ZONING AMENDMENT ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS B-5,DENSITY REGULATIONS PARKING REGULATIONS,B-5 DISTRICT - PLANNING (Planning Board Report to Council
+Regarding Zoning Amendment
JQ Q �l
1�9 �2) g� ghAnS
k
�i1i1' 1 Ii:Aa C: 3 �.ex:Cd -
7izn:> 12 , 1-9 7 a
i':embels of Lho CiLy CouncL]. .
City c Sal.e:n _..
9 aashington SL..cec,L -
.Cia ler{l, I�iaS as OI1U56't tS 01970 -
Gentlem.-n :
e
The Saler{ Planning Board has asked me to res e rc1 the
ordinance proposed by Ward 4 Councillor- t•Sichael E, O ' Brien
t:ith respect tO maximuti height of bui_ldi_ngs in R-2 and PI-S
Distric'c.s . It was the pa.rti.cutar concern of the Planning
Board that the proposed ordinance i,iay be in conflict t•,ith
existing state laws , as was indicated to the City Council
in the Planning Board' s letter of P-lay 9 , 1974.
In order to resolve this rnatter I spoke with Mrs . Acle=ze
BrO.'rn Of the Massachusetts Department of Com.3 .unity Affairs
(D.C.? . ) , 100 CalnbrldC0 Street , BOstOn , Massachusetts 02108 ,
telephone number 1-72.7-7180 , on Monday, May 20 , 1974 , Mrs .
Br_o;,n is a. com:nuni-ty developi:Fent special-=is t , dealing par
t1.Cu1a3--ly with subsidized housing In Massachusetts, and
she indicated that from the legal e`;p=•r:i.ence of D. C.A. in
such matters , proposed subsidi•r,.rd hol'Isi_ng projects must
cenforn! to local zoning ordinances . Also , local r- iici
pal.it.ies have the right to make zoning changes according
to state enabling legislation,. and if a community wished to
down zone' , as is the case in Salem, it has the legal .right
to do so, Consequently, there should be nO coni li.C:"t be-Weenthis proposed zoning change and existing Massachasetts laws ,
especially 1<<-ws relating to subsidized housing.
I would therefore conclude that the proposed ordinance
change :should receive the support of the Planninc, Board and
should also receive second passage by the Salem City Council.
Sincerciv yours ,
W. G et{O!_y Senl:O
City Planner
lYGS/kms .
cc Mayor Levesque
Salem Planning Board
THOMAS BE%dUOE
a is6%C6 Lent ��J��LLS��iS�.d�� AEay BI nsMICHE:nFN
V ni.C.Y I;NE.
RE, Gffki rr
Q7Ca
JANE LU.Np=Ec-,
- TA
CITY / RAYMOND
p SMICr.eY
CITYp Ab6CE fi, i.AA•AA�
®le'Y�i.'t'Ia t'1(��id•
June 27, 1974
Members of the City Council
City of Salem
93 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Gentlemen:
In a letter dated May 9 , 1974 the Planning Board requested
thirty (30) additional days to investigate further the change
in the zoning ordinance proposed by Ward 4 Councillor Michael E.
O'Brien specifically regarding repeal of Section VI, subsection
A, Table I entitled "Residential Density Regulations" with re-
spect to maximum height of buildings in R-2 and R-3 Districts.
_ During this additional study period the Planning Board had
requested and has subsequently received a recommendation
from the City Planner dealing with those parts of the pro-
posed zoning change which the Board felt were important. in
the Board at its regular meeting on Thursday, June 21, 1974,
making its recommendation. (See enclosure) Additionally,
discussed this matter fully and arrived at the following
recommendation.
The Planning Board, by a vote of seven to zero, with
seven members present, is in favor of the proposed zoning
change, and further recommends second passage of this matter
by the City Council.
Singerely yours,
Gerald T. McCarthy / I
Chairman '
e
GTM/kms '
Encl.
i°
.i
Gy P1.11cr's vl{ice
k
W.
City Plamirr
019/0
June 24 , 1974
Gerald T. McCarthy
Salem Planning Board
32 Derby Square
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
The Salem Planning Board, in response to a change in the
zoning ordinance proposed by Ward 4 Councillor Michael E.
O' Brien to doom-zone with respect to the maximum height of
buildings in R-2 and R-3 zoning districts , conducted a public
hearing on April 18, 1974. As the result of that meeting
and subsequent discussion, the Planning Board made a recon-
mendation to the Salem City Council on the proposed ordinance
change on May 9 , 1974 , indicating there was a possible con-
flict between a section of the ordinance and existing state
laws; therefore, the Board requested thirty (30) additional
days to study the matter further. Also on May 9th the
Planning Board asked me to obtain information and make a
recommendation as to the existence or non-existence of such
a conflict.
