I .��c �r ,-;•._>... ,��2 Y� �� Ss,-Ems YY\oss - P Q Ov-r:--.� �_� 'Co \�c..� n or.; 1 n.;tcc �__ 2 1" t2 c . . . 'i ��.•.., rr�c.;: �. �L_�•.::_r, rn L 1GL {� OV fC .l l "(O C R ,._"..`_..'^ •.. mil'!'.Yi ' .. `._.r..� ." 21v E�Z. AIR- Cr- 1 l ( A V r s .�`I '��7l�uLpo CA�.c� �GT,V�S '� M^2 GP[7� E*� \�o�c Cv�vE2Z 17prc.c E� Z ail SL sn ` rv1 oar . Sf.CTroV SgcT LON sf n®o,J.c.,r�EV T C O r i . . 7Y2E99C� \ M�`CKEE 2.EroR21 '\J FLO,nI �ox CulvE2t1 uUotQ 17. 0 CPTS `R4r.^<m1W�J4R,.._ �NrSTOfL f�reE.J\_ - \� DETEQ1�lJE 2£@;10 FLOW pEoTN ,N cu%.�I62-( row, = 1-40 GFy I CO'Y .9y)1J\NCo Cmw�TINV\T`C 1 1� �UU11]Ce �cYUAT ,OUS'. (\e \z�g r S\I�z = Izo cFg WherC vJ- 1"rlow &,p h = p.0\'AS S= L/17 = o. 11 /34 - 0.00'� \.o I ------ — — -- ---- -- ---------- �•1 19,E 0 9.6f1 � . I,o� 19•_4 t 0,9tij_I _ \ zci— t]Wfc2-C._ __5�..1_O—___ ._L_.____ i OWOE Li KF.Lf FEL a ESSER OO. a R e To TN.IHCM v.... a n. . -/ z C��Ec4 I�E.po w7l Esc � �To,�w a-i!� r IZ.o �.Fs �e:ovt•1 = C<,.1' W+ _ 1 14-o, - 13 : 43 ' -� T 13. 4}' { \. 1 — �\•SQ p:Iw0Te2 3O• C>JTLF ( �V�� ERGEO TOUR U6 IO��E�¢ ��OW co1J f��T,UTJ4. E r✓ow�+F2 E4 -, \� • c Q2 CJIv��-k 2V CVly er.l \ny r.rE 11 Pu VP SZREr ,l tJ�C,•�-w'-( 2 cU bTL cTE2�S'LI cS I i . I I I i i ! i i i I I i i i i i i I I � � 11 i li i - ��b ern+Rene ewoe "NE 10 6621 KEUF+F:, @"ESSEF CO. IN f 0[e TO THe CH e -1A it kc oF P¢ �l°i � '^J \ 221121 `I Co 6t `/r t•ul P� 2cC �tz . ,:_v rDQryC- FcTc�"C 1Z� 1-\ G It:_�.."tc f:71'c r t n i:� . :'�'t- ' (•�. �•.I'C _. o r r( � �_ . '5 O -•_ \'l: 'C v1"( `'•C cat.;:.. 1 FCC c-.-., �:. 1-,...) , _ G-C•, 1 n zzll(T��>> +\^^. L.� ._\� •o 2",g\i 0141t.. XQ21�.• 7c 1'0,6 Cr.•^, t 1_,:_ i .t'.b;',iG O•L V"C•,o..l F-tv;c_ Ci 3.os' �oz L32 VV5 r P' 04, c+cp-lH O ,�rp' V� �rc t•� ,. _1 _ = 42FPg < SFc i f Vs Al .. d .00 .ae�:;t r, = O ,BA' Fuzz 1S cr ' Fro VS kuci ri - � '> — -� FF^". C Fa pPS Cy•�. r Tito 11f SEP 1 r 1311r 1977 Wtce SALEM CONSERVATION. COMM., REQUEST FOR REVIEW COMMENTS SPECIAL PERMIT DATE: � IJY177 TO: ( ) Building Inspector ( Jr-j Conservation Commission ( ) City Engineer ( ) Other: ( ) Board of Health Attached please find the application referenced below. The Planning Board requests that you review this application relative to Section VII of the Zcning`Ordinance. We would appreciate your completing the form below and returning it to us. Notice of the public hearing for this application will be forwarded to you. ( ) WETLANDS & FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICTS ( X) CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ( ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: .54/`Lm PROJECT NAME & ADRESS: P41 A9&6,2)lf�c l'c/ CONTACT PERSONS AND PHONE: Applicant: UQA �i�/A5'L City: 7/ 9C� COMMENTS DUE BY: /p� Zp�7 (Failure to comment within 35 days shall be deemed lack of opposition.) (, ) Concur with proposal .(Explain on reverse side) ( ) Need more information (Explain on reverse side) ( ) Cannot concur with proposal (Explain on reverse side) ( ) Comments included REVIEWER'S SIGNATURE TITLE DATE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMEOTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTIMW OF ENVIROIE'IEDTAL QUALITY ENGIIdEERING DIVISION OF I•TATERJAYS 100 NASHUA STREET BOSTON I$A 02114 May 22, 1978 Re: Notice of Intent Mr. Peter R. Beatrice, Jr. Salem Acres I Beacon Street Grading, Dredqing, Storm Drains Suite 800 Boston, MA 02108 Off Jefferson' Avenue Quadrant Road Dear Sir: ;.1 This will acknowledge r$ceipt of your Notice of Intent to perform work .subject to Chapter 131, Section 40 of the General Laws (as amended by Chapter 818 of the Acts of 1974). From your plan, Notice of Intent, and investigation by this Division, it has been determined that: ( ) ''Additional information will be required before a proper determination can be made. Please submit a sub-sketch on a small scale showing the general location of the proposed work, names of the pond or stream, and roads in the area, etc., in order that we can properly orient the location of the project. A United States Geological trap is ideal for this purpose. ( ) A license will not be required at this time under the provisions of Chapter 91 of the General Laws; however, a permit may be necessary from the local Conservation Commission subject to Chapter 131, Section 40; also, if a United States Army, Corps of Engineers permit is required, the applicant must apply to the Division of Water Pollution Control for a water Quality Certificate. ( X ) A license will be required at this time under the provisions of Chapter 91 Of the General Laws. Enclosed are rules and regulations for filing under said provisions. License applications will not be accepted unless accompanied by an Order of Conditions issued by-your local Conservation Commission. All work shall be subject to all other related provisions of law, by-laws, ordinances and regulations that may pertain. Very truly yours, . SAW JOHN J. HANDiON, P.E. Chief Engineer cc: Division of Wetlands Conservation Commission for Salem MAY 3 D 01978 �.j� SALEM CONSERVATION COMIyf It 01970 uI -a c ?: 1' ?7 Planni IIg .-'iOF.TG i �''Ji .on (IaS re g=8 � _., aOTol 'i0...C1�. C. `,' O aye 'iC"' a l;l �'r . �' .1st°._ Ju2Cial P?-"':U ''nd "'e _ 1m iin ..-mews to t!L2 -21a2:7t t the o C_ n thA o. ti 'C? r rai t1le City form p . t of the doC 17 ,ri p-t on o- i _e ian -* � of t 12 42i i r ou c ;ra.S not en. C> Je are un. < : ocommie- our C mts U,,�41 con-3 i-*,_.`,nS are G',n.l l;_;'!e . 2. J+Joti.on UT of te Zonjjz ^dinane, lS2T ? =idB' -ia 0�7;eYx'>> r2- i T . _ �. ouil-s .albmission of do C1.1Ti2n-,`,<ation o- !'aCti Or; TF �? ..,_ 1->;J� ' _ 1 a' _pendix ii of ha . a, ivi lion Regulations but none of this ..._S v een :rcluded. '-le believe that this aterial should be submitted by the developer and reviewed by all C ty 'revievrin, boa u's or depart,,-,.ents. 3 . of i'iCKinley Road should be Chan as a roar n 4- ad a-- e _oy off Hayes road is alr?ady so r_ai!Ied. ^lha namas of roads S,,',neral would be bettor i= based o', y hiStoxw or envirOn's . J _ -;eloper S O'il n2 _,Z ; od C r, a_ ? .,_.^_e ,ot.. as to , .a.ble the i.- O tteeriI... '•yOOS?G cons>.=dEi C. 13.�� . 1 „mod dcVe1QL:12a 10 be ,.',3 i�' as __s :ZOr. 'i". iana :^i1S sho"i.l:i iir' FO O^O5'd Co:s.. 'at1C n 1 _Os on tie o=LTi a'1:`, sou',,, v ton ,..iJ"• '.i,. , :i : :,a SIi;,�'i rn.^. . �� «T iO� �.,.i4_,� t l�eS .. O'. •, - 3n,... - �,ngP.- _vY.. i,?1 0 UO f a o. -pis a e l and ?_ote uc._ - Cec _ io follo i arproair:aie 10oa.iiO s ci 0:; -1C'.T a' .'iOS:l from -�h G -•O-,�• 'J2T.1'?:} 10 'J .a t�J� - �L1Veq b. O iTO^_F O. iirPCl:; _Drl';:1 8.`. �,` )_2.3ii, t'r:0 np .0,-1�; 10.`,3 . .'.. :Or all iOT'.l i'.C1II 1;J,,) f..e i. O_ C l 1' _. on _ 17;_`.P 0f 1 h-- !. 1 3ttd e .J:. 111 lOca.�l0"'.S OF �� .�iC:. _ __ .✓'-�i t 1..i?l:_ i ... - - -If j0'i :;:..., 1!1y other Qt i,,.arft. J cn .