The URL can be used to link to this page

135 LAFAYETTE STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION 135 Lafayette St. 6 '1. Certificate Number: B-15-732 Permit Number: B-15-732 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem This is to Certify that the Commercial Building located at Building Type 135 LAFAYETTE STREET in the City of Salem .......... .. ............... .. .. . _. .....-.... ..... .. .... ... __... , .. ..... .... ... _.._._......-......-y.. . ..... Address Town/City Name IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 135 LAFAYETTE STREET JIMMYJOHNS This Permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and Ordinances relating thereto, and expires ...............................Not Applicable unless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Date Issued On: Monday, September 28, 2015 Commonwealth of Massachusetts { City of Salem a r �4!cr nr v�� 720 Washington St,3rd Floor Salem,MA e1970(978)745-9595 x5641 Return card to Building Division for certificate of Occupancy uV Permit B-15-732 PERMIT TO BUIL D FEE PAID:': $1$1,617.00 DATE ISSUED: 7/27/201 This certifies that PEABODY PROPERTIES ATTN : JUSTIN PAQUETTE has permission to erect, alter, or demolish a buildin ' g 135 LAFAYETTE STREET Map/Lot 340307-801 ' as follows: Renovation TENANT FIT OUT FOR: JIMMY JOHNS (SET OF PLANS SUBMITTED) Contractor Name: ROBERT J. MECURIO ` DBA: FALCON CONSTRUCTION LLC Contractor License No: CS-092125 7/27!2045 - Building Official Date This permit shall be deemedabandonedand invalid unless the work authorized by this permit is-commencedwkhin six's months after issuance.The Building Official may grant one or more extensions not to exceed six months each upon written raduest. All work authorized by thispermitshall conform to the approved application and the approved construction documents for which this permit has been granted. All construction,alterations and changes of use of any'building and structures shall be in compliance with the local zoning by-laws and codes. ' �� u This permit shall be displayed in a location clearly visible from access street or road and shall be maintained open for public inspection for the entire duration of the work until the completion of the same. The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all applicable signatures by the Building.and Fire Ofricials,are provided on this Permit. . HIC#: "Persons contracting with unregistered contractors do not have access to the guaranty fund'(as set forth in MGL c.142A). Restrictions: Building plans are to be available on site. All Permit Cards are the property of the PROPERTY OWNER. VA s 41 ncy Structure ALEM BUILDING PERMIT Excavation PERMIT TO BE POSTED IN THE WINDOW ( tl" � "Footing INSPECTION RECORD Foundation - - i41 Framing D Mechanical Insulation - ( 0 INSPECTION: BY DATE - [Chimney/Smoke Chamber t . Final Rough:Ptumbingai Rough:'nAV Final Ac Ele Feral ,Service .y r Final 00 FireApartment !Preliminary F�Final t"S"r HeaIt Department _, Prell Mary IsF `I 2�1 'V �r Final Construction Control Document To be submitted at completion of construction by a R Registered Design Professional ,aJ for work per the 8th edition of the Je Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR, Section 107 Project Title: St.Joseph's Redevelopment Date: December 20,2013 Permit No. 780-12 Property Address: 135 Lafayette Street, Salem MA Project: Check(x)one or both as applicable: X New construction Existing Construction Project description: Four story mixed-use residential and retail building with 51 residential units. I Frederick P. Goff MA Registration Number 33856 Expiration date: June 30,2014 , am a registered design professional, and I have prepared or directly supervised the preparation of all design plans, computations and specifications concerning: Architectural Structural Mechanical Fire Protection Electrical Other: Describe for the above named project. 1, or my designee, have performed the necessary professional services and was present at the construction site on a regular and periodic basis. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief the work proceeded in accordance with the requirements of 780 CMR and the design documents approved as part of the building permit and that I or my designee: 1. Have reviewed, for conformance to this code and the design concept, shop drawings, samples and other submittals by the contractor in accordance with the requirements of the construction documents. 2. Have performed the duties for registered design professionals in 780 CMR Chapter 17, as applicable. 3. Have been present at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work and to determine if the work was performed in a manner consistent with the construction documents and this code. Nothing in this document relieves the contractor of its responsibility reeMrd' Ike provisions of 780 CMR 107. ► (0)FAs Enter in the space to the right a"wet"or %FFGDEFI \\Nk to J. H[ T//� electronic signature and seal: wbb ri ' �� Phone number: 781-335-4200 Email: vgna@vgna.com ► �k vvvh�� ..0 a- Po@-d`y`\� rrlt i 2 Nq SAw ASES;\\ Subscribed and sworn to before tpe,this'Z,day of ai cc. l 6 1 20 Notary Public !'I�LdL My Commission Expires Registration Stamp and Signature Building Official Use Only Building Official Name: Permit No.: Date: Version 06 I l 2013 Final Construction Control Document To be submitted at completion of construction by a d Registered Design Professional for work per the 8u' edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR, Section 107 Project Title: St. Joseph's Redevelopment Date: 12/20/13 PermitNo.780-12 Property Address: 135 Lafayette Street, Salem MA Project: Check(x)one or both as applicable: X New construction Existing Construction Project description: Four story mixed-use residential and retail building with 51 residential units. I Matthew A. Bean MA Registration Number: 45007 Expiration date:6/30/14 am a registered design professional, and I have prepared or directly supervised the preparation of all design plans, computations and specifications concerning: Architectural Structural X Mechanical XFire Protection Electrical X Other: Describe Plumbing for the above named project. I, or my designee, have performed the necessary professional services and was present at the construction site on a regular and periodic basis. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief the work proceeded in accordance with the requirements of 780 CMR and the design documents approved as part of the building permit and that I or my designee: 1. Have reviewed, for conformance to this code and the design concept, shop drawings, samples and other submittals by the contractor in accordance with the requirements of the construction documents. 2. Have performed the duties for registered design professionals in 780 CMR Chapter 17, as applicable. 3. Have been present at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work and to determine if the work was performed in a manner consistent with the construction documents and this code. ex OF nes Nothing in this document relieves the contractor of its responsibility regarding the provisions of 780 :0- MATTHEW s� - MATTHEW A. BEAN :+ Enter in the space to the right a"wet"or MECHANICAL electronic signature and seal: NO.45007 4n 9r,� Hf Phone number: 781-398-2250 Email: MattB =NyEngineering.com Building Official Use Only Building Official Name: Permit No.: Date: Version 06 11 2013 Final Construction Control Document To be submitted at completion of construction by a t Registered Design Professional for work per the 8u' edition of the J ' Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR, Section 107 Project Title: St.Joseph's Redevelopment Date: December 20,2013 Permit No. 780-12 Property Address: 135 Lafayette Street,Salem MA Project: Check(x)one or both as applicable: X New construction Existing Construction Project description: Four story mixed-use residential and retail building with 51 residential units. I David J. Odeh,MA Registration Number: 42755 Expiration date: 6/30/2014, am a registered professional engineer, and I have prepared or directly supervised the preparation of all design plans, computations and specifications concerning: Architectural X Structural Mechanical Fire Protection Electrical Other: Describe for the above named project. I, or my designee,have performed the necessary professional services and was present at the construction site on a regular and periodic basis.To the best of my knowledge, information,and belief the work proceeded in accordance with the requirements of 780 CMR and the design documents approved as part of the building permit and that I or my designee: 1. Have reviewed, for conformance to this code and the design concept, shop drawings, samples and other submittals by the contractor in accordance with the requirements of the construction documents. 2. Have performed the duties for registered design professionals in 780 CMR Chapter 17, as applicable. 3. Have been present at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work and to determine if the work was performed in a manner consistent with the construction documents and this code. Nothing in this document relieves the contractor of its responsibility regarding the provisions of 780 CMR 107. s►�°A4®de J EP�1H Enter in the space to the right a"wet"or � DAVID d� electronic signature and seal: d STRUC H AL 27550 Phone number: 401-724-1771 Email: odehdj@odehengineers.com � FSS7/ST ,pp A Subscribed at t to before me this la's' day of Decer nber 20 �3 Notary Pu ' My Commission Expires l211210 Registration Stamp and Signature Building Official Use Only Building Official Name: PermitNo.: Date: Version 06 I1 2013 �r Final Construction Control Document To be submitted at completion of construction by a Registered Design Professional ,y for work per the 8th edition of the J Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR, Section 107 Project Title: St.Joseph's Redevelopment Date: December 19,201 Permit No. 780-12 Property Address: 135 Lafayette Street,Salem MA Project: Check(x)one or both as applicable: X New construction Existing Construction Project description: Four story mixed-use residential and retail building with 51 residential units. I Michael D.Binette MA Registration Number: 31191 Expiration date: ,am a registered design professional, and I have prepared or directly supervised the preparation of all design plans,computations and specifications concerning: X Architectural Structural Mechanical Fire Protection Electrical Other: Describe for the above named project. I,or my designee, have performed the necessary professional services and was present at the construction site on a regular and periodic basis.To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief the work proceeded in accordance with the requirements of 780 CMR and the design documents approved as part of the building permit and that I or my designee: 1. Have reviewed, for conformance to this code and the design concept, shop drawings, samples and other submittals by the contractor in accordance with the requirements of the construction documents. 2. Have performed the duties for registered design professionals in 780 CMR Chapter 17, as applicable. 3. Have been present at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work and to determine if the work was performed in a manner consistent with the construction documents and this code. Nothing in this document relieves the contractor of its responsibility regarding the provisions of 780 CMR 107. _00 ARCII Enter in the space to the right a"wet"or �INIb i�D Bi y ¢f electronic signature and seal: �� No m CHELSEA. �- MASS. y �J Phone number: (617) 889-4402 Email: mbinette@architecturalteam.com o2�FgIt OFMPSSP Subscribed and sworn to before me this J day of.I ,F c c or 20 _3 Notary Pub5c�A* My Commission Expires 11 c-)1_ Registration Stamp and Signature Building Official Use Only Building Official Name: Permit No.: Date: Version 06 11 2013 Final Construction Control Document To be submitted at completion of construction by a Registered Design Professional for work per the 8u' edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code, 780 CMR, Section 107 Project Title: St.Joseph's Redevelopment Date: December 20,2013 Permit No. 780-12 Property Address: 135 Lafayette Street,Salem MA Project: Check(x) one or both as applicable: X New construction Existing Construction Project description: Four story mixed-use residential and retail building with 51 residential units. I, Charles G. Samiotes,PE—Civil,MA Registration Number: 31865 Expiration date: 6/30/2014, am a registered design professional, and I have prepared or directly supervised the preparation of all design plans,computations and specifications concerning: Architectural Structural Mechanical Fire Protection Electrical X Civil Engineering for the above named project. I, or my designee, have performed the necessary professional services and was present at the construction site on a regular and periodic basis. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief the work proceeded in accordance with the requirements of 780 CMR and the design documents approved as part of the building permit and that I or my designee: 1. Have reviewed,for conformance to this code and the design concept, shop drawings, samples and other submittals by the contractor in accordance with the requirements of the construction documents. 2. Have performed the duties for registered design professionals in 780 CMR Chapter 17, as applicable. 3. Have been present at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the work and to determine if the work was performed in a manner consistent with the construction documents and this code. Nothing in this document relieves the contractor of its responsibility regarding the provisions of 780 CMR 107. Enter in the space to the right a"wet"or u electronic signature and seal: 1t,uE o'+ �y ,W LTES ^, Na.it855 Phone number: 508-877-6688 Email: csamiotes@samiotes.com �, CIVt .�3 Subscribed and sworn to before me this3( ay of �} � SUTHA KARIKAL �=' `' Notary PublicL h c. ' L �y Commissi ;tamp and Signature MY CammlaelGi F.�lree_MaY t&2018�;� .;. Building Official Use Only , Building Official Name: Permit No.: Date: Version 06 11 2013 ! St. Joseph's School 20 Harbor Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970-5098 Tel: 978-744-4773 Fax: 978-744-7237 Put Faith in the Future September 12, 2001 Dear Peter, Enclosed you will find the plans for the convent renovation by Dennis J. Gray Architects, Inc. Could you look at it and give me some feedback. There is a school board meeting scheduled for THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2001. Could you come for 8:00 PM to share with us what you feel we should do. Thanks, 6� Paul R. Plante, Ed.D. Principal. PRP:pdw Enclosure �( STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 OWNER Archdiocese of Boston 2121 Commonwealth Avenue Brighton, Massachusetts 02135-4564 PASTOR Revered Lawrence J. Rondeau, Pastor ARCHITECT Dennis J. Gray Architects,Inc. 20 Central Street,Suite 108 Salem,Massachusetts 01907 1b.:978 745 4404 FAX.978 745 6479 M ' Project No.98029 August 1998 �� 11101 1 Y Dennis I Gray Architects,Inc. Ar LiinOoe Undrape Ard e June 4, 1998 AttevLt%ovt.: Peter Revered Lawrence J.Rondeau,Pastor Saint Joseph Forte 135 Lafayette Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Reference: Saint Joseph Study of School Expansion into Convent Dear Father Rondeau, I write to make a proposal to prepare a feasibility study for the proposed expansion of the school into the convent. This study will focus on the fallowing expansion needs: A Providing three classrooms for,pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children in the existing convent spaces. •B. Evaluation and recommendations for other renovations required to comply with the state access regulations and building codes. The study will consist of the following: 1. Existing conditions survey of the building and property. This will include a site visit to the school to document existing conditions through photographs and inspections. We will review the local, and state codes that effect the proposed new use of the property. Proposed Fee: $600 \ 2. Alternative designs: We will prepare a concept design that will show how the proposed use will be J accommodated within the existing building Proposed Fee: $1,400 3. Project budget: We will prepare a project budget that will include all anticipated costs to implement the final concept and renovations. Proposed Fee: $500 Total Proposed Fee:$2,500 If you decide to implement the final concept and wish to retain my firm to prepare the working drawings$2,000 of the above fee will be credited to the complete design fee. The above work will be compiled in booklet form including three copies for your use. We are prepared to commence this work immediately and will be completed within one month. Please contact me if you have any question regarding this proposal. With my best regards,I am Sincerely, - DemvasJ. c,rn� Dennis J. Gray Fc PF 617 783 6366 RR 978 744 3312 Tet.978 744 0095 p98039 .:: 20 Central Sued,Suite 108 Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Tel:(978)745-4404 Fax:(978)745-6479 F Mail:dard124d@rnah.com Member ofThe Americm htshirde of Archdr Member of The Aznmi m Socidy oflaodscapc Architeces @I@CAlRiI STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135LafayetteSaeet,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 SUMMARY This study is a survey of the existing conditions and a design recommendation for the expansion into the Saint Joseph parish convent ofthe elementary education program. The main areas addressed in this study are: First,the documentation ofthe existing conditions of the building complex and site; Second,the review of state codes and a presentation of a design for the adaptive use of the convent for educational purposes; Third,the presentation of budget cost estimate for the project. Study Goals • Provide site investigation to determine the condition of the building. u Develop an alternative design that will accommodate a day care, kindergarten and fust grade program in the building and establish the required building modifications to 1 accommodate this educational program. A / S Establish a renovation budget. Study Findings The exterior of the building is in good condition. I1 Some of the building systems are old and need refurbishing. The most important renovations will include: w - illuminating the means of egress exit signs with backup emergency power and providing emergency 140"throughout with the use of low-vohage battery units; I - - providing an upgraded manual and automatic fire alarm system throughout the building; - installing modem energy-efficient light fixtures; Provision for ventilation to provide for the required air changes in the three proposed classrooms and the meeting room on the first floor; - fire rating of some existing steel columns; 1 _ e STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH i135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 ® Handicapped parldng and an accessible entry to the building must be provided. • Wheelchair access to the second floor must be provided. • Additional and accessible bathrooms must be provided. • The third floors can remain inaccessible if it is not open to public use. • Provision of a new second emergency egress from the Educational Use area. • Allocation of the space to provide for 35 SF of space for each child in the Day Care Pre- school Program. • Installation of additional hand rails in the existing stairway. Providing handrails of both sides of the stair and a lower rail on both sides between 20 and 24 inches above the nosing. • Changing existing hardware in accessible doors to meet 521CMR. These renovations to the St. Joseph Convent will provide a building that can over time accommodate the future space needs and required fimctions of the educational program. �. Estimated Project Renovation Costs Option A:Provide for the day care, kindergarten and first grade program on the second floor and maintain a mixed-use building. Provide wheelchair access to the first and second floor only. Budget: $296,000 Contingency: $30,000 Total: $325,000 Option B:Provide for the day care, kindergarten and first grade program on the second floor and maintain a mixed-use building. Provide wheelchair access to all floors. Budget: $292,000 Contingency: $30,000 Total: $322,000 Option C:Provide for the day care, kindergarten and first grade program on the second floor t and maintain a mixed-use building. Provide wheelchair access to the second floor by connecting to the existing school with an enclosed corridor. Provide access to lower level with exterior ramp. Provide second exit from residential use with new exterior stairs. Budget: $310,000 Contingency: $30,000 Total: $340,000 J 2 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 N Methodology • The building plans were reviewed. • The building complex was surveyed. s A list of building improvements were gathered and included in this study. • Building optional designs and renovation were developed. • Quantity and area calculations of all recommended renovation in 1998 unit costs were compiled and used to develop the cost estimates. The following reference materials were used: • Means Building Construction Cost Data, 52nd Annual Edition, 1998. • 780 CMR State Board of Building Regulations and Standards, Sixth Addition • 521 CMR: Architectural Access Board • 102 CMR: Office of Child Care Services • 105 CMR, 410 (State Sanitary Code, Article 11, Minimum Standard of Fitness for Human Habitation and shall conform with 248 CMR 2.01(7) v Plans: New convent for St. Joseph's Parish, Harbor Street, Salem, Massachusetts, Fontaine and Del Sesto Architects, Providence, RI, March 1, 1962. Consultant Team Dennis J. Gray&Associates Architects and Landscape Architects 20 Central Street, Suite 108 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-745-4404 Dennis J. Gray, AIA 3 Mme - - t DL—AIS J. GRAY ARCHITECTS, INC. ArclutaMe end Landsdpe ArduteCmre • J Elevator Location Option B EDUCATIONAL USE CROUP r °rmn.xer su - amn.r r--nn vwr w,m.mm aTORA E 1 STAIR @ [ B h NV ypn DAY CAM CENTER PRE-SCHOOL tea aOI BI�0�1✓�I�1.1N �r�LJrU LJo dY7CY(Y�" ®®g�� oaoo❑ oa000 aoaoa � (❑�OpgTO��ORAOp� CHAPEL - - lrmf'nArLex®F s 00 DQO D yr rare' ar ur smvr rvl nt Wi BA BR—IEO DR-121 BR- 22 °" '}--nn msmnn syr uNa' E--RESIDENTI USE CROU. CORRIDOA STAIRRALL BR-110 BR-104 SUPERIOR *"ICE RECEPTION BATH F I R S T F L O G R P L A N i , a OPTION A & B STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 20 Central Street,Suite 108 l35Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Salert4 Massachusetts 01970 Tel:(978)745-4404 Fax.:(978)745-6479 E-Mail:dare h24d msn.com Member of7Le Ameticea Institute ofArchiteats Memba of The American Society RrWdsaape Archilcck Db,AIS J. GRAY ARCHITECTS, INC. AMasedure end La W oaDe Arcwtx . ' nvsn.n uvn ns, .01 vnvOr Ramp Option A& B amoa.nss suvAmn STAIR I STORAGE i FABISM STORAGE I UUNN3 L_...._.. t UNA9310NED DRYING YARD UNASSIGNED BOILER ROOM MEETING ROOM T. LIBRARY LAUNDRY an vms P O aaa xv CORRIDOR STAIR 8-11 B-10 B-D B-B B-Y B-a B-0 B-4 BA S E M E N T F L O O R P L A N ecm ve - OPTION A & B STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 20 CahVal Street,Suite 108 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,MassachusettT 0/970 Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Tel:(978)745-4404 Fax.:(978)745-6479 E-Mail:dard124d@;YvOi.com Member of The America,IvsliNle ofArchitecla Member of 73e Americea Socicry ofLaadsupe Archiae a, DLA- ,qlS J. GRAY ARCHITECTS, INC. mddtP.cture and LWW$MPe MCWIecDRe V M CHAIR Dr1 New Addition to Connect Buildings EDUCATIONAL USE GROUP r m weP mmexw NEW COMM smRA LFISTT,'Me MRACL STAIR 11,70 DAY CARE CEM01 PRL SCHOOL r .RDEx �O p�� ooppa aaao❑ - opo ® CHAFf] ❑pope ' p p p o p BR-12a Rp-"' DA-IP! Dpppp aATx O Llxd F—RESIDENTI USE CROUI Q •-v CORRIDOR STADRIAIL aR-110 RM1IW 1VP[RIOR OMC[ RCCViMX BATH F,1 R S T F L O O R P L A N _._.._ OPTION C STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 195 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 20 Central Sired,Suite 108 SRIC,4 Massachusens 01970 Tel:(978)745.4404 Fax.:(978)745-6479 . E-Mail:dard124d`nw com I Member of The American Institute of Amhiteca Member of The Americ=satiety of LAndscpe Architecle STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 ° r Table of Contents Page No. 1. Existing Conditions........................................................................... 3 2. Code Review................................................................................... 8 3. Renovation Budget Cost Estimate............................................................ 18 A Y t 1 4 x l a e �j. STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 LafayeueStrcei,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 a` 1. EXISTING CONDMONS This survey investigates the architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and life-safety systems of Saint Joseph Convent 135 Lafayette Street Salem Massachusetts for the conversion of part of ' `•c"' the building into educational use. Site ° The Saint Joseph Convent is located on the Saint Joseph parish property. The building fronts on ;A c Harbor Street on the north side of the property and is situated between the elementary school and " the rectory. The parish church and parking area are located to the south behind the convent. k ^ I ^' Access The pedestrian access to the site and entry to the building is from the north off Harbor Street and on f the south near the parking area. There is no wheelchair access to the building. The exterior of the site is in good condition. C , ARCHITECTURAL nAreas and Existing Uses di The existing building is designated Residential Use (R-2). The convent has 21,830 gross square feet on three floors. R . 1. First floor(8,000 GFS) This level contains the boiler room, storage,offices and meeting areas. Access to this level is from ' '* c the rear down two steps and at the front through a stairway. a 2. Second Floor(8,000 GSF) Vis, t. This currently has an unused kitchen and common room, chapel, and residential rooms for four "* occupants. h* 3. Third Floor(5,830 GSF) This level is unoccupied and contains the former sleeping rooms for the nuns. • M Area Arrangement The St. Joseph Convent was constructed as a residential facility to house 30 nuns in 1962. As characteristic of these convents, the floors are connected by two stairways, a main stair exiting to the front of the convent and stair exiting to the back. There is no provision for wheelchair access a between the floors. Each floor is divided by the central hall leading to the stairways on each end. 4 k .a- STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Sired,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 . Exterior Walls The walls are ,constructed of solid masonry with exterior finish brick. The windowsills are limestone and the heads are brick supported steel lintels. f . Windows S The facade has double-hung aluminum sash and exterior applied combination storm and screen windows. T y Doors i� The main entry doors appears to be the original aluminum '^ Interior ra � The main entry level and stairway, and most rooms, retain the original trim and finish. The original plaster walls are all in good condition. There is a combination of ceiling and floor finishes that includes acoustical tile, plaster and ceramic tile. The building has not been survey for materials ' containing asbestos. ' Access and Egress Exterior Access and Parking An area currently exists for visitor parking at the rear. The main entry is from Harbor Street and the first floor level entry is from the parking area in the rear. Neither of these entries provides wheelchair access. STRUCTURAL ! The structural system is brick exterior bearing walls and steel frame. Although a complete `t. investigation of this framing is not possible, all floors appeared to be level and in very sound condition. MECHANICAL,ELECTRICAI,PLUMBING Plumbing Systems }. #? Sanitary The existing sanitary,waste and vent system is primarily of cast iron hub and spigot pipe that exits to p Harbor Street in a 5"line. F 5 Y 1, 0i f i � R STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Storm The storm piping for the building discharges in a 3" line on the north side of the building into a municipal line.A sacrarium dry well exists to the west near the chapel. Water The domestic water service comes off the municipal main in Harbor Street and enters the building on the first floor into the unassigned space. This service appears to be 3" in size. From this location, cold water is fed to the boiler room where one gas fired hot water heaters exist. In the boiler room,make-up water is supplied to the boiler through a pressure-reducing valve. Gas v: Natural gas enters the building in the unassigned space in a 3"pipe from the main in Harbor Street. From the meter,gas piping extends out to three (3) locations;the range/oven units with a 1" line;the gas-fired domestic hot water heater,and the boiler with a 3"line. Fixtures The water closets in the building are all flush tank-type design. All appear to be the elongated type. All units intended for public use are required to be of the elongated style. The lavatories all have compression-type faucets with individual hot and cold controls. None are of the metering type,which are required by Code for public use. HVAC Systems 4 Boiler A single, gas-fired,hot water boiler heats the existing building. The boiler make and model number was not obtained. It appears to be approximately 36 years old. The burner make and model number was not obtained. The boiler has a metal flue, which runs from the boiler to a chimney on the north side ofthe boiler room. The boiler is supplied gas from a 3"line. Heating System The heating system is divided into three (3) main piping zones; on for each floor. All zones have water forced through them by common 1/2 HP circulator pumps. On all floors, there are gravity convection type radiators with thermostatic controls. Six ceiling mounted cabinet unit heaters are located in stairways and open areas to provide point of source heating in those areas. There are thermostats mounted on the walls throughout the building. These thermostats control zone valves and circulating pumps and the space temperature within these zoned areas can be maintained accurately. Exhaust y 6 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 4' 1' The toilet rooms on each floor have dulled exhausts. One fan exhaust is located on the roof, 'There r does not exist and ventilation in the larger meeting rooms to provide code required air changes. Electrical Systems wPower The building is provided with a 150 ampere, 120/240 volt, single-phase electrical service that originates from Harbor Street the service inns underground and eaters the fust floor of the building, rrms to a 150 ampere circuit breaker type panelboard located in the Unassigned Room on the first y floor. .The panel-board is equipped with a main circuit breaker. There are seven (7) additional panelboards in the building in varies location. Lighting Lighting is combination of incandescent and fluorescent. Some large rooms are provided with incandescent ceiling fixtures. Lighting levels generally appear o in the budding Light es are of toggle type.There are no illuminated exit signs or emergency lighting present Fire Alarm The building partially protected with a manual fire alarm system. I't 7 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 i 2. CODEREVIEw ` 4 Through the analysis of the existing conditions and a review of the proposed space uses, the rotovation requirements were developed. For a building of this age and use, the Code requirements greatly effect 'W how the building can be adaptively reused.The following are issues that will effect this building tease. r , ,:•H. ,1 Massachusetts State Building Code tt4 �t" Adaptive reuse will require conformity with the Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC), Sixth Edition. Directly applicable Articles and Sections include: �h r a. Article 34: Repair, Alteration, Addition, and Change of Use ofEristing Buildings, Section t•;c 3405.0 Requirements for Change in Use Group to Two or More Hazard Index Greater. ` Ordinary repairs are defined in the MSBC as "any maintenance which does not affect structure, egress,fire protection systems, fire ratings,energy, ss g conservation provisions,plumbing, sanitary,.gas, electrical or other utilities". Therefore, repairs to certain elements of the exterior, and interior decoration at the building could occur without having to comply with MSBC standards. b. Article 34: Repair,Alteration,Addition, and Change of Use of&dsting Buildings I s Article 34 offers building owners and local building officials a way to assess the safety of a building that has been occupied for at least five years, and then to alter it in ways that permit a different use or function without requiring full compliance with the code for new construction. In brief, Article 34 classifies buildings according to the level of public safety hazard they present. ' If the new use of the building is at the same or a lower hazard level,the alterations must conform to =:e section 3404.0,the least restrictive subsection of Article 34. In the case of the St. Joseph Convent, the original use would have been classified as Residential. The proposed use is classified as Educational, a 2 point higher hazard index. In this instance repair and restoration of existing building must proceed with compliance to the MSBC requirements in 3405.0 Requirements for Change in Use Group to Two or More Hazard Index Greater. This essentially says the building must conform to the requirements of the code for new construction. The Americans With Disabilities Act and Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Regulations Changing the use of the Convent requires that those areas be brought up to current standards of access for the disabled. Specifically,this involves compliance with the rules and regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB). In the case of differences between the two codes,the more stringent standards will apply. The Americans With Disabilities Act ADA provides civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public facilities, State and local government services, and telecommunications. The Department of 8 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 1 ) Summary of the Code Analysis Findings ' ry Codes and standards that have been adopted and made part of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) govern new building construction, alteration and the renovation projects in the State of Massachusetts. The above references although not all of the CMR's do contain the most applicable regulations that govern this proposed renovation project. A review of these codes and xT, discussions with the City of Salem building department has resulted in the following renovations, modification and additions being required to allow the existing building to be used as proposed. a*? One of the more troublesome problems with this proposal is that to use the second floor as educational use means a change of use for the building. The existing convent is residential use and to use the second floor for education purposes means that part of this floor use will change. This requires ander 521 CMR Architectural Access Board that the spaces use by the public be made :C accessible to wheelchairs. Another difficult requirement contained in 780 CMR is that the existing construction classification will only allow two stories in height for the educational usegroup. The building is three stories high. The compliant options are: 1. To fire rate the existing structural steel within the building on every floor to achieve a two hour rating which will allow the building to be placed in a protected construction classification. S. To provide an automatic sprinkler system though out the building, which if installed allows the building height, is increased to three stories. nw In addition combining uses on one requires the separation of these different uses and the provision of an egress that does not pass through the other use area. Currently the building is designed with a central double loaded corridor terminating into stairways. The major renovations that are required to allow the use of the Convent as a mixed-use educational 4 and residential building are listed below. 1. Providing access to the public areas for wheelchairs. 2. Installation throughout the building of an automatic sprinkler system or fire rating existing structural steel. 4?r 3. Installation of accessible toilets. 4. Provision of a new second emergency egress from the Educational Use area. 5. Provision for ventilation to provide for the required air changes in the three proposed classrooms and the meeting room on the first floor. 6. Allocation of the space to provide for 35 SF of space for each child in the Day Care pre-school y, program. tis« 7. Installation of additional hand rails in the existing stairway. Providing handrails of both sides of the stair and a lower rail on both sides between 20 and 24 inches above the nosing. 8. Upgrading of the fire alarm and detection system. 9. Changing existing hardware in accessible doors to meet 521CMR. J 10 _a : §fy„ STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 .j,• Length of Exit Travel (Table 1006: MOOr Maximum Existing Comment t` S)(Table 1009.4 ) With Sprinkler � First Floor 250' 132' e+:c } } Second250' 132' 90' proposed with new et , � Third corridor 250' 132' rf 1 , Means of Egress(Table 1009.2) Required Existing Comment Egress Width Stairwa s 42" 48„ X art, s Doors 36 36» Corridors s• R-2 36" 36„ re 72f.re " 60»Than 100 The existing corridor width 1011-3 will be allowed to based on the installation of a �u1 4yr new egress corridor. This leaves only part of the egress corridor in non:wrn fiance. YReference Languaec ��, Exit Stairway 1007.2 Comment :`�?i;� •' An exit stairway to be considered part of an The existing stairs have : vh accessible means of egress shall have a clear one handrail: an additional width of at least 48" between handrails and handrail is required on the shall either incorporate an area of refuge within opposite side. an enlarged story-level landing or shall be yt r accessed from an area of refuge complying with ' 780 CMR 1007.5 or a horizontal exit. r'erence Lan e t' a 1006.0 es E Comment Types grecs from a room or space shall not open into The proposed use meets eans of Egress an adjoining or intervenin room or area:rough adjoining L except where such adjoining room orarea [comply wtem 2 ith itBm onoe sThe is accessory to the.area served 2. is not high-hazard occu residential use is not Pan�S- considered accessory to the and provides a di 3. direct means of egress to an educational use. An exit. alternative second means F CMR 521 Architectural Access When the use of a building changes from a The proposed use r is e a Board. private use to one that is open to and used by change int use from Jurisdiction:3.4 Change in Use the Public, an accessible entrance must be Residential to Educational. Provided,even if no work is being performed. Access for wheelchairs must be rovided. .t}r i ' 12 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street;Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Reference Language Comment { 1014.12 Exterior Stairways Exterior stairways shall have opening on at The exterior stairs will least one side facing an outer court, yard or require a roof enclosure to public way. The opening shall have an protect from the heather. "'• aggregate width of not less than 20% of the stairway perimeter and an aggregate area on each level of not less than 12% of the total e x, perimeter wall area of each level. In other than r occupancies in Use Group R-3, treads, platform and landings which are part of exterior stairways in climates subject to snow or ice shall be protected to prevent accumulation of same. 1014.12.1 Location Exterior exit stairways shall not project beyond Proposed stair will be S the street lot line. Exterior exit stairways shall feet from the adjacent be located at least ten feet from adjacent lot building. lines and from other buildings on the same lot unless opemng.m such buildings are protected '--hour ing protective Reference -Language Comment 1017.4 Door Hardware All doors shall swing in the direction of egress The existing doors can where serving an occupant load of 50 or more remain swinging into the persons or where serving a high hazard classrooms all occupancies n will be under 50 persons. Fire Protection System Device Existing Proposed Cha ter 9 Alarms Old Per code Detectors Old per Code Fire Separation Between Fire Edugtion/Residential 2Hr. Areas.(Table 313.1.2) 780 CMR 715.0 Fireresistance Location Structural Members Rating Comment Rating of Structural Members Supporting Fire rated Assemblies Stairs and Shafts Corridors 0 hr 4 780 CMR Day Care Centers Comments 424.4.1.4 Handrails Stair must have a lower bandrail installed between 20" and 24" above the nosing of the sitar tread. 424.1.5 Guards Refer to CMR 1021.0. J 13 k. STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 k 9s+ _ Reference I.Exterior FilrRe . Elements Resistance Ratings of structural I.EMetior Walls: Elements Load Bearin (Table 602) g' I Hr. 1L' 2.Fire Wall Non-Load Bearing: ea ng 0 � (Table 705.2) Party Wall: 2 Hr. 1'' f' 3.Fire Enclosure of Exits:• iHr.(1014.11,709) less than four stories 3.Shaft Walls: (709,710) 3.Mixed Use and 'l. Fire Separation:(Table 313.1.2) 2 Hr. •. 3.Other Separation assemblies 1 Hr. ' 4.Exist access corridors E, 1 Hr.(Table 1011.4) ;;�tqq R-2, IIIc x4.Tenant spaces separations 1 Hr.(Table 1011.4) 5.Dwelling unit separations iaP. 6. Smoke Barriers 1Hr. krs 7.Other non-londbearmg Partitions O Hr. '. 8.Boiler Room I Hr.(Table 302.1.1) 9.Electric Room 0 Hr. �.: . 10. Interior loa dbeanng walls° loadbeanng SuPporting one floor onl or a roof Partitions, columns, girders, trusses, (other IHr. y than roof trusses)&Naming 10. Interior loadbeating walls, loadbearing Supporting more than one floor Partitions, columns girders, trusses, (other 1 Hr. than roof trusses)&Gaming 1 I.Structural members 1 hr Not less than wall supported. supporting wall: i »; 12.Floor construction I .. `R including beams: A.:.r 11. Roof Construction, including beams, 15' or less in heights to lowest member trusses and forming,arches&roof deck. 0 Hr. .i,K 11. Roof Conslmction, including s and beams, More th an[nosethan 15' but less 20' in framrrtg,arches&roof deck. heights to lowest member. q� OHr. 1 I. Roof ConsWction, including beams, 20'or more in height to lowest member [Hisses and framing,arches&roof deck. OHr. 14 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 102 CMR: Office of ChildCare Services Reference La a Comment 102CMR 7.25: Physical Requirements in Group Day Care Centers (3)Lead Paint Requirement and Lead The Licensee shall ensure that paint used in the center is lead i•:. Paint Inspection free. a_. (a) The licensee shall provide evidence of a lead paint inspecti'on from the local board of health. (4) Outdoor space.The licensee shall maintain,or have access to, an outdoor play area of at least 75 square feet per child using it at any one time. (5)Indoor space The licensee shall have a minimum of 35 square feet of activity space per child,exclusive of hallways,lockers, wash and toilet rooms, isolation rooms, kitchens, closets, office or F' area regularly used for other purposes. (8)Heating sources All steam and hot water pipes and radiators shall be protected by permanent screens,guards,insulation or any other suitable devise which prevents children from coming in contact with than. (9)Electrical Outlets All electrical outlets, within the reach of children, shall be made inaccessible by use of a safety devise or covering that %4, bars access to the receptacle openings. - (10)Room Temperature Room temperature in rooms occupied by children shall be maintained at not less than 65 degrees F at 0 degrees F outside, and at not more than the outside temperature when the outside temperature is above 80 degrees F. (11)Office Space There shall be designated space,separate from children's play or rest areas, for administrative duties and staff or personnel conferences. (12)Personal space There shall be sufficient space, accessible to children, for each child to store clothing and other personal items. (14)Windows The licensee shall provide suitable guards across the inside of i any windows that are accessible to children and present a hazard. (18)Toilets and Wash basins The licensee shall maintain one toilet and washbasin for t every 20 children in one or more well ventilated bathrooms. 102CMR 7.26:Physical Access Reference LIMP Uftffe Comment ` (9)Stairs All interior and exterior stairs shall comply with the following: (a) No open risers. (b) Nosings not projecting and not damaged. (c) Double handrails on both sides of the stain: the upper mil set between 30 inches and 33 inches measured vertically above the nosing of the treads and the lower mil set at approximately 20 't inches measures vertically at the face of the rise. The top handrail y shall extend at least 12 inches beyond the top and bottom of the stairs. (d) A round or oval handgrip with a diameter between 11/4 inches and two inches. 