60 BOSTON STREET - ZBA r
60 BOSTON STREET
Y
v )
J
Legal Notice I
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
745-9595,Ext.381
Will hold a public hearing for all
Persons interested in the petition sub- f
mittedby KENNEDY DEVELOP- y
MENT GROUP, INC. requesting on '
Lot A, Variance for use and�dimen.
sional requirements in a buffer zone in
a BPD district.Lot B, Variance from
relief on buffer zone requirements for r ,
the property located at 44-60 BOSTON r
STREET (BPD). Said hearing to be
held WEDNESDAY,NOVEMBER 18, 1
1998 AT 6:30 P.M., ONE SALEM
GREEN,2nd floor.
Nina Cohen,Chairman
(11/4,11)
,,��77 O SALEM. to
(f itv of �ttlem, tt85ttL}juSP f$ Enh S DFFICE
i
Q Pnurb of �u eal
1998 OEC -1 P 2: 4-
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET
A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1998 and continued to
December 2, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen,
Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearine
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with V
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting on Lot A, Variance for use and dimensional
requirements in a buffer zone in a BPD district, Lot B, Variance from
relief on buffer zone requirements for the property located at 44-60
Boston Street.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the oetitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . Petitioner has an agreement to purchase a site at 60 Boston Street
consisting of 3. 2 acres of undeveloped land formerly used by Osram
Sylvania in association with their electric light business. This
site is zoned for Business Park Development (BPD) under the Citv of
Salem Zoning Map.
2 . Petitioner, who was represented by Joseph Correnti, Esq . , of Serafini,
Serafini & Darling. sought three variances from the zoning ordinance.
The most highly contested variance was the request to develop a retail
drugstore on a 1 .81 acre lot at the southeast edge of the site, with
frontage on Boston St. and Bridge St. Petitioner also sought variances
to enable the proposed drugstore and a second proposed structure, a 3
story office building, to be built fifty feet from the rear orouerty
line, which is within a mandated 75 foot buffer zone.
3. Petitioner met with the Federal Street Neighborhood Association on or
about October 13, 1998. At that meeting, following a presentation on
petitioner's proposal , the neighborhood association elected to oppose
the application.
4
�F DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET
nage two
4. The Zoning Board of Appeals heard arguments on Kennedy Development's
petition at its regular meetine on November 18; 1995. At that meeting
the Board requested additional information regarding the issue of the
traffic impact of the drugstore on traffic flow on Boston and Bridge
St. Petitioner agreed to continue the hearing on the oetition in order
to present an analvsis of traffic impact, and a second hearing the Board
was scheduled for December 2, 1998 .
5. At the December 2; 1998 hearing; Bruce Campbell of Transportation
Engineers & Planners, oresented an analvsis of the Dr000sed
develooment's traffic imoact. The architect presented rendering of the
Dr000sed structures; including elevation drawings. The developer, Tom
Kennedv, was also present.
6. With respect to the legal issues; petitioner argued that the existence
of a retail zone on the southern side of the property (across Boston St)
and of a residential zone on the property line to the southeast creates
a situation that would make literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance
a hardship . The Board made no finding on the issue.
7. Vigorous 0000sition accompanied both oresentation before the Board. The
Board heard critical comment from more that 45 Salem residents;
including 3 members of the City Council (Two City Councillors; Regina
Flvnn and Scott McLaughlin were stronely opposed; Joan Lovely, explained
that due to a conflict she was unable to take a oosition) .
8. Residents voiced concern about the impact of the Dronosed retail use
of traffic flow through the intersection of Boston and Bridge Sts.
(which is currently rated at a Level of Service F, according to Mr.
Campbell ; the traffic expert) ; the impact of additional soill-over
traffic on adiacent street; including Federal St. , the failure to
explore alternate sites; the impact on property values within the
historic district adjacent to the site. the impact of a low-end use uoon
a site that is in the entrance corridor to the City of Salem, the
failure to adhere to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance; the failure
to adhere to the Citv of Salem Master Plan; the imoact of the Dr000sed
development upon planned state-funded imorovements to the Bridge Street
corridor; the presence of several other drugstores; including a planned
Walereen 's across Boston Street. the absence of demand for additional
such stores; and the precedential value of "soot zoning" .
9. The Board also received a oetition in opposition to the Dr000sed
development; signed by 25 Salem residents .
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearings; the Board of Appeal concludes as follows :
1 . Special conditions exist which esoecially affect the subiect orooerty
and not the district in general.
2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zonine Ordinance would
involve substation hardship to the Detitioner.
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to
public eood and without nullifvine and substantially derogatine from
the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance.
. c
a r
M z
n u,
J O r
T�
N CT-'-
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET
page three
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 to grant
the variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances,
codes and regulations.
2 . All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
3 . All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any Citv Board of Commission
having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board
6 . A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
7. Applications for building permits on Lot A and Lot B shall be Dulled
simultaneouslv.
8 . Hours of operation for drug store use shall be Mondav thru Saturday
8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 D.m.
Variance Granted
December 2, 1998 /J� � CSC
Nina Cohen, Chairman
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Aooeal 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 after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the Cit_v
Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11 , the
Variance or Soecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification 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 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.