__ D:. �-,-lease. (— PICKMAN PARK DRAFT CONSERVATION RESTRICTION We of County of , Massachusetts, grant without covenant to the City of Salem, hereinafter referred to as the City, a conservation restriction on a parcel of land located in said City, bounded and described as follows: The terms of the conservation restriction are as follows: that neither we nor our successors or assigns will perform the following acts nor permit others to perform them, hereby granting to the city the right to enforce these restrictions against all persons: 1. No building, sign, outdoor advertising display, fence, mobile home, utility pole or other temporary or permanent structure will be constructed, placed or permitted to remain on said parcel, except as provided in paragraph four. 2. No soil, loam, peat, gravel, sand, rock or other mineral sub- stance, refuse, trash, vehicle bodies or parts, rubbish, debris, junk, waste or unsightly or offensive material will be placed, stored or dumped thereon. 3. No loam, peat, gravel, sand, rock, or other mineral resource or natural deposit shall be excavated or removed from said parcel in such a manner as to affect the surface thereon except as may be provided in paragraph four. 4. Not withstanding anything contained in paragraphs one through three, we reserve to ourselves, our successors and assigns the right to conduct or permit the following activities on said parcel: a. the cultivation and harvesting of crops and flowers, the plant- ing of trees and shrubs, and the mowing of grass. b. the necessary excavation and filling associated with the construction and installation of the proposed buildings, roads, and utilities described on ; provided the land shall be landscaped upon completion of the work. s - 2 - C. the installation of underground utilities. The foregoing restriction is authorized by G.L.Ch.184, Sec. 31-33, and is intended to retain said parcel predominantly in its natural, scenic and open condition in order to protect the natural and watershed resources of said city. The restriction shall be administered by the conservation commission of said city, established under G.L.Ch.40, Sec. 8C. The conservation restriction hereby conveyed does not grant either the city or the public any right to enter said parcel except as follows: 1. We grant to the city a permanent easement of access to enter said parcel, by its conservation commission, for the purpose of inspecting the premises and enforcing the foregoing restrictions and remedying any violation thereof. The right hereby granted shall be in addition to any other remedies available to the city for the enforcement of the foregoing restrictions. In witness thereof we have thereto set our hands and seals this day of 197 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of ss Then personally appeared the above-named and acknowledge the foregoing to be their free act and deed, before me. My commission expires APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL We, the undersigned City Council of the City of Salem, hereby certify that we approve the receipt of the foregoing deed under G.L.Ch.40, Sec. 8C as it has been and may be amended as requested by vote of the conservation commission of the City of Salem for the protection of the natural and watershed resources of the City. APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY The Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Common- wealth of Massachusetts, hereby certifies that he approves receipt of the within conservation restriction under G.L.Ch.184, Sec. 32. �,,�L � � I�tsinc�zgunrl " = Wnr _t5, airtu Gran December 29, 1977 Peter R. Beatrice, Jr. , Esq. Suite 800 6 Beacon Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Attorney Beatrice: In preparation for the Planning Board meeting on January 5, 1978, regarding Pickman Park, I came upon a few points in the Sub- division Regulations that should be addressed by Salem Acres. We are trying to cleanup any overlooked requirements that could possibly hamper the decision on the Definitive Plan. The first item (Pg. 9 Item 5 of the Subdivision Regulations) concerns "a statement describing conformance with the Master Plan or reasons for nonconformity". I, realize that this has already been required for approval of the Special Permit; however it is listed as one of the criteria that must.be met for approval of a Definitive Plan. The second item (Pg. 8 Item C) is "A certified statement as to encumbrances existing upon the land at the time of filing. Immediate- ly prior to the final approval of any plan and its submission to the Registry of Deeds, the applicant shall further certify that no change in encumbrances has occurred during the period of consideration of the Plan". I recommend that you have this information dated and in writing in the event that it is called for before a vote is taken. If you should be aware of any other points that need to be cleared up before the January 5th meeting, please contact me at the Planning Dept. (744-4580). Sincerely, Michael Moniz Planning Board Aid MM/pw Enclosure V P•B. JOHN EMERSON 120WG Z PRESERVATION PLANNER ARCHITECT13 CENTRAL STREET • �Q � w- SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 MEMO to Files TELEPHONE617-745-8444 Subject: Meetings with City Officials Re Pickman Park Proposal Plan dated March 1, 1977 Acting Marshal Connelly (police) RECEIVED Lt. Coggin (fire) MAK 8 'ly// Mr. Condon (electrical-fire boxes) Mr. Fletcher (engineer) SALEM PLANNING DEPT. Dates: March 1 and March 2, 1977 From: John V. Emerson A. Meeting with Acting Marshal Connelly 1) No concerns were expressed regarding the plan. He expressed concern that during construction trucks carrying dirt or loam take precautions not to leave material on adjacent streets which cause a dust nuisance. He offered his cooperation during construction. B. Meeting with Lt. Goggin 1) No concerns about dead-end residential streets. He had no objections to dead-end residential streets either in the duplex areas of the south or in the quadroplex area. He, therefore, saw no problem with the elimination of the loop road. 2) 15 hydrants required: He saw the need for 15 hydrants rationally distributed over the site including one on the wooded portion of Pickman Avenue Extension. The hydrants should always be placed before reaching the buildings to be served and not more than 500' on center. 3) Minimum pavement 17'-0" He was assured that no paved street or way would be less than 20' wide. 4) Care with street names: He was very concerned that street names be distinct and preferably in this area be those of generals or admirals. -1- JOHNEMERSON PRESERVATION PLANNER ARCHITECT13 CENTRAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS01970 TELEPHONE 617-745-8444 C. Meeting with Mr. Condon 1) Five fire boxes required: Five fire boxes will be required, located approximately as follows: a) Pickman Extension at the Y. b) Pickman Road at northwestern-most cluster (near B&M). c) Sumner Road Extension at connector road, d) Marion Road Extension halfway between Preston Road and new connector road. 2) 10 conductor cable required to service fire boxes. D. Meeting with Mr. Fletcher 1) Must follow systems standards strictly: a) Water lines must be looped. b) Drainage lines properly graded. c) Surface drainage as per standards. d) Waste as per standards. 2) Can do anything if private - however: a) Does not object to narrowed roadways if no on-street parking. b) No asphalt curbs; can use concrete. c) Does not object to dead-end streets if adequate area is provided to push and pile up snow. d) Sees no particular need for "loop" road (see c) above). e) Curbs should be used for "definition" of private property if for no better reason. -2- .