15 t STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT jF'Tt SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Plumbing Requirements CMR 105, 410 (State Sanitary Code, Article II, Minimum Standard of Fitness for Human y[, Habitation and shall conform with 248 CMR 2.01(7) Educational Use Plumbing Requirements FixtureComa 7. (MA Plumbing Code s WC Lay. Urinal Floor MEN Proposed Requvad Proposed Required Proposed Requited 'Itix Pre-school 2 { �:t Z Kindergaden and z 2 1 - Seccnd Floor First Gude s W WOMEN �.. E ool ;gedm and 2 Z Z Second Floorrade r 1 Eaistin 1 1 eaitin I iceduaures 6 S First Flour S S 1 . -Proposed R ired Floor DRRgKING 1 1 b=nd floor FOUNTAINS *a. JAN.SINKS erdAin 1 Firstfloor J q4 i J H.C.Parking Required Proposed Re lations 1 1 H.C.Access Wheelchair Access (MAAB Regulations) First floor: ramp. '' Second floor: either a rarrip or interior limited use elevator. aa,tA' Iia.. Building Systems Review The items recommended herein are based on present Code requirements which would not be applicable sk unless renovations or improvements are accomplished which effect an areaof the buil system. ding or a certain A.Plumbing Systems J^1 The Plumbing Code requires that all water closets that may be used by the public, which apply to all in this building must be of the elongated style. Whenever a water closet needs to be repaired or replaced, a 1.5 gallon per flush unit must be used to confomn to present Code requirements. If centaur floors are made accessible to the handicapped,then the water closets should be of suitable design. To comply with currant Codes,faucets should be ofthe metering type. The fixtures themselves should ber replaced with those of handicapped design when the toilet rooms are made accessible. J 16 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 B.HVAC Systems The classrooms and large meeting rooms do not have Code required mechanical ventilation. "ihrougb wall units ventilators will be required in each ofthese rooms to comply with the Code. J C.Fire Protection Systems presently,there is no fire suppression system of any type in this building. Because of the change in useand the number of stories allowed by Code for this use group a sprinkler system will be required. In addition,sprinklers are necessary in the boder room,kitchen and storage areas. D.Electrical Systems All means of egress should be provided with illuminated exit signs with backup emergency power. Fe All means of egress should be provided with emergency lighting to illuminate the exit discharge- Emergency lighting would be provided through the use of low voltage battery units and remhote lighting heads. A complete manual and automatic fire alarm system should be provided throughout the building. Aa µ ' W yIII} 1 l f r.! J f e a 17 �i STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 3. RENOVATION BUDGET COST ESTIMATE Estimated Project Renovation Costs Option A:Provide for the day care, kindergarten and first grade program on the second floor and maintain a mixed-use building. Provide wheelchair access to the first and second floor only. Budget: $296,000 Contingency: $30,000 '+ Total: $325,000 ,t Option B:Provide for the day care, kindergarten and first grade program on the second floor and maintain a mixed-use building. Provide wheelchair access to all floors. x, Budget: $292,000 Contingency: $30,000 Total: $322,000 Option C:Provide for the day care, kindergarten and first grade program on the second floor and maintain a mixed-use building. Provide wheelchair access to the second floor by connecting to the existing school with an enclosed corridor. Provide access to lower level with exterior ramp. s, Provide second exit from residential use with new exterior stairs. Budget: $310,000 3' Contingency: $30,000 Total: $340,000 a; 18 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lajayeve Srr t,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 St. Joseph Salem Dennis J, Gray Architect, Inc. 6/3/98 jConcept A a Preliminary Cost Estimate 'oi�• Total SF 21800 Cost Unit Areas Cost Units General Requirements $26,502 O 'tj^ Division 1 Site Work 02100 Demolition $4,000 $0.50 8000 SF *` 02110 Site Clearing $1,900 $3,800.00 0.5 ACRE 9.4 02150 Shoring and Bracing $1,300 $13.00 100 SF X 02200 Earthwork $600 $12.00 50 CY ta 02270 Storm Drainage $800 $40.00 20 LF 02513 Asphalt Concrete Paving $2,850 $1.90 1500 SF , 02514 Cement Concrete Paving $5,000 $5.00 1000 SY 02800 Site Improvements $400 $200A0 2'EA ,8 Subtotal $16,850 Division 3 Concrete 03310 Cast-In-Place Concrete $5,000 $250.00 20 CY { 'r 03320 Concrete Slab $12,000 $6.00 2000 SF ,." Subtotal $17,000 Division 4 Masonry 04200 Unit Masonry $1,200 $8.00 150 SF Subtotal $1,200 Division 5 Metals �.: 05120 Structural Steel $400 $40.00 10 Ton 05520 Handrails and Railings $15,000 $30.00 500 LF Subtotal $15,400 Division 6 Wood and Plastics ' 06100 Rough Carpentry $18,000 $9.00 2000 SF 06400 Finish Carpentry $1,250 $25.00 50 LF 06400 Architectural Woodwork $450 $3.00 150 LF Subtotal $19,700 Division 7 Thermal and Moisture Protection E 07200 Insulation $210 $1.05 200 SF *: 07270 Firestopping $150 $1.50 100 SF 07900 Joint Sealers $339 $2.26 150 LF Subtotal $699 Division 8 Doors and Windows ` 08110 Steel Doors and Frames $6,400 $800.00 8 EA 08610 Windows $1,500 $30.00 50 SF 08710 Builders Hardware $4,000 $500.00 8.SF 08800 Glass &Glazing $1,500 $30.00 50 SF "' Subtotal $13,400 19 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Division 9 Finishes 09210 Veneer Plaster New Walls $16,000 $8.00 2000 SF ' Existing Columns $12,000 $600.00 20 EA 09300 Tile Walls $2,880 $12.00 240 SF 09680 Resilient Flooring $691 $1.80 384 SF P15 09900 Interior Painting $6,000 $1.50 4000•SF Exterior Painting $4,000 $2.00 2000 SF *a% 09950 Wall Coverings $0 $2.80 0 SF Subtotal $41,571 Division 10 Specialties 10100 Chalkboards &Tackboards $1,500 $500.00 3 EA 10160 Toilet Partitions $4,350 $870.00 S:EA 10200 Louvers &Vents $200 $8.00 25 SF 10440 Specialty Signs $180 $45.00 4 SF 10522 Fire Extinguishers & Cab. $200 $200.00 1 EA 10800Toilet Accessories $1,600 $200.00 8'EA Subtotal $8,030 Division 11 Equipment INot used Division 12 Fumishings -V 12500 Window Treatment $0 $7.20 0 SF >.• 12690 Entrances Mats $0 $8.60 0 SF. Subtotal ERR k Division 15 Mechanical 15300 Fire Protection $0 $2.50 0 SF ;. 15400 Plumbs n9 $25,000 $2,500.00 10 EA 15000 HVAC $42,000 $6,000.00 7 EA tom;, Subtotal $67,000 Division 16 Electrical 16100Fire Safety $0 $2.50 0 SF 1 16200 Lighting $24,000 $8.00 3000 SF 16300 Service $0 $15,000.00 0 EA 16400 Sound System $0 $15,000.00 0 EA Subtotal $24,000 �y M1 Subtotal $220,850 •' '` ' General Contractors O&P $19,877 9% ' Subtotal $267,229 A&E Fees $26,723 Subtotal $293,952 x' v: y t' l 20 a_¥2 SCHOOL EXPANSION INTomNVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH } mLafayefte_.Salm.Ma _mm y< MERei m #e_m_es Borings $0 moo■ o E R■m «AS a■ 200 EA Testing and Geotechnical K 150I2 0 §f ; Analysis . « terSupplied Data k2 a , `x Site Survey $0 $5,000.00 0 E Owner Purchased #m ( � --- Furnishings $902 a � 2 \ , Chairs &r k $0 $30.130 of } Owners P m RP. . A« m Subtotal $1,500 >ƒ « \ ) \ m, $295,452 �\ § �{ \ . Al �y < £\ ? ƒ2\ �z . , 21 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH \\ 135 Lafayette Sheet,Salem,Massachusetts 0 19 70 11 St. Joseph Salem Dennis J, Gray Architect, Inc. 813/98 lConcept B Preliminary Cost Estimate v Total SF 21800 Cost Unit Areas Cost Units General Requirements $26,239 Division 1 Site Work 02100 Demolition $8,000 $1.00 8000 SF 02110 Site Clearing $1,900 $3,800.00 0.5 ACRE 02150 Shoring and Bracing $1,300 $13.00 100 SF 02200 Earthwork $600 $12.00 50 CY 02270 Storm Drainage $800 $40.00 20 LF j 02513 Asphalt Concrete Paving $190 $1.90 100 SF 02514 Cement Concrete Paving $1,000 $5.00 200 SY 02800 Site Improvements $400 $200.00 2 EA Subtotal $6,190 Division 3 Concrete 03310 Cast-In-Place Concrete $2,500 $250.00 10 CY 03320 Concrete Slab $3,000 $6.00 500 SF Subtotal $5,500 J) Division 4 Masonry 04200 Unit Masonry $1,200 $8.00 150 SF Subtotal $1,200 Division 5 Metals 05120 Structural Steel $1,600 $40.00 40 LF 05520 Handrails and Railings $3,000 $30.00 100 LF Subtotal 1 $4,600 Division 6 Wood and Plastics 06100 Rough Carpentry $18,000 $9.00 2000 SF 06400 Finish Carpentry $1,250 $25.00 50 LF 06400 Architectural Woodwork $450 $3.00 150LF Subtotal=j1w Division 7 Thermal and Moisture Protection 07200 Insulation $105 $1.05 100 SF w 07270 Firestopping $150 $1.50 100 SF 07900 Joint Sealers $339 $2.26 150 LF Subtotal $594 22 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Division 8 Doors and Windows '' 08110 Steel Doors and Frames $6,400 $800.00 8 JEA 08610 Windows $1,500 $30.00 50 SF 08710 Builders Hardware $4,000 $500.00 8 SF 08800 Glass & Glazing $1,500 $30.00 50 'SF Subtotal $13,400 Division 9 Finishes T 09210 Veneer Plaster $16,000 $8.00 2000 SF 09300 Tile F Walls $2,880 $12.00 240.SF 09680 Resilient Flooring $691 $1.80 384 SF 09900 Interior Painting $6,000 $1.50 4000 SF Exterior Painting $4,000 $2.00 2000 SF 09950 Wall Coverings $2,800 $2.80 1000 SF Subtotal $32,371 i Division 10 Specialties 10100 Chalkboards &Tackboards $1,500 $500.00 3 EA 10160 Toilet Partitions $4,350 $870.00 5 EA 10200 Louvers &Vents $200 $8.00 25 SF 10200 Wall and Comer Guards $75 $15.00 5 LF 10440 Specialty Signs $180 $45.00 4 SF 10522 Fire Extinguishers & Cab. $200 $200.00 1 EA 10800 Toilet Accessories $1,600 $200.00 8 EA Subtotal $8,105 u, Division 11 Equipment INotused Division 12 Furnishings 12390 Kitchen Cabinets $0 $120.00 0 LF .x 12500 Window Treatment $0 $7.20 0 SF 4 12690 Entrances Mats $0 $8.60 0 SF Subtotal $0 Division 14 Elevator $36,000 $36,000.00 1 EA Division 15 Mechanical 15300 Fire Protection $0 $2.50 0 SF 15400 Plumbing $25,000 $2,500.00 10 EA 15000 HVAC $42,000 $6,000.00 7 EA Subtotal $67,000 Division 16 Electrical 16100 Fire Safety $0 $2.50 0 SF 16200 Lighting $24,000 $8.00 3000 SF 16300 Service $0 $15,000.00 0 EA 16400 Sound System $0 $15,000.00 0 EA Subtotal $24,000 23 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Subtotal $218,660 General Contractors O&P $19,679 9% Subtotal $264,579 A&E Fees $26,458 Subtotal $291,037 'i A&E Reimbursable expenses Borings $0 $400.00 0 EA Printing $500 $5.00 100 EA Testing and Geotechnical $0 $300.00 0 Analysis { Owner Supplied Data ? Fees $500 $500.00 1 _ Site Survey $0 $5,000.00 0 EA j Owner Purchased Items Furnishings Pews $0 $90.00 0 EA Chairs &Tables $0 $30.00 0 EA I Owners Project Rep. Clerk $0 Subtotal $1,000 Total $292,037 J 24 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Str t,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 St. Joseph Salem Dennis J, Gray Architect, Inc. 8/3/98 Concept C Preliminary Cost Estimate Total SF 21800 Cost Unit Areas Cost Units General Requirements $27,854 Division 1 Site Work 02100 Demolition $10,000 $1.00 10000'SF 02110 Site Clearing $3,040 $3,800.00 0.8 ACRE 02150 Shoring and Bracing $1,300 $13.00 100 SF 02200Earthwork $4,800 $12.00 400 CY 02270 Storm Drainage $800 $40.00 20 LF 02513 Asphalt Concrete Paving $190 $1.90 100 SF 02514 Cement Concrete Paving $1,000 $5.00 200 SY 02800 Site Improvements $400 $200.00 2 EA Subtotal $11,530 54sion 3 Concrete 03310 Cast-In-Place Concrete $7,500 $250.00 30 CY 03320 Concrete Slab $3,600 $6.00 600 SF Subtotal $11,100 Division 4 Masonry 04200 Unit Masonry $13,500 $25.00 540 SF Subtotal $13,500 Division 5 Metals 05120 Structural Steel $1,600 $40.00 40 LF 05520 Handrails and Railings $3,000 $30.00 100 LF Subtotal I $4,600 Division 6 Wood and Plastics 06100 Rough Carpentry $18,000 $9.00 2000 SF 06400 Finish Carpentry $1,250 $25.00 50 LF 06400 Architectural Woodwork $450 $3.00 150 LF Subtotal $19,700 Division 7 Thermal and Moisture Protection 07200 insulation $525 $1.05 500 SF 07270 Firestopping $150 $1.50 100 SF 07900 Joint Sealers $339 $2.26 150 LF Subtotal $1,014 J 25 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Stree{Salem,Massachusetts 01990 Division 8 Doors and Windows 08110 Steel Doors and Frames 08610 Windows $9,600 $800.00 12 EA 08710 Builders Hardware $1.500 $30.00 50 SF $1,� $$30.00 12 SF 08800 Glass & Glazing l $1 5� $30.00 50 SF Subtotal $18,600 DiHsion 9 Finishes 09210 Veneer Plaster $20,000 09300 Tile Walls $8.002500 SF 09680 $2,880 $12.00 240.SF Resilient Flooring 80 09900 Interior Painting $691 $1. 384 SF $6,000 $1.50 4000 SF Exterior Painting 09950 Wall Co%erings $4000 $Z 2000 SF. Subtotal $2.800 $2.80 1000 SF $36,371 Division 10 Specialties f10100 Chalkboards &Tackboards $1,500 10160 Toilet Partitions $500.00 3 to 10200 Lowers & Vents $4,350 $870.00 5 E4 10200 Wall and Comer Guards $200 $8.00 25 SF 10440 S $75 $15.00 5 LF Specialty Signs $180 $45.00 10522 Fire Extinguishers &Cab. 4 SF i ) 10800 Toilet Accessories �00 $200.00 1 Eq Subtotal $8 $1,600 $200.00 g EA ,105 Division 11 Equipment Not used DiHsion 12 Furnishings 12390 Kitchen Cabinets $0 $120.00 12500 Window Treatment 0 LF 12690 Entrances Mats $0 $7.20 0 SF Subtotal -$0 $8.60 0 SF Division 14 Lift $15,000 15,000.00 DiHsion 15 Mechanical 1 EA 15300 Fire Protection 15400 Plum tzng $0 $2.50 0 SF 15000 HVAC $25.000 $2,500.00 10.EA Subtotal $67,000 $42,000 $6,000.00 7 EA Division 16 Electrical 16100 Fire Safety $0 $2.50 16200 Lighting 0 SF 16300 Service $25,600 $8.00 3200 SF 16400 Sound System $0 15,000.00 0 EA Subtotal $0 15,000.00 0 EA $25,600 26 STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Subtotal $232,120 General Contractors O&P $20,891 9% Subtotal $280,865 A&E Fees $28,087 Subtotal $308,952 A&E Reimbursable espenses Borings $0 $400.00 0 EA Printing $500 $5.00 100 EA Testing and Geotechnical $0 $300.00 0 Analysis Owner Supplied Data Fees $500 $500.00 1 Site Survey $0 $5,000.00 0 EA Owner Purchased Items Furnishings Pews $0 $90.00 0 EA Chairs &Tables $0 $30.00 0 EA Owners Project Rep. Clerk $0 Subtotal $1,000 I Total $309,952 I J 4 27 �( STUDY OF SCHOOL EXPANSION INTO CONVENT SAINT JOSEPH PARISH 135 Lafayette Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 OWNER Archdiocese of Boston 2121 Commonwealth Avenue Brighton, Massachusetts 021354564 PASTOR Revered Lawrence J. Rondeau,Pastor M - ARCIITECT Dennis J.Gray Architects,Inc. 20 Central Street,Suite 108 Salem,Massachusetts 01907 TEL:978 745 4404 FAX.978 745 6479 Projmt No.98029 _ August 1998 N -- �� C - � ,� ��• - �� 7 , , 02/12.2007 18:34 FAX 978 823 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR., ESQ. 2009 CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Kimbetky Driscoll Mayor January 17,2007 Honorable Salem City Council 93 Washington Skeet Salem,Massaehusacts 01970 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council: I am writing to update you with regard to correspondence recently received from the State Division of Housing and Community Development,in connection with a potential Comprehensive Permit Application at the forma St.Joseph's Church site. As you know,last year the Planning Office of Urban Affairs(POUA)received local approval from both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Beard for a six story,97 unit,mixed- use development at the St.Joe's site. Unfor unincly,the permits were appealed and the litigation has dragged on for a number of months,causing not only delays to construction,but increases in costs related to legal fees and debt service for POUA, As a result,POUA is considering alternative options to develop this site. One of these alternatives may consisr,of a Comprehensive Permit Application to the ZBA,commonly referred to as a"40B approval". Essentially,a Comprehenslve Permit allows a developer to obtain one permit from the ZBA for a development project that includes a peroeataga of affordable housing. The criteria for review of such projects is essentially the same as the site plan review process recently undertaken by our local boards,however the appeal process for such projects is streamlined at the state level. I have had some very preliminary discussions with POUA regarding this ptocess and the proposed project I anticipate that further dialogue with representatives from POUR will take place over the course of the next week,following which I would expect to submit formal correspondence regarding the status of this project to the City Council prion-to your next meeting. I am writing to you today bemuse members of the ZBA were informed of a potential Comprehensive Permit Application and were briefed on the 40Bprocess by the Assistant City Solicitor at tonight's ZBA meeting. I know that this project is of interest to it number of you and wanted you to be aware of the most recent goings-on,as well as the fact that I expect to have additional details to share with you shortly. I am scheduled for jury duty tomorrow,but Hope to be in the office at some point during the day. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns related to this topic. Thank you. very truly yours, Kimberley Driscoll Mayor 02/12/2007 18:40 FAX 878 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESO. -Z 004 John H. Carr,Jr.,Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 January 31,2007 By hand George B.Newman,Esq.,Assistant District Attorney Office of Essex County District Attorney Jonathan W. Bludgette 10 Federal Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: Former St Joseph's church structure at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts William Dzierzek, et al v, Salem Lafayette Development,LLC,et al,Docket No. 2006- 1820C William Dzierzek, et al v. Salem Lafayette Development,LLC, et al, Docket No. 2006- 1881D Dear Attorney Newman: Confirming our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon,I am herewith formally requesting that your office determine whether or not there has been a violation of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law based on the following set of fads. Because this may involve the active complicity of a Massachusetts state agency,namely the State Division of Housing&Community Development,I am also herewith sending a copy of this letter to Attorney General Martha Coakley. By way of background, I represent approximately 40 plaintiffs on a pro bono basis who have appealed the August 24,2006 Decision of the Salem Board of Appeals evanti ag two variances to the developer of the former St. Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette Street,Salem, Massachusetts, namely Salem Lafayette Development,LLC(hereinafter"SLD"). They have also appealed a related September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Derision of the Salem Planning Board in favor of SLD. I am herewith enclosing copies of the detailed Complaints I have timely tiled in the Essex Superior Court appealing both Decisions,the 7BA appeal being Docket no.2006-I820C,and the Planning Board appeal being Docket no.2006-1981D. Basically, with respect to the ZBA Decision,one of the two variances involves enlarging the 45- foot maximum height restriction to 65 feet(i.e.relative to the proposed new 6-story structwe to be built on the site of the present St Joseph's Church structure,which would be demolished)and the other involves increasing the 3 '/1 maximum-number-of-stories-restriction.to 6 stories for the 02/12/2007 16:11 FAX 878 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. 005 proposed new structure. With respect to the September 14,2006 Planning Board Decision,that basically involves granting SLD a Planned Unit Development(hereinafter I"UD")of 97 residential units plus an 18,000 square foot proposed Senior/Community Lifer Center,which is 64 units above the current legal density for the area. All of the foregoing maximums are pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning for the district in which the fowler St.Joseph's property is located. By way of further background,the relocation of the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to the proposed new 6-story structure on Lafayette Street is vigorously opposed by the vast majority of Salem's senior citizens who use the existing Broad Street facility, and there is a question as to whether the Mayor intends to use$4.75 million of federal funds in order to purchase said facility, in which event said funds could not be used to demolish the present St Joseph's Church structure(which is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places)without there fust being a so-called 106 Review administered by the Federal Advisory Council. 1 have just now become aware that SLD has filed a new application before the Salem ZBA for a "Comprehensive Permit Application"pursuant to Chapter 408 of the Massachusetts General Laws,which application seeks exactly the same relief as was granted in the foregoing ZBA Decision of August 24,2006 and the Planning Board Decision of September 14, 2006. My understanding is that SLD's new 40B application is to be heard by the Salem ZBA at a specially- scheduled meeting on Monday evening,February 12,2007. There is no question that Salem's new Mayor, Kimberly Driscoll,is aggressively pushing this Project Jf this isn't clear from the extensive)oval press coverage over the I&,;t several months, the following will remove any doubt. I am herewith enclosing a copy of a letter Mayor Driscoll emailed to each member of the Salem City Council,dated January 17,2007, wherein she states, in relevant part: I am writing to you today because members of the ZBA were informed of a potentia!Comprehensive Permit Application and were briefed on the 408 process by the Assistant City Solicitor at tonigbt's ZBA meeting. (Emphasis added). in that letter the Mayor is quite"up front,"at least with respect to the Salem t,ity Council,that this latest 40B application is directly motivated by my clients'appeals,and the delays and costs to the St Joseph's project inherent in same. Note that the date of Mayor Driscoll's letter is January 17, 2007,ie.the same day as the ZBA meeting, and the syntax of the above-quoted language,namely"wane informed"and"were briefed" (Emphasis added). 'Thus,the letter could only have been sent after the ZBA meeting, which(as hereinafter discussed) means that there was absolutely no way any member of the public,including members ofthe Salem City Council,could have related the first item on the January 17,2007 ZBA Agenda to the St. Joseph's project prior to said ZBA meeting. 2 02!12!2007 18:42 FAX 875 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. 2008 Yesterday morning,in light of Mayor Driscoll's January 17,2007 letter,I requested copies of both the ZBA Agenda for its January 17,2007 meeting,and the Minutes of s;dd meeting yesterday morning. I was subsequently told by a representative of the Salem.Building Department that said Minutes have not yet been completed either in draft of finished form, even though today marks the second full week since the January 17,2007 ZBA meeting. 1 was,however,faxed a copy of the Agenda for said meeting,a copy of which I am herewith enclosing. Please note that the first item on the Agenda recites the following: 1. Discussion of Chapter 40B(Comprebensive Permit Law)-Jerry Parisella" Please also note that said Agenda item contains absolutely no reference to 13 5 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts,whereas every 91ber item on the Age da(being Agenda items 2-9 inclusive)not only have addresses for each matter before the ZBA that evening,but also the addresses for those Agenda items=printed in bold lettering. As a consequence,based on said ZBA Agenda,as both posted in the Salem City Hall and advertised in the Salem News,the public had absolutely no way of knowing in advance that Agenda item no. I had anything to do with the St.Joseph's project,whereas the fact of the matter is,as Mayor Driscoll's January 17,2007 letter to the Salem City Council makes explicitly (and abundantly)clear,this was not a discussion of Chapter 40B in the abstroct,but with particularreQardl to the St.Joseph's project,and(especially)how Chapter 40:6 could be used as an"end run"around the present appeals. Indeed,it seems absolutely clear that the"Chapter 40B Discussion"was absolutely driven by the St.Joseph's project. I also direct your attention to Agenda item no. 8,namely"Old/New Business." This could hardly be interpreted to cure the above-cited defects with respect ro the first Agenda item,not only because the Chapter 40B Discussion was separately(albeit inadequately)listed as Agenda item no. 1,but also because it doesn't apply to either"Old Business"or"New Business." with respect to the former,any"Old Business"involving the St.Joseph's property effectively ended with the ZBA's August 24,2006 Decision(now being appealed from),and with respect to"New Business,"that could only apply to SLD's new 40B application,which could not properly be before the ZBA until February 12,2007. The bottom line is that by these machinations one side of a hotly-contested matter before the ZBA was able to initially present a large portion of its case before the Board on January 17,2007 without the public at large,or the Plaintiffs/Appellants in particular,being given any reasonable advance notice of what was occurring,or being given 1M opportunity to be beard,let alone a reasonable opportunity to be heard. In light of same,and especially in view of the extraordinary speed with which the ZBA granted the 2 variances in its August 24,2006 Decision,and(at least in my opinion)its total lack of regard to Massachusetts Law in approving same,my clients have every reason to believe that the ZBA hearing on Febntary 12,2007 is not only a foregone conclusion,but a sham exercise- 3 02/12/201)7 18:42 FAX 078 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , FSQ, 2 1)07 Indeed, especially in view of the detailed and copious materials that SLD filed last summer in connection with both its ZBA and Planning Board applications;the 3 public hearings held by the Planning Board;the single hearing conducted by the ZBA; the intense involv:.nient of the Mayor (who spoke at length at the beginning of the first Planning Board hearing)and the City Planner, Lynn Duncan(who appeared and spoke at length atag_ch of the three Planning Board hearings); the close involvement of Ms. Duncan's Office of Planning&Community Development from the inception of this project; and the fact that SLD has been represented by competent local Zoning counsel,namely Joseph Correnti,throughout,one might reasonably question why it is that Chapter 40B is the correct procedure now, instead of the approvals that were so painstakingly sought last summer. Also,on the issue of speed,I have received any number of unsolicited comments from members of the public since I filed the two existing appeals in behalf of my clients. Many of these have either been applicants before the Salem ZBA in recent years,or have attended ZBA bearings in which others have applied for variances. Virtually all of these conmterds ha.a involved astonishment over how little scrutiny the Board gave to SLD's application for the two variances, or any apparent genuine regard for the very strict standards trader Massacb.usvtts Lave governing the granting of variances. Indeed,many of these comments have expressed surprise and disgust over the apparent preferential treatment the ZBA treated said application, both in terms of speed and substance,compared to their own experience,which they found all the more remarkable given the scope of the St.Joseph's project compared to the more modest scotie of their own. With respect to the merits,I would also add that Chapter 40B is familiarly known as the"Anti Snob Zoning Statute"and is generally used by developers in an attempt to circumvent local zoning requirements,and local Zoning Board approval,for a particular project. Also,in order to be eligible for said relief,an applicant must demonstrate that said community has less than 10% of its total housing stock dedicated to low-income housing,housing for the elderly,handicapped housing,affordable housing,and the like. Ironically,my understanding is that such housing stock in Salem exceeds the 10%threshold in all respects. Thus,it would appear that Mayor Driscoll is involving the ZBA in this instance on a collusive basis to avoid an adjudication of my two existing appeals,which they apparently feel will kill the project. In such event,that would really mean that the two approvals granted by the Salem ZBA and the Salem Planning Board via the August 24,2006 and September 14,2006 Decisions were illegal to begin with. While I do not pretend to be an expert on the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law,it seems to me that the spirit(if not the letter)of that law should involve the following at a minimum: I. That the public have a right to reasonable(and effective)notice ot'what is to transpire before a municipal Board at a particular meeting in order to give members of the public a reasonable opportunity to hear,or be heard,concermog same; 2. That both proponents and opponents on any matter before a municipal Board should have equal standing,or put another way,neither side should have had a"head start" or any other unfair advantage. 4 02/12/2007 18:33 FAX 978 823 0068 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. Z008 At least in my humble opinion,the foregoing conduct of both the Mayor and the Salem ZBA would seem to be a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law,and raises very serious issues with respect to fundamental notirxts of justice,due process,and fair play. I am herewith formally requesting in behalf of my clients that your office: 1. Investigate this situation; 2. Obtain copip of all present and prior drafts of the Minutes of the January 17,2007 ZBA meeting; 3. Obtain a tape of the January 17,2007 ZBA hearing and transcribe same; 4. Make a determination as to whether a violation of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law occurred as a result of the foregoing circumstances;and 5. If a violation is found to have occurred,that you bring immediate and effLctive enforcement proceedings and assess the fall measure of sanctions available under the statute against all those found to be responsible for same. I would specifically fiuther ask that you determine whether or not the ZBA went into Executive Session regarding Agenda item no. I at its January 17,2007 meeting,in which event I would think that that would amount to an even mora egregious violation of the Open Meeting Law. Would you or someone from your office kindly acknowledge receipt of this Inver and its enclosure by signing and dating the enclosed copy hereof. Thank you in advance for your attention to the foregoing. Very truly yours, John H. Can,Jr. Enc Cc Attorney General Martha Coakley—By Certified Mail&Facsimile Tina Brooks,Director of Department of Housing&Community Development-Same Elizabeth Renard, Salem City Solicitor—By Hand Members, Salem City Council—By Hand Massachusetts Historical Commission—By Certified Mail& Facsimile Federal Advisory Council—By Certified Mail&Facsimile Salem Historical Commission—By Hand Historic Salem Inc.—By Hand Plaintiffs—By Hand 5 02/12/2007 18:40 FA1 978 825 0068 .JOHN H. CARR. JR. , ESQ. Z003 I simply point out the foregoing for the record in view of the legal proceedings that are undoubtedly going to follow. In view of what transpired last summer in granting SLIT two variances,do you really expect that my client's would have confidence in the integrity of the Boacd to make a legal and not a political decision tonight, or put another way,if you were in their shoes, don't you think that you would feel that what is about to transpire this evening is a foregone conclusion,and a sham exercise? Very truly yours, John H. Carr, Jr. Cc. Salem Building Department Plaintiffs Save Our Seniors 02/12/2007 1.8:59 FA1 878 825 0088 JOFN H. CARR. JR. , ESQ. Z001 JOIN H. CARR,JR.,ESQ. 9 North Street Si4em,MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET FACSB4]LE NUMBER: 978-740-9846 I T0: Building Department City of Salem 120 Washington Street, 3"a Floor Salem, MA 01970 RE: Tonight's ZBA Hearing on Chapter 40B Application of SLD, St. Joseph's Property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA DATE: February 12,2007 Pages including this cover page: lid Ihn tafom,aition contained in this fscsimile message is legally privileged and confidential infomatimt intended tmly for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the m:ipiest uamcd above,you a.e hereby notified that any disscmioatiod,distribution moopy of this facsimile message is stric0y prohibited. If you heve received this facsimile nwssW in error,please notify aa:immediately by telephone and mtum the otigtul mrssage to»k at the above address via the United states Postal Setvim Thank you. 02/12/2007 18:60 FAX 978 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. Z002 John H.Carr,Jr.,Esq. 9 North Street Salem.MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fac: 978-825-0068 February 12,2007 By Mail&By Facsimile:978-745-9157 Elizabeth Renard,Esq., City Solicitor Kaufman&Frederick 265 Essex Street Salem,MA 01970 Re: Tonight's ZBA Hearing on Chapter 40B Application of SLD, St.Joseph's Property at 135 Lafayette Sheet,Salem,MA Dear Attorney Renard: On Wednesday afternoon,January 31,2007,1 hand-delivered to your office a copy of my January 31,2007 letter to Assistant District Attorney George Newman,another copy of which 1 am herewith enclosing. In my letter to Mr.Newman I specifically requested,in relevant part,copies of all present and prior dmfts of the Minutes of the January 17,2007 ZBA meeting, a tape of the January 1.7,2007 ZBA hearing,and a transcription of said tape. At 2:46 p.m.today,13 days after my request,and less than 4 bouts before tonight's specially-scheduled ZBA hearing is to commence at 6:30 p.m.regarding the Chapter 40B application of Salem Lafayette Development,LLC("SLD'I relative to the St. Joseph's property,l finally received a copy of the Minutes of the January 17,2007 ZBA meeting, at which the Board"was briefed"by Assistant City Solicitor Jery Parisella concerning Chapter 40B. Needless to say,that discussion did not exist in a vacuum,and was specifically driven by the appeals my clients have filed in the Essex Superior Court,as is clearly indicated by the Mayor's January 17,2007 email to each Salem City Councilor which she sent shortly before midnight(and after the January 17,2007 ZBA meeting). As Murphy's Law would have it,I was tied up in Gloucester at the time, and did not receive the Minutes until a few minutes ago at 4:45 p.m. ONDII CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR f SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 'lv TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 r% KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 0CD Ngo Ncn r August 24, 2006 s 3 Decision v Petition of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC requesting Variances,frov% Height and Number of Stories for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street, R-3 District City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 23, 2006 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Annie Hams, Beth Debski, Stephen Pinto, Bonnie Belair. The petitioner Salem Lafayette Development, LLC is requesting variances pursuant to section 9-5 to allow for construction of a six-story residential building as part of a Planned Unit Development located at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zoning district. The petitioner is requesting variances from the forty-five (45) foot maximum height requirement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (Sec 6-4, Table I) to approximately sixty-five (65) feet, and from the three and one-half(31/2) stories maximum height requirement to six (6) stories for the new construction of a multi-use building with seventy-five (75) residential units and an approximately 18,000 sq.ft. Community Life Center on the first floor. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 135 Lafayette Street is within the R-3 zoning district. 2. The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, MA. 3. A set of proposed plans were presented along with a rendering of the building. The applicant stressed that the plans and rendering were preliminary and will change. The site is the former home of St. Joseph's Catholic Church and school, and includes a rectory and convent buildings. 4. Evidence was presented at the hearing that the Petitioner has met with the abutting neighborhood associations, the Ward Councilors, City agencies, and Historic Salem, Inc. on numerous occasions throughout the past year to discuss the site and proposed plans. Meetings were also held over a period of time with City officials, as well as the Planning Department. 5. Mayor Kimberly Driscoll addressed the Board and spoke in favor of the project, citing the City's detailed involvement with the development due to the proposed construction of a Community Life Center within the project and the great need for mixed income housing and the community benefit, as well as a City benefit that the Life Center provided. 6. A number of abutters and Salem residents, along with several members of the City Council, were present to speak in favor of the project, including Ward 1 Councilor Lucy Corchado, Council President Jean Pelletier, and Councilor at Large Joan Lovely. Councilor Mike Sosnowski cited the density of the site as a concern, but generally spoke in favor of the affordable housing component of the project. Councilor Matt Veno was unable to attend the meeting, but submitted a letter supporting the project. 7. Councilor Corchado presented a petition with 140 signatures of neighbors that support the proposed development. Michael Whelan and Claudia Chuber, former Councilor of the Ward, spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the Salem Harbor CDC. 8. A representative of the Point Neighborhood Association stated that the Petitioner has met with them several times regarding the plans and that the Association supports the project. The Association is involved in the immediate neighborhood affected by the project. 9. Community members speaking against the project were mainly concerned with density and the relocation of the existing senior center. 10. The Petitioner is presently before the Planning Board seeking a Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review. 11. The Petitioner presented evidence pertaining to the history of institutional use on the site and the history of height of the buildings on the site over the past 100 years, two of which were taller than the proposed structure. 12. Evidence was presented by the Petitioner regarding the hardship resulting from the uniquely large size of the lot, 2.6 acres, compared to others in this district. 13. Evidence presented by the Petitioner demonstrated special conditions and circumstances exist surrounding the history of use on this lot, including the fact that four structures presently exist on the lot, the oldest two of which will remain in the proposed plan. 14. Testimony of the Mayor and various elected officials clearly demonstrated that the proposed plan and building will offer community benefits, including mixed income housing, and a Community Life Center owned and operated by the City of Salem, creating special circumstances which are not found on other lots in the district. 15. Evidence was presented in support of the requested variances indicating that a certain minimum number of market rate units are necessary in order to support the 45 below market units proposed for the new structure, and that without six stories; the lot could not be developed for residential use. A local developer testified that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the project profitable. A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to provide the high level of public benefit being proposed. The need for affordable housing was stressed by the Mayor, City officials and various citizens. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for variances to allow for a maximum height of approximately sixty-five (65) feet and six (6) stories does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. The petitioner's lot size and coverage do not generally occur in the district and are specific to their land. 4. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 5. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Pinto, Harris, Debski, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Certificates of Occupancy are to be obtained. 5. Certificates of Inspection, as required, shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. The proposed new construction shall not exceed six stories or 65 feet in height. 9. At least thirty-five percent (35%) of the dwelling units on the site shall be marketed as affordable or below market rates. 10. That the principal use of the first floor of the new building be a municipal use to include a Community Life Center. 11. That the former rectory and school buildings existing on the site shall be reused in the proposed project. pp sdz, Abti Robin Stein Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. i,U: 1,1 1 r DUL1l,I IUK; LYW1KMA11 bU. Ur APPEALS; BD. OF APPEALS - 3/28/07 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: (5-1� 6 /`7 b WILLIAM DZIERZEK, JOHN GOFF, DOCTOR ) MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI, LINDA LOCKE, ) SOLANGE MARCHAND, JEAN MARTIN, ANA ) PANIAGUA, DIONICIA FLORIAN, ANTOINETTE C. . ) SANCHEZ, JANE E. GAMMON, BRIAN TASHJIAN, ) ROBERT BOZARJIAN, ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN, ) DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, SCOTT ) GALBER, DOMENICA INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI, ) ROBERSON D. TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO, ) PATRICIA O'BRIEN, SHAWN M. O'BRIEN, JOHN J. PHELAN, and CONSTANCE SANFORD ) - PLAINTIFFS ) "' CO CD r _ V ) SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and ) BONNIE BELAIR, ELIZABETH DEBSKI,ANNIE ) 71 HARRIS, STEVEN PINTO, RICHARD DIONNE,ROBIN ) STEIN and NINA COHEN, CHAIRPERSON, BEING ) REGULAR and/or ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF ) SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ) DEFENDANTS ) J NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT FROM MARCH 8, 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT DECISION OF SALEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CONCERNING 135 LAFAYETTE STREET SALEM MASSACHUSETTS John H. Carr, Jr., attorney for the above-named Plaintiffs, hereby gives notice to the City Clerk of the City of Salem, Massachusetts that said Plaintiffs have appealed the March 8, 2007 Decision of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals granting a Comprehensive Permit to Salem Lafayette Development, LLC concerning the former (so-called) St. Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA, allowing for the construction of up to 79 residential units at said site, which Decision was filed with the office of the Salem City Clerk at 5:51 p.m. on March 8, 2007. A copy of the Complaint filed as Essex Superior Court civil action no. on March 28, 2007 is attached hereto. William Dzierzek et al, By their attorney, March 28, 2007 /'� John H. r ;sq. .9 Nor Str _ Salem, MA 0197 978-825-0060 BBO#075 - 2 - COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: i WILLIAM DZIERZEK, JOHN GOFF, DOCTOR MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI, LINDA LOCKE, SOLANGE MARCHAND, JEAN MARTIN, ANA �) PANIAGUA, DIONICIA FLORIAN,ANTOINETTE C. )Ly 3e1 SANCHEZ, JANE E. GAMMON, BRIAN TASHJIAN, ) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT ROBERT BOZARJIAN, ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN, ) FOR THE COUNTY OF ESSEX DAVID T. RAMSEY,JEAN E. RAMSEY, SCOTT ) MAR 2 $ 2007 GALBER, DOMENICA INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI, ) ROBERSON D. TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO, ) PATRICIA O'BRIEN, SHAWN M. O'BRIEN,JOHN J. PHELAN, and CONSTANCE SANFORD ) PLAINTIFFS ) V. ) SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and ) BONNIE BELAIR, ELIZABETH DEPSKI, ANNIE ) HARRIS, STEVEN PINTO, RICHARD DIONNE, ROBIN ) STEIN and NINA COHEN, CHAIRPERSON,BEING ) REGULAR and/or ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ) __ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF ) SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ) DEFENDANTS ) 0' COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40A,SECTION 17 APPEALING MARCH 8.2007 DECISION OF THE SALEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTING A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 135 LAFAYE -TE STREET SALEM MASSACHUSETTS This is an appeal from a Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of Salem; Massachusetts (hereinafter"the ZBA"or`Vt# Board"), dated March 8,2007 and filed with the Salem City Clerk on March 8, 2007, granting a Comprehensive Permit for the property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts(hereinafter"the subject property","the St. Joseph's complex," or"the St. Joseph's site")on the grounds that said ZBA Decision was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable,violated due process, exceeded the Board's authority,was based on legally and factually untenable grounds, and was wrong as a matter of law. A certified copy of said March 8, 2007 ZBA Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. PARTIES Plaintiffs 1. Plaintiff, William Dzierzek, who resides at 146 Summer Street, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923,owns the real estate located at 157 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 10 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and 12 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts, all of which abut the subject property, and 176 Lafayette Street, 182 Lafayette Street, and 7 Cedar Street, all in Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are all located in the immediate neighborhood. 2. Plaintiff,John Goff, is a preservation architect and former Executive Director of Historic Salem Inc.; who, together with his wife,owns and resides at 194 Lafayette Street, Salem Massachusetts 01970, which property is also located in the immediate neighborhood. 3. Plaintiff, Dr. Miroslaw Kantorosinski, who resides at 8 Almeda Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is the owner of 5-5A Ropes Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which abuts the subject property, and 8-10 Porter Street Court, Salem,Massachusetts, which is located one block from the subject property, and is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 4. Plaintiff, Linda Locke, who resides at 1 Pickering Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, owns 44-46 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 7 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts, and 13-15 Palmer Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are all within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 5. Plaintiff, Solange Marchand, owns and resides at 159 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property is an abutter to an abutter of the subject property, and is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 6. Plaintiff, Jean Martin, who resides at 24 Leavitt Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, owns (together with her husband)24 Leavitt Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which is located in the immediate neighborhood, and solely owns 34 Park Street, Salem 'Massachusetts, which is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. `7. Plaintiffs,Ana Paniagua and Dionicia Florian, own 16 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property abuts the subject property. Ana Paniagua resides at 1000 Loring Avenue,apt. B91, Salem, Massachusetts 01970 and Dionicia Florian resides at said 16 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970. 8. Plaintiff,Antoinette C. Sanchez, owns and resides at 20 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property abuts the subject property. 9. Plaintiff,Jane E. Gammon, owns and resides at unit 1, 160 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. -2 - 10. .Plaintiff, Brian'Tashjian, owns and resides at 30 Park Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 11. Plaintiffs, Robert and Elizabeth Bozarjian, reside at 20 Clark Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, and own 9 Park Street, Salem, Massachusetts and 10-12 Park Street, Salem Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 12. Plaintiffs, David T. Ramsey and Jean E. Ramsey, who reside at 58 Gregory Island -Road, South Hamilton, Massachusetts 01982,own 12 Palmer Street, Salem; Massachusetts and 15-17 Leavitt Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 13. Plaintiff, Scott Galber, who resides at unit 5, 22 Winter Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 01970; owns 65 Harbor Street, 69-71 Harbor Street, 22-24 Prince Street, and 27 Salem Street, all in Salem,Massachusetts, which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 14. Plaintiffs, Stephen C. Ingemi and Domenica Ingemi, own and reside at 7 Fairfield Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970; which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 15. Plaintiffs, Roberson D. Troncoso and Clariza J. Troncoso, own and reside at unit 4, 10 Porter Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 16. Plaintiffs, Shawn M. O'Brien and Patricia D. O'Brien, own and reside at 21 Cedar Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, and also own 23-25 Cedar Street, Salem, Massachusetts,which properties are located in the immediate neighborhood. 17. Plaintiff,John J. Phelan, owns and resides at 3 Fairfield Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 18. Plaintiff, Constance Sanford, owns and resides at 19 Park Street,Salem, Massachusetts -0`1970, which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. Defendants 19. Defendant, Salem Lafayette Development,LLC (hereinafter"SLD"), is a non-profit development corporation with headquarters at 185 Devonshire Street,Boston, Massachusetts 02110, is the owner of the former St. Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970; and is the recipient of the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision from the Salem ZBA herewith being appealed. - 3 - 20. Defendant, Bonnie Belair(hereinafter"Ms. Belair"), whose mailing address is P.O. Box 685, Salem,;Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to grant said Comprehensive Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing. (This was the only address available from the ZBA.) 21. Defendant, Elizabeth Debski (hereinafter"Ms. Depski) who resides at 43 Calumet Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA, who voted to grant said Comprehensive Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing. 22. Defendant;Richard Dionne, who resides at.23 Gardner Street, Salem, Massachusetts .0.1970,is.a.regular..member of.the Salem ZBA, who voted to grant.said .Comprehensive.... .. . .._ .. - Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing. 23. Defendant, Annie Harris (hereinafter"Ms. Harris"), who resides at 43 Calumet Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA, who voted to grant said Comprehensive Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing. 24. Defendant, Steven Pinto (hereinafter"Mr. Pinto"), who resides at 55 Columbus Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA, who voted to grant said Comprehensive Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing. 25. Defendant, Nina Cohen, who resides at 22 Chestnut Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is Chairperson of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, who voted to grant said Comprehensive Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing. 26. Defendant, Robin Stein (hereinafter"Ms. Stein"), who resides at 141 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA. She did not participate in either the February 12, 2007 or February 21, 2007 ZBA hearings, or the March 8, 2007 ZBA Decision. 