I was unable to make my recommendation to the Board at
the June 6 , 1974 meeting because there were not enough mem-
bers present for a quorum; nonetheless , after discussing
the matter with you personally, I , as City Planner, decided
to make a recommendation to the City Council on June 12 , 1974 .
(See enclosure)
At this time I wish to explain how I arrived at the
recommendation contained in my letter. First, the section of
the proposed ordinance in question reads as follows :
These density regulations relative to height
will apply to all housing projects even though
financed in whole or in part by the U.S. Public
Housing Authority and/or Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts , Division of Public Housing.
The question of the legality of this section arose as the
result of the City' s recent involvement with subsidized housing
projects , particularly those qualifying under Chapter 121A of
the Mass. General Laws. However, upon reading Chapter 121A
I# _
i# 2
9
. Gerald T. McCarthy June 24 , 1974
Y
J,qy
and specifically section 6 , which states " . . . . and that the con-
struction and use of the project will not be in contravention
of any zoning, subdivision, health or building ordinances or
by-la•,•;s or rules and regulations of the city or town, . . . "
I felt confident that there did not exist any conflict.
Second, to make sure my understanding of Chapter 121A
was correct, and that recent legal opinions had not changed
the provisions of this chapter of the laws , I contacted Mrs .
Arlene Brown of the Massachusetts Department of Community
Affairs (D.C.A. ) on Monday, May 20 , 1974 . Mrs . Brown in-
dicated to me that from the legal experience of D.C.A. in
such matters, proposed subsidized housing projects , particu-
larly those qualifying under Chapter 121A, must conform to
local zoning ordinances.
Clearly, a conflict on the matter discussed above does
not exist, but before the Planning Board can support the
ordinance change, the question of whether or not the heights
of buildings in R-2 and R-3 zoning districts is acceptable ,
must also be answered. I did not elaborate on this matter
in my letter to the City Council, but I wish to do so here,
and indicate why I suggest Planning Board support and second
passage of the measure by the City Council.
First, Chapter 40A is the state enabling legislation for
zoning regulations , and section 2 indicates the following
authority to regulate:
For the purpose of promoting the health, safety,
convenience, morals or welfare of its inhabitants ,
any city, except Boston, and any town, may by a
zoning ordinance or by-law regulate and restrict
the height, number of stories, and size of buildings
and structures, the size and width of lots, the per-
centage of lot that may be occupied, the size of
yards , courts and other open spaces , the density of
population, and the location and use of buildings ,
structures and land for trade, industry, agriculture,
residence or other purposes.
Second, case law in Massachusetts shows that munici-
palities have the right to determine whether public interests
demand the exercise of zoning power, and, if so, to select
measures necessary for the protection of such interests.
(Simon, v. Town of Needham (1942) 311 Mass. 560) Further,
zoning is treated as a local matter, and much weight must
be accorded to the judgment of the local legislative bodies ,
,# -3-
Gerald
3-Gerald T. McCarthy
s
June-24 1974
Ince
" is familiar with local cor_ litions .
V. Attorney General !19577 336 Plass .
Appeals of 1 333 lr (Town °f Concord
Gloucester [1955 Mass .
Burnl?arn v. Board of
114)
legalityThird. he criteria used by the courts in deciding
legitimate of zoning controls is whether such controls the
regulation or an unconstitutional Lakin are a
perty- And the courts use the following questions
such a determination: g °f pro-
in making
a. the serious is the deprivati
ordinance? on attributable to
the
b• Is it intended to serve the public health, safety,
morals, or the general welfare?
C. Oo the means selected have a rational tendency
to achieve the
Objective?
In making myin decision
re the following way_ Firsts answered these three questions
requirements , the proposed chin `
land zoned R applies not to one pro e ty 4e in height
2 and R-3 in the p _ owner but to all "
investigation of community and based on m
Of Beverly , zs, 1Peabodyng laLynns in the cities and towns
the � 1, Danvers ;.
tensity requirements of ' 500 � Brookline and Nec• ton
and 1 ,l, sq. ft. in an R-3 zone q- le in an R-2 zone
liberal, and c•,hen these are coal
in Salem, are extremely
height limitations, the resultsbined with
the
in the amount of proposed
use value in the cause a large loss
land or properties affected.
Second, as the result
performed as of the 'research and analysis
trends re report
of my department ' Ysis
P I feel there s recently completed housing
lic health and safet exist specificems g .
system of y in Salem relative to housing, with pub-
which this development development is not g, and to a
ordinance devised and implemented,
change could het `'
the general c•�alfare of the people of p pe1Petuate, I feel
impaired. Salem could be
severely
Third, it is
change is in MY opinion that the
keeping with the proposed ordinance
Of the city; past residential
Y; and yet at the same time development
and promotes development the ordinance invites V
which will f p- °f a creative but realistic nature
fulfill the housing needs of the community the foreseeable future.