�,-� Os (Y)I1,�i C®nservat®n Comr1 Fission Salem. Massachusetts 01970 April 6, 1977 Certified Mail Mr. & Mrs. Robert Tina 24 Monroe St. Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Tina: It was reported to the Commission that you have filled an area of the salt marsh opposite your house. The Commission inspected the area and found that the action is in violation of City Ordinance and State Law. Any further filling or dumping will result in the Commission taking legal action against you. Enclosed is a brochure describing the Wetlands Protection Act. Yours sincerely, Brian E. French Chairman BEF/sm encl. c.c. Dr. John J. Toomey, Department of Health pLJ51-jC HEARING "PICKMAN FARK" CLUS TZF( RF.,;S!j)FNTIAL r)Ft;VEL0Pf',;1r;TNT SUBDIVISION PLAIN rqoUcc is hereby given that the SACM CqY co"ju and We Salem Planning Hoard will con. duct i Pwit POW Awing On IMsday October OMAN PIL AW Awn HAK "M squarc, sjlcl-ll, on the applications of Whom Acres, Inc. for a Cluster 11'sulcild],11 I)c,,,cj,,,ucnt Special Pcrndt and approval of a Definitive. Iq, QUind "Definitive Sub. division Plan, Piclullan Palk. Siloin, jAzibs." dated March 0, 1977 prepared by Three Associates AY01vh9 im''d I(T,ILCd roughly heiv-ceiiduffer- son Avenue and the VcrcSt River bounded by , '11-" 13 & J I Railroad on the one side and the ends of Summer Roil MCI' Strect, Station Road. Road, Suricy Road, Pichrriall Road and V1eKinlcy Rood on the. other side. The Salem Planning" the public i hearing ill accordance ivjaSS General L Ch. 40A,a,.vs Board kill cou'do", Section 9 and Section 11 and if' accordance with Section VTI Sukection p4 of the Salcm Zoning Ordinance. JOS11-1111TINE, FUSCO City Clerk "Wer Fewer ITI . ("inairfil-In Pirninnir Scpl. Z2, 29, 1.977 `oN cgi�y� e e Comervaton Comn(-,�Nslon Salem. Massaclhusctts 01970 F� Nam. April 6, 1977 Mr. George Tassinari 22 Monroe Road Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Tassinari: It was reported to the Commission that you have filled an area of the salt marsh opposite your house. The Commission inspected the area and found that the action is in violation of City Ordinance and State Law. Any further filling or dumping will result in the Commission taking legal action against you. Enclosed is a brochure describing the Wetlands Protection Act. Sincerely yours, Brian E. French Chairman BEF/sm encl. c.c. Dr. John J. Toomey, Department of Health y 2" D LCE3 ,f p may Beatzice, �cCouzcy, cMa&ny and Outlaw ' SEP 719T/ Suite soo 6 23Eacon �StuEt SALEM CONSERVATION. COMM., 13oston, 4assaegusetfs 02108 get. 227-6060 .J etcx cR.Dwkiee,(�ax. �ox�lon 'S. dl'ti 'in E79ornas etru�s7,t�ian L>E&ugcy nqn+car F" -,� 1_1177 of C"'"l (?f�aaaetl 1/�. 'A�/�.40ny 1JaxxEt[-2. DatlaW Conservation Commission City of Salem .. .. Calem, 14assachusetts, 01970 Gentlemen; � - rE. pickman park The undersigned hereby submits a notice of petition for a Special permit for= a -cluster residential development, Section 7N, City of Salem Zoning ordinance, The plans already submitted to you by the planning Board are the final. plans for the development, very truly yours, - SlLEM ACRES, INC. by pe er%. Bear ce, , "eneral Counsel FRB/cros -- p s THE PICKMAN PROPERTY IN SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS: OPEN SPACE VERSUS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP6l-;NT Y k Janice Morris February 18, 1975 7 G �JJI44q"11JA'JJ7§ O�rl . TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............... ................... p.l IMPLICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT .................... p,4 BENEFITS OF OPEN SPACE p,15 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS ....:..................... D.20 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. - PUPIL IMPACT p,6 TABLE 2 - ENGINEERING COSTS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, p,7 TABLE 3 - EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER WEEKDAY ...... p,9 TABLE 4 - NOISE LEVELS FOR COMMON SOUNDS ....... p.12 TABLE 5 - IMPACT OF 260 UNITS ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ...........................0. p.13 TABLE 6 - RECREATIONAL SPACE REQUIREMENTS ...... p,16 INTRODUCTION Today, open-space in urban communities is rapidly disappearing as hap' hazard development spreads throughout our metropolitan and suburban areas. Land which could be used to meet recreational and ecological needs, while at the same time lending shape and form to our urban environment, is being lost forever as indiscriminate development continues as a means to meet an increasing demand for housing, During the past three years, several high-density residential develop- ments have either been proposed for the City or Salem, or are now under con- struction in the city. At present, 668 aces of undeveloped land remains in Salem which could be used for residential, commercial, or industrial develop- . mcnt.I Aside from the city's present system of parks and playgrounds, this figure also r.epresc;its the amount of vacant land which could be utilized to meet fut�.ire open-apace needs. If: growth is allowed to continue at the 1973 mate, the 31.4 acres of undeveloped residentially zoned land alone could dis- appear by 1977.2 Since it is this category of land that generally has the greatest, potential for recreational or open-space development, significant A parcels of this type will become more difficult to acquire and costly to pur- chase in the future thereby making it harder to meet a growing demand for such facilities on both a local and regional level. It now becomes necessary to assess community and regional needs and to examine the effects that residential development will have on the city in a terms of fiscal and environmental costs. Salem, like other urban communities, can no longer afford to view land as a commodity whose value is realized only upon development. Rather., it must be recognized that land in its natural state provides recreational opportunities and visual pleasures which have value to a populace as well as performing important ecological functions. Taking this into account, a community should assess not only the monetary gains to be returned from development, but also the social costs and benefits attached to such proposals. "Without a consideration of environmental costs, analysis may have a systematic bias leading to decisions that unnecessarily downgrade the human environment."3 Therefore, there is now a. need to iden- tify those costs and benefits that can be measured by the normal system of market pricing as well as those that are not so easily quantified. The purpose of the following report, then, is to assess the potential impact on Salem of a proposed single-family development to be built on a parcel of land 88.07 acres in size and located in the Ward 7 Jefferson Ave. district in Salem, Massachusetts. A cost-savings approach will be used in order to see whether the costs to the community from this development will be less or greater than the benefits that would be conferred: (1) First, revenues which would accrue to the city from the proposed residential devel- opment of 260 single-family homes will be compared to the fiscal cost