27. All of the foregoing Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action, as all are substantially aggrieved by the March 8, 2007 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting said Comprehensive Permit. JURISDICTION 28. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. 29. This case is timely, as it has been filed within twenty(20)days from March 8, 2007, which is when the ZBA's March 8, 2007 Decision granting said Comprehensive Permit was filed with the Salem City Clerk. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS -4 - The Locus 30. The St. Joseph's property consists of a parking lot and 4 buildings on approximately 2.6 acres of land at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts. The four buildings consist of the former St. Joseph's church, the 3-story former rectory, the 3-story former St. Joseph's school, and the 3-story former convent. 31. Said property is a basically rectangular parcel bounded by Lafayette Street to the west, Harbor Street to the north, Salem Street to the east, and Dow Street to the south, and is located at the interface of the so-called Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods. 32. Except for three 2 % - story residential buildings fronting on the northerly side of Dow Street at the southeast corner of the site,the St. Joseph's property comprises the entire rectangular block formed by said streets. 33. At the southwest corner of said site is the confluence of Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Streets; which 3-way intersection constitutes one of the most congested and dangerous intersections in Salem. 34. One block from the 3-way intersection of Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Streets, approximately'100 yards to the South from the St. Joseph's site (ie. towards Marblehead), is the intersection of Palmer and Lafayette Streets,which is another of the busiest and most dangerous intersections in Salem, being a major egress from the Point neighborhood. 35. The 2-way intersection at Lafayette and Harbor Streets, and the 2-way intersection at Washington and Harbor Streets, are also two of the most congested and dangerous intersections in Salem. 36. All of the four structures at the St. Joseph's site were constructed prior to the enactment of the current Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965, and thus, all four buildings represent prior non-conforming structures. 37. By far, the most architecturally significant building at the site is the former St. Joseph's Church, which is an important example of the so-called International Style, a style of modern architecture which isiunique in Salem. As such, it makes an important contribution to Salem's world-renowned stock of 170i, 180',and 190'century architecture. V 38. There is no question that the former St. Joseph's Church is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the United States Department of the Interior. 39. The church, rectory, and convent have been vacant since the parish closed on or about August 15,2004. The school has been vacant since it relocated to the St. James parish on Federal Street beginning in August or September of 2004. - 5 - 40. The entire St. Joseph's property is located in an R-3 zoning district. 41. Pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning, a maximum of 33 residential units can be constructed at the St. Joseph's site as a matter of right, with new construction not to exceed 45 feet in height and 3 '/z stories. 42. The overwhelming majority of the buildings on the surrounding Lafayette, Dow, Salem, and Harbor Streets, as well as those on Washington Street opposite the Lafayette Street side of the property(ie. across from the pocket park), are either 2 % or 3-story residential dwellings 45 feet in height or less. As such, the overwhelming majority of the buildings on said surrounding streets.conform to the.3 '/Z story..and 45-foot maximums.pursuant to ... the existing R-3 zoning in both respects. 43. The grade of the parking lot at the southern third of the site is already approximately 4 feet above the grade of the 2 `/z-story residential buildings fronting on Dow Street at the southeast comer of the site. Purchase Of St. Joseph's Site By SLD 44. In the Spring of 2005 the Archdiocese of Boston sold the entire St. Joseph's property to the Planning Office of Urban Affairs of the Archdiocese of Boston(hereinafter "POUA"), a private non-profit corporation, for$2,000,000.00,which thereupon created Salem Lafayette Development Corporation, LLC (hereinafter"SLD")to develop the site. 45. It is unknown whether said $2,000,000.00 purchase price actually changed hands. 46. The head of the Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, serves in his individual capacity as the chief executive officer of POUA. Prior Salem Planning Board Decision And Appeal 47. On Thursday,July 27,2006,the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened the first of three lengthy public hearings on SLD's application for a Planned Unit Development (hereinafter"PUD")to develop the St. Joseph's site into 97 residential units, which represented 64 units above the 33-unit maximum allowed by the current R-3 zoning, plus an 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center. 48. The proposed PUD basically called for the razing of the former convent and landmark Church,the development of the former rectory into 8 residential units,the conversion of the former school into 14 residential units, and the construction of a new, 6-story, 65-foot tall building on the site of the former St. Joseph's Church structure, immediately to the right(ie. south) of the rectory,to contain 75 residential units,plus the 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center on the first floor. 49. Unlike the existing cruciform church, which was built with its narrow(i.e. 40-foot wide) nave perpendicular to Lafayette Street, SLD proposed building the new, 65-foot tall, 6- - 6 - story structure parallel to Lafayette Street, and within a few feet of the existing Lafayette Street sidewalk. 50. The footprint of the proposed new structure was/is to be approximately 180 by 120 feet, which is approximately the same length as the former St. Joseph's Church structure, but three times the width of the nave. 51. Unlike the existing'cruciform church, all six floors of the new 65-foot structure would be occupied 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 52 weeks a year, as compared with the former St.Joseph's Church, whose single-story interior space(albeit 63 feet tall) was - - - used for relatively brief Church services primarily on late Saturday..afternoons, Sunday - .--- mornings, and on Holy Days. 52. Of the 97 residential units, SLD proposed renting"approximately" 30 units and selling 67 units as condominiums. 53. There were two major components of the proposed development which SLD argued entitled it to a PUD, namely the inclusion of affordable housing, and the proposed Senior/Community Life Center. 54: With respect to the former, SLD initially proposed dedicating 45% of the 97 residential units, or 44 units,for"affordable housing", which was later scaled back to 35%, or approximately 34 units, at the final Planning Board hearing on September 7, 2006. 55. The 34 units of affordable housing, whether rented or sold as condominiums, would involve a discount of approximately 30%below prevailing market rates, for which eligibility would he based on certain income limitations of the buyer or tenants. 56. Thus, in essence, SLD's PUD application sought an approximate 1941/o increase in density of 64 residential units over the 33-maximum permitted by the existing R-3 zoning for the entire site, in return for which 33 of the extra 64 units were to be sold or rented as affordable housing at a discount(in either event)of approximately 30% below prevailing market rates. 57. The 31-unit balance of the 64 units which exceeded the current R-3 zoning were to be sold at market rates, in addition to the 33 residential units already permitted by the existing R-3 zoning, or altogether 64 units at market rates. 58. Said 194% increase in residential density above the 33-unit maximum permitted under the existing R-3 zoning did not include the proposed 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center. 59. Although the purchase price for the 18,400 square foot condominium had not yet been finalized, the figure discussed at the three Planning Board hearings was approximately $5,000;000.00. - 7 - 60. The other quid pro quo of SLD's PUD application was the proposed 18,400 square foot condominium on the first floor of the proposed new 6-story structure, which was to be sold to the City of Salem for the Senior/Community Life Center. 61: Complicating said issue was the fact that the overwhelming majority of Salem's senior citizens who currently use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street were vehement in their opposition to relocating the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to the St. Joseph's site. 62. A multi-page petition signed by approximately 300 Salem senior citizens opposing the proposed new Senior Center at the St. Joseph's site was submitted at the third Planning . Board hearing on September 7, 2006, which opposition was re-affirmed in a heavily publicized meeting conducted by Mayor Driscoll at the existing Broad Street Senior Center a few weeks later. 63. On September 7, 2006 the Salem Planning Board voted to approve SLD's PUD application. 64. In so doing'the Planning Board ignored several explicit requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance before a PUD can be granted, including Section 7-15 (c)(4) which reads in relevant part: Height limitations shall be in accordance with the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located. Emphasis added 65. With respect to traffic, even the Planning Board Chairman, Mr. Power, lamented the lack of a traffic study at the third Planning Board hearing on September 7, 2006, which he noted is unprecedented for projects of this size, further stating that even much lesser projects virtually always involve a traffic study. 66. On October 2, 2006 forty individuals, consisting of owners of property directly abutting the former St. Joseph's complex, owners of property within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and owners of property within the immediate neighborhood, filed suit in the Essex Superior Court timely appealing said September 14, 2006 Site Planned Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board, which action is entitled William Dzierzek et at vs. Salem Lafayette Development,LLC et at, Civil Action No. 2006-1881D. Prior Salem ZBA Decision And Appeal 67. In order to build its proposed new, 6-story structure, SLD needed two variances from the Salem ZBA, one to increase the 45 foot maximum height restriction pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning by 20 feet, to 65 feet,which represented a 44.44% increase, and the - 8 - other to increase,the current maximum of 3 % stories to 6 stories, which represented a 58.33% increase. 68. On August.23,2006 the Salem ZBA conducted a single public hearing on SLD's application for said variances, even though projects of far less complexity than SLD's $23 Million project frequently involve several meetings. 69. The Mayor, the Salem City Planner, several representatives of SLD, and SLD's Counsel, attorney Joseph Correnti of Salem, all spoke at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing. 70. -- At the conclusion of said hearing on August 23, 2006,the Salem-ZBA-voted to grant said variances. 71. On September 22, 2006 forty-two individuals, consisting of owners of property directly abutting the former St. Joseph's complex, owners of property within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and owners of property within the immediate neighborhood, filed suit in the Essex Superior Court timely appealing said August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision, which action is entitled William Dzierzek et al vs. Salem Lafayette Development,LLC et al, Civil Action No. 2006-1820C. 72. Said Complaint basically avers that there was and is no hardship sufficient to entitle SLID to either or both of said variances; that there were and are no legally-recognized special conditions or circumstances which justify the granting of said variances; that said variances constitute a substantial detriment to the public good; and that said variances nullify and substantial derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Prior Salem Historical Commission Decision 73. In the summer of 2006 SLD filed an application with the Salem Historical Commission (hereinafter"the Commission") seeking to waive Salem's Demolition Delay Ordinance so that it could demolish the former St. Joseph's Church structure as soon as possible. 74. Salem's Demolition Delay Ordinance basically provides for a 6-month delay before a building permit can be issued in connection with the demolition of any structures that are deemed to be historic or architecturally significant. 75. A hearing on said application was held by the Salem Historical Commission on September 6, 2006. 76. At said hearing SLD requested a continuance of the vote on its application when it became clear that the Commission regarded the St. Joseph's Church structure to be a significant building and would not waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance if a vote were then taken. - 9 - 77. Mr. Correnti promised to use the intervening three months to work closely with the Commission in a good faith attempt to resolve the Commission's concerns prior to the December 6, 2006 continued hearing on SLD's application for the waiver. 78. Notwithstanding said promise, neither SLD nor Mr. Correnti made any effort to communicate with the Salem Historical Commission during said three months. 79. At its regular bi-monthly meeting on December 6, 2006,the Commission acted on a letter it had recently received from attorney Joseph Correnti requesting a withdrawal of SLD's prior application for a waiver of Salem's 6-month Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr. Correnti did not attend said meeting. - -- 80. However, the Commission refused said withdrawal request, and instead, unanimously denied said application. March 8,2007 ZBA Decision on SLD's Chapter 40B Application and Related Vote Of The Salem City Council Concerning Proposed Senior/Community Life Center 81. At a meeting of the Salem ZBA on January 17, 2007, assistant City Solicitor Jerold Parisella"briefed"members of the Salem ZBA at the Mayor's direction regarding Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws(hereinafter"Chapter 40B") in connection with a new application that SLD would be filing pursuant to said statute relative to the St. Joseph's site. 82. There was absolutely no prior public notice given with respect to said"briefing." 83. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of the January 17,2007 Salem ZBA Agenda, item no. 1 of which recites the following: . "Discussion of Chapter 40B (Comprehensive Permit Law)-Jerry Parisella" 84. Except for the last Agenda item no. 10 ("Old/New Business"), all of the other 8 items on said Agenda(ie. numbers 2-9 inclusive)not only included addresses for each matter before the ZBA that evening, but also, each of those addresses were printed in bold lettering. 85. There can be no question that said"briefing" before the Salem ZBA on January 17, 2007 was specifically related to SLD's St. Joseph's development, since Mayor Driscoll sent an e-mail to each member of the City Council a few minutes before midnight on January 17, 2007, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C,wherein she stated the following in relevant part: I am writing to you today because members of the ZBA were informed of a potential Comprehensive Permit Application and were briefed on the 40B process by the Assistant City Solicitor at - 10 - tonight's ZBA meeting. [Emphasis added with respect to bold typeface above, but not the italics] 86. The Mayor's January 17, 2007 e-mail continued in relevant part: Unfortunately,the permits were appealed and the litigation has dragged on for a number of months, causing not only delays to construction but increases in cost related to legal fees and debt service for P.O.U.A. As a result, P.O.U.A. is considering alternative options to develop this site. . One of these alternatives may consist of a Comprehensive Permit Application to the ZBA, commonly referred to as a"40B approval". [Emphasis added] 87. On or about January 24, 2007, as anticipated by the Mayor in her January 17, 2007 e- mail, SLD submitted an application to the Salem ZBA for a Comprehensive Permit pursuant to Chapter 40B relative to the St. Joseph's site. 88. There is no question that Salem exceeds the 10%threshold provided in Chapter 40B, otherwise known as the"Anti-Snob Zoning statute,"which is designed to circumvent local zoning requirements in those communities where less than 10%of the total housing stock is devoted to affordable housing. 89. In said Chapter 40B application, SLD proposed a development for its St. Joseph's site which is virtually identical to that approved by the Salem ZBA in its August 24, 2006 Decision (granting height and number-of-story variances), and by the Salem Planning Board in its September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision, namely a total of 97 residential units, consisting of 8 condominiums units in the former St. Joseph's rectory, 14 condominium units in the former St. Joseph's school, and 75 units in the new 6-story, 65-foot tall building (replacing the former St. Joseph's Church structure), of which 30 units were proposed to be rented, and 45 units were proposed to be sold as condominiums, ljus an 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center on the first floor of the proposed new building. 90. Also pursuant to said application, approximately 45 units(and in no event less than 25%, or 24 units), were proposed to be dedicated to affordable housing. 91. 24of the 97 units represent 10 fewer units of affordable housing than the 34 units of affordable housing approved by the Salem Planning Board last summer in its September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision,which statutory basis had nothing to do with Chapter 40B. - 11 - 92. On Thursday, February 1, 2007, the Salem City Planner appeared before the Salem Planning Board and obtained the Planning Board's endorsement of SLD's January 24, 2007 Chapter 40B application that was scheduled to be heard by the Salem ZBA 11 days later on February 12, 2007. 93. As with the January 17, 2007 ZBA Agenda, there was absolutely no public notice on the February 1, 2007 Planning Board Agenda that said meeting would have anything to do with SLD's St. Joseph's project. A copy of said February 1, 2007 Planning Board Agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 94..: The February 1, 2007 Planning Board meeting began with the presentation of the Salem City Planner regarding SLD's new Chapter 40B application, and thus, said Planning Board meeting did not follow the order of the Agenda items, which is another reason for construing that the presentation and vote were not noticed under the last Agenda item, namely"Old/New Business." 95. Also attending the February 1, 2007 Planning Board meeting was Co-Counsel for SLD, attorney Joseph Correnti of Salem, who (on information and belief) also participated in said discussion. - 96. .- -The foregoing are typical of any number of aggressive tactics indulged in by the Mayor and/or SLD to ram this project through. One particularly flagrant example was her/SLD's proposal that SLD "donate"the 18,400 square foot condominium for the Senior/Community Life Center to the City, and that the City simultaneously"donate" $4.75 Million to SLD, in an attempt to circumvent the necessity of a 2/3's vote of the City Council to purchase real estate or incur debt,after it became apparent that a simple majority of the City Council might not approve the Mayor's proposed purchase and borrowing. 97. A public hearing on SLD's January 24, 2007 Chapter 40B application was opened by the ZBA on February 12,2007, and later continued to February 21, 2007. 98. On Wednesday, February 7, 2007, 5 days before the February 12, 2007 ZBA hearing, a committee-of-the-whole of the Salem City Council met at the Bentley School in Salem to consider the Mayor's request for a$4.75 Million HUD loan in connection with her proposed purchase of the 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center on'the first floor of the proposed new structure at the St. Joseph's site. 99. At said meeting of the committee-of-the-whole on February 7, 2007, which lasted approximately 4 hours,the Mayor and the General Director of SLD, Lisa Alberghini, testified before the Salem City Council that SLD was reducing said proposed new structure from 6 stories to 4 stories; that SLD was also reducing the overall residential density for the project from 97 units to 67 units;and that all of said reduction in residential density would occur in the proposed new(now) 4-story structure. - 12 - !00. In terms of the elevation of the proposed new 4-story structure, all SLD apparently did was delete the former top 2 stories. 101. In contrast to its presentation to the Salem City Council at the latter's February 7, 2007 public'hearing 5 days earlier, SLD reiterated its originally-proposed development of 97 residential units and a new 6-story, 65-foot tall structure at the first of the two public hearings conducted by the Salem ZBA on its Chapter 40B application on February 12, 2007, even though SLD maintained (outside said public hearing) that it continued to be committed to reducing the overall residential density to 67 units, and the height of the proposed new structure to 4 stories. 102. Notwithstanding that said revisions were the worst kept secret in the City of Salem, SLD finally revised its formal presentation to the Salem ZBA at the second of the ZBA's two public hearings on February 21, 2007 to conform with its presentation to the Salem City Council at the latter's February 7, 2007 public hearing on the Mayor's $4.75 Million proposed HUD loan. 103. Much of the discussion by both the Mayor, SLD, the Salem City Planner, and members of the Salem ZBA at either or both the February 12, 2007 and February 21, 2007 ZBA hearings on SLD's Chapter 40B application revolved around the proposed -- Senior/Community Life Center,-even though•Chapter 40B dealsexclusively with "affordable housing,"and has nothing to do with Senior and/or Community Life Centers, or similar civic amenities. 104. The second of the two ZBA hearings on SLD's 40B application commenced at approximately 6:30 p.m. on February 21, 2007 and lasted until approximately 11:15 p.m. As with the earlier February 12, 2007 public hearing,the continued February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing was well attended by the public who spoke predominantly in opposition to said application. 105. A multi-page proposed draft Comprehensive Permit Decision, ostensibly prepared by the office of the Salem City.Planner, but(on information and belief)which was really prepared by Co-Counsel for SLD, namely DLA Piper, LLC of Boston, Massachusetts, was circulated to the ZBA(for the first time) at approximately 10:30 p.m. on February 21, 2007. 106. The ZBA began to discuss various revisions to said draft Decision, but had not completed same by the time it adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:15 p.m. on February 21, 2007. 107. Prior to its adjournment of the February 21, 2007 meeting, the ZBA left it that the Salem City Planner would circulate a proposed final draft Decision by e-mail to each member of the ZBA, who would then send his or her comments to the City Planner by e-mail (or otherwise)prior to the preparation of a proposed final Comprehensive Permit Decision. - 13 - 108. On information and belief, the final ZBA Decision did not contain elements that had been discussed by the ZBA at its February 21, 2007 public hearing, but were the result of communications sent by members of the ZBA to the City Planner after February 21, 2007, and as such, violated the Open Meeting Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 109. At the conclusion of the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing,there was no way of knowing whether the Salem City Council would approve the Mayor's request for the $4.75 Million 14UD loan to purchase the 18,000 square foot Senior/Community Life Center on the first floor of the proposed new (now) 4-story structure. 110. Anticipating the possibility of an alternative result, the ZBA voted to approve 12 additional residential units in the event the Senior/Community Life Center did not pass. 111. On February 28, 2007 the committee-of-the-whole of the Salem City Council voted by 6 to 5 to refer without a recommendation the Mayor's requested$4.75 Million HUD loan to purchase the 18,000-square foot Senior/Community Life Center to a regular meeting of the Salem City Council on Thursday, March 8, 2007. However, it was clear that the same 6 City Councilors would vote against said request on March 8, 2007. 112: -- On°Thru sday,March 8; 2007, in response to her inability to persuade a majority of the Salem City Council to approve her requested $4.75 million HUD loan, and also in response to the opposition of the vast majority of Salem's senior citizens who actually use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to relocating said facility to the St. Joseph's site, Mayor Driscoll appeared before the Salem City Council and presented a revised request to approve a$2.9 Million HUD loan to purchase a 15,000 square foot condominium on the first floor of the proposed new 4-story structure at the St. Joseph's site, which would be used for a Community Life Center only. 113. Said condominium would be 3,400 square feet less than the 18,400 square foot combined Senior/Community Life Center originally proposed by the Mayor and SLD. 114. Said revised request was referred to a meeting of the committee-of-the-whole on Tuesday,March 20, 2007, at which it was defeated by a 6 to 5 vote at approximately 8:30 p.m.,or approximately 2 Y2 hours after the March 8, 2007 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting SLD a Comprehensive Permit pursuant to Chapter 40B was filed in the Salem City Clerk's office at 5:51 p.m. on said date. 115. Said March 20, 2007 vote of the committee-of-the-whole of the Salem City Council was effectively ratified at a regular meeting of the Council two days later on Thursday, March 22, 2007. 116. The ZBA's March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision provides for the construction of up to 67 residential units at the St. Joseph's site, of which 8 residential condominium units are to be located in the rehabilitated former St. Joseph's rectory, 14 residential condominium units are to be located in the rehabilitated former St. Joseph's school, and - 14 - 45 residential units are to be located in the new 4-story structure, of which 15 units are to be sold as condominiums and 30 units are to be rented as apartments. 11.7. Said March 8, 2007ComprehensivePermit Decision also recited that the new 4-story building is expected "to contain approximately 18,400 square feet of community space," subject to Condition 32 (entitled"Community Life Center"). 118. Condition 32 provides that in the event SLD (a/k/a"the Applicant") and the City of Salem"do not execute a mutually acceptable agreement regarding the use and operation of the Community Life Center...,the Applicant may use the first floor of the new building for residential units and community space (provided that in no event shall the total number of residential units exceed 79 units)." 119. Thus, the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision of the Salem ZBA provides for a total of 79 residential units at the St. Joseph's site, of which 20 units (or 25%) need be "affordable," and 59 units may be rented or sold at market rates. 120. Said total residential density amounts to 46 units above the 33-unit maximum pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning, or a 139.39% increase. -121. Of the 79 units, only 25%,or 20 units,need-to be affordable. 122. ' Thus,of the 18-unit total reduction in density, 14 of those 18 deleted units involved affordable housing units, as opposed to market-rate units. 123. No traffic study was performed by either SLD or the City prior to the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision, although Condition 10 (entitled"Traffic Mitigation") requires SLD after the fact to contribute $20,000.00 "toward a study/design of intersection and traffic improvements at Lafayette Street." 124. As to each of the following Counts,the Plaintiffs reaffirm, re-allege, and incorporate all of the prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-123 inclusive above. ARGUMENT COUNTI The Salem ZBA acted illegally in basing its March 8,2007 Decision on Chapter 40B, and not the standards of a variance 125. There is absolutely no question that Salem already exceeds the 10%threshold of Chapter 4013, since more than 10%of its housing stock is already dedicated to affordable housing. 126. There is also no question that the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision of the Salem ZBA does in fact substantially vary the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance as regards the St. Joseph's site. - 15 - 127. As such, the Plaintiffs aver that the standards the ZBA should have applied to SLD's January 24, 2007 application were not the standards of Chapter 40B, but the standards for a variance, which were certainly not met here. 128. SLD's January 24, 2007 Chapter 40B application proposed a development that was virtually identical to the development for which it had already obtained approval pursuant to the August 24, 2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA and the September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board. 129. Indeed, at the-first-of the.two.ZBA hearings on February 12, 2007, SLD steadfastly reiterated its original proposal in its entirety, which(again) basically provided for 97 residential units, a new 6-story, 65-foot tall structure replacing the former St. Joseph's Church, and an 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center on the first floor of the proposed new structure, even though it had already indicated to the Salem City Council (and the public at large) at the public hearing at the Bentley School on February 7, 2007 that it would scale back the new structure from 6 to 4 stories, and that it would also scale back the overall residential density from 97 to 67 units. 130. It is also important to keep in mind that the subsequent reductions in height and density were not the result of conditions of approval im osed on SLD by the ZBA, but were Volun decisions made by SLD in advance of the ZBA's March 8, 2007 Decision, presumably to curry favor with the Salem City Council prior to the latter's vote on the Mayor's requested$4.75 Million HUD loan to fund the purchase of the proposed Senior/Community Life Center. 131. As is explicitly clear from the Mayor's e-mail which she sent to each member of the Salem City Council a few minutes before midnight on Wednesday,January 17, 2007 (Exhibit C), SLD filed said January 24, 2007 Chapter 40B application for the sole purpose of circumventing the pending appeals from the August 24, 2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA and the'September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board. 132. As such, however laudable the goal of affordable housing may be, including to the within Plaintiffs, it does not justify setting aside the zoning laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and adopting a legal, moral, and philosophical basis for the ZBA's March 8, 2007 Decision that basically amounts to "the ends justifying the means." 133. Pursuant to the ZBA's March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision,the total residential density for the project amounts to 79 units, or 46 units above the 33-unit maximum pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning,which represents a 139.4% increase. 134. And while said 139.4% increase is less than the 194%increase the Planning Board granted SLD in its September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision last summer, it still amounts to more than double the maximum permitted under the existing R-3 zoning for the district. - 16 - 135. Given the extraordinary speed and legal recklessness with which the Salem ZBA approved SLD's two variances last summer, thereby ignoring the very strict standards legally required for a variance, it is not surprising that the Salem ZBA would approve SLD's Chapter 40B application, even in its original state, especially considering that the ZBA had been"briefed"on Chapter 40B by a member of the Mayor's administration on January 17, 2007, for which no effective public notice had been given. 136. After all,the"friendly"use of Chapter 40B by the Salem ZBA represents a total reversal of the usual dynamic whereby local municipal Boards resent the loss of local control, and the lower appellate standard of review, inherent in Chapter.40B. 137. Given its similar utter disregard of the explicit requirements for PUDs in the Salem Zoning Ordinance in its September 14, 2007 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision, and the"briefing" it received from another member of the Mayor's administration on February 1, 2007, for which absolutely no public notice was given, it is likewise not surprising that the Salem Planning Board voted to endorse SLD's Chapter 40B application on February 1, 2007. 138. The Plaintiffs aver that the approval procedure followed by SLD last summer before the - Salem ZBA and Planning Board-was at least the correct procedure, but not the correct result. 139. Allowing such transparent"end runs" around traditional zoning law when a community has met the 10%threshold of Chapter 40B would effectively permit a parallel statutory scheme for land use planning(for which there are no clear standards), and would also effectively invite the kind of political manipulation that has obviously occurred here. 140. Chapter 40B was obviously intended to facilitate the creation of affordable housing in those communities where affordable housing represents less than 10%of the total housing stock; it was never intended to circumvent local zoning requirements in those communities where affordable housing already exceeds said 10%. 141. The Plaintiffs also respectfully aver that the Chapter 40B was not intended to concentrate affordable housing in one particular area,whether in a single community or region, but was intended to spread out affordable housing. COUNT II The Salem ZBA violated Chapter 40B by not adequately considering the impact of the proposed project on the existing surrounding neighborhood. 142. Washington and Lafayette Streets are already two of the busiest and most congested streets in Salem,particularly at morning and afternoon rush hour periods,and when the Saltonstall School lets out at mid-aftemoon. - 17 143. The surrounding 3-way intersection are Washington, Dow, and Lafayette Streets, and the surrounding 2-way intersections at Washington and Harbor Streets, Lafayette and Harbor Streets, and Lafayette and Palmer Streets, are already among the most dangerous and most congested intersections in Salem. 144. Indeed a left-band turn from Lafayette Street onto Dow(ie. heading south toward Marblehead) is not even permitted. 145. Parking is also grossly inadequate throughout the so-called Point Neighborhood, which is already one of the densest, if not the densest, neighborhoods in Salem. 146. The ZBA's March 8,2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision provides for inadequate off- . street parking to meet the needs of the residents, their family members, their guests, and those who deliver goods and services to them. 147. Even in its reduced state, the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision represents a 139.4% increase over the 33-unit maximum permitted pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning for the district. 148. As such, it grossly exacerbates all of the unacceptably high present parking and traffic problems of the neighborhood: 149. The ZBA's solution for the impact of the project on traffic is (simplistically)to require SLD to contribute $20,000.00 toward a traffic study. 150. In so doing,the ZBA blindly assumes that a real solution is possible,and that such a modest sum would be adequate to accomplish same, but leaves open the question of how the solution would be implemented, and by whom. 151. Creating such additional burdens on both the neighborhood, and on one of the principle entrance corridors to the City of Salem, does a disservice to both the residents and the neighborhood the project is intended to benefit. 152. Such burdens are not worth the purported advantages of creating a required minimum of only 24 units of affordable housing, especially at a discount of only 301/6, or the 55 units of market rate units that are also being created. COUNT III The Salem ZBA failed to take into account the existing vacancy rates already in the neighborhood for units of similar size and rent. 153. The Salem ZBA failed to take into account the vacancy rate that already exists in the immediate neighborhood for comparably priced residential units of similar size. 18 154. As such, SLD failed to demonstrate an adequate need for the ZBA's March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision. COUNT IV The March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision of the Salem ZBA violated the Massachusetts Open meeting Law. 155. The ZBA's discussion of the 1 I-page draft Decision prepared(on information and belief) by SLD had not concluded by the time the ZBA adjourned its February 21, 2007 meeting at approximately 11:15 p.m. 156. On information and belief,the written comments exchanged by members of the ZBA after the February 21,2007 meeting did not include items discussed at said meeting, or reasonably implied by what was discussed. 157. To the extent that occurred, and is included in the March 8, 2007 ZBA Decision,the Plaintiffs aver that said Decision violates the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. COUNT V The amount of time spent by SLD and the Salem ZBA exposes the fact that the project was never primarily motivated by "affordable housing." 158. Most of the discussion by the ZBA, SLD, and the public at both the February 12, 2007 and February 21, 2007 ZBA public hearings on SLD's 40B application focused on the highly controversial issue of the proposed Senior/Community Life Center. 159. However, said discussion was and is irrelevant to Chapter 40B, which has nothing to do with such civic amenities, but instead,deals exclusively with the issue of affordable housing. 160. That the Mayor and SLD spent such an extraordinary(even predominate) amount of time and effort in trying to get the Senior/Community Life Center passed, and the fact that the minimum number of residential units dedicated to affordable housing is only 20 units(ie. 79 units x 25%), as compared with 34 units approved pursuant to the September 14, 2006 Planning Board Decision, exposes the fact that Chapter 40B is not the proper statutory basis for SLD's St. Joseph's project. 161. For.all of the above reasons in Counts I-V inclusive, among others,the Plaintiffs aver that the Salem ZBA acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority, in approving said March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision. RELIEF SOUGHT The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: - 19 - a. enter a Judgment in their favor annulling in full the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision of the Salem ZBA: b. award the Plaintiffs cost and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with their prosecution of this appeal; c. grant such other relief as is just and expedient. Respectfully_submitted, William Dzierzek et al By their attorney, March 28, 2007 Jo H. x,,r., sq. 9 North Stree Salem, MA 970 978-825-0 0 BBO# 281 20 h , h1 1 /-T �osutr�.A CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 4P TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 po�P FAX 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR o r.. March 8, 2007 ' o(— Decision J r;= Petition of Salem Lafayette Development , LLC requesting r.9 m Comprehensive Permit for the property cn at 135 Lafayette Street City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on February 12, 2007 and continued to February.21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40B. The following Zoning Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski, Bonnie Belair and Annie Harris. The petitioner, Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, sought a Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chapter 40B to allow the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new six-story building for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3)zoning district. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Salem Lafayette Development LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company with an office c/o Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc., 84 State Street, Suite 600, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (together with its successors and assigns, the "Applicant") has requested that the Board issue pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40B ("Chapter 40B")a comprehensive permit for the construction of a three-building, multi-family apartment/ condominium complex with approximately 18,400 square feet of community space(the "Development") on 2.6 acres of land located at the intersection of Lafayette Street and Harbor Street in Salem, Massachusetts consisting of a parcel shown on Assessor's Map 34 as Parcel 0307 (the "Property"). The Applicant submitted to the Board a formal application on January 24, 2007 accompanied by preliminary civil engineering and architectural plans for the Development(the "Application"). As to environmental matters,the Applicant submitted to the Board an Environmental Site Assessment prepared by DeRosa Environmental Consulting, Inc. dated October 26, 2004. ��E COPY ATTEST BOSTI\460477.7 SALEM, MASS. BOSTI\462730.1 2. The Applicant has complied with the procedural requirements of Chapter 40B, Section 21 for submission of an application for a comprehensive permit. The Applicant requested a comprehensive permit pursuant to Chapter 40B because the Development qualifies as low- and/or moderate-income housing as defined in Sections 20-23 of Chapter 40B. The Property is located in an R-3 zoning district under the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance"). The Applicant has submitted a list of provisions under the Zoning Ordinance with which the Development will not comply, including, without limitation, exceptions related to permitted uses, height, density, off-street parking, site plan review and development permits. 3. The Board conducted public hearings on the Application on February 12, 2007, and February 21, 2007. 4. As part of its deliberations, the Board found that there exists a need for the production of new affordable housing, given certain facts including but not limited to the following: The City of Salem FY 07 One—Year Action Plan describes the tremendous local need for additional affordable housing and makes funding the production of new affordable rental housing units a priority. The following are among the factors contributing to this need, as identified in the aforementioned document: a. The waiting period for a standard applicant for Salem Housing Authority/State housing for-families is 4-5+ years or more; b. A family waiting for Section 8 will wait 3+ years; c. 24.6% of Salem homeowners are paying thirty percent or more of their income in monthly housing costs (and, as such, are housing cost burdened); d. 35.5% of Salem renters are paying thirty percent or more of their income in monthly housing costs (and, as such, are housing cost burdened); e. The housing homeowner vacancy rate is .9% and the rental vacancy rate is 2.5%, indicating that the supply of available housing in Salem is dramatically low; and f. The demand for subsidized housing far exceeds the supply. People on waiting lists for units or vouchers must wait several years before an opening is available. In addition to the above, 43.7% of homeowners in the Point Neighborhood experience housing cost burdens (as compared to the 24.6% Citywide noted above) and, according to the 2000 Census; 49% of housing units in Salem are owner occupied as compared to 15.5°o owner occupied housing units in the Point Neighborhood. Regarding income information as an indicator of need, the median household income in Salem, based upon the 2000 Census, was $44,033, and a household at this income could afford to spend approximately$1,100 per month on housing expenses. The median income for the Point Neighborhood was $26,691, and a household at this income could afford to spend $677 per month on housing expenses. 5. This comprehensive permit requires that the Development be constructed in compliance with the standards of the Massachusetts Building Code. Furthermore, the conditions of this comprehensive permit require the design of the Development to incorporate features to mitigate potential impacts on the health and safety of the occupants of the Development and occupants of the neighborhood. 2 BOSTI\460477.7 .. BOSTI\462730.1 6. The Applicant will own the Development through a single purpose entity that will be a limited dividend organization eligible to receive a subsidy under the federal low income housing tax credit program (the "LIHTC Program") and the federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program (the "HOME Program"), both administered by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD"); therefore, the Applicant is an eligible recipient of a comprehensive permit. The Applicant has shown evidence of its interest in the Property sufficient to qualify it as a recipient for a comprehensive permit. 7. During the course of the hearing on the Application, the Board took testimony from interested citizens and received correspondence from various boards including the Planning Board, the Board of Health, the City Engineer, the Inspector of Buildings, the Conservation Commission, and the Fire Department. The correspondence incorporated by reference the results of several months of review and study of the Development by City boards and departments in connection with related applications for the Development. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to the Petition, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The Applicant has.met the various requirements of Chapter 40B and the regulations promulgated thereunder regarding the status of the Applicant. • 2. In permitting said Comprehensive Permit, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions to best ameliorate the issues raised by the construction of the Development, as well as responding to other potential concerns regarding health and safety of the occupants of the Development and of occupants of the neighborhood. The Board finds that the conditions as noted below will serve to best protect the community and the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed Development. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Cohen, Dionne, Debski, Belair, Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant the Comprehensive Permit to the Applicant under the provisions of G.L. c. 40B, §§20-23 for the construction of up to 67 units of multi-family apartment and condominium housing at the Property(with such increases allowed by Condition#32 below), currently estimated to include 30 apartment units and 15 condominium - units in a new four-story building, 8 condominium units in the rehabilitated former rectory - -_-. building, and 14 condominium units in the rehabilitated former school building. The new four-story building is also expected to contain approximately 18,400 square feet of community space. The Board approves all exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance requested in the Application and required to construct the Development substantially in accordance with the Plans, subject to and conditioned upon the following requirements captioned "Conditions of Approval': Conditions of Approval I. Conformance with Plans; General. The Development shall conform to the plans listed on Exhibit A attached hereto, copies of which are on file with the Board (the 'Plans"), as they may be modified in the process of preparing construction drawings in conformance with the conditions set forth below. Any approvals -3- BOSTI\460477.7 BOSTI\462730.1 - requiredunder the conditions listed below shall be made in a timely manner and in the event of any conflict among any of the boards or officers required to give approvals under the conditions listed below or between the Applicant and any such board or officer, the Board will have authority to resolve any such conflict. 2. Number of Units. Except as provided in Condition 432 below, no more than 67 total dwelling units shall be constructed in a multi-family complex consisting of three (3) residential buildings as identified in the Plans. The unit types and bedroom mix will be substantially in accordance with the Plans. provided that the Applicant shall be permitted to reduce the size of the Development by eliminating units of one or more different types and bedroom sizes. 3. Affordability. As required by Chapter 40B, no less than twenty-five percent of the units approved for the Development shall be affordable in perpetuity to individuals'and/or families eaming not more than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income for the Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by HUD on an annual basis ("Qualified Households"). In addition to the foregoing, the Applicant has agreed that at least an additional 10%of the units approved for the Development shall be affordable in perpetuity to Qualified Households, for a total level of affordability of at least thirty-five percent (35%). The affordable units - shall be located in the new four-story building to be constructed on the Property. 4. Salem Resident Preference. During the initial lease-up/sale period, Salem residents who properly apply for lease/purchase of an affordable unit and who meet all qualification requirements for acceptance as determined by the Applicant shall receive a preference for 70% of the affordable units at the Development, to the extent permitted under state and federal fair housing laws and applicable subsidy programs. After such initial lease-up period, qualified Salem residents shall have a preference as stated above for 70% of the affordable apartment units as they become available for re-leasing, provided no one is ahead of such Salem resident on an established waiting list. For purposes of this Condition #4, the term"Salem residents" shall mean: (a) Current City Resident: at least one member of the applicant's household is currently a resident'of the City of Salem; or (b) Family Connection to the City: •' At least one member of the applicant's household is a parent or child of a Current City Resident or • At least one member of the applicant's household is a parent of a child enrolled in a Salem public school system (K-12) at the time of the application; or (c) Current or Retired City Employee: • At least one member of the applicant's household is a current employee of the City, or • at least one member of the applicant's household is a former employee of the City who (a) had been employed by the City and (b) at the time of the -4- BOSTI\460477.7 BOSTI\462730.1 d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site. e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Salem. f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site. g. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Included in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding how the construction equipment will be stored, a description of the construction staging area and its location in relation to the site, and where the construction employees will park their vehicles. The plan and schedule shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the is of a building permit. All storage of materials and equipment will be on site. h. Special attention shall be paid by the Applicant to locate the statue of St. Joseph reported to be buried on the site. If said statue is located, the Applicant shall work with the Archdiocese of Boston to resolve its status, and if feasible, as determined by the City Planner based on documentation from the Applicant to preserve it in accordance with the requirements of the Archdiocese. 9. Clerk of the Works. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the Applicant, its successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner. 10. Traffic Mitigation. The Applicant agrees to contribute $20,000 toward a study/design of intersection and traffic improvements at Lafayette Street. Such payment shall be-made to the City upon the Applicants receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site. 11. Fire Department. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. Building Inspector. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 13. Board of Health a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of the name, address, and telephone number of the project -6- BOSTI\460477.7 - - BOSTI\462730.1 (site) manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the construction of the project. b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for the site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for the site certifies that soil and ground water for the entire site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. C. The Applicant shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. - d. The Applicant shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's invoice to the Health Agent. C. The Applicant shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. f The Applicant shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. . g. The Applicant shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction. h. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. i. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations, including but not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line. j. The Applicant shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. k. If a rock crusher is on site, a plan for placement of the crusher must be approved by the Health Agent prior to placement and use. 1. Plans for food a establishment must be presented to the Health Agent and approved prior to construction. M. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health. n. The Applicant shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. _7_ BOSTI\460477.7 BOSTI\462730.1 14. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All on site electrical utilities shall be located underground. b. The Applicant shall clean the drain line on Dow Street downstream from the work site to Salem St. preventing any debris from entering the downstream pipes. 15. Department of Public Services. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services. 16. Signage. Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Sign Review Committee. 17. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. C. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 18. HVAC. If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. 19. Lafayette Park. The Applicant and its successors and assigns agree to contribute $1,500.00 per year to the City of Salem for the purpose of creating a fund for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park. Such payment shall be made to the Department of Planning and Community Development commencing upon - the receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site and on June 1 of each year thereafter. 20. Landscaping. a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans, with the following revision: the Applicant shall locate columnar trees along the perimeter of the site where they believe they are most appropriate and shall submit.a revised landscaping plan reflecting this placement to the City Planner for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. Trees shall be a minimum diameter of 3 %2" dbh (diameter breast height). -8- BOSTI\460477.7 .- BOSTI\462730.1 - r c. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. d. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of any replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting. e. Final completed landscaping, done in accordance with the approved set of plans, shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plans, to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. f Fencing shall be installed along the property line on Salem Street and directly abutting the residences on Dow Street. The section of fencing along Salem Street shall be a four-foot black industrial grade aluminum. The section of fencing along the residences along Dow Street shall be wooden. Details and specifications for the fencing shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. 21. Maintenance. a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site. C. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two- (2) year period, from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and completion of planting. 22. As-built Plans. As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be _ submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. -9- BOSTI\460477.7 ..". BOSTI\462730.1 Community Life Center operation. When the Community Life Center is closed those spaces shall first be available for overnight parking by residents of the Development and then, as and if available, as additional off-street parking for residents of the neighborhood. 33. Reuse of Rectory and School Buildings. The former rectory and school buildings existing on the site shall be reused in the Development in accordance with the Plans, and best efforts shall be made to maintain the existing historic character of these buildings. Nina Cohen, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B and Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.The Comprehensive Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. A TRUE COP ATTEST SALEM, MASS. -II- BOST1\460477.7 - BOSTIW62730.1 23. Building Materials. Illustrations and/or samples of exterior building materials, which shall be predominantly red brick, shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 24. Violations. Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation of this permit by the Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Board. 25. Compliance With Laws. Applicant shall comply with all city acid state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 26. Smoke and Fire Safety. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 27. Building Permit. Applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 28. Certificates of Occupancy. Certificates of Occupancy are to be obtained. 29. ,. Certificates of Inspection. Certificates of Inspection, as required, shall be obtained. 30. Street Numbering. Applicant shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 31. Height. The proposed new construction shall not exceed four stories or 50 feet in height, not including mechanical systems equipment. 32. Community Life Center. a. The principal use of the first floor of the new building shall be a municipal use to include a Community Life Center. In the event that (1) all permitting and financing requirements necessary for the Community Life Center to be built in a timely manner cannot be met; and/or(2) the Applicant and the City do not execute a mutually acceptable agreement regarding the use and operation of the Community Life Center(including but not limited to the use and operation of the dedicated parking spaces described in subparagraph (b) below), the Applicant shall not be required to include the Community Life Center in the Development and the Applicant may use the first floor of the new building for residential units and community space (provided that in no event shall the total number of residential units in the Development exceed 79 units). The Applicant may not use the first floor of the new building for any other purpose without obtaining prior Board review. b. Forty-five (45) dedicated parking spaces shall be made available to the City for use by the Community Life Center during any and all hours of -10- BOSTI\460477.7 .... BOSTI\462730.1 EXHIBIT A LIST OF ATTACHED DRAWINGS February 21, 2007 Preliminary Site Development Plans Civil Engineering • Title Sheet, February 21, 2007 • ALTA Survey, June 14, 2005 • Layout and Materials Plan (C-1.1), February 21, 2007 • Utility and Grading Plan (C-2.1), February 21, 2007 • Planting Plan (C-3.1), February 21, 2007 • Site Details (C-4.1), February 21, 2007 • Site Details (C-4.2), February 21, 2007 • Site Details (C-4.3), February 21, 2007 • Turning Movement Plan, (C-5.1), February 21, 2007 Preliminary Architectural Plans Architectural Design New Construction Building (Four Story) • Rendering, February 21, 2007 • Title Sheet, (T1.00), February 21, 2007 • Basement Plan (A1.01), February 21, 2007 • First Floor Plan (A1.02), February 21, 2007 • Second Floor Plan (Al.03), February 21, 2007 • Third Floor Plan (A 1.04), February 21, 2007 • Fourth Floor Plan (A-1:05), February 21, 2007 • Exterior Elevations (A 4.01), February 21, 2007 • Exterior Elevations (A 4.02), February 21, 2007 School Building Rehabilitation • Ground Floor Plan, August 10, 2005 • First Floor Plan, August 10, 2005 • Second Floor Plan, August 10, 2005 • Exterior Elevation Photographs Rectory Building Rehabilitation • Basement Floor Plan, August 10, 2005 • First Floor Plan, August 10, 2005 -12- - - BOSTI\460477.7 - - - BOSTI\462730.1 • Second Floor Plan, August 10, 2005 • Third Floor Plan August 10, 2005 • Exterior Elevation Photographs -13- BOST1\460477.7 _ BOSTI4162730.1 ST. JOSEPH'S REDEVELOPMENT SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT February 21, 2007 EXHIBIT B • Salem Council on Aging North Shore Elder Services • American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Salem Chapter • Polish League of American Veterans (PLAY) • Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 1524 • Veteran's Affairs, City of Salem • Explorers Lifelong Learning Institute of Salem State College, Inc. Masonic Temple Association Houses of Worship of all denominations throughout Salem I RECTORY BUILDING • REHABILITATION • 8 UNITS ! T— f a4 rLD ARC CI KS s' µM ClN�lc6 ECA4C4 6C1Q ` ° O I Pei<M 6'.1ME I I I n R4�11]U PTI ptJ' ' O MIl (+ ' \n OF MPSSP NlT Y7, u � AEr ' p{>va� Ct\{Tb S[fl0. EYIST4 ST.V\Z \K U� uC CY I4w1T�� pa0.c'A - O O lebo zF Da [q 20 1��1Q ZJ e1-z rj U A\T k l [iE Rn¢cA 6i0 Sf K f' U>\lT COUNT _P.�GTOQY' 2EY0y'=TION S nul6¢a ':;�t129T Fi:00SL'F'L?N _ :]TsEPtiS 5`.TE SPLCM,Y,A B TCT1L uN\TE S" 1'-p"'TAT r2T^rl {..... H•IC.b6 $f RST M.L4vcl q'..o >esz.uwsDC SL'L.>TPIAS.SAUHN_G:S:LK4ST•G ! � s $ MAS >��TM OF 'A G� Oa UUIT'S LC 406 SF _ LN goof +{+t 8 j 11N1T M4 ER 11 TTn op !Q acH 44 26 K ee! i3ECTORY.2EVC.YPTL:;N__. 3Csysfp�'s'.st;'£'SA'tLAI.M'6"'. �\S,�E'AED ARCH H W b MASS y �M OF MP'5 G uHiT• c qeo sr e-a r O Q Fr•Ltb Sre�a Eris<� zna¢ LQ" qN a loae zr J � 9R-1 Cie-z '�'�'T^T'�=R.EEQPh'.CtaFl --L��:aaz evss� S�45Z.E'N=3 s'YE:Sei[.M,X.? JJ/j `gIN ARCH/ r. 2M � aC STOrv, , E.R�TH OF MPSS~G �� "$ � ♦.' as Rx B "�' � "�,� y `ufA f "R� f(;�q rta+ r� 'x ut( � eo y.aw .rye♦ xp '..Y; y9 ,� ; ; _ 5". *fi 9 flc�il iif '@$,,. .1 r . .,. VAM Alto qt r i.R'Y' a"•} �. fin.f R .,` � t Y ,y � �9, 9 kAt.d id 6 3d^k� 7. q F .6 r, .... ......a� d - S k �� )� ��--�`� V yQ)� Z4 •.1. _._ � f. f 7b. [58� pp t • sly 1 kk' �ytOt + •sten;'yS 1a,A U 1. - Ig ( - '% vl v 'NOT 4M rvf as in. ♦ 1 NMI SCHOOL BUILDING • REHABILITATION • 14 UNITS LM IV6R-1 - DE-Z OQ j1 i4005F 6rs 1 29 1 ` sum' f L� Q,a ti F 1_I 5UM5m¢ L Si�� HCH ElCV1toY cowa.ooe 1 « F p v o e7 u -T807F f ISO sF W ,uiJ;S c6up-1 Liflt7S:.-RF_1:1bV.[ST.(O{,t .6 a.,s.az :Tr�C1S;fT3'�1_OL+R'Fld?:1' 14 LoYLti fae:ft3 -crsae^.e''et'�Ni�A'... pCh/ ��. 2663 2 2Q sos-,rn N 2 a.�Th OF MPSSpG LA ea-1 1430 Sr Q4-2 IQ00SF ®R-1 1 _ A F 0 a 0 � a er:cin � Q n NE,✓F1EynTo2 c.na:oon : 1 B O � h B I UD aq LQ B¢ 78o SF alto w TBofr e¢ SLHi22.eL"'&FUYpYRZl"9J1 .Sf:Zb9EP17T..y�(-Q-SEL£M.:MA' . �ti.l+pl".:SESCf 2T31 baq.pq_', \S.�EPED A#,y. r� E{9 25a3 B'OSbO;v, h rAh' N O /NA SJ F71Y OF MPSSPG i —O lR �� [430 Sr cta-z ea-v 14m5F ex-t ff 7 K qu mm� 'O �JI V O • O Q en:a KEw ;o Rzioo2 \ TQ—r 7B0 SF S90 3F �/O �dO Sf 6C �T.1.gD2:_SFt�!Li1'I3�S.Ci.t�:" .SEGOND.ELQ�2 P4'CgL- . �FW4SEPli'S'91��_'yeL=M-MA' < n Gs. 2W 80 T 3 orv. Mq- O� L H OF 1na5SP j C 1A, -3z di �.�Ysxemsw aie,+�- 4i 01/30/07 M 11:39 FAX 978744591a PURCHASING DEPT " CITY OF SALEMr MASSACHUSETTS BOARD CIF'APPEAL • 120 WAOmNaTON STREET. 304 FLOOR ` SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 978.745.9595 FAX:978,740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL }� MAYOR AGENDA BOARD OF APPEAL MEITMG January 17,2007-6:30 PAL 3RD FLOOR,ROOM 113 - 120 WASHINGTON STREET - .... 1. Discussion of Chapter 40B (COmptehenafve Peru Law)—Jerry Pldselh 2. Continuation of Petition of I-ewis Legon requmting a 3pettial Prmlit to allow existing non-cmWming ofh9ees to be converted to Aix(6)tesidentiai amts fat the property located at 48 BRIDGE STREW—R-2 DLSMCL 3. Continuation of Patition of Peter and Cheryl Bspn&regltaft a Vaimee from maximum height of forces and bwnda ry walls to allow a sit(6)foot dockada fait.to At be constructed on top of a newly constructed stony wall for the prgarty located at 28 MARLBOROUGH ROAD—R-1 DISl'R g. 4. COatinuadon of Petition of Nchael Viola requesting a Special Pam*to change the use of am existing non-conforming strucWaa from a two(2)story commercial stzactare to a three(3)awry residential structure with five(5)dwelling units.and Variances from the maxi®deoaity and park*requirements for the property located at 17-1!SALEM STREET—R-3 DISTRICT. 5. Petition of Richard Nass reg9nting a Spec:W Permit to construct an addition to a non- conforming structure for the property located at 27-29 ALBION ST'RlW—R-1 DISTRICT. 6. Petition of Joseph Reither requesting Variances from lot size and lot width to allow a structure to be relocated to the IOL Lot width is 45.5 feet instead of the regWred 10( feet and lot size is 7,383 aq.fL instead of the required 15,000 sq ft The property Is located at 14 BU ILM STREET—R-2 DIhiITRICT. 7. Petition of National Grid Winless requesting Variances from tide and rear setback to construct a free-standing strachue for the property at 134 CANAL STREW—I- DISTRICT. 8. Old/New Busimas a Adoption of 2007 Yearly schedule of meetings 9. Adjourmmnt hi% notice pG8?5:3 n ,Cif+CY,j'• uMetln Board' Nina Cohan,Chair sty Walt fAvy., .r_: r.t. Zoning Board of Appeals L L1 a3 PAJ i':M A 3 cZ1Q C1 CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Kimbaiey Driscoll Mayor Jsnuary 17, 2007 Honorable Salem City Council 93 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council: I am writing to update you with regard to correspondence recently received f rom the State Division of Housing and Community Development, in connection with a pot enrial Comprehensive Permit Application at the former St Joseph's Church site. As you know, last year the Planning Office of Urban Affairs(POUA)receivtd local approval . from both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board for a six story, 97 unit,mixed- use development at the St.Joe's site. Unfommately,the permits were appeared and the litigation has dragged on for a number of months, causing not only delays to construct on,but increases in costs related to legal fees and debt service for POUA. As a result,POUA is :onsidering alterative options to develop this site. One of these alternatives may consist of a Comprehensive Permit Application to the ZBA,commonly referred to as a"40B ve Permfro pr ZBA for a Essentially, a Comprehensiit allows a developer to obtain qg& dteria for review of development project that includes a percentage of affordable housing. The such projects is essentially the same as the site plan review process recently,mdatahen by our local boards, however the appeal process for such projects is streamlined at the state level I have had some very preliminary discussions with POUA regarding this process and the proposed project I anticipate that further dialogue with representatives from POUA will take place over the-course of the next week, following which I would expect to submit formal correspondence regarding the status of this project to the City Council prior 10 your next- meeting. I am writing to you today because members of the ZBA were informed of a potential Comprehensive Permit Application and were briefed on the 40Bprooess by tx Assistant City Solicitor at tonight's ZBA meeting. I know that this project is of interest to a number of you and walled you to be aware of the most recent goings-on,as well as the fact that I expect to have additional details to share with You shortly. I am scheduled for jury duty tomorrow,but hope to be in the office at some point during the day. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns related to this topic. Thank you. Very truly yours, Kimberley Driscoll Mayor 978-7404AEA p.1 1 U CITY OF SALEM C 1 Y OF SALEM.. MA �. PLANNING BOARD CLERK'S OFFICE Notice of Meeting en .JAB 25 P 4- 23 . You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its mgukt meeting on Thumday, February 1,2007, at 7:00 PM in Room 313,Third Floor at 120 WashWgtoa S meet. Walter B.Power, r1l Chairrma I. Approval of Minutes ■ January 4,2007 n%eedv 2. Continuation of Public Hewing-Sire Plan Review and Wetlands ar d Mood fin rd Disrucr Joseph 6omeaSPcclal P==t- North River Canal,LLC -28 Goodhue Street(Map 16,1vt 372) I Continuation of Public Bearing—Drive Through Fa dlitiea S Plan Review Special Permit-Tilcity Saks P�permit and she (Map 8, Lots 99, 100 104 and 105 uY roti CVS -262-272 Highland Ave. Joseph Coneati 0. Old/New Business This notice costed cn 'Chicle, Bufletin Board' CityH it Ave., L' 04m. ?Bass. on �„j . AS 8ioa at T z.Z� Its accord-as-s:,-a %mvi chap 39 era 7 23A i 238 of M.Q.L. 20 W.ASHiHCTO�V STREET. SALEM, MABSACHUSCM 01970 • 7E.; 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 . WWW...,6M.cow COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: ZO D 6 f 92c) C WILLIAM DZIERZEK,ERIC EASLEY, JOHN GOFF, ) DOCTOR MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI,LINDA ) LOCKE,ANTHONY MIRABITO,LINDA MIRABITO, ) SOLANGE MARCHAND,JEAN MARTIN,NANCY A. ) MOORE, THOMAS STRUCKMAN,MARIA ) TRINDADE, RODRIGO TRINDADE,LAURENT ) OUELLETTE,ANA PANIAGUA, DIONICIA FLORIAN, ) ANTOINETTE C. SANCHEZ,JANE E. GAMMON, ) BRIAN TASHJIAN, CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, ROBERT) y BOZARJIAN,ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN,JULIAN o p NENSHATI, DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, ) V SCOTT GALBER, T. ERIC BERUBE,DOMENICA ) Arno 0 INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI, ROBERSON D. TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO, MARY C. ) `=' `J' LESCH, GARY R. JENKINS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ) O ren SHAWN M. O'BRIEN,RALPH BERRY,DOROTHY A. ) � w FORTIN, JOHN J. PHELAN, ROSARIO BELTRE, ) w { ORILLE L'HEUREUX, CONSTANCE SANFORD, and ) `s JORDAN CASTRO, PLAINTIFFS ) V. ) SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and ) BONNIE BELAIR,BETH DEBSKI, ANNIE HARRIS, ) STEPHEN PINTO, ROBIN STEIN, RICHARD DIONNE, ) and NINA COHEN, CHAIRPERSON, BEING REGULAR) and ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD) OF APPEAL;OF THE CITY OF SALEM, ) MASSACHUSETTS, ) DEFENDANTS ) NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT FROM AUGUST 24, 2006 DECISION OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL GRANTING TWO VARIANCES CONCERNING 135 LAFAYETTE STREET SALEM MASSACHUSETTS John H. Carr, Jr., attorney for the above-named Plaintiffs, hereby gives notice to the City Clerk of the City of Salem, MA and to the Planning Board of the City of Salem, MA that said Plaintiffs have appealed the August 24, 2006 Decision of the Salem Board of Appeal granting two variances to Salem Lafayette Development, LLC concerning the former (so-called) St. Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA, one increasing the 45 foot maximum height restriction to 65 feet, and the other increasing the 3 '/x maximum number of stories to 6 stories, which Decision was filed with the office of the Salem City Clerk on September 5,2006. n 4 A copy of the Complaint filed as Essex Superior Court Civil action no. on September 22, 2006 is attached hereto. William Dzierzek et al, By their attorney, September 22, 2006 John H. Carr, Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 978-825-0060 BBO#075281 -2 - CIVIL ACTION Superior Court Department COVER SHEET County: 7 DEFENDANTS) sp•g+n eTI+� 7I�1Q �i� PLAINTIFF(S) _ — - -- __-__ _ `� y'}A '1'�' � z_�9 W%lf'I-, �Z 1'e-PZC f, d n1 n ATTORNEY FIRM NAME,ADDRESS AND TELFEHONE ATTORNEY (if known) q A)o Board of Bar Overseers number: Origin code and track designation a an x in one box.only: El 4. F04 District Court Appeal c.231, S.97 &104 (After 1. F01 Original Complaint trial) (X) ❑ 2. F02 Removal to Sup.Ct.C.231,s.104 ❑ 5. F05 Reactivated after rescript; relief from (Before trial) (F) judgment/Order (Mass.R.Civ.R 60) (X) ❑ 3Klollowing F03 Retransfer to Sup.Ct. C.231,s.102C (X) ❑ 6. E10 Summary Process Appeal.(X) TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (Seereverse,side) T;IF ACTION (speci ) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE? )Yes ( ) No a emi ed and detailed s atement oft a facts on which plaintiff relies to determine . is form, disregard double or treble damage claims; indicate single damages only. TORT CLAIMS (Attach additional sheets as necessary) A. Documented medical expenses to date: 1. Total hospital expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Total Doctor expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Total chiropractic expenses, . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' ' . . ' ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Total physical therapy expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Total other expenses • • . . • . . • • . • • • . . . . . . . . " " ' $ " " " " " " P (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subtotal $. . . . . . . . . . . . B. Documented lost wages and compensation to date $. . . . . . . . . ' C. Documented property damages to date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $. . . . . . . . . . . . D. Reasonably anticipated future medical and hospital expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Reasonably anticipated lost wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Other documented items of damages (describe) G. Brief description of plaintiff's injury, including nature and extent of injury (describe) $. . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL $. . . . . . . . . . . . CONTRACT CLAI (Attach additional sheets a Provide a.detailed description of claim(s): IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ESSEX SEP 2 2 2006 TOTAL $. . . . . . . . . . . PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND COUNT , ENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CLERK "1 hereby certify that I have complied with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules c Dispute Resolution (SJC Rule 1:18 re uirin t I provide my clients with information about court-connected dispu resolution services and discus e v tag and disadvantages of the various methods:" Signature of Attorney of Re rd DATE AOTC-6 mtc005-11/99 A.O.S.C.1-2000 _ CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET INSTRUCTIONS SELECT CATEGORY THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR CASE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS A01 Services,labor and materials (F) C01 Land taking(eminent domain) (F) E02 Appeal from administrative (X) A02 Goods sold and delivered (F) CO2 Zoning Appeal,G.L.c.40A - (F) Agency G.L.c.30N A03 Commercial Paper (F) CO3 Dispute concerning title (F) E03 Action against Commonwealth A08 Sale or lease of real estate (F) C04 Foreclosure of mortgage (X) Municipality,G.L.c.258 (A) Al2 Construction Dispute (A) C05 Condominium lien and charges (X) E05 All Arbitration (X) A99 Other(Specify) (F) C99 Other(Specify) (F) E07 c.112,s.12S(Mary Moe) (X) TORT E08 Appointment of Receiver (X) B03 Motor Vehicle negligence- EQUITABLE REMEDIES -- E09 General contractor bond, personal injury/property damage (F) D01 Specific performance of contract (A) G.L.c.149,s.29,29a (A) B04 Other negligence-personal D02 Reach and Apply (F) Ell Workman's Compensation (X) injury/property damage (F) D06 Contribution or Indemnification (F) E14 Chapter 123A Petition-SDP (X) B05 Products Liability (A) D07 Imposition of Trust (A) E15 Abuse Petition,G.L.c.209A (X) B06 Malpractice-medical (A) DOB Minority Stockholder's Suit (A) E16 Auto Surcharge Appeal (X) B07 Malpractice-other(Specify) (A) D10 Accounting - (A) E17 Civil Rights Act,G.L.c.12,s.11H (A) B08 Wrongful death,G.L.c.229,s2A (A) D12 Dissolution of Partnership (F) E18 Foreign Discovery proceeding (X) B15 Defamation(Libel-Slander) (A) D13 Declaratory Judgment G.Lc.231A (A) E96 Prisoner Cases - (F) B19 Asbestos (A) D99 Other(Specify) (F) E97 Prisoner Habeas Corpus (X) B20 Personal Injury-Slip&Fall (F) E99 Other(Specify) (X) B21 Environmental (A) B22 Employment Discrimination (F) B99 Other(Specify) (F) TRANSFER YOUR SELECTION TO THE FACE SHEET. EXAMPLE: CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (SPECIFY) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE? B03 Motor Vehicle Negligence-Personal Injury (l. 21 Yes ❑ No SUPERIOR COURT RULE 29 DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF.The plaintiff or his/her counsel shall set forth, on the face sheet (or attach additional sheets as necessary), a statement specifying in full and itemized detail the facts upon which the plaintiff then relies as constituting money damages.A copy of such civil action cover sheet, including the statement as to the damages, shall be served on the defendant together with the complaint. If a statement of money damages, where appropriate is not filed, the Clerk-Magistrate shall transfer the action as provided in Rule 29(5)(C). DUTY OF THE DEFENDANT. Should the defendant believe the statement of damages filed by the plaintiff in any respect inadequate,he or his counsel may file with the answer a statement specifying in reasonable detail the potential damages which may result should the plaintiff prevail.Such statement, if any, shall be served with the answer. A CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET MUST BE FILED WITH EACH COMPLAINT, BUFF COLOR PAPER. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS COVER SHEET THOROUGHLY AND ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 2066.4020C WILLIAM DZIERZEK,ERIC EASLEY,JOHN GOFF, ) DOCTOR MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI,LINDA ) LOCKE,ANTHONY MIRABITO,LINDA MIRABTfO, ) SOLANGE MARCHAND,JEAN MARTIN,NANCY A. ) MOORE,THOMAS STRUCKMAN,MARIA ) TRINDADE,RODRIGO TRINDADE,LAURENT ) OUELLETTE,ANA PANIAGUA,DIONICIA FLORIAN, ) ANTOINETTE C. SANCHEZ,JANE E. GAMMON, ) BRIAN TASHJIAN,CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT,ROBERT) BOZ.ARJIAN,ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN, JULIAN ) NENSHATI,DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, ) SCOTT GALBER,T.ERIC BERUBE,DOMENICA ) INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI,ROBERSON D. ) TRONCOSO,CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO,MARY C. ) LESCH,GARY R. JENKINS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ) SHAWN M. O'BRIEN,RALPH BERRY,DOROTHY A. ) FORTIN,JOHN J. PHELAN,ROSARIO BELTRE, ) ORILLE L'HEUREUX, CONSTANCE SANFORD,and ) < a JORDAN CASTRO, PLAINTIFFS V. <F �� f SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT,LLC,and ) %. a O rn BONNIE BELAIR,BETH DEBSKI,ANNIE HARRIS, ) = w STEPHEN PINTO,ROBIN STEIN,RICHARD DIONNE, ) w i and NINA COHEN,CHAIRPERSON,BEING REGULAR) and ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD) OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, ) MASSACHUSETTS, ) DEFENDANTS ) COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L.CHAP-TER.40A..SECTION 17 APPEALING AUGUST 24.2006 DECISION 21 TXW MUM BOARD OF APPEAL 994NTING IM C,, JM&G 135 LAFAYETI E STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS This is an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal of Salem,Massachusetts (hereinafter"the ZBA"or"the Board'),dated August 24,2006 and filed with the Salem City Clerk on September 5,2006, granting variancesfrom the,maximum height and maximum number of story restrictions provided in the Salem Zoning Ordinance as they relate to the so- called St.Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts(hereinafter"the subject property"or"the St. Joseph's property)on the grounds that the ZBA's decision was arbitrary,capricious,unreasonable,violated due process,exceeded the Board's authority,was based on legally and factually untenable grounds,and was wrong as a matter of law. A certified copy of said August 24,2006 Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff,William Dzierzek,who resides at 146 Summer Street,Danvers,Massachusetts 01923,owns the real estate located at 157 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts, 10 Dow Stmt, Salem,Massachusetts,and 12 Dow Street,Salem,Massachusetts, all of which abut the subject property,and 176 Lafayette Street, 182 Lafayette Street,and 7 Cedar Street,all in Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are all located in the immediate neighborhood. 2. Plaintiff,Eric Easley,who resides at 145 Spoffird Road,Boxford, Massachusetts 01921, owns the real estate located at 266 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts,65 Harbor Street, Salem,Massachusetts, 73 Harbor Street, Salem,Massachusetts,and 38 Salem Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 3. Plaintiff,John Goff,is a preservation architect and former Executive Director of Historic Salem Inc.,who,together with his wife,owns and resides at 194 Lafayette Street, Salem Massachusetts 01970, which property is also located in the immediate neighborhood. 4. Plaintiff,Dr. Miroslaw Kantorosinski,who resides at 8 Almeda Street,Salem, Massachusetts 01970,is the owner of 5-5A Ropes Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which abuts the subject property,and 8-10 Porter Street Court, Salem,Massachusetts,which is located one block from the subject property,and is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 5. Plaintiff,Linda Locke,who resides at 1 Pickering Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns 44-46 Dow Street, Salem,Massachusetts,7 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts, and 13-15 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are all within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 6. Plaintiffs,Anthony Mirabito and Linda Mirabito,who reside at 8 Nichols Lane, Middleton,Massachusetts 01949,own 16 Porter Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 7. Plaintiff, Solange Marchand,owns and resides at 159 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is an abutter to an abutter of the subject property, and is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 2 8. Plaintiff,Jean Martin,who resides at 24 Leavitt Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns(together with her husband)24 Leavitt Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which is located in the immediate neighborhood,and solely owns 34 Park Street, Salem Massachusetts,which is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 9. Plaintiffs,Nancy A. Moore and Thomas Struckman,who reside at 59 Lexington Street, Woburn,Massachusetts 01801, own the real estate located at 39 Prince Street, Salem, Massachusetts,which is also located in the immediate neighborhood. 10. Plaintiffs,Maria Trindade and Rodrigo Trindade,own and reside at 40-42 Dow Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 11. Plaintiff,Laurent Ouellette,who resides at 18 Hershey Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,owns 1 Harbor Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 12. Plaintiffs,Ana Paniagua and Dionicia Florian,own and reside at 16 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property abuts the subject property. 13. Plaintiff,Antoinette C. Sanchez,owns and resides at 20 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property abuts the subject property. 14. Plaintiff,Jane E.Gammon,owns and resides at unit 1, 160 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 15. Plaintiff,Brian Tashjian, owns and resides at 30 Park Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 16. Plaintiff,Christopher Knight,owns and resides at unit 2a, 56 Ward Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 17. Plaintiffs,Robert and Elizabeth Bozarjian,reside at 20 Clark Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,and own 9 Park Street, Salem,Massachusetts and 10-12 Park Street, Salem Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 18, Plaintiff,Julian Nenshad,who resides at 34 Pitman Road, Swampscott,Massachusetts 01907,owns 3 Rope Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 19. Plaintiffs,David T.Ramsey and Jean E.Ramsey,who reside at 58 Gregory Island Road, South Hamilton,Massachusetts 01982,own 12 Palmer Street,Salem,Massachusetts and -3 - 15-17 Leavitt Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 20. Plaintiff, Scott Galber,who resides at unit 5,22 Winter Street, Salem,Massachusetts, 01970,owns 65 Harbor Street,69-71 Harbor Street,22-24 Prince Street, and 27 Salem Street,all in Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 21. Plaintiff,T.Eric Berube,owns and resides at 191 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 22. Plaintiffs, Stephen C.Ingemi and Domenica Ingemi,own and reside at 7 Fairfield Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 23. Plaintiffs,Roberson D.Troncoso and Clariza J. Troncoso,own and reside at unit 4, 10 Porter Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 24. Plaintiff,Mary C. Lesch,owns and resides at 15 Cedar Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 25. Plaintiff,Gary R.Jenkins,owns and resides at 5 Pond Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is locate,in the immediate neighborhood. 26. Plaintiffs, Shawn M. O'Brien and Patricia D. O'Brien,own and reside at 21 Cedar Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,and also own 23-25 Cedar Street, Salem,Massachusetts, which properties are located in the immediate neighborhood. 27. Plaintiff,Ralph Berry,owns and resides at 3 Chase Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 28. Plaintiff,Dorothy A.Fortin,owns and resides at 2 Cherry Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 29. Plaintiff,John J.Phelan,owns and resides at 3 Fairfield Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is lowtvi in the immediate neighborhood. 30. Plaintiff,Rosario Beltre,owns and resides at 15 Harrison Ave, Salem,Massachusetts, 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 31. Plaintiff,Orille L'Heureux,who resides at 22 Francis Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,owns 87 Congress Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. -4- 32. Plaintiff, Constance Sanford,owns and resides at 19 Park Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 33. Plaintiff,Jordan Castro,who resides at 2 Station Road, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns 15 '/2 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 34. Defendant, Salem Lafayette Development, LLC (hereinafter"SLD"),is a non-profit development corporation with headquarters at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970; is the owner of the former St.Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970;and is the recipient of the two August 24,2006 variances from the Salem ZBA herewith being appealed. 35. Defendant,Bonnie Belair(hereinafter"Ms. Belau"),whose mailing address is P.O.Box 685, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to grant said variances at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing. (This was the only address available from the Salem ZBA.) 36. Defendant,Beth Debsid(hereinafter"Ms.DebsW),who resides at 43 Calumet Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA,who voted to grant said variances at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing. 37. Defendant,Annie Harris(hereinafter"Ms. Harris"),who resides at 28 Chestnut Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a regular member of the Salem ZBA,who voted to grant said variances at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing. 38. Defendant, Stephen Pinto(hereinafter"Mr. Pinto'),who resides at 55 Columbus Avenue, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a regular member of the Salem ZBA,who voted to grant said variances at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing. 39. Defendant,Robin Stent(hereinafter"Ms. Stein"),who resides at 141 Fort Avenue, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA,who voted to grant said variances at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing,and is the author of the August 24,2006 Decision 40. Defendant,Nina Cohen,who resides at 22 Chestnut Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is the Chairperson of the Salem Board of Appeal. She did not participate in the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing,or the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision. 41. Defendant,Richard Dionne,who resides at 23 Gardner Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA. He did not participate in the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing,or the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision. 42. All of the foregoing Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action,as all are substantially aggrieved by the August 24,2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting said variances. -5 - JURISDICTION 43. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. 44. This case is timely,as it has been filed within twenty(20)days from September 5,2006, which is when the ZBA's August 24,2006 Decision granting said variances was filed with the Salem City Clerk. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 45. The St. Joseph's property consists of a parking lot and 4 buildings on approximately 2.6 acres of land at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts. The four buildings consist of the former St.Joseph's church,the 3-story former rectory,the 3-story former St. Joseph's school,and the 3-story former convent. 46. Said property is a basically rectangular parcel bounded by Lafayette Street to the west, Harbor Street to the north, Salem Street to the east,and Dow Street to the south,and is located in both the so-called Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods. 47. Except for three 2 V2-story residential buildings fronting on the northerly side of Dow Street at the southeast corner of the site,the St. Joseph's property comprises the entire rectangular block formed by said streets. 48. At the southwest comer of said site is the confluence of Lafayette,Washington,and Dow Streets,which 3-way intersection constitutes one of the most congested and dangerous intersections in Salem. 49. All of the former St.Joseph's structures at the site were constructed prior to the enactment of the current Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965,and thus,all four buildings represent prior non-conforming structures. 50. By far,the most architecturally significant building at the site is the former St. Joseph's Church,which is an important example of the so-called International Style,a style of modem architecture which is unique in Salem. As such,it makes an important contribution to Salem's world-renowned stock of 17th, 18th,and 19th century architecture. 51. There is no question that the former St. Joseph's Church is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the United States Department of the Interior. 52. The former St.Joseph's school building and convent have no particular architectural significance. -6 - 53. The church,rectory, and convent have been vacant since the parish closed on or about August 15,2004. The school has been vacant since it relocated to the St.James parish on Federal Street beginning in August or September of 2004. 54. The entire St. Joseph's property is located in an R-3 Zoning District. 55. Pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning, a maximum of 33 residential units can be constructed at the site as a matter of right,with new construction not to exceed 45 feet in height and 3 '/z stories. 56. The overwhelming majority of the buildings on the surrounding Lafayette,Dow, Salem, and Harbor Streets,as well as those on Washington Street opposite the Lafayette Street side of the property(ie. across from the pocket park)are either 2 %2 or 3-story residential dwellings. 57. The grade of the parking lot at the southern third of the site is already approximately 4 feet above the grade of the 3 '/x-story residential buildings fronting on Dow Street at the southeast corner of the site. 58. In the Spring of 2005 the Archdiocese of Boston sold the entire St. Joseph's property to the Planning Office of Urban Affairs(hereinafter"POUR'),a private non-profit corporation,for$2,000,000.00,which thereupon created Salem Lafayette Development Corporation, LLC(hereinafter"SLD')to develop the site. 59. The head of the Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, serves in his individual capacity as the chief executive officer of POUA. 60. On Thursday,July 27,2006,the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened the fust of three public hearings on SLD's application for a Planned Unit Development(hereinafter "PUD")to develop the St. Joseph's site primarily into 97 residential units,which represents 64 units more than the 33 tttaximum number of units allowed by the current R- 3 zoning for that district. 61. The proposed project basically calls for the razing of the former convent and landmark church,the development of the former rectory into 8 residential units,the conversion of the former school into 14 residential units,and the construction of a new, 6-story, 65-foot tall building immediately to the right(ie. south)of the rectory to contain 64 residential units and an 18,000 square foot Community Life Center on the fust floor,which would also double as a Senior Center. 62. Unlike the existing cruciform church,which was built with its narrow(i.e.40-foot wide) wall perpendicular to Lafayette Street,the proposed new,65-foot,6-story structure is to be built parallel to Lafayette Street, 160 feet in length,within a few feet of the existing sidewalk. - 7 - 63. Also unlike the existing cruciform church, all six floors of the new 65-foot structure will be occupied 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year,which is a substantial increase in use compared to the former St.Joseph's Church,whose single-story interior space(albeit 63 feet tall)was primarily used only on Sunday mornings and holy days. 64. Of the 97 residential units, SLD indicated that"approximately"30 units will be rented, and the balance of 67 units will be sold as condominiums. 65. A major component of SLD's PUD application was its promise to dedicate 45%of the 97 residential units,or 44 units,for"affordable housing",which was later scaled back to 351/o,or approximately 34 units,at the final Planning Board hearing on September 7, 2006. 