Y for
f e :
A
{ -4-
Gerald
4Gerald T. McCarthy June. 2". , 1974
}4
For all of the reasons presented above I again must
conclude that this ordinance change should be supported by
the Planning Hoard and receive second passage by the City
Council .
Sincerely yours ,
W. Grego y Senko
City Planner
LUGS/kms
cc Payor Levesque
May 9, 1974 vvl
^ODINANCE Amending Sec. VI, sub -
i
A� Table I - "Residential Density
sa/ulations" R-2 & R-3 Districts j
q ;Vetoed by the Mayor on July 8, 1974
In City Council July 18, 1974 P
:Veto overridden by R.C.V. 9 yeas, 1 nay
r , ;& 1 absent. ,
-Motion for immediate reconsideration,
hoping it would not prevail, denied,
i
�. . Submitted by:
In City Council .......... May,9_ ....._...-..... .. _19----74.
Adopted for first passage by unanimous
roll call vote.
InCity Council May 23, 1974 .........__.:......._........... -----s.:. ------------ - --- ------------ ------------
C. Ingemi moved to lay on table for 30
days
C. O'Brien amended to hold over to next;` -
regular meeting.
&,'_.jdment-was voted,
In City Council June 13, 1974apommW Laid on table by R.C.V. 6 yeas, 5 naysf +te�gr;,yfe gp t8 !g tftC Ingemi't motion for 1 3CiatP 1ccon 1i I i 1 7dder.ation,. hoping. it Gould not prevail ;was denied.
In City Council June 27, 1974Motion to take fr. table voted
Ordinance adopted for second & final' _
p Xc%��nXx_: r._, XXx'xxx;
passage by R.C.V. 10 yeas, 1 nay, 0 'abs.
Motion for immediate reconsideration,
hoping it would not prevail was denied 4 R{ M I yor -
Over A TRUE COPYCCa + 9a/
ATTEST: H LEN M. IGH:L�
Acting City Clerk
August 8 1974
ORDINANCE Zoning-sec, VI., sub sec A h
Table I - Denisty Regulations - R-3
'.Districts - 3500 sq, ft. - excluding
elderly housing
{ Submitted by:
i
In City Council.._August- 8 _------19 74 Y f'
Ref, to Com, of Whole to hold Pub. Hearil�fv .
i & ref. to Plan. Bd. for Pub, hearing;
both jointly Oct. 9, 1974 at 7:30 P.M.'
held Oct. 9,
1974
� I Public Hearing ;�V;)'
In City Council December •12, 1974
i , Adopted for first passage by Unam.RCV
In City Council December 26, 1974.
Adopted for.<second and final passage by' j
R.C.V. 9 yeas, 1 nay and l absent. '
M otion for immed.. recon, denied. j
'
DEC 019 A is y
I - i A True Copy
Attest !-/�7?
'= e en Cou n
? ✓�"' � !�J 'c,,n;�( i Acting City Clerk
A
^ � 1
r - f
September i2, 1974
cov �
Zoning - Sec, VI, Sub sec, A Residential
Density Regulations - Maximum Height of
Bldgs. - exclude housing for elderly.
_ r
1 ,
C -
In City Council September 12 1974
Ref, to Com, of Whole to hold Public HeaX ? "
Oct. 9 at:8:30 P.M. and ref, to Planning
Bd, for public hearing jointly with ,Council
Oct. 9 at 8:30 PoM. -:
Motion to lay on table denied. "
Councillor Ingemi served notice of recon
at next regular meeting.
In City Council September 26, 1974 '
y.
No action taken on reconsideration Date ` 1!: ➢
for hearing changed 'to Oct, 23rd at 7:30 PML,
In City Council October 10, 1974 i
Date changed to November 13, 1974 3
Public Hearing hhld Nov. 13, 110 P'2 4Gi 2ppr•v3t {
1974 i
JAN 271975
In City Council January 9, 1975 l
Adopted for first passage by unan.RGV ��
in City Council January 23, 1975
Adopted for 2nd & final passage by unan
R.C.V. 1
Motion for reconsideration hoping it would / :;,
,_
not prevail was denied ivr ror
i
A True Copy
At H en M. Coughli '
J
Acting city Clerk
r
i
Tito of 10airm
In the year one thousand nine hundred and seventy-two
An Wrbinaure relating to Zoning.
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows:
o ertiplg 1. That the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 35, approved August 27, 1965,
of the Revised Ordinances of Salem, Massachusetts, 1952 Edition, be hereby
amended as follows:
1. Add to Section III (Establishment of Districts)
(to follow existing paragraph 9)
"10. B-5 District: Central Development District, which is intended to
be a composite district of major businesses, residential use
and civic and cultural use."