of such development as suggested by the additional municipal facilities required; (2) Second, the environmental costs of such a project will be identified; i -3- (3) Third, community open-space needs will be examined and the benefits of such spaces will be described; (4) Finally, a conclusion and a summary will contain a comparison of costs and benefits so that a decision can be made as to the future use of the site based upon the most optimal use of this re- source. N 1 a1 e � I lost sr ® —i z �� 1 i �• , cb i i —o- i HUM III r S � ° ® I j i � �• ` �/ �7 // .r. : •'''ids t ®!: --.. ry n a t N 0 r m m o oTV -4- IMPLICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED REVENUES The major source of revenue accruing to the community would be collected from the property tax charged to each dwelling unit and the land upon which it is built. Mr. Ugo DiBiase, president of Salem Acres, Inc., has submitted plans for the construction of 260 three and four-bedroom single-family homes to be priced at an average cost of $42,000.00. Property tax on each of these units at $56.00 full valuation would be $2,352.00. The total anticipated revenue from all units. would then total $611,520.00 per year. Another significant source of income to the community would come from the automobile excise tar,. In order to determine anticipated revenues from this tax, it was first necessary to find the average number of cars register- ed to each household in .the city. A figure of 1.6 was found by dividing 21,600 (the total number of cars registered inthe city as reported by the Assessor's Office) by 13,631 (the total number of households as reported by the U.S. Census of Housing). This figure was then multiplied by 260, the proposed number of units to be built, giving a figure of 41.6 as the number of cars to be expected. It was then necessary to arrive at .an average yearly excise ta;;. A fig- ure of $88.77 was derived by averaging the average yearly excise tax on a small car (Chevy Vega) with the average yearly excise tax on a ls.rge car (Chevy Impala).4Finally, by multiplying 416 by $8%77, the total antici- pated revenue from an excise tar, applied to these automobiles ;..s foe:nd ro equal $36,928.32 annually. Total revenue to be expected per year is thus: the sum of .anticipated -5- yearly property tax revenues and anticipated yearly excise tax revenues for an annual total of $648,448.32. ANTICIPATED MUNICIPAL COSTS Revenues must now be compared to anticipated yearly costs. A development of 260 single-family homes would necessitate the expansion of municipal ser- vices, including schools, drainage, sewers, water, road maintenance and re- pair, fire and police protection, recreational areas, and additional admin- istrative duties. After interviewing city officials, it was found that only the costs of providing additional engineering, health, and educational ser- vices to the new development would be significant. Sargeant Carbone of the Salem Police Department maintained that both the present number of men in his department and existing equipment would be adequate to service such a project. Any additional costs would result from added police calls, a figure which he could not estimate. Similarly, Lieutenant Coggin of the Salem Fire Department felt that his men and:;.cquip,-.. ment would be able to handle the demands of the new development. 'Increased budgetary costs, however, could not be calculated because costs increase in relation to the increase in calls,, a figure that the Lieutenant could not estimate. All other departments, with the exception of the Salem Health Department.which provided an arbitrary figure of $30,000.00, "felt that the impact of such a development would not necessitate significant departmental expenditures or the expansion of existing facilities. However, as seen by the following sections, the cost of offering educational and engineering services would definitely, result in an added burden to community taxpayers. School Costs According to Mr. F. McConnell, Superintendent of Schools, a project of -6- 260 three and four-bedroom single-family homes will increase the public school population by a net figure of 400 students. Per a communique dated March 2, 1974, the completion of a new high-school and the renovation of the existing building to a 7th and 8th grade facility would alleviate the need for addition- al classroom space for these age groups. However, a 250 student increase. in grades K through 6 would require 10-12 more classrooms when based upon a 20-1 student-teacher ratio. As stated by Superintendent McConnell, this could necessitate the construction of a new elementary school at an estimated cost. of $1.4 million, exclusive of site acquisition and development. Working with the present $1,200.00 per pupil operating cost, the increased annual cost to the community would then be $480,000.00 while the minimum capital outlay would be $1.4 million. TABLE 1 - PUPIL IMPACT Units Proposed Pupils Expected Facilities Required Total ldimimum K-6 K-12 K-6 7-12 Annual Capital Cost Cost 260 three and 250 150 10-12 more . None $480,000 $1.4 million four-bedroom classrooms for new elemen- single-family tary school homes Engineerinp Costs Engineering services provided by the city include the maintenance of sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water system; repair and maintenance of all streets; and the South Essex District maintenance assessment. The additional cost of providing these services plus a loss in water revenue due tothe fact that low water rates do not cover the operating expenses of the water system would total $34,000.00 annually. In.addition, $171,000.00 would be spread over a three year period in order to construct a Line "D" sanitary sewer. -7- TABLE 2 - ENGINEERING COSTS Service Costs Sanitary Sewer Maintenance ................$ 8,000. Storm Sewer Maintenance ................... 5,000 Water System Maintenance .................. 6,000. Street Repair & Maintenance ... .......... 8,000. South Esser: Sewerage District Maintenance Assessment- (due to proposed development)...; 3,500. Loss in Water Revenue- (due to the proposed developmennr),........., .... 3,500. Capital Costs Total Service Costs.....:$ 43,100. Sanitary Serer Lane "D" Construction ......$ 56,000. Survey, Borings & Drafting Costs .......... . 1.5,000. Engineering & Inspection Costs for the Line "D" Sanitary Sewer ana Corczruction 4 l• {� of the Picicman Park Subdivision ..........$100,000. o Total Capital Costs.,......$171,000. � 0 17 /-10- FISCAL IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT Based upon these findings, it can be seen that the total estimated cost to the city for providing health ($30,000.), educational ($480,000.), and engineering ($34,000.) services to an additional 260 single-family units would be, at a minimum, $544,000„ annually, and could increase if other departments later found it necessary to raise budget demands. This figure can be subtracted from $648,448.32, , the total anticipated revenues. As seen below, a figure of $104,448.32 is then derived which represents the annual returns to be generated by the proposed development. $648,448.32 (Total 'Articipated Yearly Revenue) 544,00O.00 (Total Anticinated Ye.