66. On information and belief, said 34 units of affordable housing,whether rented or sold as condominiums,will involve a discount of approximately 30%below prevailing market rates,for which eligibility will be based on income limitations of the buyer or tenants. 67. Thus,in essence,SLD's PUD application seeks an approximate 194%increase in density of 64 residential units over the 33 maximum number of residential units permitted by the existing R-3 zoning for the entire site, in return for which 33 of the extra 64 units would be sold or rented as affordable housing at a discount(in either event)of approximately 30%below prevailing market rates. 68. The balance of 31 units of the 64 units exceeding the current R-3 zoning would be sold at market rates,in addition to the 33 residential units already permitted by the existing R-3 zoning,or altogether 64 units at market rates. 69. Said 194%increase in residential density above the 33 maximum number of residential units does not even include the proposed 18,000 square foot Community Life Center, which includes the so-called Senior Center. 70. The other major component of SLD's PUD application is the proposed 18,000 square foot Community Life Center to be sold to the City of Salem. Although the purchase price has yet to be finalized,the figure discussed at the three'Planning Board hearings was approximately$5,000,000.00. , 71. None of the several Salem City Councilors who attended the three Planning Board hearings seethed to be aware of the details of said purchase;no one seemed to know how the City(which is,and has been,under severe financial constraints)is going to afford the purchase price;and no one could explain what would happen to the project if the City couldn't afford to buy said 18,000 square feet of first floor space. 72. Also complicating this issue is the fact that a substantial majority of Salem's senior citizens who currently use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street are vehement in their opposition to relocating the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to the St. Joseph's site. - 8 - 73. A multi-page petition signed by approximately 300 Salem senior citizens opposing the proposed new Senior Center at the St. Joseph's site was submitted at the third Planning Board hearing on September 7, 2006,which opposition was re-affirmed in a heavily publicized meeting conducted by Mayor Driscoll at the existing Broad Street Senior Center a few weeks later. 74. Notwithstanding that approval of its PUD application will circumvent much of the existing R-3 zoning for the district, SLD still needed two variances from the Salem ZBA, one to increase the 45 foot maximum height restriction by 20 feet,to 65 feet,which represents a 44.44%increase,and the other to increase the current maximum of 3 %2 stories to 6 stories,which represents a 58.33%increase. 75. On August 23,2006 the Salem ZBA voted to grant said variances,which is the subject of this appeal. Alternate member,Robin Stein,who authored the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision,and alternative member,Beth Debski,voted in place of Chairperson Nina Cohen and regular member,Richard Dionne,who did not participate in the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing or August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision. 76. On September 6, 2006 SLD requested a continuance of a vote of the Salem Historical Commission on its petition for a waiver of the 6-month demolition delay ordinance when it became clear that the Commission regarded St. Joseph's Church to be an extremely significant building and would not waive the demolition delay ordinance if a vote were then taken on its application. 77. On September 7,2006 the Salem Planning Board approved SLD's PUD application, which was entered in the office of the Salem City Clerk at 5:27 p.m. on September 14, 2006. A copy of said decision is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 78. As to each of the following Counts,the Plaintiffs reaffirm,re-allege, and incorporate all of the prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-77 inclusive above. ARGUMENT COUNTI The ZBA findings are generally insufficient to support said August 24,2006 Decision granting said variances. 79. The August 24,2006 Decision lists 15 explicit findings of fact in [purported] support of the two variances. 80. None of said findings are legally germane to the issues at hand,which relate to the basis for the Board's decision to grant variances increasing the 45 foot maximum height - 9- restriction to 60 feet,which represents a 44.44%increase over the existing R-3 zoning, and for increasing the 3 '/:maximum number of stories to 6-stories,which represents a 58.33%increase. 81. Most of the findings represent either self-serving conclusions without any specificity whatsoever, or attest to the project's popularity with either the Mayor, some elected officials,or certain groups within the local Salem population,all of which is hardly a legal basis for granting said relief. Whatsoever its merits,popularity with some groups is not a proper basis for granting variances. 82. The reason that no such specificity was cited is because, in point of fact,no such legally- relevant evidence was introduced at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing in support of said variances. 83. Findings 1,2, and 3 offer absolutely no guidance whatsoever as to the bases for said variances. 84. Finding 12 recites that"Evidence was presented by the Petitioner regarding the hardship resulting from the uniquely large size of the lot, 2.6 acres,compared to others in the district...,"without specifying what said evidence was,how it related to the height or number of stories issues,or why other solutions that might have been more compatible with the existing R-3 zoning were not possible. 85. "The uniquely large size of the lot"alone is not a sufficient basis for said variances. Indeed,one might reasonably conclude that such a large-sized lot offered more opportunities for development compatible with the existing R-3 zoning,not less. 86. Finding 1 I recites that"The Petitioner presented all evidence pertaining to the history of institutional use on the site and the history of the buildimgs on the site over the past 100 years,two of which buildings were taller than the proposed structure...,"which purported information,even if true,is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether said variances should be granted. 87. The proper issue before the ZBA was not what the area may have looked like at one particular point in its history,especially if that occurred before the introduction of zoning, but what the a ent conditions are, as well as the ur n zoning. 88. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of a colored lithograph of Lafayette Street looking north toward the downtown of Salem that was drawn in 1852 from the vantage point of Lafayette and Harbor Streets. Surely it is just as irrelevant for the petitioner to argue that it should be entitled to a 6-story building because at some point in history there was a taller building on the site as it would be for the opponents to argue that the 1852 neighborhood should be replicated. 89. Findings 4,5,6,7,and 8 all deal exclusively with the purported popularity of the project with some groups within the Salem community,which certainly does not include the - 10- within appellants,who are all stakeholders in the neighborhood, and as such, are entitled to rely on the protections afforded by the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 90. Finding 9 recites that"Community members speaking against the project were mainly concerned with density and relocation of the existing senior center." 91. In point of fact,the within appellants and many more members of the Salem Community are just as concerned about the issues of scale and height, as they are about density,if not more so, since all three elements of the proposed new construction completely overwhelm the surrounding immediate neighborhood- 92. eighborhood92. The appellants are not alone in their concern over such issues. Historic Salem, Inc.,a non-profit local preservation group(hereinafter"HSI"),and many others,have gone on record citing the scale and height,as well as the density,of the project as maior problems. Indeed,HSI has added the issues of scale and density throughout the downtown, and surrounding areas,to its"10 Most Endangered List." Attached hereto as Exhibits D and E are letters from HSI and Margaret Twohey to the Planning Board concerning said issues,dated July 22,2006 and August 18,2006 respectively, copies of which were also furnished to the ZBA prior to its August 23,2006 hearing. 93. Finding 14 recites simply that the project's mixed income housing and"the possibility of a Community Life Center owned and operated by the City of Salem"create"special circumstances which are not found on other lots in the district,"without(again) specifically indicating what said special circumstances are,or how that relates to the zoning issues before the Board,which involve increasing the relevant R-3 height and 3 1/2 story restrictions by 44.44%and 58.33%respectively. 94. Finding 15 simply recites the self-serving conclusionary statement,without explanation, that"A hardship exists which MAms a height variance in order to provide the high level of public benefit being proposed...,"citing the lone unsupported testimony of"a local developer"that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the project work." [Emphasis added] 95. Even apart from the issue that the alleged"high level of public benefits"are very much in dispute,including by an overwhelming majority of Salem's senior citizens who use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street,this is clearly an inadequate basis to support said extreme increases of the existing R-3 zoning. 96. It is clear that there are no competent findings of fact in said August 24,2006 Decision regarding hardship, special circumstances,or why such variances will not nullify the public good,or derogate from the intent and purpose of Salem's R-3 zoning for that district. 97. Apart from all other considerations,it is clear from the lack of competent,relevant findings that the Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in granting said variances. - 11 - 98. For these reasons alone, said variances should be nullified and overturned. COUNT H There is no legally-recognized hardship at all, let alone hardship sufficient to entitle SLD to either or both of said variances. 99. The only purported findings of fact with respect to hardship are the self-serving conclusionary statements found in Findings 13 and 15. 100. Finding 13 recites simply that the hardship is"from the uniquely large size of the lot, 2.6 acres, compared to others in the district...,"and Finding 15 simply recites that"A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to provide the high level of public benefit being proposed." 101. Note that in the first instance there is absolutely no explanation as to how and why"a uniquely large"lot constitutes hardship. Indeed,the more compelling inference to be drawn from that single fact,even if true, is that such a lot affords far more opportunities for development compatible with the existing R-3 zoning,than less. 102. In essence,what the developer is arguing is that the existing R-3 zoning itself is the basis for the hardship. 103. With respect to Finding 15,it should also be noted that the alleged hardship is unexplained. The hardship"which [supposedly] requires a height variance"is accepted as a given. [Emphasis added] Even though this is the findings section of the Decision, said finding is,in fact,an unsupported conclusion. 104. It is clear that SLD had the burden of proving each of the primary elements needed to justify the granting of said variances,especially variances which increase the existing R-3 height and number of stories restrictions by as much as 44.44%and 58.33%respectively. 105. It is axiomatic under Massachusetts law that hardship cannot be self-created. 106. In point of fact there was no evidence with respect to legally-recognized hardship submitted at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing,or to be found in the August 24,2006 Decision. 107. SLD is presumed to know the R-3 zoning for the property,and presumably it took that into account in negotiating its purchase price for the property. 108. If there were zoning issues that needed to be resolved,those should have been resolved prior to consummating the purchase. - 12 - 109. By having proceeded with the purchase, SLD's claimed hardship is entirely self-created and does not constitute a basis for granting said variances. 110. By having granted said variances in part on said spurious claims of hardship,the ZBA acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority. 111. For this reason alone said variances should be nullified and overturned. COUNT III There are no special conditions or circumstances which justify the granting of said variances. 112. The only findings of fact with respect to"special conditions and circumstances"is found in Finding 13,which recited the following in its entirety: Evidence presented by the Petitioner demonstrated special conditions and circumstances exist surrounding the history of use on this lot including the fact that four structures presently exist on the lot,the oldest two of which will remain in the proposed plan. Emphasis added 113. It is patently clear on the face of said finding that the above does not constitute a special condition and/or circumstance sufficient to grant a variance pursuant to Massachusetts zoning law,and that if SLD's above definition were adopted, it would debase the meaning of that term out of all practical legal significance. 114. In point of fact,the site in question is flat,has no topographical anomalies,and has been previously built upon, as is explicitly recognized in the finding. 115. It is also important to note that the alleged specific"special conditions and circumstances"have nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the site,but with the alleged prior history of use of the site. 116. There is nothing about the prior use of the site that constitutes a special condition or circumstance within the meaning of Massachusetts zoning law. The site contains four buildings on 2.6 acres,much of it already clear. If there are costs to demolish the buildings in order to make the development more compatible with the R-3 zoning,that should have been reflected in the purchase price. - 13 - 117. In point of fact there was no legally competent evidence introduced at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing on the issue of special conditions and circumstances,as finding 13 implicitly and explicitly makes clear,nor do such special conditions and/or circumstances exist. 118. As such,the ZBA acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority, in granting said variances. 119. For this reason alone, said variance should be nullified and overturned. COUNT IV Said variances constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 120. There are absolutely no findings of fact in the August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision in support of its formal Conclusion No. 1,found on the third page of said Decision,that"Me Petitioner's request for variances to allow for a maximum height of approximately sixty- five(65)feet and six(6)stories does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public gam„ 121. As above,this essential finding necessary for the granting of said variances(along with the other necessary elements)is simply accepted as a given. 122. How the 6 stories totaling 65 feet will relate to the surrounding neighborhood,the shadows that will be cast,the impact on traffic and city infrastructure,including impact on the water and sewer system,the density of said stories,and other effects, are all simply assumed not to be a detriment to the public good. 123. Enabling 33 owners or tenants out of a city of approximately 40,000 people to have a 33%discount on their rent,or the purchase price of their condominium,may be a laudable goal,but it does not justify the obvious significant adverse effects that will be caused to both the Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods if such a monstrosity is allowed to be built,especially if specific provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which are intended to prevent said adverse effects are ignored. 124. Clearly the scale of a neighborhood is a critical aspect of the integrity and vitality of that neighborhood,and any variances granting increases in the height and maximum number of stories by as much as 44.44%and 58.33%over the existing R-3 maximums should not be granted without clear and convincing evidence that such action will not cause substantial detriment to the public good,which evidence simply does not exist here. 125. In light of same, it is clear that the ZBA has acted willfully and capriciously in drawing its formal Conclusion No.I that there will be no substantial detriment caused to the public good,and thereby,has exceeded its authority in granting said variances. - 14 - 126. For this reason alone,said variances should be nullified and overturned. COUNT V Said variances nullify and substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 127. As with the preceding Count IV,there are absolutely no findings of fact in the August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision in support of its formai Conclusion No. 2, found on the third page of said Decision,that"The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance." 128. The current maximum height restriction for new construction pursuant to the current R-3 zoning for the St. Joseph's property is 45 feet. SLD proposes constructing a new building of 65 feet,20 feet over the R-3 maximum,which represents a 44.44%increase. 129. The current maximum number of stories for new construction pursuant to the current R-3 zoning is 3 '/z stories. SLD's proposed new building is 6 stories,2 %:stories over the existing maximum,representing a 58.33%increase. 130. If such substantial percentage increases are of no consequence,what is the point of having such restrictions in the fust place, or for that matter, what is the point of having a zoning ordinance at all? 131. Exceptions(in this case called variances)are just that: exceptions,and then are only supposed to be granted under tightly controlled circumstances, which do not exist here. They are certainly not intended to be the rule. 132. The current rectory, school,and convent are all three stories,well within the 3 '/2 story maximums pursuant to the current R-3 zoning. On information and belief,they also do not exceed the R-3 height maximum of 45 feet. 133. And while it is true that St.Joseph's Church is approximately 63 feet tall,2 feet shorter than SDL's proposed new 6-story building,there are the following important distinctions which should be noted: a. St. Joseph's Church is grandfathered as a prior non-conforming structure,since it was erected in 1949,well before the enactment of Salem's Zoning Ordinance in 1965; b. While there is 63 feet of exterior space,the interior space consists of a sin e- 9M of the same height,which is entirely ceremonial in nature; - 15 - C. The former use of that space primarily occurred at limited hours, generally only on late Saturday afternoons, Sunday mornings,and Church holidays; d. The church is a cruciform church, with its narrow(i.e. 40 feet wide)edge to Lafayette Street,which thereby minimizes the impact of its height on said street; e. As a symbolic and ceremonial building,the very epicenter(originally)of the surrounding French Canadian Community that built the complex,the size and height of the church have an obvious visual logic; f. None of the foregoing apply to SDL's proposed new 6-story structure; g. Clearly there is no such visual logic for height or massing in a 6-story condominium building; h. Instead of a single-story interior space that was primarily used only for ceremonial purposes during a limited number of hours each week,the interior of the proposed 65 foot tall building will consist of 6 floors, each of which will be in constant use 24 hours a day,7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. i. And instead of the thin side of the building being on Lafayette Street, SDL intends to construct the long(i.e. 160 feet)side of the new, 6-story, 65-foot tall structure directly on the sidewalk. 134. For all of the above reasons, any comparison between the former St. Joseph's Church building,and the proposed new 60-story building, is glib, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest at best. 135. For all of the above reasons,and more,it is clear that the ZBA acted arbitrarily and capriciously,and exceeded its authority, in granting said variances,which basically amount to political decisions. 136. Because the proposed new 6-story structure does in fact nullify and substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, said variances should be nullified and overturned for this reason alone. RELIEF SOUGHT The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: a. enter a Judgment in their favor annulling in full the August 24,2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting said variances; - 16 - b. award the Plaintiffs cost and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with their prosecution of this appeal; c. grant such other relief as is just and expedient. Respectfully submitted, William Dzierzek et al By their attorney, September 22,2006 John H. Carr,Jr.,Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 978-825-0060 BBO#075281 - 17 - .r CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR i SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 Vo FAX: 978-740-9846 - -0 7r cn KIMBERLEY DRISCOLLOC Cm r r MAYOR Un. August 24, 2006 "y 0 g Decision Petition of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC requesting Variances from Height and Number of Stories for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street, R-3 District City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 23, 2006 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Annie Harris,Beth Debski, Stephen Pinto, Bonnie Belair. The petitioner Salem Lafayette Development,LLC is requesting variances pursuant to section 9-5 to allow for construction of a six-story residential building as part of,a Planned Unit Development located at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zoning district. The petitioner is requesting variances from the forty-five (45) foot maximum height requirement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (Sec 6-4, Table I) to approximately sixty-five (65) feet, and from the three and one-half(3 '/2) stories maximum height requirement to six (6) stories for the new construction of a multi-use building with seventy-five (75)residential units and an approximately 18,000 sq.ft. Community Life Center on the first floor. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 135 Lafayette Street is within the R-3 zoning district. 2. The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, MA. 3. A set of proposed plans were presented along with a rendering of the building. The applicant stressed that the plans and rendering were preliminary and will change. The site is the former home of St. Joseph's Catholic Church and school, and includes a rectory and convent buildings. 4. Evidence was presented at the hearing that the Petitioner has met with the abutting neighborhood associations, the Ward Councilors, City agencies, and Historic Salem, Inc. on numerous occasions throughout the past year to S discuss the site and proposed plans. Meetings were also held over a period of time with City officials, as well as the Planning Department. o o C» 5. Mayor Kimberly Driscoll addressed the Board and spoke in favor of Rhe Mc project, citing the City's detailed involvement with the development due tq the proposed construction of a Community Life Center within the project anv'the Noy- great need for mixed income housing and the community benefit, as welrPs a City benefit that the Life Center provided. = m3 O D 6. A number of abutters and Salem residents, along with several members ohthe City Council, were present to speak in favor of the project, including Ward 1 Councilor Lucy Corchado, Council President Jean Pelletier, and Councilor at Large Joan Lovely. Councilor Mike Sosnowski cited the density of the site as a concern, but generally spoke in favor of the affordable housing component of the project. Councilor Matt Veno was unable to attend the meeting, but submitted a letter supporting the project. 1 7. Councilor Corchado presented a petition with 140 signatures of neighbors that support the proposed development. Michael Whelan and Claudia Chuber, former Councilor of the Ward, spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the Salem Harbor CDC. 8. A representative of the Point Neighborhood Association stated that the Petitioner has met with them several times regarding the plans and that the Association supports the project. The Association is involved in the immediate neighborhood affected by the project. 9. Community members speaking against the project were mainly concerned with density and the relocation of the existing senior center. 10. The Petitioner is presently before the Planning Board seeking a Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review. 11. The Petitioner presented evidence pertaining to the history of institutional use on the site and the history of height of the buildings on the site over the past 100 years,two of which were taller than the proposed structure. 12. Evidence was presented by the Petitioner regarding the hardship resulting from the uniquely large size of the lot, 2.6 acres, compared to others in this district. 13. Evidence presented by the Petitioner demonstrated special conditions and circumstances exist surrounding the history of use on this lot, including the fact that four structures presently exist on the lot, the oldest two of which will remain in the proposed plan. 14. Testimony of the Mayor and various elected officials clearly demonstrated that the proposed plan and building will offer community benefits, including mixed income housing, and a Community Life Center owned and operated by the City of Salem, creating special circumstances which are not found on other lots in the district. 15. Evidence was presented in support of the requested variances indicatiniat a �T certain minimum number of market rate units are necessary in order tos*port U Cr. the 45 below market units proposed for the new structure, and that with6liLsix 01-7 stories; the lot could not be developed for residential use. A local developer A testified that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the proje?t � profitable. A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to 3' provide the high level of public benefit being proposed. The need for affordable housing was stressed by the Mayor, City officials and various citizens. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for variances to allow for a maximum height bf approximately sixty-five (65) feet and six (6) stories does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. The petitioner's lot size and coverage do not generally occur in the district and are specific to their land. 4. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 5. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Pinto, Hams, Debski, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Certificates of Occupancy are to be obtained. 5. Certificates of Inspection, as required, shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. The proposed new construction shall not exceed six stories or 65 feet in height. 9. At least thirty-five percent (35%) of the dwelling units on the site shall be marketed as affordable or below market rates. s 10. That the principal use of the first floor of the new building be a municipal use to include a Community Life Center. 4 11. That the former rectory and school buildings existing on the site shall be reused in the proposed project. PJ z, Robin Stein Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. N O C� C-)- cn r—._,. rn m �nUP YATTEST z f to r- a 411_�SAL nr- P pq phi _ T — .O D P Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision 135 Lafayette Street. September 14, 2006 Salem Lafayette Development,LLC C/o Joseph Correnti,Esq. M fn �o 63 Federal Street vii^ Salem, M ,A 01970 o RE: 135 Lafayette Street/Former St. Joseph's Church site ) Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development ma IV On Thursday, July 27, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public,Hearing under Sections 7-15 and 7-18 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review, at the request of Salem Lafayette Development,LLC, for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street. The proposed project includes the razing of the former church and convent building,the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new six-story building on the site.The mixed-use development will include 97 units of housing and a Community Life Center. Approximately thirty (30) units shall be rental units, and the approximately sixty-seven (67) remaining units shall be condominiums. At least thirty-five (35) percent of the dwelling units on the site shall be designated as affordable units. Hereinafter the term "Applicant" shall refer to the Applicant, its successors or assigns. The Public Hearing was continued to August 3, 2006, September 7, 2006 and closed on September 7, 2006. The Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance,sec. 7-15 (g), as follows: 1) The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section. 2) The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district. Specifically, the project incorporates a Community Life Center, as requested by the City, and mixed income affordable housing providing substantial public benefit. 3) The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. Based on the information from the Environmental Impact Statement and plans, the project will result in an increase in public recreational space,a decrease in peak stormwater discharge rates and will improve the vacant site significantly from its current condition. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on September 7, 2006, the Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor(Power, Moustakis, Collins, Kavanagh,Durand, Puleo, Lombardini, Sullivan,Reidy), and none (0)opposed to approve the Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development application subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the plans entitled, "St. Joseph's Redevelopment, Salem, Massachusetts" Sheets C-1.1, 2.1, 3.1,4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 and, prepared by Samiotes Consultants,Inc., 10 Central Street,Framingham, MA 01701,dated June 14, 2005 with revisions on July 17, 2006 and elevations submitted to the Planning Board at the September 7, 2006 meeting ("the site plans"). Revised Plans reflecting all conditions and incorporating by reference this decision must be submitted to and approved by the City Planner for consistency with this decision prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Amendments Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board for review and approval. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 3. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: a. Exterior construction work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM the following day on weekdays and Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Holidays. Any interior work conducted during these times will not involve heavy machinery which could generate disturbing noises. b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction of the project. c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not lee dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site. e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Reg leave ulations of the Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances of the 2 City of Salem. f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site. g. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Included in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding how the construction equipment will be stored, a description of the construction staging area and its location in relation to the site, and where the construction employees will park their vehicles. The plan and schedule shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All storage of materials and equipment will be on site. h. Special attention shall be paid by the developer to locate the statue of St. Joseph reported to be buried on the site. If said statue is located,the Applicant shall work with the Archdiocese of Boston to resolve its status, and if feasible, as determined by the City Planner based on documentation from the Applicant to preserve it in accordance with the requirements of the Archdiocese. 4. Clerk of the Works A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the Applicant, its successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner. ` 5. Traffic Mitigation The Applicant agrees to contribute $20,000 toward a study/design of intersection and traffic improvements at Lafayette Street. Such payment shall be made to the City upon the Applicant's receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site. 6. Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 8. Zoning Board of Appeals The terms of the Zoning Board of Appeals conditional approval for a height variance for the site are incorporated into this decision, in their entirety. 9. Board of Health a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of the name, address, and telephone number of the project (site) manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the construction of the project. b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for the site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for 3 the site certifies that soil and ground water for the entire site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. c. The developer shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. d. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to construction,demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's invoice to the Health Agent e. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. f. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. g. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction. h. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. i. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s)generated by operations, including but not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line. j. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. k. If a rock crusher is on site, a plan for placement of the crusher must be approved by the Health Agent prior to placement and use. 1. Plans for food a establishment must be presented to the Health Agent and approved prior to construction. in. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health. n. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 10. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All on site electrical utilities shall be located underground. b. The Applicant shall clean the drain line on Dow Street downstream from the work site to Salem St. preventing any debris from entering the downstream pipes. 4 11. Department of Public Services The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services 12. Signage Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Sign Review Committee. 13. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 14. HVAC If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. 15. Lafayette Park The Applicant its successors and assigns (if not defined in paragraph one) agrees to contribute$1,500.00 per year to the City of Salem for the purpose of creating a fund for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park. Such payment shall be made to the Department of Planning and Community Development commencing upon the receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site and on June I of each year thereafter. 16. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans, with the following revision: the Applicant shall locate columnar trees along the perimeter of the site where they believe they are most appropriate and shall submit a revised landscaping plan reflecting this placement to the City Planner for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. Trees shall be a minimum diameter of 3 '/z" dbh (diameter breast height). c. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. d. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of any replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting. 5 e. Final completed landscaping,done in accordance with the approved set of plans, shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plans,to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Fencing shall be installed along the property line on Salem Street and directly abutting the residences on Dow Street. The section of fencing along Salem Street shall be a four-foot black industrial grade aluminum. The section of fencing along the residences along Dow Street shall be wooden.Details and specifications for the fencing shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. 17. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the Applicant,his successors or assigns. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site. c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two- (2) year period,from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and completion of planting. 18. As-built Plans As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 19. Building Materials Illustrations of exterior building materials shall be submitted to the City Planer for approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 20. Violations Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy 6 of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty(20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. Walter B Power, III Chairman 7 Part 1 The City Sea Trade Built y � d5 {�,'i� $ {5 �.yy �1.✓y :� ��y, d r � i j, tri'^►ayC[ '�e^?�'1+. a �., tl s+' 1°r�. Y. "y 4Yk�wR JY .1- M " '�. i•.31;.� 4� +er1' _v.�' W � '�9.ey 4e ., l: " '�'^— .in--- r fi•� ,r,P 1�. t • j > � r yX1. .s ir,�,'p✓._yY y'"�8,`.ar_i '7'� �Y� a I t�.rn`+..a � X� R :.ti�"1 .? to n,+ �54 � xy�ns• F�3 lalgw.n" '«x ,�'.^`+ ' �• :._.. ��\ t res � �1 - 4 �„ ti �m � i tRff�( Qa ,z. — � n yy•rq ni ' _ .d,�`� .�.. �{' :��° �• �� t�q� �a11i �.�'�1 .�" •�� GP �g9j.plA� tY �� '` "�� 1 n� �"';3q d O♦ TJ+� � d 1 , -' �p�'. p, r . AA � ,0 a n�„ 1[p b ' ,C� p tr�16 tl� ;, ti ex ri, Wei}� + X� VX6,3 _ , � �q 4d'r .f�Y ' a w. *1 �� S ��if/%n ..:I l y ++ltl � � [ ��v4 �'It�� 1��°��• - � � PtN it s;}� � , t, y1si i e. k�� •A,�'a_ t f.,. ,� �. "e, ._' � ,ice -. [��, a� �� .. ` 9 y f�,se ' f i�a� � �� `�+ _ ...',�, ��.�4�� '.; , �^ 1�I t � n 1111 1� � ♦s ... � �'fill 1 1111111! in Yt ��! rr ,s�� ✓'. . / ,,.r �' �. ` 'l1 �` `� i[0 f II IIA®A' �' }siy".'"' � S } -rtc c q� , rl �`'�n i� ��'• � t��'''''' •-• � .°�'+"'*� l [ , ��„�^.=` a�' � l�i��il�iYM ,Ijjijlltjgit rc r f EAU D Ya Oso a st a is it P.O. Box 865 incorporated Salem, M 01970 Telephone: (978) 745-0799 July 26, 2006 BY HAND Mr.Walter Power - Chairman,Planning Board City of Salem Salem,MA 01970 Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Board: This letter presents the issues that Historic Salem has identified to date with regard to the planet! development at the St.Joseph's Church site. Historical Significance The St.Joseph's complex is important because of its association with Salem's cultural and religio0s history. The church building is also the only Salem example of what is known as the"International Style" and its interior is one of the few remaining monumental spaces in non-religious use in Salem. The report commissioned by the City of Salem's Planning Department states that the site is probably eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of the significance of the church and the Rectory. Subsequently, the Massachusetts Historic Commission commissioned a study by a qualified professional preservation consultant who also asserts that the complex is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Thus, the statement in the submission to the Planning Board that"The proposed development does not include any historic buildings,historic site or archeological site"is incorrect. In addition,others in the community have noted that the site may have has archeological artifacts of historical interest and/or importance. Economics of Re-Use As an historic preservation organization,Historic Salem strongly prefers to see the church building reused. The developer, the Archdiocese's Planning Office of Urban Affairs(POUA)has provided us with some of their analysis about the feasibility of reuse,but it is not enough,information for us to determine that it is economically infeasible to incorporate elements of their planned program into the church building. Opportunity to Significantly Improve Site Design and Building Fabric We believe that in light of the site's location on a pivotal gateway to the City, the potential demolition of a National Register eligible building, and the proximity to the Point neighborhood,currently the subject of an historic buildings survey, that the community should require that any new construction to be of excellent design and quality. As to the issue of integrating new development into the existing historic urban fabric, and specifically as to the current proposal, while we are pleased to see the rectory building being reused, we find that the proposed design for the site could be substantially improved. What is proposed is essentially one large Fax: (978) 744-4536 • Email: hsi@nii.net • Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/ building with the remainder of the site taken up by parking to the very edge of the property. It is also not in - scale with the Point neighborhood which surrounds it on three sides. Recommendations • Design We have suggested in several meetings with POUA that they reduce the height of the new building proposed to be built on the site and put smaller scale buildings around the edge of the site,perhaps townhouses. Lower rise buildings around the edge of the site would relate more to the immediate neighborhood and provide a visual shield for the large area of parking which will be primarily viewed from the Point neighborhood. We are also concerned with the precedent set by increasing the height of buildings beyond that allowed by zoning,particularly if such an increase is not offset by the highest level of urban contextual design. • Design Review Salem is faced with numerous challenges of how to handle proposed large complexes in our historic downtown,including the recently proposed development of the Salem Marketplace. These require that a great deal of thought and consideration be given to urban design issues. In response to these challenges,Historic Salem recently added as Potentially Endangered the sense of scale in Downtown Salem. We appreciate the amount of effort that POUA has invested in addressing other community needs, including in particular affordable housing and community space. However,wo feel that the urban design issues of this site has not been adequately addressed and certainly deserves the same attention as the City is providing for other very large sites with such a significant impact on a neighborhood and on Salem's downtown. We urge the Planning Board to consider requiring modifications in the site and building design to be more complementary to the existing urban fabric. Historic Salem would be happy to work with the developer to make more specific recommendations for the project. We also recommend that the Planning Board consider seeking the counsel of the Design Review Board to the design of the site and building fabric. Sincerely, r A 14i Barbara A.Cl�`y President Mayor Kimberly Driscoll Lynn Duncan, City Planner Councillor Lucy Corchado Council President Jean Pelletier onna Vinson, Vice President,HSI Kimberly Alexander,Vice President, HSI EY L4 August 18,2006 Mr. Walter Power Ms.Nina Cohen Chair, Planning Board Chair,Zoning Board of AppeOls City of Salem City of Salem Salem, MA 01970 Salem,MA 01970 Re: Proposed Development at St.Joseph's Site Dear Chairmen Power and Cohen: I will not be able to attend the upcoming meetings on the proposal for the St. Joseph's site,but wanted to convey my thoughts to you and to your fellow board members. The proposal is complex enough and the issues broad enough that I have taken the liberty of writing one letter,even though some issues or concerns pertain only to one Board's jurisdiction. Like others,I congratulate the developers and the City on the concepts that they have brought forward, and on the several buildings on the site that they propose for re-use. However,I believe there are significant issues of scale and unresolved questions around the proposed development at this site that make your jobs very; difficult. Like others,I also support the goals of more affordable housing for Salem and believe that that the community center idea is promising. However,I do not believe that the Planning Board has the information needed to be able to act on the community center proposal since users,uses,hours, and parking are not sufficiently defined. Similarly, site parking and area traffic problems have been identified with no clear solution, and there is no clear presentation of how the City will fund the community center. I believe that you are being asked to make decisions with too little information to be able to review,refine and approve a project that both meets the laudable goals ofjhe project and is an excellent project for Salem. I urge both the Planning Board and the ZBA to work with the Planning Department to take the time you need to ensure that the project is the best that we can do for Salem. Whatever decisions are made here will be here for 50 years and will have a major impact on the Point,South Salem and on the downtown. Further,the proposal calls for demolition of a significant Salem landmark. At 2.4-2.6 acres and with its prominent location at the intersection of Salem's downtown, the Point and South Salem, I believe this site deserves the same consideration that has been given to the Market Place proposal. Having a unified review of the project in the same fashion as the Market Place proposal would seem particularly helpful. Instead, the current piece meal approach brings separate but related issues before each of Salem's boards in an effort to move the permitting process forward too quickly. St.Joseph's Church I believe that St. Joseph's Church should be re-used. I urge the Planning Board to take a much stronger look at this issue. Every time we have taken down a major landmark, like the Salem train station, we have deeply regretted it later. The church building proposed for destruction is National Register eligible and adjoins the National Register eligible Point Neighborhood. It requires a 106 review. A waiver for demolition delay is before the Historical Commission. I urge you to communicate with the Historical Commission to ensure that all the steps recommended by Historic Salem are taken before you take any action which will result in demolition of the church or that might nullify a 106 review process which will benefit the City and the project. The proposed replacement proposed, while brick, looks like many another building found anywhere in the US and provides no distinction or reflection of Salem's character while adding a mass which is out of scale with the neighborhood. 