2. Add to Section V (Use Regulations)
(to follow existing paragraph A and become a part of paragraph A)
"B-5 District: Central Development District
a. All uses permitted as of right in B-3 Districts.
b. Studios, workrooms and shops of artists, artisians and craftsman
provided that all products of the artistic endeavor or craft activity
are primarily for sale on the premises or by specific off-premises
commission from a sponsor or client.
C. Publishing and printing establishments.
d. One, two and multi-family residential uses as primary uses in townhouse,
rowhouse, flats or multi-story arrangement's, including highrise, and
as secondary uses in upper floors of structures primarily used for retail,
personal services or office purposes. Residential use determined to be
incompatible with adjacent or nearby non-residential use may be pro-
hibited by the Building Inspector.
e. Off-street parking structures including off-street parking structures
combined with. commercial use structures.
f. Accessory uses generally in support of the above permitted uses."
3. Add to Section VI (Density Regulations)
(to follow existing text of Section VI)
"Central Development District Uses
A building erected hereafter for uses permitted in the B-5 District- shalt
meet the requirements set forth in Table III. In interpreting Table III,
the same provisions as apply for interpreting Table I shall apply.
TABLE III. CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
Residential Uses or
Non-Residential Combined Residential
Uses & Non-Residential Uses
Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 2,000 ; 12,000 (2) (1)
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.) --- 500
Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 30 100 (3)
Maximum Lot Coverage by All Buildings (%) 100 35 (4)
Minimum Depth of Front Yard (ft.) --- 15 (5)
Minimum Width of Side Yard (ft.) --- 30 (5)
Minimum Depth of Rear Yard (ft.) --- 30 (5)
Maximum Height of Buildings (ft.) 70 130 (6)
Maximum Height of Buildings (no. of stories) --- 12 (6)
Maximum Height of Fences or Boundary Walls (ft.) 10 6
Minimum Distance Between Buildings if more than Distance equal to height of taller
one on a lot (ft.) r building (7)
Maximum Length of Individual Structures (ft.) --- 250 (8)
Maximum Dwelling Units Per Building of Three '
Stories or Less --- 24 (9)
Maximum Dwelling Units Per Building of More
Than Three Stories --- 120 (10)
Floor Area Ratio (ratio of total floor area
of buildings to total lot area) 3.5:1 (11) 3.0:1
(1) Where residential use comprises 25% or less of the total building area,
the regulations for non-residential uses shall apply.
(2) A one-family dwelling will require a minimum lot area c - 7,000 sq. ft.
(3) There shall be no lot width requirements for individual row houses.
A one-family dwelling will require a minimum lot width of 50 ft.
(4) May be increased up to 45% if 40% or more of the required parking
spaces are enclosed. May be increased up to 55% for lots containing
buildings 4 stories or less in height abutting public open space areas
which, if included in the subject lot would reduce the total coverage
to 35% or less.
(5) Or 2/3 the building height, whichever is greater. There shall be no
side yard requirement for individual row houses sharing a party wall.
There shall be no yard requirements for lots abutting public open space
areas which, if included in the subject lot, would allow the normal require-
ments to be met.
(6) An additional height of 10 feet or 1 story shall be permitted for each
story of parking enclosed within a building up to an additional 40 feet
or 4 stories.
(7) This distance may be reduced to a distance which is sufficient to provide
adequate light, air, and access, subject to the approval of the Planning
Board. There shall be no requirement for individual row houses sharing
a party wall.
(8) Unless firewalls are provided at an interval of 250 feet or less, in
which case no maximum length applies.
(9) Unless firewalls are provided at an interval of 250 feet or less, in
which case no maximum number of units applies.
(10) May be increased up to 190 for elderly housing.
(11) May be increased up to 6.0:1 for buildings predominantly characterized
as 50% open automobile parking structures.
-2-
4. Add to Section VII (Supplementary Regulations)
(to follow existing subparagraph 6 of paragraph C, Off-Street Parking, and
become a part of subparagraph 6)
"Non-residential uses in the B-5 District shall not be required to provide
off-street parking since the community will accept the responsibility for
non-residential parking in this district. New residential dwelling uses
in the B-5 District shall provide parking in accordance with the following
schedule:
Use Required Parking
Dwellings, home occupations a. One and one-half(l' )
spaces per dwelling unit
with three or more bedrooms;
a plus one space for each home
occupation.
b. One and one quarter (1'k) spaces
per dwelling unit with less than
a
three bedrooms; plus one space for
each home occupation.