=.r.iy Cots) $104,448.32 (Tot.a1 Anticipated Yearly Benefits) However, not only will such growth require .a minimum capital expenditure of $1,571,000 (the cost of providing ex0 anded' sewerage facilities and additional classrooms - if .present facilities prove inadequate) but, as will be demonstrated in the following sections, certain environmental costs will also be incurred. ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS Although the total revenue to be collected by the community will cover the additional annual costs expected (exclusive of necessary capital expen- ditures and not taking into account cost increases due .to inflation), ,this figure does not include the environmental impact of further development upon the city. With a proposed development of 130 three-bedroom homes and 130 four-bedroom single-family units, a 4"/ increase in the population can be anticipated.5 major factors to be considered then include increased levels of pollution in the city and added pressures on the ecosystem. Increased Air Pollution In order to discover the level of emissions that would be expelled by vehicles that would be driven by residents of the proposed development, it was first necessary to find out how many miles these residents would travel per weekday in the city. According to Crouch and Weintraub,6 each new dwelling unit will add 10 automobile trip-ends (defined as one-half of a round-trip). With 260 units constructed, this would mean that an additional 2,600 trip-ends would be made in Salem per weekday. This figure can then be multiplied by 5 miles (the average auto-trip as reported in transportation studies which indicates that 13,000 more miles will be travelled per week- day in Salem. Using this 1.3,000 miles per weekday figure, it is then possible to deter- mine a pounds per weekday emission figure for pollutants emitted in auto- mobile exhaust gases due to theadditional traffic on city streets. In order to arrive at a pounds per weekday figure for hot-running emissions, it is first necessary to multiply the 13,000 miles travelled per weekday by the -9- grams. per mile emitted for each pollutant and to then divide this answer by 453.6, the grams per pound. To discover a pounds per weekday emission figure for cold-start emissions, it is necessary to multiply the grams per start emitted for each pollutant by 2,600, the number of additional trip- ends made and to then divide this figure by 453.6, the grams per pound.8 The table below gives the gram per mile emission figure for hot-running emissions and a gram per start emission figure for cold-start emissions as well as the total emissions in pounds per weekday to be expected. TABLE "A - EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER i1EEMDAY HOT-RUNNING EMISSIONS COLD-START EMISSIONS TOTAL EMISSIONS Emittant gm/mi9 Emissions in gm/start10 Emissions in Total Emissions Pounds Pounds in Pound;: 1977 NO 2.54 72.80 2.49 14.27 87.07 (expect- CO 22.18 635.67 91.40 523.90 1159.57 ed level) HO 3.32 95.15 5.18 29.69 124.84 1977 NO 2.54 3816.44 2.49 748.26 4564.70 (present CO 22.18 33326.00 91.40 27466.34 60792.00 i.evel) HO 3.32 4988.42 5.18 1556.63 6545.05 Although pollutants emitted will decrease over time due to improved pollution control technology, air pollution will continue to add costs to the community. "Air pollution is now recognized not only as an agent that rots nylon stockings and windshiled wiper blades, that corrodes paint and steel, blackens skies and wash on the clothesline, and damages $500,000,000.00 worth of crops annually; it is also recognized as a killer of people."11 Thus, particulate matter in.the air has adverse effects on property as well as on human health, with real costs attached to both. Health Costs Certain health costs can be attributed to air pollution in the form of -10- medical costs incurred and foregone earnings resulting from premature death. 12 For, example, as stated by Paul Ehrlich:73 Carbon monoxide tends to cause suffocation by occupying the high speed transport system which in the human or- ganism usually guarantees a steady renewal of the supply of oxygen necessary to maintain metabolism in the cells. When oxygen supplied to the cells is reduced, the heart must work harder, as must the respiratory system. Nitrogen oxide affects man in much the same way 14while chronic exposure to lead from auto exhausts can cause lead poisoning, a cumulative poison with symptoms such as loss of appetite, weakness, .apathy, and lesions of the neuromuscular system, brain, and gastrointestinal tract.15 Other diseases such as cancer of the stomach, espophagus, and bladder can also be attributed to air pollution, a relationship which has been studied by Lave and Seskin and detailed in an EPA report entitled, "Cost of Air Pollution Damage":16 . Approximately half the foregone income: and current medical expenses associated with bronchitis morbidity and mortality are ascribed to air pollution. The coefficient for lung, cancer that is attributable to air pollution is 0.25. In the other categories, air pollution is responsible for 15 percent of the damages as,;ociated with nonrespiratory lung cancers, 25 percent of all respiratory diseases other than bronchitis, and 10 percent of the cardiovascular diseases. These coefficients were estimated by regressions that were run on data from published epide-I.iologi.cal studies in which the morbidity rates were expressed as functions of air pollution and selected socioeconomic variables. The total annual cost for increases in human morbidity and mortality caused by air pollution is $2.08 billion for 1963; stated inversely, a 50 percent reduction .in air pol- lution would result in an annual savings of $2.08 billion. The indw: -that Lave and Seskin prefer is that air pollution damage amounts to 4.5 percent of all economic damage associ- ated with morbidity and mortality. While it is knolem that a rise in sulfate levels and particulates in the air - ill have an ad'verse effect on human health, it is impossible to get an accurate dollar measure. According to Lave and Seskin, the do'._::, fi-:es not only understate relative eoets:but also the values used to denote for- -11- gone earn ings. 17 Effects on Property Values and Out-of-Pocket Costs R.G. Ridker and J.A. Henning identify the following adverse effects on property as a result of air pollution: s02- Damage to freshly applied paint, causing it to dry more slowly, malting it more permeable to water, and causing it to flake more rapidly. H2S- Damage and discoloring of paints. H2s04 Corrosion of metal and stone. All of the above compounds also contribute to the irritation of eyes, nose, and throat, and cause damage to vegetation as we1118 In addition, it was noted that if a .25 mgS03/100cm2-day reduction was realized, the value of a single-family home would increase from $83.00 to $245.0019 Other studies also indicate a link between sulfate levels and changes in property values. Research done by R.J. Anderson and T.D. Crocker indicate that decreases in sulfation levels plus a 10mg/m3-day decrease in suspended particulates would increase property values anywhere from $300.00 to $700.00. 