1 Density/Height These are critical issues for both the Planning and the Zoning Boards to address. In this R-3 neighborhood,under current zoning, only approximately 30 units are allowed. The proposal for this site is 97 units, which is far too dense. The result is: • A tall and massive new building that is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and will be highly visible throughout downtown Salem,dominating Salem's sky line to our detriment; • An enormous parking field which faces the Point neighborhood and appears to be quite inadequate for its intended uses; • No green space for the 60 children expected by the developer in the housing units; • Design issues of appearance,character, material and looming, out of scale character on the street; and • Significant traffic issues. Both the building and the intended density are out of scale for the surrounding neighborhood: • I recommend that, should the Planning Board decide to grant a PUD,you approve no more than 60 units. • I also recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve a height of the proposed new building of no more than 3 stories. These decisions will allow the scale of the new building and its height to be more compatible with the neighborhood-and will not create an unwanted precedent in the neighborhood of six story buildings. Such a reduction in density and height should also allow for green space,more appropriate parking for the housing and community center,less traffic impact and a building design more in keeping with Salem. s I hope the Planning Board will take HSI's recommendation that townhouses be placed around the perimeter of the site on the neighborhood side to reduce the size of the new large building,to shield the neighborhood from the parking field, and so that the scale of the development facing the Point is more in keeping with the houses around it. I believe that there is no basis for the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance for height at this site since there is no hardship as defined by the ordinance. Further,granting a variance creates a dangerous precedent for South Salem and the Point. Site Plan and Design In addition to the issues already mentioned above,the building design could be Anywhere USA. It looks like Watertown, not Salem. I hope the Planning Board will seek the counsel of the Design Review Board(DRB)for the site plan and particularly the design of the proposed new building, as well as for specification of building materials. The parking plan is unrealistic and will have a very negative effect on the Point and on traffic into Salem from Lafayette Street. It will also have a negative impact on the desirability and usability of the community center for all of Salem. No traffic studies have been presented to date. Materials It is important, if either or both of the Boards act in the affirmative,that each Board specify building materials of high quality and in some detail so that no one is surprised by the resulting quality of the new building. This is particularly important given the height and prominence of the site itself and of the new building at the intersection of Salem's downtown, the Point and South Salem neighborhoods. 2 Questions regarding the PUD and Conditions for both the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals Given the uncertainty regarding financing for the community center,I question whether it is appropriate to grant a PUD at this time, since a PUD would not be allowed solely for the housing proposal. Since the basis for allowing a PUD is mixed use,I urge the Planning Board to make the granting of a PUD conditional on securing financing for both the developer's project and the City's community center,as well as City Council approval, and to place whatever other restrictions might be appropriate so that the site is not permitted and then"flipped" in the event the project or the community center are not funded. I urge the Zoning Board to put similar conditions on any approval you may grant. I am especially concerned that if a 6 story building is allowed on this site,it will establish an unwanted precedent which will be destructive of the fabric of the area and neighborhoods that adjoin this site. Summary This is a very difficult project for the Planning and Zoning Boards to act on given the unresolved issues. I hope you will take your time and consider ways in which this project can be improved before any approvals are granted. Unresolved issues identified to date include: • Re-use of the St. Joseph's building in the new project • Destruction of a Salem landmark;ensuring a timely 106 review for St.Joseph's Church • Mitigation for loss of this historic property, should it be lost • Height and density • Inadequate parking • Traffic issues with no plan to resolve those concerns • Green space on the site for the residents and their children • Mass and quality of design and materials to ensure they are compatible with Salem and the surrounding area and neighborhood. • Impact of a project of this magnitude on Salem in such a prominent, geographically high and crucial location in Salem I hope that you can find a way to give the same kind of thought and review to this large project that has been given to the Market Place project before it even has come before Salem's boards. Certainly I hope you will draw on the principals established in the Market Place study for design. In addition to seeking DRB review,the Planning Board may wish to consider hiring a consultant, as the City did for the Market Place proposal,to assist you in your review process. There is a great opportunity here to do a project that will benefit Salem—and an equal opportunity to allow one that will instead be damaging for years to come. Sincerely, Meg Twohey.. Cc: 122 Federal Street Mayor Kimberly Driscoll Salem, MA 01970 City Planner Lynn Duncan Salem City Councillors Chair,Salem Historical Commission President, Historic Salem,Inc. 3 John H. Carr,Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 By Hand October 2, 2006 Civil Clerk Essex Superior Court 34 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 n Re: William Dzierzek et al vs. Q1� Salem Lafayette Development, LLC et al ` o - c Dear Sir or Madam: [ rn 0 a:rn w DN � Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned matter please find: mf m 1. Complaint Pursuant To M.G.L., Chapter 40A, Section 17A, ppealWg The September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Devel4ment T&cision Of The Salem Planning Board concerning 135 Lafayette Street, Salem Massachusetts; 2. A check in the amount of$355.00 to cover the $275.00 filing fee, and the $8.00 fee for an original Summons for each of the 10 Defendants. Would you kindly acknowledge your receipt of the foregoing by date-stamping the enclosed copy of this letter and returning same with our messenger. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to let me know immediately. Thank you in advance for your attention to the foregoing. Very truly yours, John H. Carr, Jr. Enc. cc Plaintiffs / Thomas St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector—By Hand t/ Lynn Duncan,Director of Planning and Community Development—By Hand Clerk, Salem Planning Board—By Hand Clerk, Salem Zoning Board of Appeal—By Hand Joseph C. Correnti,Esq.—By Hand COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIORCORT CIVIL ACTION NO: WILLIAM DZIERZEK,ERIC EASLEY,JOHN GOFF, ) DOCTOR MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI,LINDA ) LOCKE,ANTHONY MIItABITO,LINDA MIRABITO, ) SOLANGE MARCHAND,JEAN MARTIN,NANCY A. ) MOORE,THOMAS STRUCKMAN,MARIA ) TRINDADE,RODRIGO TRINDADE,LAURENT ) N, OUELLETTE,ANA PANIAGUA, DIONICIA FLORIAN, ) ANTOINETTE C. SANCHEZ,JANE E. GAMMON, BRIAN TASHJIAN,CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT,ROBERT) —mac BOZARJIAN,ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN,JULIAN ) n m -0 r= NENSHATT,DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, W C-' w 2 SCOTT GALBER,T.ERIC BERUBE,DOMENICA ) rte-< N INGEMI, STEPHEN C.INGEMI,ROBERSON D. 3 0 M TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO,MARY C. ) s w LESCH, GARY R.JENKINS,PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ) n 4 co SHAWN M. O'BRIEN,RALPH BERRY,DOROTHY A. ) FORTIN,ROSARIO BELTRE,CONSTANCE SANFORD,) and JORDAN CASTRO, PLAINTIFFS ) V. ) } SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT,LLC,and ) EUGENE COLLINS,PAUL DURAND, TIMOTHY E. ) KAVANAGH,PAMELA LOMBARDINI,JOHN ) MOUSTAKIS, CHARLES PULED,TIMOTHY REIDY, ) CHRISTINE SULLIVAN,and WALTER B. POWER,III, ) CHAIRMAN,BEING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ) BOARD OF THE CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS;) DEFENDANTS ) COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40A.SECTION 17 APPEALING SEPTEMBER 14.2006 SITE PLAN REVIEW/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DECISION OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD CONCERNING 135 LAFAYETTE STREET SALEM-MASSACHUSETTS This is an appeal from a Site Plan ReviewdPlanned Unit Development Decision of the Salem,Massachusetts Planning Board(hereinafter"the Planning Board"or"the Board"),dated September 14,2006 and filed with the Salem City Clerk on September 14,2006,concerning the former St.Joseph's Church complex at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts(hereinafter "the subject property","the St.Joseph's complex,"or"the St.Joseph's property")on the grounds that said Planning Board Decision was arbitrary,capricious,unreasonable,violated due process,exceeded the Board's authority,was based on legally and factually untenable grounds, and was wrong as a matter of law. A certified copy of said September 14,2006 Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. PARTIES l: Plaintiff,William Dzierzek,who resides at 146 Summer Street,Danvers,Massachusetts 01923,owns the real estate located at 157 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts, 10 Dow Street, Salem,Massachusetts,and 12 Dow Street, Salem,Massachusetts,all of which abut the subject property,and 176 Lafayette Street, 182 Lafayette Street,and 7 Cedar Street,all in Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are all located in the immediate neighborhood. 2. Plaintiff,Eric Easley,who resides at 145 Spoffard Road,Boxford,Massachusetts 01921, owns the real estate located at 266 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts,65 Harbor Street, Salem,Massachusetts,73 Harbor Street, Salem,Massachusetts, and 38 Salem Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 3. Plaintiff,John Goff,is a preservation architect and former Executive Director of Historic Salem Inc.,who,together with his wife,owns and resides at 194 Lafayette Street, Salem Massachusetts 01970,which property is also located in the immediate neighborhood. 4. Plaintiff,Dr.Miroslaw Kantorosinski,who resides at 8 Almeda Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,is the owner of 5-5A Ropes Street;Salem,Massachusetts, which abuts the subject property,and 8-10 Porter Street Court, Salem,Massachusetts,which is located one block from the subject property,and is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 5. Plaintiff,Linda Locke,who resides at 1 Pickering Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns 4446 Dow Street, Salem,Massachusetts, 7 Palmer Street,Salem,Massachusetts, and 13-15 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are all within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 6. Plaintiffs,Anthony Mirabito and Linda Mirabito,who reside at 8 Nichols Lane, Middleton,Massachusetts 01949,own 16 Porter Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 7. Plaintiff, Solange Marchand,owns and resides at 159 Lafayette Street,Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is an abutter to an abutter of the subject property, and is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. -2 8. Plaintiff,Jean Martin,who resides at 24 Leavitt Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns(together with her husband)24 Leavitt Street,Salem,Massachusetts,which is located in the immediate neighborhood,and solely owns 34 Park Street, Salem Massachusetts,which is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 9. Plaintiffs,Nancy A.Moore and Thomas Struckman,who reside at 59 Lexington Street, Woburn,Massachusetts 01801,own the real estate located at 39 Prince Street, Salem, Massachusetts,which is also located in the immediate neighborhood- 10. eighborhood10. Plaintiffs,Maria Trindade and Rodrigo Trindade,own and reside at 40-42 Dow Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 11. Plaintiff,Laurent Ouellette,who resides at 18 Hershey Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,owns 1 Harbor Street,Salem,Massachusetts,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 12. Plaintiffs,Ana Paniagua and Dionicia Florian,own 16 Dow Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property abuts the subject property. Ana Paniagua resides at 1000 Loring Avenue,apt. 1391, Salem,Massachusetts 01970 and Dionicia Florian resides at said 16 Dow Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970. 13. Plaintiff,Antoinette C. Sanchez,owns and resides at 20 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property abuts the subject property. 14. Plaintiff,Jane E. Gammon,owns and resides at unit 1, 160 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 15. Plaintiff,Brian Tashjian,owns and resides at 30 Park Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 16. Plaintiff,Christopher Knight,owns and resides at unit 2a, 56 Ward Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 17. Plaintiffs,Robert and Elizabeth Bozarjian,reside at 20 Clark Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,and own 9 Park Street,Salem,Massachusetts and 10-12 Park Street,Salem Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 18. Plaintiff,Julian Nenshati,who resides at 34 Pitman Road,Swampscott,Massachusetts 01907,owns 3 Ropes Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. -3 - 19. Plaintiffs,David T.Ramsey and Jean E.Ramsey,who reside at 58 Gregory Island Road, South Hamilton,Massachusetts 01982,own 12 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts and 15-17 Leavitt Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 20. Plaintiff, Scott Galber,who resides at unit 5,22 Winter Street, Salem,Massachusetts, 01970,owns 65 Harbor Street, 69-71 Harbor Street,22-24 Prince Street,and 27 Salem Street, all in Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 21. Plaintiff,T.Eric Berube,owns and resides at 191 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 22. Plaintiffs, Stephen C.Ingemi and Domenica Ingemi,own and reside at 7 Fairfield Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 23. Plaintiffs,Roberson D. Troncoso and Clariza J.Troncoso,own and reside at unit 4, 10 Porter Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 24. Plaintiff,Mary C.Lesch,owns and resides at 15 Cedar Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 25. Plaintiff,Gary R.Jenkins,owns and resides at 5 Pond Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 26. Plaintiffs,Shawn M.O'Brien and Patricia D. O'Brien, own and reside at 21 Cedar Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,and also own 23-25 Cedar Street, Salem,Massachusetts, which properties are located in the immediate neighborhood. 27. Plaintiff,Ralph Berry,owns and resides at 3 Chase Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 28. Plaintiff,Dorothy A.Fortin,owns and resides at 2 Cherry Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 29. Plaintiff,Rosario Beltre,owns and resides at 15 Harrison Ave, Salem,Massachusetts, 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 30. Plaintiff,Constance Sanford,owns and resides at 19 Park Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which properly is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 31. Plaintiff,Jordan Castro,who resides at 2 Station Road, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns 15 %Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. -4 32. Defendant,Salem Lafayette Development,LLC (hereinafter"SLD'),is a non-profit development corporation with headquarters at 84 State Street, Suite 600,Boston; Massachusetts 02109;is the owner of the former St.Joseph's Church complex at 135 Lafayette Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970;and is the recipient of the September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision from the Salem Planning Board herewith being appealed. 33. Defendant,Eugene Collins,also known as Gene Collins(hereinafter"Mr. Collins"),who resides at 63 Appleton Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 34. Defendant,Paul Durand(hereinafter"Mr.Durand"),who(according to information obtained from the Salem Planning Board)resides at 209 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 35. Defendant,Timothy E.Kavanagh(hereinafter"Mr.Kavanagh"),who resides at 14 May Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 36. Defendant,Pamela Lombardini,also known as Pam Lombardini (hereinafter"Ms. Lombardini"),who resides at 3 Larch Avenue,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 37. Defendant,John Moustakis(hereinafter"Mr.Moustakis"),who resides at 23 Dearborn Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 38. Defendant, Charles Puleo,also known as Chuck Puleo(hereinafter"Mr.Puleo"),who resides at 5 Freeman Road, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 39. Defendant,Timothy Reidy,also known(according to information obtained from the Salem Planning Board)as Tim Reidy and/or Tim Ready(hereinafter"Mr. Reidy"),who resides at 22 Sable Road, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 40. Defendant, Christine Sullivan(hereinafter"Ms. Sullivan',who resides at 111 Federal Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 41. Defendant,Walter B.Power,M (hereinafter"Mr.Power"),who resides at 18 Loring Avenue,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is the Chairman of the Salem Planning Board. He voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. -5 - 42. All of the foregoing Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action,as all are substantially aggrieved by the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board JURISDICTION 43. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. 44. This case is timely,as it has been filed within twenty(20)days from September 14,2006, which is when the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision was filed with the Salem City Clerk. PROCEDURAL MSTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 45. The St.Joseph's property consists of a parking lot and 4 buildings on approximately 2.6 acres of land at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts. The four buildings consist of the former St. Joseph's church,the 3-story former rectory,the 3-story former St. Joseph's school,and the 3-story former convent. 46. Said property is a basically rectangular parcel bounded by Lafayette Street to the west, Harbor Street to the north, Salem Street to the east,and Dow Street to the south,and is located in both the so-called Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods. 47. Except for three 2 '/2-story residential buildings fronting on the northerly side of Dow Street at the southeast corner of the site,the St.Joseph's property comprises the entire rectangular block formed by said streets. 48. At the southwest comer of said site is the confluence of Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Streets,which 3-way intersection constitutes one of the most congested and dangerous intersections in Salem. 49. One block from the 3-way intersection of Lafayette,Washington,and Dow Streets, approximately 100 yards to the South from the St.Joseph's site(ie. towards Marblehead), is the intersection of Palmer and Lafayette Streets,which is another of the busiest and most dangerous intersections in Salem,being a major egress from the Point neighborhood. 50. All of the former St.Joseph's structures at the site were constructed prior to the enactment of the current Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965,and thus,all four buildings represent prior non-conforming structures. 51. By far,the most architecturally significant building at the site is the former St.Joseph's Church,which is an important example of the so-called International Style,a style of -6- modem architecture which is unique in Salem_ As such,it makes an important contribution to Salem's world-renowned stock of 17th, 18t°,and 19"century architecture. 52. There is no question that the former St.Joseph's Church is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the United States Department of the Interior. 53. The former St.Joseph's school building and convent have no particular architectural significance. 54. The church,rectory,and convent have been vacant since the parish closed on or about August 15,2004. The school has been vacant since it relocated to the St.James parish on Federal Street beginning in August or September of 2004. 55. The entire St.Joseph's property is located in an R-3 Zoning District. 56. Pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning,a maximum of 33 residential units can be constructed at the site as a matter of right,with new construction not to exceed 45 feet in height and 3 '/z stories. 57. The overwhelming majority of the buildings on the surrounding Lafayette,Dow, Salem, and Harbor Streets,as well as those on Washington Street opposite the Lafayette Street side of the property(ie. across from the pocket park)are either 2 '/2 or 3-story residential dwellings 45 feet in height or less. As such,the overwhelming majority of the buildings on said surrounding streets conform to the 3 %z story and 45-foot maximums pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning in both respects. 58. The grade of the parking lot at the southern third of the site is already approximately 4 feet above the grade of the 2 '/:-story residential buildings fronting on Dow Street at the southeast comer of the site. 59. In the Spring of 2005 the Archdiocese of Boston sold the entire St.Joseph's property to the Planning Office of Urban Affairs(hereinafter"POUR'),a private non-profit corporation,for$2,000,000.00,which thereupon created Salem Lafayette Development Corporation,LLC(hereinafter"SLD')to develop the site. 60. The head of the Archdiocese of Boston,Cardinal Scan O'Malley, serves in his individual capacity as the chief executive officer of POUA. 61. On Thursday,July 27,2006,the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened the first of three public hearings on SLD's application for a Planned Unit Development(hereinafter "PUD')to develop the St. Joseph's site primarily into 97 units,which represents 64 units more than the 33 maximum number of residential units allowed by the current R-3 zoning for that district. -7 - 62. The proposed project basically calls for the razing of the former convent and landmark Church,the development of the former rectory into 8 residential units,the conversion of the former school into 14 residential units,and the construction of a new,6-story,65-foot tall building immediately to the right(ie. south)of the rectory to contain 75 units, 64 of which are proposed to be residential and i 1 are proposed to be commercial,including an 18,000 square foot Community Life Center on the first floor,which would also double as a Senior Center. 63. Unlike the existing cruciform church,which was built with its narrow(i.e.40-foot wide) nave perpendicular to Lafayette Street,the proposed new,65-foot, 6-story structure is to be built parallel to Lafayette Street,approximately 180 feet in length,within a few feet of the existing sidewalk. 64. The width of the proposed new structure is approximately 120 feet,or three times wider than the existing 40 foot wide nave of the former St.Joseph's Church building. 65. Also unlike the existing cruciform church,all six floors of the new 65-foot structure will be occupied 24 hours a day,7 days a week, 52 weeks a year,which is a substantial increase in use compared to the former St.Joseph's Church,whose single-story interior Mja (albeit 63 feet tat])was primarily used for brief periods only on Saturday afternoons, Sunday mornings,and holy days. 66. Of the 97 residential units, SLD indicated that"approximately"30 units will be rented, and the balance of 67 units will be sold as condominiums. 67. A major component of SLD's PUD application was its promise to dedicate 45%of the 97 residential units, or 44 units,for"affordable housing",which was later scaled back to 35%,or approximately 34 units,at the final Planning Board hearing on September 7, 2006. 68. On information and belief, said 34 units of affordable housing,whether rented or sold as condominiums,will involve a discount of approximately 30%below prevailing market rates,for which eligibility will be based on certain income limitations of the buyer or tenants. 69. Thus,in essence,SLD's PUD application seeks an approximate 194% increase in density of 64 residential units over the 33 maximum number of residential units permitted by the existing R-3 zoning for the entire site,in return for which 33 of the extra 64 units would be sold or rented as affordable housing at a discount(in either event)of approximately 30%below prevailing market rates. 70. The balance of 31 units of the 64 units exceeding the current R-3 zoning would be sold at market rates,in addition to the 33 residential units already permitted by the existing R-3 zoning,or altogether 64 units at market rates. -8- 71. Said 1940/6 increase in residential density above the 33 maximum number of residential units does not even inchrde the proposed 18,000 square foot Community Life Center, which includes the so-called Senior Center. 72. The other major component of SLD's PUD application is the proposed 18,000 square foot Community Life Center to be sold to the City of Salem. Although the purchase price has yet to be finalized,the figure discussed at the three Planning Board hearings was approximately$5,000,000.00. 73. None of the several Salem City Councilors who attended the three Planning Board hearings seemed to be aware of the details of said purchase;no one seemed to know how the City (which is,and has been,under severe financial constraints)is going to afford the purchase price;and no one could explain what would happen to the project if the City couldn't afford to buy said 18,000 square feet of first floor space. 74. Also complicating this issue is the fact that a substantial majority of Salem's senior citizens who currently use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street are vehement in their opposition to relocating the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to the St. Joseph's site. 75. A multi-page petition signed by approximately 300 Salem senior citizens opposing the proposed new Senior Center at the St.Joseph's site was submitted at the third Planning Board hearing on September 7,2006,which opposition was re-affirmed in a heavily publicized meeting conducted by Mayor Driscoll at the existing Broad Street Senior Center a few weeks later. 76. Notwithstanding that approval of its PUD application will circumvent much of the existing R-3 zoning for the district, SLD still needed two variances from the Salem ZBA, one to increase the 45 foot maximum height restriction by 20 feet,to 65 feet,which represents a 44.44%increase,and the other to increase the current maximum of 3 '/2 stories to 6 stories,which represents a 58.33% increase. 77. On August 23,2006 the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal(hereinafter"ZBA")voted to grant said variances. A copy of the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision,entered in the Salem City Clerk's office on September 5,2006, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 78. On September 22,2006 forty-one individuals,consisting of owners of property directly abutting the former St.Joseph's complex,owners of property within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA,and owners of property within the immediate neighborhood,filed suit in the Essex Superior Court timely appealing said August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision,which action is entitled William Duerzek et al vs. Salem Lafayette Development, LLC et al,Civil Action No. 2006-1820C. 79. On September 6,2006 SLD requested a continuance of a vote of the Salem Historical Commission on its petition for a waiver of the 6-month demolition delay ordinance when it became clear that the Commission regarded St. Joseph's Church to be an extremely -9- significant building and would not waive the demolition delay ordinance if a vote were then taken on SLD's application. 80. On September 7,2006 the Salem Planning Board voted to approve SLD's PUD application. The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision(Exhibit A)reflecting that vote,which is herewith being appealed from,was entered in the office of the Salem City Clerk at 5:27 p.m.on September 14,2006. 81. The Salem Planning Board is a"special permit granting authority"within the meaning of Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws with respect to said September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. 82. As to each of the following Counts,the Plaintiffs reaffirm,re-allege,and incorporate all of the prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-81 inclusive above. ARGUMENT COUNTI SLD's PUD does not comply with the statutory purpose of a Planned Unit Development as defined in Section 7-15(b) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 83. Section 7-15 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,entitled"Planned unit development," regulates PUDs. 84. Section 7-15(b)defines the statutory purpose of a PUD as follows: "The planned unit development district is designed to provide various types ojland use which can be combined in compatible relationship with each other as part of a totally planned development. It is the intent of this district to ensure compliance with the master plan and good zoning practices..." Emphasis added 85. Clearly the components of SLD's PUD approved by the Salem Planning Board in its September 14,2006 Decision do not represent'various types of land use"which are being combined"in compatible relationship with each other." 86. The"types"of proposed land use are not"various,"but are merely two-fold: namely, 86 residential units and 11 commercial units. - 10- 87. Even more to the point,there is no compatibility between the relationships of the proposed 86 residential units,as 8 units are proposed to be located in the 3-story former St.Joseph's rectory,which structure conforms with the current 3 '/z story and 45-foot height restriction of the existing R-3 zoning, 14 units are proposed to be located in the 3- story,former St Joseph's school,which structure likewise conforms to height and number-of-story restriction in the existing R-3 zoning,and 64 units are proposed to be located in the proposed 6-story,65-foot tall new structure,whose scale,dimensions,and density completely overwhelms the other two structures of the project. 88. SLD touts the fact that 33 of the 86 residential units will represent"affordable housing," but that is not"a various type of use"within the meaning of Section 7-15(b). 89. Similarly,there is no compatibility between the 11 commercial units,which consists of one 18,000 square foot Community Life/Senior Center and ten other commercial units, which are far smaller in scale and dimensions. 90. Section 7-15(b)also recites,in relevant part,that another primary purpose of a Planned Unit Development is as follows: The advantages which are intended to result from the application of the planned unit development district are to be ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan with a specific time limit for commencement of construction 91. With respect to a primary component of SLD's PUD,namely the 18,000 square foot Community Life and Senior Center,there wasrs no precision whatsoever concerning all of the particulars of said transaction,even apart from the fact that an overwhelming majority of Salem's Senior citizens who currently use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street are emphatic in their opposition to relocating the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to the proposed new Senior Center at the St. Joseph's site. 92. None of the several Salem City Councilors who attended the three Planning Board hearings seemed to be aware of the details of said purchase,or the annual costs to maintain same;no one(including the City Councilors)seemed to know how the City of Salem(which is,and has been,under severe financial constraints)is going to afford the purchase price or annual maintenance costs;and no one(including the City Councilors) seemed to know what would happen if this material component of the PUD could not be realized,either because the City could not afford the estimated$5,000,000.00 purchase price,because of strong opposition to the acquisition,or otherwise. 93. The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Decision also violates the express requirements of Section 7-15(b)of the Salem Zoning Ordinance because there is no"adoption of a precise development plan with a speck time limit for commencement of construction." Emphasis added - 11 - 94. Similarly said September 14,2006 Decision does not demonstrate"compliance with the Master Plan"of the City of Salem,nor does it represent"good zoning practices." Indeed, with respect to the latter,it increases density to 97 units,64 units above the 33-unit maximum for the site pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning,representing a 194% increase; it increases the current 3 '/s maximum number of stories to 6 stories,representing a 44.44%increase;and it increases the current 45 height maximum to 65 feet,representing a 58.33%increase,among other deviations from the existing R-3 zoning. 95. For these and other reasons the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. COUNT 11 The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision is not in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan of the City of Salem,as required By Section 7-15(c)(1)of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 96. Section 7-15(c)(1)of Salem Zoning Ordinance provides the following in relevant part: (c)All uses or any combination thereof permitted in R-3...Districts may be allowed in a planned unit development,subject to the following limitations of uses: (1)There can be a multiplicity of types of residential development provided that, at the boundaries with existing residential development, where typical development is permitted,the form and type of development on the planned unit development site boundary are compatible with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. Emphasis added 97. It is absolutely clear that the proposed 6-story,65-foot tall new structure is incompatible with the existing development of the surrounding Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods,including,in particular,the existing residential development at the very boundaries of the St. Joseph's site. 98. The overwhelming majority of the buildings on the surrounding Lafayette,Dow, Salem, and Harbor Streets,as well as those on Washington Street opposite the Lafayette Street side of the complex(ie.across from the pocket park)are either 2 '/:or 3-story residential - 12 - dwellings 45 feet in height or less. As such,said overwhelming majority of buildings on said surrounding streets conform to the existing R-3 zoning in both respects. 99. For this reason alone,among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. COUNT III The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision does not comply with the height limitations of the R-3 zoning district in which the planned unit development is located,and thus,is a clear violation of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 100. Section 7-15(c)(4)is another of the 5 express limitations governing approval of planned unit developments. 101. Section 7-15 (c)(4)reads in relevant port: Height limitations shall he in accordance with the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located. Emphasis added 102. The R-3 height restrictions for the St. Joseph's site is 45 feet. The maximum number of stories is 3 %2 stories. 103. The proposed new structure is 65 feet tall,or 20 feet above the existing maximum, representing a 44.44%increase. The proposed new structure is also 6 stories in height, or 2 '/2 stories in excess of the existing R-3 maximum,representing a 5833% increase. 104. Section 7-15(c)(4)refers to the height limitations of the existing zoning;it does not refer to height limitations which may be enlarged pursuant to a variance. 105. The August 24,2006 variances granted to SLD by the Salem Board of Appeal do not set aside the requirement of Section 7-15(c)(4)that the proposed new construction not exceed the existing height restrictions for the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located. 106. For SLD to maintain that variances of the maximum height and number of story restrictions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance by as much as 44.44%and 5833% respectively represents compliance with Section 7-15(c)(4)is circular reasoning of the worst sort,and makes an intellectual mockery of the planned unit development process. - 13 - 107. For this reason alone,among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. COUNT IV SLD has not demonstrated a reasonable relationship between the proposed lot size and the usable and accessible open area within the total development,and thus,violates Section 7-14(c)(5)of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 108. Section 7-15(c)(5)is another of the 5 express limitations governing approval of planned unit developments. 109. Section 7-15(c)(5)provides in relevant part: As a prerequisite,the developer shall demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the proposed lot size and the usable and accessible open area within the total development. An individual lot shall be large enough to.provide for private open space associated with the living accommodations. Emphasis added 110. In point of fact there was no such demonstration,nor is there such a reasonable relationship. 111. For this reason alone,among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. COUNT V The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision does not make adequate provision for usable open space,and thus,violates Section 7-15(h)(l)-(2) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 112. Section 7-15(h)(l)-(2)provides the following in relevant part: (h)Provision shall be made so that usable open space shall be owned: - 14- (1)By the City of Salem for pads,open space or conservation use; (2)By a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or residential units within the land that may be approved by the planning board, with provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of the city,provided that such ownership shall vest in sufficient rights to enable it to enforce compliance with the restrictions imposed by the planning board as condition of its special permit: 113. In point of fact,there was/is no such required provision in the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board. 114. Virtually all of the open space in the project is devoted to parking,which is not what Section 7-15(h)(1)-(2)contemplates. 115. For this reason alone, among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. COUNT VI SLD's proposed PUD doe not meet the three most fundamental requirements of a planned unit development as provided in Section 7-15(g)(l)-(3)inclusive of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 116. Section 7-15(g)(l)-(3)of the Salem Zoning Ordinance provides that a special permit may be granted by a two-thirds(2/3s)vote of the Salem Planning Board after notice and public hearing(s),provided that all other requirements.of Section 7-15 are complied with, but only if the following three fundamental requirements are met: (1)The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section [as defined in Section 7-15(b)]; (2)The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district; - 15 - (3)The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact 117. The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision,which consists of 7 pages,contains absolutely no findings of fact whatsoever. 118. Indeed,after subtracting the six pages of largely boiler-plate conditions which are routinely applied to all such projects,and the single-paragraph recording of the Planning Board vote,which comprises pages 2-7 inclusive of said September 14,2006 Decision in their entirely,one is literally left with a one-page decision,ie.page 1,for this $26,000,000.00 proposed development. 119. Even that single-page is deceiving,in that much of page 1 of the September 14,2006 Decision is involved with such non-substantive matters as the title of the project,the name and address of Salem Lafayette Development,LLC,the location of the project,and a brief, 1 l-line single-paragraph summary of the scope of the project, 120. The entire rest of page 1 of said September 14,2006 Decision boils down to the following: (1)The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section. (2)The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district. Specifically,the project incorporates a Community Life Center,as requested by the City,and mixed income affordable housing providing substantial public benefit. (3)The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. Based on the information from the Environmental Impact Statement and plans,the project will result in an increase in public recreational space,a decrease in peak stormwater discharge rates and will improve the vacant site significantly from its current condition. 121. While said September 14,2006 Decision characterizes the foregoing three paragraphs as findings,it is clear that they are nothing more than self-serving conclusions which simply repeat the statutory language of Section 7-15(g)(l)-(3)inclusive,except for the addition - 16- of the second sentence in paragraph 2 of the Decision,namely"Specifically,the project incorporates a Community Life Center,as requested by the City,and mixed income affordable housing providing substantial public benefit,"and except for the addition of the second sentence in paragraph 3,namely"Based on the[undisclosed] information from the Environmental Impact Statement and plans,the project will result in public recreational space,a decrease in peak stormwater discharge rates and will improve the vacant site significantly from its current condition." 122. Even these two single-sentence additions are conclusionary,self-serving statements on their face. 123. In point of fact,said September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision is not in keeping with the purposes and intent of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, including(in particular)-with respect to height,number-of-stories,and density,among otherissues. 124. Said September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision is likewise not in keeping with the 1996 Master Plan of the City of Salem,including in the following material respects: a. It does not"improve major vehicular routes through Salem"(page 19); b. It does not"improve access...[to] the downtown"(page 19); c. It does not improve"intra-city road linkages to enhance traffic efficiency and flow" (page 20); d. It does not reinforce"public institutional master plans"(page 26); e. It does not"protect residential streets from commuter traffic"(page 31); f. It does not"improve appearance of entrance corridors"(page 31); g. It does not"improve appearance of private property"(page 32); h. It does not materially"improve maintenance of parks"with respect to the adjacent park(page 37); i. It does not"protect and improve areas of historic significance,"including(in particular)by demolishing the landmark SL Joseph's Church,which is eligible for inclusion on the Nation Register of Historic Places maintained by the United States Department of the Interior,and by overwhelming the scale and density of the historic Point neighborhood(page 38); j. It does not`improve efficiency of water and sewer system to guarantee public health and safety"(page 41);and - 17- k. It does not improve"adaptive reuse of public buildings"(page 42). 125. The Plaintiffs aver that the mixture of uses in the planned unit development is not sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district,especially since said PUD has many significant deleterious effects on the surrounding neighborhood,including with respect to density,scale,height,traffic, parking,and adverse impact on neighborhood infrastructure,among other negative effects. 126. The Plaintiffs further aver that the approved planned unit development will,in fact,result in a significant net negative environmental impact on the surrounding neighborhood, especially with respect to density, scale,height(including the consequent shadows cast by the proposed new 6-story structure),traffic,parking,and adverse impact on neighborhood infrastructure,among other serious negative effects. 127. With respect to traffic, even the Planning Board Chairman,Mr. Power,lamented the lack of a traffic study at the third Planning Board hearing on September 7,2006,which he noted is unprecedented for projects of this size,further stating that even much lesser projects virtually always involve a traffic study. 128. Especially considering the huge volume of traffic on Washington and Lafayette Streets, which are two of the City's primary entrance corridors,and that the 3-way intersection at Dow,Lafayette,and Washington Streets,and the nearby 2-way intersection at Palmer and Lafayette Streets,are two of the busiest and most dangerous intersections in the City, the approval of said PUD without such a traffic study is all the more alarming. 129. With respect to the tripling of density of the SLD project,increased traffic not only involves the increased traffic from 86 residential units and 10(conventional)commercial units,but also the increased traffic from those using the 18,000 square foot Community Life/Senior Center. 130. Said increased demands also apply to parking 131. At least one member of the Salem Planning Board made it clear that his mind was already made up when he spoke at the first Planning Board hearing on July 27,2006 that he was enthusiastically in favor of all aspects of the project even before the developer had completed its presentation,or public comment(which ultimately lasted 3 evenings)had begun. 132. The Planning Board.also began substantive discussion of the project at the second Planning Board hearing on August 3,2006,even before the public comment period had concluded,thus raising serious questions as to whether the public hearing process was a sham to begin with. - 18- 133. For the foregoing reasons alone,among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. RELIEF SOUGHT The Plaintiffs respectfiilly request that this Court: a. enter a Judgment in their favor annulling in full the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board; b. award the Plaintiffs cost and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with their prosecution of this appeal; c. grant such other relief as is just and expedient. Respectfully submitted, William Dzierzek et al By their attorney, October 2,2006 John H. Carr,Jr.,Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 978-825-0060 BBO#075281 - 19- a L Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision 135 Lafayette Street. September 14,2006 Salem Lafayette Development,LLC C/o Joseph Correnti,Esq. m o 63 Federal Street Salem,MA 01970 o� err RE: 135 Lafayette Street/Former St. Joseph's Church siten. Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Egli `,"D N On Thursday,July 27, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing under Sections 7-15 and 7-18 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review, at the request of Salem Lafayette I- Development,LLC,for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street.The proposed project includes the razing of the former churchand convent building,the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new six-story building on the site. The mixed-use development will include 97 units of housing and a Community Life Center. Approximately thirty (30) units shall be rental units, and the approximately sixty-seven (67) remaining units shall be condominiums. At least thirty-five(35)percent of the dwelling units on the site shall be designated as affordable units. Hereinafter the term"Applicant" shall refer to the Applicant,its successors or assigns. The Public Hearing was continued to August 3, 2006, September 7,2006 and closed on September 7,2006.The Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, sec. 7-15 (g), as follows: 1) The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and.the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section. 