Elderly housing, including projects One-third (1/3) space per dwelling unit."
built under the jurisdiction of the
Salem Housing Authority
5. Add to Section VII (Supplementary Regulations) +
(to follow existing subparagraph 4 of paragraph D, Off-Stye t Loading
and become a part of subparagraph 4)
"New non-residential uses in the B-5 District shall not be subject to
the above schedule of requirements but shall be subject to the following
schedule:
Gross Floor Area of Structures Required Loading Bays
0 - 20,000 sq. ft. none (1)
20,001 - 40,000 sq. ft. 1
Each additional 40,000 sq. ft.
or fraction thereof 1
(1) Loading facilities and service areas for these uses shall be publicly
provided through incorporation of service access privileges in public
open spaces and rights-of-way, providing they do not adversely affect
desired vehicular or pedestrian traffic flows."
6. Amendment to Zoning Map; City of Salem
The "linen cloth" original tracing of the Zoning Maps, dated August 27, 1965,
as amended now in the City Clerk's files shall be amended by setting forth
thereon the boundaries of the newly created B-5, Central Development District,
as follows:
-3-
That certain tract of land situated in the City of Salem, Essex County,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is bounded and descrioed as follows:
Beginning at the northeasterly corner of the urban renewal area, said
point of land being the intersection of the northerly side of Bridge Street
and the easterly side of St. Peter Street;
thence crossing said Bridge Street and running in a southerly direction
along the easterly side of St. Peter Street seven hundred and twenty-four (724)
feet, m/l, to the intersection of the easterly side of said St. Peter Street
and the northerly side of Brown Street;
thence turning an angle and running in an easterly direction along the
northerly side of said Brown Street two hundred and six (206) feet, m/1, to
a point, said point being located by the perpendicular extension of the
boundary line between the property n/f of George A. Ahmed et ux at 17 Brown
Street and the property n/f of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at 13-15
Brown Street;
thence turning an angle and crossing said Brown Street in a southerly
direction thirty-five (35) feet, m/1, to a point, said point being the
northeastern corner of said property n/f of George A. Ahmed at ux and the
northwestern corner of said property n/f of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
thence continuing in a southerly direction by two courses along the
boundary line between said property n/f of George A. Ahmed et ux and said
property n/f of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, twenty (20) feet, m/1,
and one hundred and nineteen (119) feet, m/1, and in a westerly direction
along the southerly boundary line between the same said properties four (4)
feet, m/l, to a point, said point being on the boundary line between said
property n/f of George A. Ahmed et ux, and the property n/f of Henry J.
Callahan at 8 St. Peter Street Court, at the northeastern corner of said
property n/f of Henry J. Callahan;
thence turning an angle and running in a southerly direction along the
f boundary line between said property n/f of Henry J. Callahan and said
property n/f of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ten (10) feet, m/1, to
j a point, said point being on the boundary line between said property n/f
of Henry J. Callahan and the property n/f of the Marion Rogers ux Louis H.
.Rogers at 140-142 Essex Street, at the northwestern corner of said property
n/f of Marion Rogers ux Louis H. Rogers;
thence turning an angle and running in an easterly direction along the
boundary line of said property n/f of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and said property n/f of Marion Rogers ux Louis H. Rogers, forty-one (41)
feet, m/1, to the northeastern corner of said property n/f of Marion Rogers
ux Louis H. Rogers;
thence turning an angle and running in a southerly direction along the
boundary line of said property n/f of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
said property n/f of Marion Rogers ux Louis H. Rogers, forty-nine (49) feet,
m/l, to a point, said point being on the boundary line between said property
n/f of Marion Rogers ux Louis H. Rogers and the property n/f of George A.