20 Then, " a study in St. Louis found that property values are linearly related to mean annual sulfation rates. When sulfation levels were divided into eight equal zones of rising intensity, values appeared to decline about $250 per lot per zone, other things remaining constant."21 Taking an average estimate of these figures, a $315.00 reduction in property values can be expected due to an increase in the level of pollution in the community. If ,most damage is done, as suggested, to homes u4thin closest proximity to the source of pollution, the 1,092 homes within a mile radius to Pickman Park (as disclosed by census tract data) will suffer an accunulated loss of $343,980.00. In addition, a rise in out-of-pocket yearly expenses will occur for such items as dry-cleaning, car washes, and painting. -12- W ith a 2% rise in pollutants emitted in .the community due to project automobiles, the 1973 per capita figure for out-of-pocket expenses will rise from $65.00 22 to $66.30 with an increase in cost to present residents of $52,722.80. Noise Pollution Although not as significant a factor as other types of pollution, the effects of noise should also be considered. High levels of noise c,%n cause hearing and a decrease in residential property,'•:hi.lc a "number of researchers have claimed that there is a connection between noise levels in the modern city and an increase in tension, hypertension and heart disease." 23 As explained by Paul Ehrlich, "noise pollution is usually measured in decibels, and a 10-fold increase in the strength of a sound adds 10 units on the decibel scale, a. 100-fold increase usually adds 20 decibels, while si- lence is represented by 0."24 A small increase in the decibel level of a noise may thus significantly increase the nuisance level'. The follo-ring table gives the noise level.,: of common household arct street sounds: TABLE 4 NOISE UVELS FOR CONNON.SOUNDS Threshold of hearing 0 Normal breathing 10 Leaves rustling in breeze 20 Whispering 30 Quiet office 40 Homes 45 Quiet restaurant 50 Conversation 60 Automobile 70 Food blender 80 Niagara Falls at base 90 Heavy automobile traffic or jet aircraft passing over-head 100 Jet aircraft taking off 120 A study conducted in 1956 by the New York Times found that the sound of automobile traffic was the most annoying.26 Given this fact, the proposed -13- development will then produce some negative effects in relation to noise pollution as it adds approximately 416 additional automobiles tothe roads. Solid Wastes According to Figures given by the Department of Health in Salem, solid waste generated per person in the city amounts to 5.3 pounds per day. An additional 1,820 persons added to the city population would then add 9,646 pounds of waste to the amount produced per day. The following table des- cribes what this will mean in terms of collection and generation per week.27 TABLE 5 - IMPACT Or 260 UNITS 0,820 persons) ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Waste generated, pounds per week 67522 Compacted waste, cubic yards per week 148 Trips per week with 20 cubic yard truck 7.44 Time per week (including hauling) 1.44 Total time per, week 14.50 While Salem now has adequate facilities to treat any additional solid wastes generated by the proposed development, the amount of waste generated per capita is expected to increase 45% by 1980.28 This anticipated increase, coupled with more waste generated in the community as a result of a rise in city population, may necessitate the expansion of existing facilities in the near future with added costs to the taxpayer. In addition, an increase in solid waste materials will have a greater impact on the environment. Unless properly regulated, incinerators expell significant amounts of particulate matter into the air, while sanitary land- fills not only require land mass, but they also create problems by adding dust to theatmosphere and nonbiodegradable materialr, to the earth's surface. Water Pollution With development comes an increase in paved surfaces and a possibility of disturbing ecologically critical acquifer recharge areas which absorb mois- -14- tune and increase groundwater supplies. Further, as stated in Urbanization and the Environment, a health hazard can result: "Ratios of storm ,later to other raw sewage constitutents indicate that during storms the actual instan- taneous concentration of pollutants in urban run-off may equal or exceed the concentrations of the same pollutants in sanitary sewage.1129 With property slopes measured in ranges of 0-5% to 10-15%, the most opti.- mal range in terms of minimal environmental impact is a 5-10% slope, Since the Pickman property is characterized by levels ranging from 0-15%, develop- ment in some areas may present little environmental damage while drainage problems, erosion, and groundwater contamination may occur in other portions. -15- BENEFITS OF OPEN SPACE Open-space is not merely vacant land which, at some future date, teill provide the economic returns attached to development. Rather, it must be seen that in its natural state it possesses ecological, recreational, and economic value as well. Having almost disappeared in any significant quan- tity in most urban areas today, future uses of the land must be carefully considered in order to optimize social as well as private benefits. ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS Vegetation in urban areas tends to stabilize temperatures and decrease extremes of both moisture and heat while at the same time providing air sheds, or passages, in the city which act to disperse particulate matter and to draw cleaner, cooler air in from the country or the ocean. Studies of the Hyde Park area in London reveal that green spaces reduce smoke concentrations by 27%,30 while Landsberg in 1947 discovered that •a 600' wide green belt can lower the dust count by 75%.31 Reductions of sulfur dioxide by 22%, hydro- gen sulfide by 77, and ni.tro.-en oxides by 276 can also be attributed to the presence of green zones.32 Therefore, in addition to providing buffer zones against noise pollution, preventing erosion, and limiting urban run-off and water pollution, veget-tion can improve climatic conditions and reduce levels of both particulate and gaseous pollution in the atmosphere thereby lowering costs attached to pollution. This latter function is especially important in an area like Salem where historical and recreational sites draw tourists who reach the city almost exclusively by private automobile. ECONOMIC BENEFITS Open-space areas, while absorbing land which could be developed to in- -16- crease a city's ta.. base, can also provide economic returns. For example, as stated in Open Space for. Urban America, a state park which was created . near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has raised nearby land values three to five times and improved the city's tax base.33 It was also reported that a rise in land values in property bordering a local park have produced a rise in taxes collected in Union County, New Jersey which has more than paid park operating costs, interest, and amortization of park. bonds.34 These studies have implications for Salem. The creation of a large urban park in a city of historic interest will not only increase property values near the site, but when tied to the area's other