2) The mixture.of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district. Specifically, the project incorporates a Community Life Center, as requested by the City,and mixed income affordable housing providing substantial public benefit. 3) The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. ` ' Based on the information from the Environmental Impact Statement and plans,the r project will result in an increase in public recreational space,a decrease in peak .. stormwater discharge rates and will improve the vacant site significantly from its current condition. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on September 7,2006,the Planning Board voted by a vote of nine(9) in favor(Power,Moustakis,Collins,Kavanagh,Durand Puleo, Lombardini,Sullivan, Reidy), and none(0)opposed to approve the Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development application subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the plans entitled,"St.Joseph's Redevelopment, Salem, Massachusetts"Sheets C-1.1, 2.1, 3.1,4.1,4.2 and 4.3 and,prepared by Samiotes Consultants,Inc., 10 Central Street,Framingham, MA 01701,dated June 14,2005 with revisions on July 17, 2006 and elevations submitted to the Planning Board at the September 7,2006 meeting("the site plans"). Revised Plans reflecting all conditions and incorporating by reference this decision must be submitted to and approved by the City Planner for consistency with this decision prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Amendments Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board for review and approval. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 3. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: a. Exterior construction work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM the following day on weekdays and Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Holidays. Any interior work conducted during these times will not involve heavy machinery which could generate disturbing noises. b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction of the project. c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays,or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site. e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the 4 Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules,regulations and ordinances of the 2 City of Salem. f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site,must be located completely on the site. g. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Included in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding how the construction equipment will be stored,a description of the construction staging area and its location in relation to the site,and where the construction employees will park their vehicles.The plan and schedule shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. . All storage of materials and equipment will be on site. h. Special attention shall be paid by the developer to locate the statue of St.Joseph reported to be buried on the site. If said statue is located,the Applicant shall work with the Archdiocese of Boston to resolve its status, and if feasible, as determined by the City Planner based on documentation from the Applicant to preserve it in accordance with the requirements of the Archdiocese. 4. Clerk of the Works A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the Applicant, its successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner. C5. Traffic Mitigation The Applicant agrees to contribute$20,000 toward a study/design of intersection and traffic improvements at Lafayette Street. Such payment shall be made to the City upon the Applicant's receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site. 6. Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 8. Zoning Board of Appeals The terms of the Zoning Board of Appeals conditional approval for a height variance for the site are incorporated into this decision, in their entirety. 0. Board of Health a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of the name, address, and telephone number of the project(site) manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the construction of the project. b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for the site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for 3 the site certifies that soil and ground water for the entire site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. c. The developer shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. d. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to construction,demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's invoice to the Health Agent e. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. f. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. g. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction. h. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. i. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s)generated by operations, including but not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line. j. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. k. If a rock crusher is on site, a plan for placement of the crusher must be approved by the Health Agent prior to placement and use. 1. Plans for food a establishment must be presented to the Health Agent and approved prior to construction. m. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health. n. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 10. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.All on site electrical utilities shall be located underground. b. The Applicant shall clean the drain line on Dow Street downstream from the work site to Salem St. preventing any debris from entering the downstream pipes. 4 11. Department of Public Services The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services 12. Signage Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Sign Review Committee. 13. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 14.HVAC If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site,it shall be visually screened.The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. 15.Lafayette Park The Applicant its successors and assigns (if not defined in paragraph one) agrees to C% contribute $1,500.00 per year to the City of Salem for the purpose of creating a fund for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park. Such payment shall be made to the Department of Planning and Community Development commencing upon the receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site and on June 1 of each year thereafter. 16. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans,with the following revision: the Applicant shall locate columnar trees along the perimeter of the site where they believe they are most appropriate and shall submit a revised landscaping plan reflecting this placement to the City Planner for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. Trees shall be a minimum diameter of 3 'h"dbh (diameter breast height). c. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the Applicant,his successors or assigns. d. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced.The location of any replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting. 5 e. Final completed landscaping,done in accordance with the approved set of plans,shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plans,to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Fencing shall be installed along the property line on Salem Street and directly abutting the residences on Dow Street.The section of fencing along Salem Street shall be a four-foot black industrial.grade aluminum.The section of fencing along the residences along Dow Street shall be wooden.Details and specifications for the fencing shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. 17. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site. c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two- (2)year period,from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and completion of planting. 18. As-built Plans As-built Plans,stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services =;. prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer,prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department)and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 19.Building Materials Illustrations of exterior building materials shall be submitted to the City Planer for approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 20. Violations Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and u copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy 6 of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty(20)days have elapsed and �.,.: no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied,is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded on the owner's.Certificate of Tide. The owner or applicant,his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. Walter B Power,III Chairman WRU PY 7cfTY CLERK SALEM, MASS. 7 y . ntrLs CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n 120 WASHINGTON.STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 ._.. FAX: 978-740-9846 fro cn KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL N I. C) MAYOR rt T r0 August 24, 2006 -. y 0 Decision Petition of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC requesting Variances from Height and Number of Stories for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street, R-3 District City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 23, 2006 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11,the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Annie Harris,Beth Debski, Stephen Pinto, Bonnie Belair. The petitioner Salem Lafayette Development, LLC is requesting variances pursuant to section 9-5 to allow for construction of a six-story residential building as part of a Planned Unit Development located at 135 Lafayette Street,Salem, in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zoning district. The petitioner is requesting variances from the forty-five (45)foot maximum height requirement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (Sec 64,Table I) to approximately sixty-five (65)feet, and from the three and one-half(3 '/2) stories maximum height requirement to six (6) stories for the new construction of a multi-use building with seventy-five (75)residential units and an approximately 18,000 sq.ft. Community Life Center on the first floor. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 135 Lafayette Street is within the R-3 zoning district. 2. The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem,MA. 3. A set of proposed plans were presented along with a rendering of the building. The applicant stressed that the plans and rendering were preliminary and will change. The site is the former home of St. Joseph's Catholic Church and school, and includes a rectory and convent buildings. 4. Evidence was presented at the hearing that the Petitioner has met with the abutting neighborhood associations, the Ward Councilors, City agencies, and Historic Salem, Inc. on numerous occasions throughout the past year to 3 discuss the site and proposed plans. Meetings were also held over a period of time with City officials, as well as the Planning Department. P 5. Mayor Kimberly Driscoll addressed the Board and spoke in favor 44he mac= project, citing the City's detailed involvement with the development due tq the � (JiF proposed construction of a Community Life Center within the project an", e oma' great need for mixed income housing and the community benefit, as welrPs a City benefit that the Life Center provided. — cs rn3 O . ..D 6. A number of abutters and Salem residents, along with several members oPthe City Council, were present to speak in favor of the project, including Ward 1 Councilor Lucy Corchado, Council President Jean Pelletier, and Councilor at Large Joan Lovely. Councilor Mike Sosnowski cited the density of the site as a concern, but generally spoke in favor of the affordable housing component of the project. Councilor Matt Veno was unable to attend the meeting, but submitted a letter supporting the project. 7. Councilor Corchado presented a petition with 140 signatures of neighbors that support the proposed development. Michael Whelan and Claudia Chuber, former Councilor of the Ward, spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the Salem Harbor CDC. 8. A representative of the Point Neighborhood Association stated that the Petitioner has met with them several times regarding the plans and that the Association supports the project. The Association is involved in the immediate neighborhood affected by the project. 9. Community members speaking against the project were mainly concerned with density and the relocation of the existing senior center. 10. The Petitioner is presently before the Planning Board seeking a Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review. 11. The Petitioner presented evidence pertaining to the history of institutional use on the site and the history of height of the buildings on the site over the past 100 years, two of which were taller than the proposed structure. 12. Evidence was presented by the Petitioner regarding the hardship resulting from the uniquely large size of the lot, 2.6 acres, compared to others in this district. 13. Evidence presented by the Petitioner demonstrated special conditions and circumstances exist surrounding the history of use on this lot, including the fact that four structures presently exist on the lot, the oldest two of which will remain in the proposed plan. b 14. Testimony of the Mayor and various elected officials clearly demonstrated that the proposed plan and building will offer community benefits, including mixed income housing, and a Community Life Center owned and operated by . the City of Salem, creating special circumstances which are not found on other lots in the district. c� rn o � 15. Evidence was presented in support of the requested variances indicatinat a certain minimum number of market rate units are necessary in order to sportu,cr. the 45 below market units proposed for the new structure, and that witho !msix o r stories; the lot could not be developed for residential use. A local developer 3 testified that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the prof- t i-M-5- profitable. A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to provide the high level of public benefit being proposed. The need for 9 affordable housing was stressed by the Mayor, City officials and various citizens. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the`public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for variances to allow for a maximum height bf approximately sixty-five (65) feet and six (6) stories does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. The petitioner's lot size and coverage do not generally occur in the district and are specific to their land. 4. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 5. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor (Stein, Pinto,Hams,Debski, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Certificates of Occupancy are to be obtained. 5. Certificates of Inspection, as required, shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including,but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. The proposed new construction shall not exceed six stories or 65 feet in height. 9. At least thirty-five percent (35%) of the dwelling units on the site shall be marketed as affordable or below market rates. 10. That the principal use of the first floor of the new building be a municipal use to include a Community Life Center. 11. That the former rectory and school buildings existing on the site shall be reused in the proposed project. Robin Stein Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. N O c r- -9 _T 'D John H. Carr,Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 October 2,2006 By Hand ;d Salem City Clerk S' City Hall co 93 Washington Street C>� v Salem, MA 01970 ch 3 w o a Mn N a r-< G7 Re: William Dzierzek et al vs. 0 0 C:1 Salem Lafayette Development, LLC et al ! rnrn Dear Mrs. LaPointe: 00 Enclosed please find Notice of Appeal To Essex Superior Court From September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision Of The Salem Planning Board Concerning 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Would you or someone from your office kindly date-stamp and file same, and also acknowledge receipt of the foregoing by date-stamping the enclosed copy of this letter and return same with our messenger. Thank you in advance for your attention to the foregoing. Very truly yours Enc. John H. Carr,Jr. cc Plaintiffs Thomas St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector—By Hand Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development—By Hand Clerk, Salem Planning Board—By Hand Clerk, Salem Zoning Board of Appeal—By Hand Joseph C. Correnti, Esq.—By Hand r COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 200fo- WILLIAM DZIERZEK,ERIC EASLEY, JOHN GOFF, ) DOCTOR MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI, LINDA ) LOCKE,ANTHONY MIRABITO, LINDA MIRABITO, ) SOLANGE MARCHAND,JEAN MARTIN,NANCY A. ) MOORE, THOMAS STRUCKMAN, MARIA ) TRINDADE,RODRIGO TRINDADE, LAURENT c o OUELLETTE,ANA PANIAGUA,DIONICIA FLORIAN, ANTOINETTE C. SANCHEZ, JANE E. GAMMON, c:) BRIAN TASHJIAN, CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, ROBERT) BOZARJIAN, ELIZABETH BOZ.ARJIAN,JULIAN ) i i '� z NENSHATI, DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, ) r c N SCOTT GALBER, T. ERIC BERUBE, DOMENICA ) 30 rn INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI,ROBERSON D. 7w y TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO,MARY C. ) r 000 LESCH, GARY R. JENKINS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ) SHAWN M. O'BRIEN, RALPH BERRY,DOROTHY A. ) FORTIN, ROSARIO BELTRE, CONSTANCE SANFORD,) and JORDAN CASTRO, PLAINTIFFS ) V. ) SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT,LLC, and ) EUGENE COLLINS,PAUL DURAND, TIMOTHY E. ) KAVANAGH,PAMELA LOMBARDINI,JOHN ) MOUSTAKIS, CHARLES PULED, TIMOTHY REIDY, ) CHRISTINE SULLIVAN, and WALTER B. POWER,III, ) CHAIRMAN, BEING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ) BOARD OF THE CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS,) DEFENDANTS ) NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 SITE PLAN REVIEW/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DECISION OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD CONCERNING 135 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS John H. Carr, Jr., attorney for the above-named Plaintiffs, hereby gives notice to the City Clerk of the City of Salem, Massachusetts, and to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeal respectively of the City of Salem, Massachusetts, that said Plaintiffs have appealed the September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board granting Salem Lafayette Development, LLC a planned unit development ("PUD')with respect to the former St. Joseph's church complex at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which Decision was filed with the office of the Salem City Clerk on September 14, 2006. A copy of the Complaint filed as Essex Superior Court Civil action no. 2oo�, - 1987l7 on October 2,2006 is attached hereto. William Dzierzek et al, By their attorney, October 2,2006 John H. Carr, Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 978-825-0060 BBO# 075281 - 2 - John H. Carr, Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 ,;Fax: 978-825-0068 c, o September 26, 2006 _ w - c By Hand CM1.m 0 r- 0 Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector U)r_"n N Cr City of Salem r—< 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor m ; Salem, MA 01970 RE: William Dzierzek et al vs. Salem Lafayette Development,LLC et al, Essex Superior Court Civil Action No. 2006-1820C Dear Mr. St. Pierre: Pursuant to yesterday's letter and fax to you, I am herewith enclosing the amended Complaint in the above-entitled action, as amended at the Essex Superior Court yesterday afternoon,together with a copy of my letter to Lisa B. Alberghini of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC of today's date concerning same, which is self-explanatory. Would you kindly acknowledge your receipt of same by date-stamping the enclosed copy of this letter. The address for Salem Lafayette Development, LLC,as listed in the amended Complaint, is (based on the information that I received this morning from Lynn Duncan) still incorrect, but that will be corrected in due course. tru John H. C Cc. Plaintiffs ir' a John H. Carr, Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 September 26, 2006 By Hand and By Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Salem Lafayette Development,LLC, Q,4. C/o Planning Office of Urban Affairs, c, Archdiocese of Boston, _.: co 84 State Street, Suite 600, rN„ Boston, MA 02109 o 0 VII rn Cr ^� a ATTN:Lisa B. Alberghini, Executive Director 3 rn o 0 m rri RE: William Dzierzek et al vs. Salem Lafayette Development,LLC e€fal, Essex Superior Court Civil Action No. 2006-1820C D - ! Dear Ms. Alberghini: At the time I initially drafted my civil Complaint in the above-described action I specifically asked Sally of the Salem Building Department for the correct address of Salem Lafayette Development,LLC ("SLD")and was told by her that it is 11135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,"which was the address I initially used for SLD in paragraph 34 of the Complaint I filed by hand with the Essex Superior Court last Friday appealing the August 24, 2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting height and number-of-stories variances relative to the former St. Joseph's Church property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970. I was subsequently informed by the Salem Planning Director, Lynn Duncan,that the current address for the Planning Office of Urban Affairs("POUA"), which she said she assumed was/is the same address for SLD, is"185 Devonshire Street, Suite 600, Boston Massachusetts 02110,"which(after checking in her office) she literally wrote out on a piece of paper and gave to me. I subsequently compared this address with the address listed on SLD's June 19/29, 2006 application for the two variances which was filed with the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal, which application listed an identical address for SLD, except that it omitted "Suite 600." I thereupon amended paragraph 34 of the filed Complaint at the Essex Superior Court yesterday afternoon to reflect the 185 Devonshire Street address,and had conforming copies,together with the Notice to the Salem City Clerk and Court Tracking Sheet,hand-delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, as the case may be,to SLD,and each member of the Salem ZBA,yesterday. However,when I attempted to hand-deliver said copies to the 185 Devonshire Street address yesterday, I was informed by the building representative in the lobby that your office had moved out"a couple of months ago,"and he didn't know SLD's or POUA's new address. Not knowing what else to do, I left separate envelopes containing said documents addressed to SLD at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts,and at the top step of Mr. Correnti's office since it was then after hours, and I could not find an outside mail box. I called Lynn Duncan back this morning, left her a lengthy message concerning same, and she ultimately returned my call later in the morning saying that she too was unaware of the change of address for both POUA and SLD,but had since learned that it is"84 State Street, Suite 600, Boston,Massachusetts 02109, as listed above,and that since she nor anyone at Washington Street knew of the change of SLD's address, I could not be faulted for same. Accordingly, I am herewith enclosing copies of the following: 1. The Complaint(including Exhibits)filed by over 40 individuals appealing the August 24, 2006 Decision of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal granting height and maximum-number-of-story variances to Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, which Complaint was timely filed with the Essex Superior Court by hand on the morning of Friday, September 22, 2006; 2. My Notice to the Salem City Clerk concerning said Appeal that was filed by hand in the Salem City Clerk's office last Friday morning as well, together with a copy of said Complaint and the so-called Court Tracking Sheet; 3. Court Tracking Sheet. Would you or someone from your office kindly acknowledge receipt of the foregoing documents by signing the enclosed copy of this letter. Thank you. Very truly yours, John H. Can, Jr. Enc. Cc. Lynn Duncan, City Planner—Cover letter only—By I acid Thomas St. Pierre,Building Inspector—By Hand �/ Joseph C. Correnti, Esq.—By Hand e COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT / CIVIL ACT10N NO: Zoo b — l8'2p G WILLIAM DZIERZEK,ERIC EASLEY,JOHN GOFF, ) DOCTOR MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI,LINDA ) LOCKE,ANTHONY MIRABITO,LINDA MIRABITO, ) SOLANGE MARCHAND,JEAN MARTIN,NANCY A. ) MOORE,THOMAS STRUCKMAN,MARIA ) TRINDADE,RODRIGO TRINDADE,LAURENT ) OUELLETTE,ANA PANIAGUA,DIONICIA FLORIAN, ) ANTOINETTE C. SANCHEZ, JANE E. GAMMON, ) BRIAN TASHJIAN,CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT,ROBERT) BOZARJIAN, ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN,.JULIAN ) NENSHATI,DAVID T.RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, ) SCOTT GALBER,T.ERIC BERUBE,DOMENICA ) a INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI,ROBERSON D. ) c,_0 C� c TRONCOSO,CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO,MARY C. ) o NJ LESCH,GARY R. JENKINS,PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ) r-;t SHAWN M. O'BRIEN,RALPH BERRY,DOROTHY A. FORTIN,JOHN J. PHELAN,ROSARIO BELTRE, ORILLE L'HEUREUX, CONSTANCE SANFORD,and 4z -+ JORDAN CASTRO, PLAINTIFFS ) V. ) ) SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT,LLC,and ) BONNIE BELAIR,BETH DEBSKI,ANNIE HARRIS, ) STEPHEN PINTO,ROBIN STEIN,RICHARD DIONNE, ) and NINA COHEN,CHAIRPERSON,BEING REGULAR) and ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD) OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, ) MASSACHUSETTS, ) DEFENDANTS ) COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40A SECTION 17 APPEALING-AUGUST 24.2006 DECISIOPI OF THE SALEM BOARD OF AMUL 9RAMMAPPEALMQYA11iANCU CONURNING 135 LAFAYEM STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS This is an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Burd of Appeal of Salem,Massachusetts (hereinafter"the ZBA"or"the Board'),dated August 24,2006 and filed with the Salem City Clerk on September 5,2006,granting variances from the maximum height and maximum number of story restrictions provided in the Salem Zoning Ordinance as they relate to the so- called St. Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts(hereinafter"the subject property"or"the St. Joseph's property")on the grounds that the ZBA's decision was arbitrary,capricious,unreasonable,violated due process,exceeded the Board's authority,was based on legally and factually untenable grounds,and was wrong as a matter of law. A certified copy of said August 24,2006 Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, William Dzierzek,who resides at 146 Summer Street,Danvers,Massachusetts 01923,owns the real estate located at 157 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 10 Dow Street, Salem,Massachusetts,and 12 Dow Street,Salem,Massachusetts,all of which abut the subject property,and 176 Lafayette Street, 182 Lafayette Street,and 7 Cedar Street,all in Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are all located in the immediate neighborhood. 2. Plaintiff, Eric Easley,who resides at 145 Spoffard Road,Boxford,Massachusetts 0 192 1, owns the real estate located at 266 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts,65 Harbor Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 73 Harbor Street, Salem,Massachusetts,and 38 Salem Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 3. Plaintiff,John Goff,is a preservation architect and former Executive Director of Historic Salem Inc.,who,together with his wife,owns and resides at 194 Lafayette Street, Salem Massachusetts 01970,which property is also located in the immediate neighborhood. 4. Plaintiff,Dr. Miroslaw Kantorosinski,who resides at 8 Almeda Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,is the owner of 5-5A Ropes Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which abuts the subject property,and 8-10 Porter Street Court, Salem,Massachusetts,which is located one block from the subject property,and is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 5. Plaintiff,Linda Locke,who resides at 1 Pickering Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns 44-46 Dow Street, Salem,Massachusetts, 7 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts, and 13-15 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are all within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 6. Plaintiffs,Anthony Mirabito and Linda Mirabito,who reside at 8 Nichols Lane, Middleton,Massachusetts 01949,own 16 Porter Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properly is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA- 7. Plaintiff, Solange Marchand,owns and resides at 159 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is an abutter to an abutter of the subject property, and is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. -2- 8. Plaintiff,Jean Martin,who resides at 24 Leavitt Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns(together with her husband)24 Leavitt Street, Salem, Massachusetts,which is located in the immediate neighborhood,and solely owns 34 Park Street, Salem Massachusetts,which is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 9. Plaintiffs,Nancy A. Moore and Thomas Struckman,who reside at 59 Lexington Street, Woburn,Massachusetts 0 180 1,own the real estate located at 39 Prince Street, Salem, Massachusetts,which is also located in the immediate neighborhood. 10. Plaintiffs,Maria Trindade and Rodrigo Trindade,own and reside at 40-42 Dow Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 11. Plaintiff,Laurent Ouellette,who resides at 18 Hershey Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,owns 1 Harbor Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 12. Plaintiffs,Ana Paniagua and Dionicia Florian,own and reside at 16 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property abuts the subject property. 13. Plaintiff,Antoinette C. Sanchez, owns and resides at 20 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property abuts the subject property. 14. Plaintiff,Jame E.Gammon,owns and resides at unit 1, 160 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 15. Plaintiff,Brian Tashjian, owns and resides at 30 Park Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 16. Plaintiff,Christopher Knight,owns and resides at unit 2a, 56 Ward Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 17. Plaintiffs,Robert and Elizabeth Bozar ian,reside at 20 Clark Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,and own 9 Park Street, Salem„Massachusetts and 10-12 Park Street, Salem Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 18. Plaintiff,Julian Nenshati,who resides at 34 Pittman Road, Swampscott,Massachusetts 01907,owns 3 Rope Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 19. Plaintiffs,David T. Ramsey and dean E.Ramsey,who reside at 58 Gregory island Road, South Hamilton,Massachusetts 01982,own 12 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts and -3 - 15-17 Leavitt Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 20. Plaintiff, Scott Galber,who resides at unit 5,22 Winter Street, Salem,Massachusetts, 01970,owns 65 Harbor Street,69-71 Harbor Street,22-24 Prince Street,and 27 Salem Street,all in Salem,Massachusetts,which properties are located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 21. Plaintiff, T. Eric Berube,owns and resides at 191 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 22. Plaintiffs, Stephen C. Ingemi and Domenica Ingemi,own and reside at 7 Fairfield Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 23. Plaintiffs,Roberson D.Troncoso and Clariza J. Troncoso,own and reside at unit 4, 10 Porter Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 24. Plaintiff,Mary C. Lesch, owns and resides at 15 Cedar Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 25. Plaintiff,Gary R.Jenkins,owns and resides at 5 Pond Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 26. Plaintiffs, Shawn M. O'Brien and Patricia D.O'Brien,own and reside at 21 Cedar Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,and also own 23-25 Cedar Street, Salem,Massachusetts, which properties are located in the immediate neighborhood. 27. Plaintiff,Ralph Berry,owns and resides at 3 Chase Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 28. Plaintiff,Dorothy A.Fortin,owns and resides at 2 Cherry Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 29. Plaintiff,John J.Phelan,owns and resides at 3 Fairfield Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 30. Plaintiff,Rosario Beltre,owns and resides at 15 Harrison Ave, Salem,Massachusetts, 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 31. Plaintiff,Orille L'Heureux,who resides at 22 Francis Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,owns 87 Congress Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is located in the imtnediate.neighborhood. -4- 32. Plaintiff, Constance Sanford,owns and resides at 19 Park Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 33. Plaintiff,Jordan Castro,who resides at 2 Station Road, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, owns 15 '/:Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. 34. Defendant, Salem Lafayette Development,LLC(hereinafter"SLD"),is a non-profit development co on with headquarters at �� Uor�y eft f Massachusetts co the owner of the former St. Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970; and is the recipient of the two August 24,2006 variances from the Salem ZBA herewith being appealed. 35. Defendant,Bonnie Belair(hereinafter"Ms. Belair"),whose mailing address is P.O.Box 685, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to grant said variances at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing. (ibis was the only address available from the Salem ZBA.) 36. Defendant,Beth Debski(hereinafter"Ms. Debsk'),who resides at 43 Calumet Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA,who voted to grant said variances at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing. 37. Defendant, Annie Harris(hereinafter"Ms. Hams"),who resides at 28 Chestnut Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,is a regular member of the Salem ZBA,who voted to grant said variances at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing. 38. Defendant, Stephen Pinto(hereinafter"Mr. Pinto"),who resides at 55 Columbus Avenue, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a regular member of the Salem ZBA,who voted to grant said variances at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing. 39. Defendant,Robin Stein(hereinafter"Ms. Stein"),who resides at 141 Fort Avenue, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA,who voted to grant said variances at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing,and is the author of the August 24, 2006 Decision 40. Defendant,Nina Cohen,who resides at 22 Chestnut Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is the Chairperson of the Salem Board of Appeal. She did not participate in the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing,or the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision. 41. Defendant,Richard Dionne,who resides at 23 Gardner Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA. He did not participate in the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing,or the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision. 42. All of the foregoing Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action,as all are substantially aggrieved by the August 24,2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting said variances. -5 - JURISDICTION 43. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. 44. This case is timely,as it has been filed within twenty(20)days from September 5,2006, which is when the ZBA's August 24,2006 Decision granting said variances was filed with the Salem City Clerk. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 45. The St. Joseph's property consists of a parking lot and 4 buildings on approximately 2.6 acres of land at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts. The four buildings consist of the former St. Joseph's church,the 3-story former rectory,the 3-story former St. Joseph's school,and the 3-story former convent. 46. Said property is a basically rectangular parcel bounded by Lafayette Street to the west, Harbor Street to the north, Salem Street to the east,and Dow Street to the south, and is located in both the so-called Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods. 47. Except for three 2 %:-story residential buildings fronting on the northerly side of Dow Street at the southeast comer of the site,the St. Joseph's property comprises the entire rectangular block formed by said streets. 48. At the southwest comer of said site is the confluence of Lafayette, Washington,and Dow Streets,which 3-way intersection constitutes one of the most congested and dangerous intersections in Salem. 49. All of the former St.Joseph's structures at the site were constructed prior to the enactment of the current Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965,and thus,all four buildings represent prior non-conforming structures. 50. By far,the most architecturally significant building at the site is the former St. Joseph's Church,which is an important example of the so-called International Style,a style of modem architecture which is unique in Salem. As such, it makes an important contribution to Salem's world-renowned stock of 17"', 18'h,and 19th century architecture. 51. There is no question that the former St.Joseph's Church is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the United States Department of the Interior. 52. The former St. Joseph's school building and convent have no particular architectural significance. - 6- 53. The church,rectory,and convent have been vacant since the parish closed on or about August 15,2004. The school has been vacant since it relocated to the St. James parish on Federal Street beginning in August or September of 2004. 54. The entire St. Joseph's property is located in an R-3 Zoning District. 55. Pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning,a maximum of 33 residential units can be constructed at the site as a matter of right,with new construction not to exceed 45 feet in height and 3 '/2 stories. 56. The overwhelming majority of the buildings on the surrounding Lafayette, Dow, Salem, and Harbor Streets,as well as those on Washington Street opposite the Lafayette Street side of the property(ie.across from the pocket park)are either 2 '/2 or 3-story residential dwellings. 57. The grade of the parking lot at the southern third of the site is already approximately 4 feet above the grade of the 3 'h-story residential buildings fronting on Dow Street at the southeast comer of the site. 58. In the Spring of 2005 the Archdiocese of Boston sold the entire St. Joseph's property to the Planning Office of Urban Affairs(hereinafter"POUR"),a private non-profit corporation,for$2,000,000.00,which thereupon created Salem Lafayette Development Corporation,LLC(hereinafter"SLD")to develop the site. 59. The head of the Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley,serves in his individual capacity as the chief executive officer of POUA. 60. On Thursday,July 27,2006,the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened the first of three public hearings on SLD's application for a Planned Unit Development(hereinafter "PUD")to develop the St. Joseph's site primarily into 97 residential units,which represents 64 units more than the 33 maximum number of units allowed by the current R- 3 zoning for that district. 61. The proposed project basically calls for the razing of the former convent and landmark church,the development of the former rectory into 8 residential units,the conversion of the former school into 14 residential units,and the construction of a new,6-story, 65-foot tall building immediately to the tight(ie, south)of the rectory to contain 64 residential units and an 18,000 square foot Community Life Center on the fast floor,which would also double as a Senior Center, 62. Unlike the existing cruciform church,which was built with its narrow(i.e. 40-foot wide) wall perpendicular to Lafayette Street,the proposed new,65-foot,6-story structure is to be built parallel to Lafayette Street, 160 feet in length,within a few feet of the existing sidewalk. 7 - 63. Also unlike the existing cruciform church, all six floors of the new 65-foot structure will be occupied 24 hours a day,7 days a week, 52 weeks a year,which is a substantial increase in use compared to the former St. Joseph's Church,whose single-story interior Mace(albeit 63 feet tall)was primarily used only on Sunday mornings and holy days. 64. Of the 97 residential units, SLD indicated that"approximately"30 units will be rented, and the balance of 67 units will be sold as condominiums. 65. A major component of SLD's PUD application was its promise to dedicate 45%of the 97 residential units,or 44 units, for"affordable housing",which was later scaled back to 35%,or approximately 34 units,at the final Planning Board hearing on September 7, 2006. 66. On information and belief,said 34 units of affordable housing,whether rented or sold as condominiums,will involve a discount of approximately 30%below prevailing market rates,for which eligibility will be based on income limitations of the buyer or tenants. 67. Thus, in essence, SLD's PUD application seeks an approximate 194%increase in density of 64 residential units over the 33 maximum number of residential units permitted by the existing R-3 zoning for the entire site, in return for which 33 of the extra 64 units would be sold or rented as affordable housing at a discount(in either event)of approximately 30%below prevailing market rates. 68. The balance of 31 units of the 64 units exceeding the current R-3 zoning would be sold at market rates,in addition to the 33 residential units already permitted by the existing R-3 zoning,or altogether 64 units at market rates. 69. Said 194%increase in residential density above the 33 maximum number of residential units does not even include the proposed 18,000 square foot Community Life Center, which includes the so-called Senior Center. 70. The other major component of SLD's PUD application is the proposed 18,000 square foot Community Life Center to be sold to the City of Salem. Although the purchase price has yet to be finalized,the figure discussed at the three Planning Board hearings was approximately$5,000,000.00. 71. None of the several Salem City Councilors who attended the three Planning Board hearings seemed to be aware of the details of said purchase;no one seemed to know how the City(which is,and has been,under severe financial constraints)is going to afford the purchase price;and no one could explain what would happen to the project if the City couldn't afford to buy said 18,000 square feet of first floor space. 72. Also complicating this issue is the fact that a substantial majority of Salem's senior citizens who currently use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street are vehement in their opposition to relocating the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to the St. Joseph's site. - 8 - 73. A multi-page petition signed by approximately 300 Salem senior citizens opposing the proposed new Senior Center at the St. Joseph's site was submitted at the third Planning Board hearing on September 7, 2006,which opposition was re-affirmed in a heavily publicized meeting conducted by Mayor Driscoll at the existing Broad Street Senior Center a few weeks tater. 74. Notwithstanding that approval of its PUD application will circumvent much of the existing R-3 zoning for the district, SLD still needed two variances from the Salem ZBA, one to increase the 45 foot maximum height restriction by 20 feet,to 65 feet,which represents a 44.44%increase,and the other to increase the current maximum of 3 '/2 stories to 6 stories,which represents a 58.33%increase. 75. On August 23,2006 the Salem ZBA voted to grant said variances,which is the subject of this appeal. Alternate member,Robin Stein,who authored the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision,and alternative member,Beth Debski,voted in place of Chairperson Nina Cohen and regular member,Richard Dionne,who did not participate in the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing or August 24,2006 ZBA Decision. 76. On September 6, 2006 SLD requested a continuance of a vote of the Salem Historical Commission on its petition for a waiver of the 6-month demolition delay ordinance when it became clear that the Commission regarded St. Joseph's Church to be an extremely significant building and would not waive the demolition delay ordinance if a vote were then taken on its application. 77. On September 7,2006 the Salem Planning Board approved SLD's PUD application, which was entered in the office of the Salem City Clerk at 5:27 p.m. on September 14, 2006. A copy of said decision is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 78. As to each of the following Counts,the Plaintiffs reaffirm,re-allege,and incorporate all of the prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-77 inclusive above. ARGUMENT COUNTI The ZBA findings are generally insufficient to support said August 24,2006 Decision granting said variances. 79. The August 24,2006 Decision lists 15 explicit findings of fact in[purported] support of the two variances. 80. None of said findings are legally germane to the issues at hand,which relate to the basis for the Board's decision to grant variances increasing the 45 foot maximum height -9- restriction to 60 feet,which represents a 44.44%increase over the existing R-3 zoning, and for increasing the 3 %:maximum number of stories to 6-stories,which represents a 58.33%increase. 81. Most of the findings represent either self-serving conclusions without any specificity whatsoever,or attest to the project's popularity with either the Mayor, some elected officials,or certain groups within the local Salem population,all of which is hardly a legal basis for granting said relief. Whatsoever its merits,popularity with some groups is not a proper basis for granting variances. 82. The reason that no such specificity was cited is because,in point of fact,no such legally- relevant evidence was introduced at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing in support of said variances. 83. Findings 1, 2,and 3 offer absolutely no guidance whatsoever as to the bases for said variances. 84. Finding 12 recites that"Evidence was presented by the Petitioner regarding the hardship resulting from the uniquely large size of the lot,2.6 acres, compared to others in the district...,"without specifying what said evidence was,how it related to the height or number of stories issues,or why other solutions that might have been more compatible with the existing R-3 zoning were not possible. 85. "The uniquely large size of the lot"alone is not a sufficient basis for said variances. Indeed,one might reasonably conclude that such a large-sized lot offered more opportunities for development compatible with the existing R-3 zoning,not less. 86. Finding 1 I recites that"The Petitioner presented all evidence pertaining to the histary of institutional use on the site and the higm of the buildings on the site over the past 100 years,two of which buildings were taller than the proposed structure...,"which purported information,even if true,is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether said variances should be granted. 