Ahmed at al at 1362-1382 Essex Street, at the northwestern corner of said
property n/f of George A. Ahmed et al;
i
-4-
thence turning on angle and running as follows: in an easterly direction
twenty-one (21) feet, m/1 in a southerly direction twenty-eight (28) feet, m/1,
in an easterly direction three (3) feet, m/l, and in a southerly direction
sixty-one (61) feet, m/l, all along the boundary line between said property n/f
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and said property n/f of George A. Ahmed, to
the northerly side of Essex Street;
thence turning an angle and running in an easterly direction along the
northerly side of Essex Street twelve (12) feet, m/1, to a point, said point
being located by the perpendicular extension of the boundary line between the
property n/f of the Cousins Trust at 135-137 Essex Street and the property n/f
of Benjamin Axelrod et al at 133 Essex Street;
thence turning an angle and crossing said Essex Street in a southerly
direction forty-five (45) feet, m/l, to a point, said point being the north-
eastern corner of said property n/f of the Cousins Trust and the northwestern
corner of said property n/f of Benjamin Axelrod et al;
thence continuing in a southerly direction along tIr boundary between said
property n/f of the Cousins Trust and said property n/f of Benjamin Axelrod
et al, ninety (90) feet, m/1, to a point, said point being the southeastern
corner of said property n/f of the Cousins Trust and the northeasterly corner
of the property n/f of Samuel and Benjamin Axelrod at 7-9 Liberty Street;
thence continuing in a southerly direction along the boundary between
said property n/f of Samuel and Benjamin Axelrod and said property n/f of
Benjamin Axelrod et al, seventy-two (72) feet, m/1, to a p 'Lnt, said point
being the southwestern corner of said property n/f of Samuel and Benjamin
Axelrod approximately one hundred and sixty-two (162) feet southerly of the
southerly side of Essex Street;
thence turning an angle and running in a westerly direction along the
boundary between said property n/f of Samuel and Benjamin Axelrod and the
property n/f of the City of Salem at 24-38 Charter Street, fifty-five (55)
feet, m/l, to the easterly side of Liberty Street;
thence turning an angle and running in a southerly direction along the
easterly side of Liberty Street one hundred and forty-three (143) feet, m/1,
to the northerly side of Charter Street;
thence turning an angle and running in an easterly direction along the
northerly side of Charter Street two hundred and seventy-three (273) feet, m/l,
to a point, said point being located by the perpendicular extension of the
boundary line between the property n/f of Bartek Jaremchek at 25 Charter Street
and the property n/f of Louis A. and Francis H. Pocharski at 17-21 Charter Street;
thence turning an angle and crossing said Charter Street in a southerly
direction fifty (50) feet, m/l, to a point, said point being the northeastern
corner of said property n/f of Louis A. and Francis H. Pocharski;
thence continuing in a southerly direction along the boundary between' said
property n/f of Bartek Jaremchek and said property n/f of Louis A. and
Francis H. Pocharski, eighty (80) feet, m/l, to a point, said point being the
southeasterly corner of said property of Bartek Jaremchek, approximately eighty
(80) feet southerly of the southerly side of Charter Street;
_5_
thence turning an angle and running as follows: in a westerly direction
twenty-three (23) feet, m/l, in a northerly direction ten (10) feet, m/1, and in
a westerly direction, twenty-three (23) feet, m/l, all along boundary between
said property n/f of Bartek Jaremchek and the property n/f of the City of Salem
at the corner of Hawthorne Boulevard and Derby .Street to a point, said point
being on the boundary line between said property n/f of Bartek Jaremchek and
the property n/f of Har En et ux, at 27 Charter Street, approximate)
P P Y Harry g Y
seventy-three (73) feet southerly of the southerly side of Charter Street;
thence turning an angle and running as follows: in a southerly direction
twenty-three (23) feet, m/l, in a westerly direction six (6) feet, m/l, in a
six 6 feet m 1 in a wester) direction forty-one 41
northerly direction ( ) , / y Y ( )
feet, m/l, all along the boundary between said property n/f of Harry Eng et ux and
the property n/f of Goldberg Trust at 274 Derby Street to a point, said point
being the southeasterly corner of said property of Harry Eng et ux, approximatAy
one hundred and three (103) feet southerly of the southerly side of Charter Street;
thence continuing in a westerly direction along the boundary between the
property n/f of Chin Ho Ying et al at 31 Charter Street and said property of
the Goldberg Trust, eighty-one (81) feet, m/l, to a point, said point being the
northwestern corner of said property of the Goldberg Trust, approximately one
hundred and twelve (112) feet southerly of the southerly side of Charter Street;
thence turning an angle and running as follows: in a northwesterly direction
forty (40) feet, m/l, and in a southwesterly direction seventeen (17) feet, m/l,
all along the boundary between said property n/f of Chin Ho Y'zg, and the property
n/f of A. and E. Realty Corp. at 278-282 Derby Street;
thence turning an angle and running in a westerly direction along the boundary
between the property n/f of Boreslaus Szczesny at 33 Charter Street and said
property n/f of A. and E. Realty Corp. twenty (20) feet, m/1, to a point, said
point being the southwestern corner of said property of Boreslaus Szczesny,
approximately eighty-five (85) feet southerly of the southerly side of Charter
Street;
thence continuing in a westerly direction along the boundary between the
property n/f of Romeo V. LeBel et ux at 25 Liberty Street and said property n/f
of A. and E. Realty Corp. , fifty-five (55) feet, m/1, to the easterly side of
Liberty Street;
thence turning an angle and running in a southerly direction along the
easterly side of said Liberty Street two hundred and four (204) feet, m/l,
to the northerly side of Derby Street;
thence continuing in the same southerly direction across said Derby Street
seventy-two (72) feet, m/1, to the southerly side of. said Derby Street;
thence turning an angle and running in a southwesterly direction along
the southerly side of said Derby Street five hundred and seventy-eight (578)
feet, m/l, to a point, said point being the intersection of the easterly side
of Lafayette Street and the southerly side of said Derby Street;
-6-
A
1
thence continuing in the same southwesterly direction seventy-nine (79)
feet, m/1, across said Lafayette Street to a point, said point being the
intersection of the westerly side of said Lafayette Street and the southerly
side of New Derby Street;
thence turning an angle and running in a northwesterly direction along the
southerly side of said New Derby Street, across Dodge Street Court and Washington
Street, four hundred and seventy-seven (477) feet, m/l, to the westerly side of
Washington Street;
thence turning an angle and running in a northerly and northwesterly
direction along the westerly side of said Washington Street around Riley Plaza,
one hundred and eighty-six (186) feet, m/1, to the southerly side of, Norman Street;
thence turning an angle and running in a northerly direction along the
westerly side of said Washington Street, across said Norman Street, Barton Square,
Essex Street, Lynde Street, Federal Street, and Bridge Street, fourteen hundred
and forty (1,440) feet, m/1, to the northerly side of said Bridge Street;
thence turning an angle and running in an easterly direction along the
northerly side of said Bridge Street, seven hundred and seventy-five (775) feet,
m/1, across St. Peter Street to point of beginning.