natural as well as hi.storic resources, will serve to attract outside revenue in the form of tourist dollars, and without incurring the additional municipal and environ- mental costs attached to residential development. While tourism does increase vehicular traffic, and thereby produces increased levels of air pollution, a transportation study now in progress will present plans to enable Salem to effectively channel tourist traffic so that problems of congestion. and pollution will be minimized. SATISFYING RECREATIONAL NEEDS Open-space not only provides ecological and economic benefits, . but it also supplies a city and its wider region with needed recreational opportun- ities. The following table presents standards for recreational areas a, compiled by the Bure. 0 of Outdoor Recreation.'5 TABLE 6 - RECREATIONAh SPACE REQUIREMENTS Type of R,�,crcational Area Acres/1000 Pop. In-Ci.ty Recr^ati.on 10.00 (National Recreation Assoc.) Playgrounds (4-7 acres each) 1.25 Playfield (1.2-20 acres each) 1..25 Minor Parks 2.50 Major Parks (1.00 acres each) 5.00 -17- TABLE 6 - RrCREATIONAL SPACE REQUIREMENTS (cont.) Type of Recreational Area Acres/1000 Pop. County and Metropolitan regional Parks and Beaches 20.00 (National Park Service) Intensive Use Areas 5.00 Parks and National Areas 15.00 State Parks 45.00 (National Part: Service) General Recreational Areas 15.00 Natural Areas 30.00 Total 75.00 Salem, i•:ith a population of 40,556 and 486.56 acres of recreational land (including a 270.63 acre municipal golf course) now has an adequate supply of open-space in terms of the standard acreages (as- suggested by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation). necessary to meet current needs. However, the Boston Metropolitan area, as defined by the Massachusetts Area Planning Council, presently has a deficit of 22,000 acres for a population of 2.7 million per- sons, and this deficity will increase unless new acquisitions of open spr;ce are made 36 The North Shore region alone is expected to grow from a cur- rent population of 753,000 to 980,000 by 199037 This will produce even heavier pressures on an already extensively developed coastline by residents of local communities as well as by tourists to the area. Considering a scarcity of significant areas of open-space on the North Shore in particular and the Boston Metropolitan region in general, Salem is .inique in posses,Eing a large tract of undeveloped land within city borders. Highland Park is a large parcel which has escaped, developmcnt due to its rocky, ledgey topograpby3II ,It abut'ts and is separated from the site of the proposed deveiopmenL by a body of water, and together these parcels could foirm an important source of open-space in this urban community. While other land exists which could be used to meet future housing demand, few ;18- parcels are of such a size or in as desirable a location.` The development of this property would thus mean a loss to the community of a valuable natural resource., 'Left in an open state, it could be developed to accomodate nature trails and bicycle paths arhich are not provided in existing playgrounds or parks. Furthermore, such an area could increase Salem' s value as a center of historical, natural, and educational interest. FINANCING OPEN-SPACE Several avenues are open to the City of Salem if they choore to acquire this parcel .and develop it as a natural open-space recreational area. Two federal programs and a state program offer aid to communities who wish to expand their supply of such areas. Open Space Land Program Administered by the Department of. Housing and Urban Renewal, matching grants are authorized for up to fifty percent to both states and local hodies who wish to expand open-space areas, restore historic areas, or to beautify . or increase the enjoyment of open-spaces.39 In addition, demonstration grants are also available which cover up to 90% of the cost of a project which creates innovative methods for carrying out the above objectives. Land and Water Conservation Fund Appropriations by Congress are.given to:the states to help finance "50% of the coat of preparing and maintaining recreation plans, acquiring land and water areas, and developing areas for outdoor recreation purposes which are in accordance with a comprehensive statcva.de outdoor recreation plan."`FO Acquisition near or in urban areas is considered of prime importance as is the development of basic recreational facilities.41 -19- Massachusetts Conservation Self-Help Program This program (state) reimburses a town up to fifty percent of the to:an's net cost of approved land acquisitions and, in some cases, recreational plan- ning and design".42 I£ federal funds are also utilized, costs to the town or city could be as low as 25% of the total purchase price. What this could mean for Salem With 50% federal financing, the cost of acquisition to Salem would be $880,700, or half. of the present assessed value of $1,761,400. By paying 3% down, or $26,421.00, the cost of acquisition for Salem will be as follows based on a 5-3/4% interest rate over a 20-year period. $880,700 (Cost of land with 50% federal funding) _+ 464 078 (interest paid over a 21-year period at 5-3/4/) $1,344,788 Total cost to the city This cost could be considerably reduced if a. combination of federal and state funds are used to bring Salem' s share of acquisition costs to 25% of the purchase price. Under these conditions, the cost to Salem would be $440,350. By again paying 3%, down, or A3,210.50, costs over. a 20-year period at 5-3/4% i.nte.rc,t -would be as follows: $440,350 (Cost of land with 7511a state and federal funding) 257,885 (Interest paid over a 20-yeas period at 5-3/4%) $698,235 (Total cost to the city) Salem could further decrease her share of acquisition costs if a demon- stration program vrere created under the Open Land Program of HUD. By using innovative methods to create a novel program which' emphasizes and links Salem' s historical and natural resources �ihile providing recreational and open-space opportunities for local and regional demand, Salem could be granted 90% of the funding necessary for acquisition and development, thereby i having to finance only $176,140.00 or slightly more than the cost of providing, ,/ expanded sewer lines to a residential development. 