87. The proper issue before the ZBA was not what the area may have looked like at one particular point in its history,especially if that occurred before the introduction of zoning, but what the conditions are,as well as the current zoning. 88. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of a colored lithograph of Lafayette Street looking north toward the downtown of Salem that was drawn in 1852 from the vantage point of Lafayette and Harbor Streets. Surely it is just as irrelevant for the petitioner to argue that it should be entitled to a 6-story building because at some point in history there was a taller building on the site as it would be for the opponents to argue that the 1852 neighborhood should be replicated. 89. Findings 4,5,6,7,and 8 all deal exclusive with the purported popularity of the project with some groups within the Salem community,which certainly does not include the - 10 - within appellants,who are all stakeholders in the neighborhood, and as such,are entitled to rely on the protections afforded by the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 90. Finding 9 recites that"Community members speaking against the project were mainly concerned with density and relocation of the existing senior center." 91. In point of fact,the within appellants and many more members of the Salem Community are just as concerned about the issues of scale and height, as they are about density, if not more so,since all three elements of the proposed new construction completely overwhelm the surrounding immediate neighborhood. 92. The appellants are not alone in their concern over such issues. Historic Salem, Inc.,a non-profit local preservation group(hereinafter"HSI"), and many others,have gone on record citing the scale and height,as well as the density,of the project as maior problems. Indeed,HSI has added the issues of scale and density throughout the downtown, and surrounding areas,to its"10 Most Endangered List." Attached hereto as Exhibits D and E are letters from HSI and Margaret Twohey to the Planning Board concerning said issues,dated July 22,2006 and August 18,2006 respectively,copies of which were also furnished to the ZBA prior to its August 23,2006 hearing. 93. Finding 14 recites simply that the project's mixed income housing and"the possibility of a Community Life Center owned and operated by the City of Salem"create"special circumstances which are not found on other lots in the district,"without(again) specifically indicating what said special circumstances are,or how that relates to the zoning issues before the Board,which involve increasing the relevant R-3 height and 3 1/2 story restrictions by 44.44%and 58.33%respectively. 94. Finding 15 simply recites the self-serving conclusionary statement,without explanation, that"A hardship exists which r ui s a height variance in order to provide the high level of public benefit being proposed...,"citing the lone unsupported testimony of"a local developer"that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the project work." [Emphasis added] 95. Even apart from the issue that the alleged"high level of public benefits"are very much in dispute,including by an overwhelming majority of Salem's senior citizens who use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street,this is clearly an inadequate basis to support said extreme increases of the existing R-3 zoning. 96. It is clear that there are no competent findings of fact in said August 24,2006 Decision regarding hardship,special circumstances,or why such variances will not nullify the public good,or derogate from the intent and purpose of Salem's R-3 zoning for that district. 97. Apart from all other considerations, it is clear from the lack of competent,relevant findings that the Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in granting said variances. - 11 - 1' 98. For these reasons alone, said variances should be nullified and overturned. COUNT II There is no legally-recognized hardship at all,let alone hardship sufficient to entitle SLD to either or both of said variances. 99. The only purported findings of fact with respect to hardship are the self-serving conclusionary statements found in Findings 13 and 15. 100. Finding 13 recites simply that the hardship is"from the uniquely large size of the lot,2.6 acres, compared to others in the district...,"and Finding 15 simply recites that"A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to provide the high level of public benefit being proposed." 101. Note that in the first instance there is absolutely no explanation as to how and why"a uniquely large"lot constitutes hardship. Indeed,the more compelling inference to be drawn from that single fact,even if true,is that such a lot affords far more opportunities for development compatible with the existing R-3 zoning,than less. 102. In essence,what the developer is arguing is that the existing R-3 zoning itself is the basis for the hardship. 103. With respect to Finding 15,it should also be noted that the alleged hardship is unexplained. The hardship"which [supposedly]muires a height variance" is accepted as a given. [Emphasis added] Even though this is the findings section of the Decision, said finding is,in fact,an unsupported conclusion. 104. It is clear that SLD had the burden of proving each of the primary elements needed to justify the granting of said variances,especially variances which increase the existing R-3 height and number of stories restrictions by as much as 44.44°/a and 58.33%respectively. 105. It is axiomatic under Massachusetts law that hardship cannot be self-created. 106. In point of fact there was no evidence with respect to legally-recognized hardship submitted at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing,or to be found in the August 24,2006 Decision. 107. SLD is presumed to know the R-3 zoning for the property,and presumably it took that into account in negotiating its purchase price for the property. 108. If there were zoning issues that needed to be resolved,those should have been resolved prior to consummating the purchase. - 12 - 109. By having proceeded with the purchase, SLD's claimed hardship is entirely self-created and does not constitute a basis for granting said variances. 110. By having granted said variances in part on said spurious claims of hardship,the ZBA acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority. 111. For this reason alone said variances should be nullified and overturned. COUNT III There are no special conditions or circumstances which justify the granting of said variances. 112. The only findings of fact with respect to"special conditions and circumstances"is found in Finding 13,which recited the following in its entirety: Evidence presented by the Petitioner demonstrated special conditions and circumstances exist surrounding the history of use on this lot including the fact that four structures presently exist on the lot,the oldest two of which will remain in the proposed plan. Emphasis added 113. It is patently clear on the face of said finding that the above does not constitute a special condition and/or circumstance sufficient to grant a variance pursuant to Massachusetts zoning law, and that if SLD's above definition were adopted,it would debase the meaning of that term out of all practical legal significance. 114. In point of fact,the site in question is flat,has no topographical anomalies,and has been previously built upon, as is explicitly recognized in the finding. 115. It is also important to note that the alleged specific"special conditions and circumstances"have nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the site,but with the alleged prior history of use of the site. 116. There is nothing about the prior use of the site that constitutes a special condition or circumstance within the meaning of Massachusetts zoning law. The site contains four buildings on 2.6 acres,much of it already clear. If there are costs to demolish the buildings in order to make the development more compatible with the R-3 zoning,that should have been reflected in the purchase price. - 13 - 117. In point of fact there was no legally competent evidence introduced at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing on the issue of special conditions and circumstances,as fording 13 implicitly and explicitly makes clear,nor do such special conditions and/or circumstances exist. 118. As such,the ZBA acted wilMy and capriciously,and exceeded its authority, in granting said variances. 119. For this reason alone, said variance should be nullified and overturned. COUNT IV Said variances constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 120. There are absolutely no findings of fact in the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision in support of its formal Conclusion No. 1,found on the third page of said Decision,that"The Petitioner's request for variances to allow for a maximum height of approximately sixty- five(65)feet and six(6) stories does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good 121. As above,this essential finding necessary for the granting of said variances(along with the other necessary elements)is simply accepted as a given. 122. How the 6 stories totaling 65 feet will relate to the surrounding neighborhood,the shadows that will be cast,the impact on traffic and city infiustructure,including impact on the water and sewer system,the density of said stories, and other effects,are all simply assumed not to be a detriment to the public good. 123. Enabling 33 owners or tenants out of a city of approximately 40,000 people to have a 33%discount on their rent,or the purchase price of their condominium,may be a laudable goal,but it does not justify the obvious significant adverse effects that will be caused to both the Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods if such a monstrosity is allowed to be built, especially if specific provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which are intended to prevent said adverse effects are ignored. 124. Clearly the scale of a neighborhood is a critical aspect of the integrity and vitality of that neighborhood,and any variances granting increases in the height and maximum number of stories by as much as 44.44%and 58.33%over the existing R-3 maximums should not be granted without clear and convincing evidence that such action will not cause substantial detriment to the public good,which evidence simply does not exist here. 125. In light of same,it is clear that the ZBA has acted willfiilly and capriciously in drawing its formal Conclusion No.I that there will be no substantial detriment caused to the public good,and thereby,has exceeded its authority in granting said variances. - 14- 126. For this reason alone, said variances should be nullified and overturned. COUNT V Said variances nullify and substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 127. As with the preceding Count IV,there are absolutely no findings of fact in the August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision in support of its formal Conclusion No. 2, found on the third page of said Decision,that"The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance." 128. The current maximum height restriction for new construction pursuant to the current R-3 zoning for the St.Joseph's property is 45 feet. SLD proposes constructing a new building of 65 feet,20 feet over the R-3 maximum,which represents a 44.44%increase. 129. The current maximum number of stories for new construction pursuant to the current R-3 zoning is 3 '/2 stories. SLD's proposed new building is 6 stories,2 'h stories over the existing maximum,representing a 58.33%increase. 130. If such substantial percentage increases are of no consequence, what is the point of having such restrictions in the first place, or for that matter,what is the point of having a zoning ordinance at all? 131. Exceptions(in this case called variances)are just that: exceptions, and then are only supposed to be granted under tightly controlled circumstances,which do not exist here. They are certainly not intended to be the rule. 132. The current rectory, school,and convent are all three stories,well within the 3 '/Z story maximums pursuant to the current R-3 zoning. On information and belief,they also do not exceed the R-3 height maximum of 45 feet. 133. And while it is true that St. Joseph's Church is approximately 63 feet tall,2 feet shorter than SDL's proposed new 6-story building,there are the following important distinctions which should be noted: a. St. Joseph's Church is grandfathered as a prior non-conforming structure,since it was erected in 1949,well before the enactment of Salem's Zoning Ordinance in 1965; b. While there is 63 feet of exterior space,the interior space consists of a ft1s;of the same height,which is entirely ceremonial in nature; - 15 - C. The former use of that space primarily occurred at limited hours, generally only on late Saturday afternoons, Sunday mornings,and Church holidays; d. The church is a cruciform church,with its narrow(i.e.40 feet wide)edge to Lafayette Street,which thereby minimizes the impact of its height on said street; C. As a symbolic and ceremonial building,the very epicenter(originally)of the surrounding French Canadian Community that built the complex,the size and height of the church have an obvious visual logic; f. None of the foregoing apply to SDL's proposed new 6-story structure; g. Clearly there is no such visual logic for height or massing in a 6-story condominium building; h. Instead of a single-story interior space that was primarily used only for ceremonial purposes during a limited number of hours each week,the interior of the proposed 65 foot tall building will consist of 6 floors,each of which will be in constant use 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. i. And instead of the thin side of the building being on Lafayette Street, SDL intends to construct the long(i.e. 160 feet) side of the new, 6-story, 65-foot tall structure directly on the sidewalk. 134. For all of the above reasons,any comparison between the former St. Joseph's Church building, and the proposed new 60-story building, is glib, disingenuous,and intellectually dishonest at best. 135. For all of the above reasons,and more,it is clear that the ZBA acted arbitrarily and capriciously,and exceeded its authority, in granting said variances,which basically amount to political decisions. 136. Because the proposed new 6-story structure does in fact nullify and substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, said variances should be nullified and overturned for this reason alone. RELIEF SOUGHT The Plaintiffs respectfiilly request that this Court: a. enter a Judgment in their favor annulling in full the August 24, 2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting said variances; - 16- b. award the Plaintiffs cost and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with their prosecution of this appeal; c. grant such other relief as is just and expedient. Respectfully submitted, William Dzierzek et al By their attorney, September 22,2006 John H. Carr,Jr.,Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 978-825-0060 BBO#075281 - 17 - 011 �4 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 'r BOARD OF APPEAL ` 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOORr, O1, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Tr < TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595, �3C� FAX: 976-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLLN - 1 Orr MAYOR t .i T August 24, 2006 0 s Decision Petition of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC requesting Variances from Height and Number of Stories for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street, R-3 District City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 23, 2006 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11,the following Zoning Board members present: Robin n• Stein, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Stephen Pinto, Bonnie Belair. The petitioner Salem Lafayette Development,LLC is requesting variances pursuant to section 9-5 to allow for construction of a six-story residential building as part of,a Planned Unit Development located at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zoning district. The petitioner is requesting variances from the forty-five (45) foot maximum height requirement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (Sec 6-4,Table I) to approximately sixty-five (65)feet, and from the three and one-half(3 1/2) stories maximum height requirement to six (6) stories for the new construction of a multi-use building with seventy-five (75)residential units and an approximately 18,000 sq.ft. Community Life Center on the first floor. The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property at 135 Lafayette Street is within the R-3 zoning district. 2. The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, MA. 3. A set of proposed plans were presented along with a rendering of the building. The applicant stressed that the plans and rendering were preliminary and will change. The site is the former home of St. Joseph's Catholic Church and school, and includes a rectory and convent buildings. 4. Evidence was presented at the hearing that the Petitioner has met with the abutting neighborhood associations, the Ward Councilors, City agencies, and Historic Salem, Inc. on numerous occasions throughout the past year to . • Y discuss the site and proposed plans. Meetings were also held over a period of time with City officials, as well as the Planning Department. A E, 5. Mayor Kimberly Driscoll addressed the Board and spoke in favor ohhe mxT: project, citing the City's detailed involvement with the development due tq the T proposed construction of a Community Life Center within the project an`lthe CD great need for mixed income housing and the community benefit, as welljps a -.�; City benefit that the Life Center provided. m o " D 6. A number of abutters and Salem residents, along with several members oPthe City Council, were present to speak in favor of the project, including Ward 1 Councilor Lucy Corchado, Council President Jean Pelletier, and Councilor at Large Joan Lovely. Councilor Mike Sosnowski cited the density of the site as a concern, but generally spoke in favor of the affordable housing component of the project. Councilor Matt Veno was unable to attend the meeting, but submitted a letter supporting the project. �. 7. Councilor Corchado presented a petition with 140 signatures of neighbors that support the proposed development. Michael Whelan and Claudia Chuber, former Councilor of the Ward, spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the Salem Harbor CDC. 8. A representative of the Point Neighborhood Association stated that the Petitioner has met with them several times regarding the plans and that the Association supports the project. The Association is involved in the immediate neighborhood affected by the project. 9. Community members speaking against the project were mainly concerned with density and the relocation of the existing senior center. 10. The Petitioner is presently before the Planning Board seeking a Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review. 11. The Petitioner presented evidence pertaining to the history of institutional use on the site and the history of height of the buildings on the site over the past 100 years,two of which were taller than the proposed structure. 12. Evidence was presented by the Petitioner regarding the hardship resulting from the uniquely large size of the lot, 2.6 acres, compared to others in this district. 13. Evidence presented by the Petitioner demonstrated special conditions and circumstances exist surrounding the history of use on this lot, including the fact that four structures presently exist on the lot, the oldest two of which will remain in the proposed plan. 14. Testimony of the Mayor and various elected officials clearly demonstrated that the proposed plan and building will offer community benefits, including mixed income housing, and a Community Life Center owned and operated by the City of Salem, creating special circumstances which are not found on other lots in the district. C-)'; 15. Evidence was presented in support of the requested variances indicatin at a 0 certain minimum number of market rate units are necessary in order to sl*port u,r the 45 below market units proposed for the new structure, and that witho�&six o r stories; the lot could not be developed for residential use. A local developer3 testified that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the projA M3 profitable. A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to v provide the high level of public benefit being proposed. The need for9 affordable housing was stressed by the Mayor, City officials and various citizens. On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes as follows: 1. The petitioner's request for variances to allow for a maximum height bf approximately sixty-five (65) feet and six (6) stories does not constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3. The petitioner's lot size and coverage do not generally occur in the district and are specific to their land. 4. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial hardship to the petitioner. 5. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein, Pinto, Harris,Debski, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance, subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 4. Certificates of Occupancy are to be obtained. 5. Certificates of Inspection, as required, shall be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board. 8. The proposed new construction shall not exceed six stories or 65 feet in height. 9. At least thirty-five percent (35%) of the dwelling units on the site shall be marketed as affordable or below market rates. 10. That the principal use of the first floor of the new building be a municipal use to include a Community Life Center. 11. That the former rectory and school buildings existing on the site shall be reused in the proposed project. �� sj,& 46°\ Robin Stein Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that,if such appeal has been filed,that it has been dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. N O O _l cr l7 _ r-n CP ATTEST . t ' CC.�. .➢1-s G o�- �;<14d� 'G J> T m-T .0 v s Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision 135 Lafayette Street. September 14, 2006 Salem Lafayette Development, LLC C/o Joseph Correnti, Esq. m �o 63 Federal Street Salem,MA 01970 No RE: 135 Lafayette Street/Former St. Joseph's Church site T 3 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development N v On Thursday,July 27,2006, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public,Hearing under Sections 7-15 and 7-18 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit ` Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review, at the request of Salem Lafayette Development,LLC, for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street. The proposed project includes the razing of the former church and convent building, the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new six-story building on the site. The mixed-use development will include 97 units of housing and a Community Life Center. Approximately thirty(30) units shall be rental units, and the approximately sixty-seven (67) remaining units shall be condominiums. At least thirty-five (35)percent of the dwelling units on the site shall be designated as affordable units. Hereinafter the term "Applicant" shall refer to the Applicant, its successors or assigns. The Public Hearing was continued to August 3, 2006, September 7, 2006 and closed on September 7,2006. The Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance,sec. 7-15 (g), as follows: 1) The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section. 2) The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district. Specifically, the project incorporates a Community Life Center, as requested by the City, and mixed income affordable housing providing substantial public benefit. 3) The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. Based on the information from the Environmental Impact Statement and plans, the project will result in an increase in public recreational space,a decrease in peak stormwater discharge rates and will improve the vacant site significantly from its current condition. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on September 7, 2006,the Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor(Power,Moustakis, Collins, Kavanagh, Durand, Puleo, Lombardini, Sullivan, Reidy), and none(0)opposed to approve the Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development application subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the plans entitled, "St. Joseph's Redevelopment, Salem, Massachusetts" Sheets C-1.1, 2.1, 3.1,4.1,4.2 and 4.3 and, prepared by Samiotes Consultants, Inc., 10 Central Street,Framingham, MA 01701, dated June 14, 2005 with revisions on July 17, 2006 and elevations submitted to the Planning Board at the September 7, 2006 meeting("the site plans"). Revised Plans reflecting all conditions and incorporating by reference this decision must be submitted to and approved by the City Planner for consistency with this decision prior to the issuance of a building pennit. 2. Amendments Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board for review and approval. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 3. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: a. Exterior construction work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM the following day on weekdays and Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Holidays. Any interior work conducted during these times will not involve heavy machinery which could generate disturbing noises. b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction of the project. c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. d. All construction vehicles shall he cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site. e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances of the 2 City of Salem. f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site. g. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Included in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding how the construction equipment will be stored, a description of the construction staging area and its location in relation to the site, and where the construction employees will park their vehicles. The plan and schedule shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All storage of materials and equipment will be on site. h. Special attention shall be paid by the developer to locate the statue of St. Joseph reported to be buried on the site. If said statue is located, the Applicant shall work with the Archdiocese of Boston to resolve its status, and if feasible, as determined by the City Planner based on documentation from the Applicant to preserve it in accordance with the requirements of the Archdiocese. A 4. Clerk of the Works A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the Applicant, its successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner. 5. Traffic Mitigation The Applicant agrees to contribute $20,000 toward a study/design of intersection and traffic improvements at Lafayette Street. Such payment shall be made to the City upon the Applicant's receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site. 6. Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 8. Zoning Board of Appeals The terms of the Zoning Board of Appeals conditional approval for a height variance for the site are incorporated into this decision, in their entirety. 9. Board of Health a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of the name, address, and telephone number of the project (site) manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the construction of the project. b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for the site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for 3 the site certifies that soil and ground water for the entire site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. c. The developer shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. d. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to construction,demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's invoice to the Health Agent e. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. f. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. g. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptabie'excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction. h. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. i. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations,including but not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line. j. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. k. If a rock crusher is on site, a plan for placement of the crusher must be approved by the Health Agent prior to placement and use. I. Plans for food a establishment must be presented to the Health Agent and approved prior to construction. in. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health. n. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 10. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All on site electrical utilities shall be located underground. b. The Applicant shall clean the drain line on Dow Street downstream from the work site to Salem St. preventing any debris from entering the downstream pipes. 4 11. Department of Public Services The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services 12. Signage Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Sign Review Committee. 13. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 14. HVAC k If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site,it shall be visually screened. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. 15.Lafayette Park The Applicant its successors and assigns (if not defined in paragraph one) agrees to contribute $1,500.00 per year to the City of Salem for the purpose of creating a fund for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park. Such payment shall be made to the Department of Planning and Community Development commencing upon the receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site and on June 1 of each year thereafter. 16. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans, with the following revision: the Applicant shall locate columnar trees along the perimeter of the site where they believe they are most appropriate and shall submit a revised landscaping plan reflecting this placement to the City Planner for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. Trees shall be a minimum diameter of 31/z" dbh (diameter breast height). c. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. d. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced.The location of any replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting. 5 e. Final completed landscaping, done in accordance with the approved set of plans, shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plans, to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Fencing shall be installed along the property line on Salem Street and directly abutting the residences on Dow Street. The section of fencing along Salem Street shall be a four-foot black industrial grade aluminum. The section of fencing along the residences along Dow Street shall be wooden. Details and specifications for the fencing shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. 17. Maintenance a.Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site. c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two- (2) year period,from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and completion of planting. 18. As-built Plans As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer,prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 19. Building Materials Illustrations of exterior building materials shall be submitted to the City Planer for approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 20. Violations Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy 6 of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed,and it has been dismissed or denied,is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant,his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. Walter B Power,III. Chairman L 7 Part 1 The City Sea Trade Built k if f / b 1 1 1 1 .�, "M�aS9'w'*reSOMa�YX•n<lro9H:9NIm4V'Cf 'IiA ��tl �. 1l S R La'S ,g'p t.r t dF t 3� d 4:ti s. y. y' t� +moo bll II! i I .eMj^ 1 +�r++��•, J@ 1 �:�. "� i J f 4 - -....", t A.y�aW�„ 1$�d1'�'j C��c r _—• 'F��. �� ..+-/'�—.��1 �M"+t' � �'V ■ G.L � � � ��lX rr,, .� �rJ. :.•#'--f#'''.7�.at�: 1� 'tl.'. y71 1 '4a1,''` 5 ly' . .. •.."�n°i '° —5s., u....-, i�#1 '�_�', «� �`V.,�+.;; Yl r+i Fi {t 1 f�;,.►' 1 P fl'r7Afl ,,r rk 4 d•Ai � . � t �' dtit i" �:1' 1 � r5 # flC 1 � CP� n..: .'`�� tbA�I n •trw� k Yt`C!} f .j� ` (L I �� la �Ir '1 pp f .,(,• " r V k I(sir t ?... g1I� t �• 1111yJ F r. i I 3�J� t I �r i I!.k U ' nell t•�'. Pi �1� �t .f�� 1 . r :-ti. 4, C4r1 r. l9f�MIT ��•l �,k�� . . '"- � '. #xr,� • . . 4 ^� •.. T I - J. i{ n�1.Gf6^ ! P� MiDI�[Cyy�./{-{ ••� EAU- D outlaw • d It • �1StO11Ctt • �Nlem P.O. Box 865 incorporated Salem, MA 01970 Telephone: (978) 745-0799 July 26, 2006 BY HAND Mr.Walter Power Chairman,Planning Board City of Salem Salem,MA 01970 Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Board: This letter presents the issues that Historic Salem has identified to date with regard to the planned development at the St.Joseph's Church site. Historical Significance The St.Joseph's complex is important because of its association with Salem's cultural and religiobs history. The church building is also the only Salem example of what is known as the"International Style" and its interior is one of the few remaining monumental spaces in non-religious use in Salem. The report commissioned by the City of Salem's Planning Department states that the site is probably eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of the significance of the church and the Rectory. Subsequently, the Massachusetts Historic Commission commissioned a study by a qualified professional preservation consultant who also asserts that the complex is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Thus, the statement in the submission to the Planning Board that"The proposed development does not include any historic buildings,historic site or archeological site"is incorrect. In addition,others in the community have noted that the site may have has archeological artifacts of historical interest and/or importance. Economics of Re-Use As an historic preservation organization,Historic Salem strongly prefers to see the church building reused. The developer, the Archdiocese's Planning Office of Urban Affairs(POUA)has provided us with some of their analysis about the feasibility of reuse,but it is not enough,information for us to determine that it is economically infeasible to incorporate elements of their planned program into the church building. Opportunity to Significantly Improve Site Design and Building Fabric We believe that in light of the site's location on a pivotal gateway to the City, the potential demolition of a National Register eligible building, and the proximity to the Point neighborhood,currently the subject of an historic buildings survey, that the community should require that any new construction to be of excellent design and quality. As to the issue of integrating new development into the existing historic urban fabric, and specifically as to the current proposal, while we are pleased to see the rectory building being reused, we find that the proposed design for the site could be substantially improved. What is proposed is essentially one large Fax: (978) 744-4536 • Email: hsi@nii.net • Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/ .rl building with the remainder of the site taken up by parking to the very edge of the property. It is also not in scale with the Point neighborhood which surrounds it on three sides. Recommendations • Design We have suggested in several meetings with POUA that they reduce the height of the new building proposed to be built on the site and put smaller scale buildings around the edge of the site,perhaps townhouses. Lower rise buildings around the edge of the site would relate more to the immediate neighborhood and provide a visual shield for the large area of parking which will be primarily viewed from the Point neighborhood. We are also concerned with the precedent set by increasing the height of buildings beyond that allowed by zoning,particularly if such an increase is not offset by the highest level of urban contextual design. • Design Review Salem is faced with numerous challenges of how to handle proposed large complexes in our historic downtown,including the recently proposed development of the Salem Marketplace. These require that a great deal of thought and consideration be given to urban design issues. In response to these challenges,Historic Salem recently added as Potentially Endangered the sense of scale in Downtown Salem. We appreciate the amount of effort that POUA has invested in addressing other community needs, including in particular affordable housing and community space. However, we feel that the urban design issues of this site has not been adequately addressed and certainly deserves the same attention as the City is providing for other very large sites with such a significant impact on a neighborhood and on Salem's downtown. We urge the Planning Board to consider requiring modifications in the site and building design to be more complementary to the existing urban fabric. Historic Salem would be happy to work with the developer to make more specific recommendations for the project. We also recommend that the Planning Board consider seeking the counsel of the Design Review Board to the design of the site and building fabric. Sincerely, �A Barbara A. ClearyY\ Bar `\l\ President Mayor Kimberly Driscoll Lynn Duncan,City Planner Councillor Lucy Corchado Council President Jean Pelletier onna Vinson,Vice President, HSI Kimberly Alexander, Vice President,HSI ~� August 18,2006 Mr. Walter Power Ms.Nina Cohen Chair, Planning Board Chair,Zoning Board of Appeals City of Salem City of Salem Salem,MA 01970 Salem,MA 01970 Re: Proposed Development at St.Joseph's Site Dear Chairmen Power and Cohen: I will not be able to attend the upcoming meetings on the proposal for the St. Joseph's site,but wanted to convey my thoughts to you and to your fellow board members. The proposal is complex enough and the issues broad enough that I have taken the liberty of writing one letter, even though some issues or concerns pertain only to one Board's jurisdiction. Like others,I congratulate the developers and the City on the concepts that they have brought forward, and on the several buildings on the site that they propose for re-use. However,I believe there are significant issues of scale and unresolved questions around the proposed development at this site that make your jobs very;difficult. Like others, I also support the goals of more affordable housing for Salem and believe that that the community center idea is promising. However,I do not believe that the Planning Board has the information needed to be able to act on the community center proposal since users,uses,hours, and parking are not sufficiently defined. Similarly, site parking and area traffic problems have been identified with no clear solution, and there is no clear presentation of how the City will fund the community center. I believe that you are being asked to make decisions with too little information to be able to review,refine and approve a project that both meets the laudable 4.goals of the project and.is an excellent project for Salem. I urge both the Planning Board and the ZBA to work with the Planning Department to take the time you need to ensure that the project is the best that we can do for Salem. Whatever decisions are made here will be here for 50 years and will have a major impact on the Point, South Salem and on the downtown. Further, the proposal calls for demolition of a significant Salem landmark. At 2.4-2.6 acres and with its prominent location at the intersection of Salem's downtown,the Point and South Salem, I believe this site deserves the same consideration that has been given to the Market Place proposal. Having a unified review of the project in the same fashion as the Market Place proposal would seem particularly helpful. Instead, the current piece meal approach brings separate but related issues before each of Salem's boards in an effort to move the permitting process forward too quickly. St.Joseph's Church I believe that St. Joseph's Church should be re-used. I urge the Planning Board to take a much stronger look at this issue. Every time we have taken down a major landmark, like the Salem train station, we have deeply regretted it later. The church building proposed for destruction is National Register eligible and adjoins the National Register eligible Point Neighborhood. It requires a 106 review. A waiver for demolition delay is before the Historical Commission. I urge you to communicate with the Historical Commission to ensure that all the steps recommended by Historic Salem are taken before you take any action which will result in demolition of the church or that might nullify a 106 review process which will benefit the City and the project. The proposed replacement proposed, while brick, looks like many another building found anywhere in the US and provides no distinction or reflection of Salem's character while adding a mass which is out of scale with the neighborhood. 1 Density/Height These are critical issues for both the Planning and the Zoning Boards to address. In this R-3 neighborhood,under current zoning,only approximately 30 units are allowed. The proposal for this site is 97 units, which is far too dense. The result is: • A tall and massive new building that is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and will be highly visible throughout downtown Salem, dominating Salem's sky line to our detriment; • An enormous parking field which faces the Point neighborhood and appears to be quite inadequate for its intended uses; • No green space for the 60 children expected by the developer in the housing units; • Design issues of appearance,character, material and looming, out of scale character on the street; and • Significant traffic issues. Both the building and the intended density are out of scale for the surrounding neighborhood: • I recommend that,should the Planning Board decide to grant a PUD,you approve no more than 60 units. • I also recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve a height of the proposed new building of no more than 3 stories. These decisions will allow the scale of the new building and its height to be more compatible with the neighborhood-and will not create an unwanted precedent in the neighborhood of six story buildings. Such a reduction in density and height should also allow for green space, more appropriate parking for the housing and community center,less traffic impact and a building design more in keeping with Salem. I hope the Planning Board will take HSI's recommendation that townhouses be placed around the perimeter of the site on the neighborhood side to reduce the size of the new large building, to shield the neighborhood from the parking field,and so that the scale of the development facing the Point is more in keeping with the houses around it. I believe that there is no basis for the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance for height at this site since there is no hardship as defined by the ordinance. Further,granting a variance creates a dangerous precedent for South Salem and the Point. Site Plan and Design In addition to the issues already mentioned above,the building design could be Anywhere USA. It looks like Watertown, not Salem. I hope the Planning Board will seek the counsel of the Design Review Board(DRB) for the site plan and particularly the design of the proposed new building, as well as for specification of building materials. The parking plan is unrealistic and will have a very negative effect on the Point and on traffic into Salem from Lafayette Street. It will also have a negative impact on the desirability and usability of the community center for all of Salem. No traffic studies have been presented to date. Materials It is important, if either or both of the Boards act in the affirmative, that each Board specify building materials of high quality and in some detail so that no one is surprised by the resulting quality of the new building. This is particularly important given the height and prominence of the site itself and of the new building at the intersection of Salem's downtown, the Point and South Salem neighborhoods. 2 Questions regarding the PUD and Conditions for both the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals Given the uncertainty regarding financing for the community center, I question whether it is appropriate to grant a PUD at this time, since a PUD would not be allowed solely for the housing proposal. Since the basis for allowing a PUD is mixed use,I urge the Planning Board to make the granting of a PUD conditional on securing financing for both the developer's project and the City's community center, as well as City Council approval, and to place whatever other restrictions might be appropriate so that the site is not permitted and then"flipped" in the event the project or the community center are not funded. I urge the Zoning Board to put similar conditions on any approval you may grant. I am especially concerned that if a 6 story building is allowed on this site,it will establish an unwanted precedent which will be destructive of the fabric of the area and neighborhoods that adjoin this site. Summary This is a very difficult project for the Planning and Zoning Boards to act on given the unresolved issues. I hope you will take your time and consider ways in which this project can be improved before any approvals are granted. Unresolved issues identified to date include: • Re-use of the St.Joseph's building in the new project • Destruction of a Salem landmark; ensuring a timely 106 review for St.Joseph's Church • Mitigation for loss of this historic property, should it be lost • Height and density • Inadequate parking • Traffic issues with no plan to resolve those concerns • Green space on the site for the residents and their children • Mass and quality of design and materials to ensure they are compatible with Salem and the surrounding area and neighborhood. • Impact of a project of this magnitude on Salem in such a prominent, geographically high and crucial location in Salem I hope that you can find a way to give the same kind of thought and review to this large project that has been given to the Market Place project before it even has come before Salem's boards. Certainly I hope you will draw on the principals established in the Market Place study for design. In addition to seeking DRB review, the Planning Board may wish to consider hiring a consultant,as the City did for the Market Place proposal, to assist you in your review process. There is a great opportunity here to do a project that will benefit Salem—and an equal opportunity to allow one that will instead be damaging for years to come. Sincerely, Meg Twohey Cc: 122 Federal Street Mayor Kimberly Driscoll Salem,MA 01970 City Planner Lynn Duncan Salem City Councillors Chair,Salem Historical Commission President, Historic Salem, Inc. 3 ffgDel I brook CONSTRUCTION One Adams Place,859 Willard Street,Quincy,MA 02169 www.dellbrook.com Stott MacLeod Sr.Project Manager M:781.380.1675 C:617.828.2630 D:781.380.1646 F:781.380.1676 E:smacleodddellbrook.com ST. JOSEPH'S REDEVELOPMENT DVD-R 16x `. ation = 4.7G8, 2 hr w AS-BUILT {