The appropriate portions of the existing B-3 (Central Business) District,
-B-4 (Wholesale and Automotive Business) District, R-3 (Multi-Family Residential)
District, and I (Industrial) District shall be changed to a B-5 (Central
Development)District.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect as provided by the City Charter.
In City Council July 13, 1972
Adopted as amended for first passage by a unanimous roll call vote.
In City Council July 27, 1972
Adopted as amended for second and final passage by a roll call vote of
10 yeas, 0 nays and 1 absent.
Motion for immediate reconsideration, hoping itId notAr '1 denied,
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR on AUG 1 1+�72 A
ATTEST: A NINE J. 00 Y
C TY CLERK
k
-7-
t
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terns of the Salem Zoning By-Laws
and the Salem Building Code and order the Building Inspector to approve the application fee permit to build
as filed, as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the
a intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Laws and Building Code for the following reasons:
A special permit and variance to allow for the construction and maintenance of tennis
courts and accessory facilities is requested from the applicable use all as shown on
plan enclosed herewith on land with a total area of 3,16 ecres more or less .
a
and portion fora-3 purposes,
The area in question is zoned for industrial uses/and this board has granted a variance
for B-2 purposes and the area is adjacent to a multi-family building containing approxi-
mately 250 units. It is also adjacent to land that is presently zoned for a shopping center,
and land upon which other housing is to be constructed. The recreational facility in this
area would be an adjunct facility for the existing or contemplated living units . The zoning
ordinance, as presently written, allows for the construction of commercial recreation and
entertainment facilities in a B-2 zone by special permit; the Petitioner also requests a
variance from the applicable density regulations as they pertain to height and lot coverage
and the applicable parking requirements . Since by speolaI—permitthe proposed use is
allowed, a literal enforcement-of the zoning ordinances with reference to parking and
density would be a hardship on the Petitioner. Since this facility would service the
general public, it is believed that a special permit and variance to allow such use and
to construct the building as shown on the enclosed plan submitted herewith, would be
beneficial to the City of Salem.
ate.. . Pentio. e .-M.utual,-T-.n- _'s,..Inc -,--by.its-attorn..Y
PEBRUARY-5th-i-197-5-------
By...... :. . .- -.._
Addr ss.- �0--6 ..Iederal-S-. , et;_Salem-,-. Mas-sachusetts
This application must be filed at the City Clerk' ffice with a check, for dvertising in the amount of
$---_.---.---_--- .., four (4) weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
Thar.SALE>I,',,TASS:;ZA - ..
iec +::"Ic•�crs Cts LegalNotces -'LegalNotic s r�
'21 to the southerly side of Norman.Street - -
a i ,i.nun m a soutSerly�-t -thence turning an.angle and running m'a northerly direction:
-
yL^eer seven hundred along:the .v,esterly side.of said Washington Sseet ;across said -
ton of the-easterly Norman Street, Barton'Square;;.Essex,-Strc t;; iynde. Street, :
ri; eica of Browfi RFederal Street, and Bride -Street,-fourteen hundred and.forty
r f•_, terly direction i(1,440) faet,am/lto the northerly:side-o said Bridge Street;- -
vo-hundred and six�tv3 thence.turning-3a-an,_,is and.runnin m an easterly direction.
alone the northerfr ine:nfaaid.Bridge-�trEet ,.seven'.hua'r•ed and-.l
- L-c+teo by the Per ,.Pveity five;(775) feet 'm/1 across St. Peter Street to point,of
P K ce n rh proper tyi - ,..r .Q . , -
or. Street and'the
bog Mining.