1I -20- SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS With a knowledge of the costs and benefits attached to residential devel- opment, it is now possible to compute the benefits to be derived from such a . project. Costs $544,000.00 (Annual cost to provide municipal services to the proposed. subdivision) 52,722.30 (Annual costs of cleaning due to an increase in pollution) 343,980.00 (Reduction in property values due to increased • + levels of air pollution) $9w,702.80 (Cost. of Development to the Community) In addition, the minimum capital outlay required to provide educational and engineering services to the new subdivision would be $1,571,000.00. Benefits: $648,488.32 (Sum of anticipated yearly revenues to be collected from property and excise taxes) Benefits, - Costa: $646,486.32 (Anticipated benefits) - 940, 702.80 (Anticipated costs) $292,214.48 (Net Cost of Development to the Community) Again, one must include the minimum capital outlay of $1,57.1,000.00 that would be needed to service the development with sewers and elementary class- rooms. As can be seen from the quantifiable data, a net deficit rather than a ne.t benefit results; the anticipated yearly revenues to be collected 'barely cover necessary annual expenditures, while the additional social costs, when quantified and added to municipal costs, reduce existing benefits. In addition, not only would there be major capital expenditures required, but certain environmental costs such as erosion, urban run-off, illness due to air pollution, damage to acquifer recharge areas, and noise pollution must also be considered, even if they cannot be easily quantified. When all factors are balanced against the existing scarcity of large tracts suitable for urban recreational or open-space purposes, and the current availability of less environmentally critical parcels where residen- tial growth could take place, it is evident that more benefits to the community could be derived from developing a natural open-space area which wouidincludc Highland Park and the proposed development site. Federal and statefunds could substantially reduce the cost of acquisition and develop- ment while risingland values near the area could c 1 provide direct monetary returns in addition to the intangible social benefits which would be realized. -22- FOOTNOTES 1. Salem Planning Department, "Housing in Salem", May, 1974, p.19, 2. Ibid., p.25 3. Stephen 0. Anderson, "Concepts of. Cost Benefit Analysis", Thomas G. Dickert & Katherine R. Domeny, eds., Environmental Impact Assessment: Guidelines and Correntary, U. of Calif. Press, Berkely, 1974, p.93. 4. Harbridge House, Inc., Decision for Newton, Boston, Mass., June, 1974, p.Ii-5. 5. This figure arrived at by using the state multiplier of 2 persons per bedroom as provided by the Salem Health Department. 64 R.L. Crouch.. R.E. Weintraub, "Cost-Benefit Analysis of a PUD, Urban Land, June, 1973, p.10 7, Harbridge House, Inc., Decision for Newton, Boston, Mass., June, 1974, p.II-19. S. Ibid., p. II-21.. 9. General Research Corp., "Morning Vehicle Start Effects on Photochemical Smog", Table 5, California Air Resources Report, Air Pollutioaa Control in California, as cited in Decision for Newton, Harbridge House, Inc., p. II-20. 1.0. Ibid., p, 1I_20. 11. Paul Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment., W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1972, p,147. 1.2, Lester B. lave & Eu;ene P. Seskin, "Air Pollution and ''Human health," Robert Dorfman & Nancy S. Dorfman,,_.eds., Economics of the Environment, W.W. Norton & Co., Inc,:; N.Y., 1972,. p.383. 13. Paul Ehrlich, op, cit. � p. 149. 1.4, Ibid., p. 150. 15. Ibid. , p. 166. 16. Larry B. Barrett &. Thomas E. Waddell Cost of Air Pollution Damage: A Status Report, National Environmental Research Center, EPA, Research Triangle Park, N.C., Fed. 1973, p. 10-11. 17. Lester B. Lave & Eugene P. Seskin,"Air Pollution and Human Health", Robert Dorfman &. Nancy S. Dorfman, eds, Economics of the Environment, W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., N.Y., 1972, p. 383. 18. R.G. Ridker & J.A. Henning, "The Determinants of Residential Property Values with Special Reference to Air Pollution, Review of. Economics & Statistics, Vol. 499 May 1969, p. 248, cited in Decision in Newton, Harbridge House Inc., Boston, Maas., June, 1974, p, I1-25. 1.9. Ibid; p.II-25. 20. R. J. Anderson & T.D. Crocker, Air Pollution and Housing: Some Findings." Paper no. 264. Presented at the Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic and Management Sciences, Krannert Grad. School of Industrial Admin- istration, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, Dec. 1969, cited in Ibid. , P. II-25. -23- 21. Alan V. Kneese, "Economics and the Quality of the Environment: Some Empirical Experiences", Alain C. Enthoven & A. Myrick Freeman III, eds., Pollution, Resources and the Environment, W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1973, p.77. 22. Harbridge House, Decision for Newton, Boston, Mass. June, 1974, p.Il-27. 23. Detayler. & Marcus, eds., Urbanization and the Environment, Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Mass., 1972, p. 24. Paul Ehrlich, Population. Resources Environment, W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1972, p.176. 25. Ibi&, p. 177. 26. Detwyler & Marcus; .eds,, Urbanir._ti:on; and the Environment, Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Mass., 1972, p. _117. 27. Adapted from Real Estate Research Corp.,"Environments!. and Economic Effects of Alternative Development Patterns", prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality, Aug., 1973, p.IV•-15, cited in Decision for Newton, Harbridge House, Boston, Mass. , p.II-31. 28. Ibid., p. II-30 . 29. Detwyler & Marcus, eds. , Urbanization & the Environment, Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Mass., 1Y ., p.116. 30. Ibid. , p. 84 31. Ibid., p. 84 32. Ibid., p. 87 33. Ann Louise Strong, Open Space for Urban America, prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C,, 1965, 34. Ibid. 35. Massachusetts Area Planning Council, Open Space and Recreation Plan and ProLram, Vol, I., Prepared through a Federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, April, 1969, p. 26. 36. Ibid., p. 26. 37, Ibid., p. 39. 38. Ibid., p. 82. 39. Ibid., Vo. IV., p. 91. 40. Ibi.d. , Vol. IV., p. 94. "I. Ibid., Vol. IV., p. 94. 42. Ibid., Vol. IV. , P. 95. V� _24- B I BL IOGRAPIIY 1. Anc'er.son, Stephen 0., "Concepts and Methods of Benefit-Coat Analysis!', Environment,-,l 1moact Assessment; Guidelines and Commentary; eds., Dickert, Thomas G. & Domeny, Katherine R., U. of California Press, (Berkeley, 1974). 2. Bosselman, Fred &: Callies, David, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, Prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. , 1971. 3. Chapin, Stuart F., Jr., Urban Land Use Planning, University of Illinois Press, (Urbana, I11, 1965 . 4. Crouch, R.L. & Weintraub, R.E., "Cost-Benefit Analysis of a PUD'; Urban Land, June, 1973. 5. Detwyler & Marcus, .,eds.I Urbanization and the Environment, Duxbury Press, (North Scituate, Mass. , 1972 . 6. Dorfman, Robert & Nancy S. , Economics of the Environment, W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. (N.Y., N.Y., 1972). 7. Ehrlich, Paul & Anne H., Population Resource Environment, W-,H. Freeman & Co. , (San Francisco, 1972). S. Harbridge House, Inc., Decision for. Newton,(Boston, Mass., June, 1974.). 9. Litchfield, Nathaniel, "Cost-Benefit Analysis in City Planning", Journal of American Institute of. Planners, Vol. XXVI, No. 4, Nov. 1960. 10. Lynch, Kevin, Site Planning, M.I.T. Press, (Cambridge, Mass., 1962). 11. M.A.C.P., Olrzn Spry c and. Recre•sti.on Plan and Pror>ra7 for Bocton. Vol I & IV., prepared through a Federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, April, 1969. 13. McHarg, Ian, D�!sig:i with Nature, Doubleday & Co., (Garden City, N.Y., i971). 14. Sch:-;erts, Mildred F. , ed., Open Space for People, American Institute of Planners; An anthology of papers presented at the 1970 International Conference of the Commission on Town Planning of the Union Internationale des Architectes.