. ,.✓ .:Ar ,,,,
Las achusett_ at 13-15 I'f�. "The appropriate portions of the existing B 3t.(Cental
Xle:*, -_-,meas) District; B4Wholesale and Automotive Business) District; -
int: ,_ia"Browm:Street'.n.a (';R-3 (Bluiti-Family Residential).District; and 1::(L•nustrial),Dis-
mil,.to a point,,,:said tract:shall be-,changed to a,B-5 (Central Developrneri) District..
z erorwty n/f oll Geor '"'-SECPIDN•Ii This ordinance shalY take effec "as provided Ly -
ofsad F epe:'ty n/L the City Charter
�.;In.City-Council July 2:,. 19721"'c<. '" > ,. •°^ -
!Lre Oz io_"`thl r,o.. courses R Adapted as amended:for fust•passa a b} a iUnanimous Droll
of.Geo+ e A ' - -
i h wmmonweaithof call.vote ,ria- ,a :, i . �t5✓� xy�zs&
C
1 2nd ode hundred .,of g,,';In City Council July 27 1972 a; ,:� ,
Adopted:as amended for second and final passage by a roll
e to lyf diiectionralofng,,thecall_vote of 10 yeas, 0 nays and I,absent
me Baia properties four LK Motion-for immediate_reconsider at!cn hop rig it would.`not _
it oa;.the t»undary,Laeprevazl, $eniea
Annied et uc.,-and the Fa1.v > APPROUEI} BY THEMAYOR
3 `t_ PetertStreet.Court �I ATTEST
orerty:n/f of Henry/r y"�.�s y xx .+ 4F .y f ,,5 AUGUSTIlVE J tTOO'QEY ` ;, S; -
r /'a� �` ,,...M✓ I%t�i.: �5z "r«r'� �sy ^7° r m -: 4 CITY CLERK'*' -
a sbutherlymrecton August 4
..
t.ommonivealYh of Massa
aid pout bem .on the t " Qo° \/ °� s e 4 ��5'
of Henry,"S Callahan and ' �Es3cr e ,c. PR f� a
f , ux.Louis I- Rogers,at Y tryn :_in R �w....:
fa corner of said property
in-an;easterly direcUoa Ory.\> „a? { l,.r°". a* < Sr p .. `
nif Z.
of the Commonwealth
of Ma ion Rovers uxams
S .,,4 �0 sF .t - ;•` `"�`:, y "
i rhe nortl.east rn corner nt s"I 1 �o�� C. ` 4, 3 a
t LouisH »,•``t'-=„ �,r -
i southerly direction
y-rcfnf the Commrewealth o° - °
r it Marion Rogers ux Louis - ' �a ar to+ s t3 ° LL to 4 "c -
a point; said point being
iperty n f of tifA,AAhmed
4 ors –� Y �w
n or George A [ et i,k' SST ,�°a° ' w; 4 v97§/i".• �. _
r c th western comer of said
ng as follows: in an easterly tiff
in a southerly direction ( s t�..,.., Ivo i "�tf
r v dirtection.three(3) feet AR( e m `
(ort ieei m/, all v
or -oerty ni, of the Com-
a
om � st.
aproperty n/f of George A _« ^ -s i w} A+-a S W�r
" �'•o" i rpt ,` / ~ a /`
,. . l �
r-. an easterly direction . < T r-
+ hvelve (li) eet, MA to a°�� ) .. a' -o'er{ `, ®\ c– L�•`r -
re" n rcerd!cufar. extension . �t ° ' ;; F '� � > w.sx�ncr°„ +roar„��
a
opertY a/r of the Cousins MHoz�3Ti-
itroC'ert./ n/f of Benjamin n. 3'��ter%%%```
44 °e ,-.a '- i.° \+COMMON
s said Essex Streetm a t . �.. f"yq°+ ' ,• j r\\ °
' m/i; to apoint, said point - a+ oR3- v J -•� aT`
i orenert:- n/f of the Cousins .� e g. $I iyl
said property n/f of Ben
a � �C
coon along the boundary
ns Test and said property /. . m^;.. �\v'
R3 tri
r (-0) feet, m/i, to a point
.r of sa_d omperty n/f of
rly comer of the property <4 \ Af? \ `D •', ... - a d+ -.f n ..
r
at 7-9 Liberty Street gym" cq ra \ yr / r ' • _ {1.zn` ," r
' r tion along the boundary \,;
and Baalam!n Axelrod and
:.on ..t al, seventy-bvo (72)
soutnwesten comer
_3,ea amin ,1xelrod approxi- —
(LF2) feet southerly of the
..W en a westerly direction
x of San.-:el ad �11
".��%: o t`e r;:bl OF Salem at 1