Board of Appeal r'
r"1
O
n Cn
-3O r"
T S
N y
- I
t _
1
PEARL, MCNIFF, CREAN, COOK & SHEEHAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
30 MAIN STREET
SAMUEL PEARL PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960-5597 JOHN A. FALLON•
(1907-1995)
DONALD L. CONNf
OLIVER T.COOK PEABODY (978) 531-1710
WILLIAM H. SHEEHAN III, PC BOSTON IS 17) 720-3456 OF COUNSEL
LAMAS C. REGAN7, FAX (978) 531-4895 JOHN A. MCNIFF
AT:0 EL T. SMEA9NSKI' PC JOHN M. CREAN
'�LLJ ARTHUR J. FRAWLEY, JR.
U fV
LLaovlDn Env
nLEo ABMTTTEB.D
f4LEO ADMITTED TO MAINE BAP
N
December 23 , 1998
Salem City Clerk
Salem City Hall 98 "t
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Lt
Re: Connelly et al v. Buczko et al
Essex Superior Court Civil Action No.
Dear Sir or Madam:
Pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, section 17, you are hereby notified
of the above-said action. A copy of the complaint is attached
hereto.
Since
'/B y yA ,
'�
Wil is ' FI." Sheehan, III
WHS/mt
Enclosure
HAND DELIVERED
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, ss. Superior Court Department
Essex County Division
Civil Action No.
Brian M. Connelly, Phyllis M. ) 98 2424
Connelly, Brenda A. Connelly, ) rr
Paul S. Konstadt and ) �
Marin L. Fine, )
Plaintiffs, )
V. )
Stephen C. Buczko, )
Nina V. Cohen, Richard E. )
Dionne, Stephen R. Harris, )
Ronald B. Harrison, Paul )
Valaskatgis, and Michael D. )
Ward, )
as they are Members of the )
Salem Zoning Board of Appeal, )
and Kennedy Development )
Group, Inc. , )
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
1. This complaint constitutes an appeal pursuant to
General Laws c. 40A, section 17 from a grant by the defendants
members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal (hereafter "Board")
of three variances to the defendant Kennedy Development Group,
Inc. (hereafter "Kennedy") .
2 . The plaintiffs Brian M. Connelly and Phyllis M.
Connelly own and reside at 188 Federal Street, Salem, MA; the
plaintiff Brenda A. Connelly owns and resides at 180A Federal
Street, Salem, MA; and the plaintiffs Paul S. Konstadt and Marin
L. Fine own and reside at 178 Federal Street, Salem, MA.
3 . The defendants members and associate members of the
Board are as follows:
Stephen C. Buczko 27 Surrey Rd. , Salem, MA 01970
Nina V. Cohen 22 Chestnut St. , Salem, MA 01970
Richard E. Dionne 23 Gardner St. , Salem, MA 01970
Stephen R. Harris 30 Boardman St. , Salem, MA 01970
Ronald B. Harrison 450 Lafayette St. , Salem, MA 01970
Paul Valaskatgis 24 - Gables Cr. , Salem, MA 01970
Michael D. Ward 4 Hilton St. , Salem, MA 01970
4 . The defendant Kennedy Development Group, Inc. has a
usual place of business at 500 Broadway, Everett, MA.
5. The plaintiffs Connellys are abutters to a parcel of
land located at 60 Boston Street, Salem, MA (hereafter the
"subject parcel") and the plaintiffs Konstadt and Fine are
abutters to abutters to the subject parcel. The plaintiffs are
persons aggrieved within the meaning of G.L. c. 40A.
6. By decision dated December 2 , 1998, and filed with the
Salem City Clerk on December 7, 1998 , the Board granted variances
to Kennedy for the subject parcel as follows: (1) as to so-
called Lot A of the subject parcel, a variance to permit a retail
use (drug store) which is not permitted in the Business Park
Development District in which the subject parcel is located; (2)
a variance to reduce the rear buffer area on said Lot A; and (3)
a variance to reduce the rear buffer area on so-called Lot B of
the subject parcel. A certified copy of that decision of the
Board is attached hereto and marked "A. "
7 . A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would not
involve a substantial hardship to the defendant Kennedy.
2
8 . There are no circumstances relating to the soil
conditions, shape or topography of the subject parcel and
especially affecting said parcel but not affecting generally the
zoning district in which the subject parcel is located which
warrant the grant of the said variances.
9 . The defendant Kennedy is able to develop the subject
parcel without any variance from the zoning ordinance, albeit in
a manner different from that proposed by the defendant Kennedy.
10. Any hardship allegedly suffered by the defendant
Kennedy is of its own making and cannot support lawfully the
grant of the variances by the Board.
11. The relief granted by the variances issued by the Board
may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
12 . The defendant Kennedy presented to the Board
insufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of variances for
the subject parcel.
13 . The Board failed to make the necessary factual findings
to support the issuance of variances for the subject parcel.
14 . The decision of the Board granting the variances
exceeds the authority of said Board and is contrary to law.
15 . The decision of the Board is a mere recitation of the
statutory and ordinance standards and is deficient as a matter of
law.
3
16. The decision of the Board is inherently contradictory
and is deficient as a matter of law.
Wherefore the plaintiffs pray as follows:
1. That the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal granting
variances for the subject parcel be annulled;
2 . For legal fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs;
and
3 . For such other relief as this Honorable Court deems
meet and just.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian M. Connelly, et al
Plaintiffs
By their Attorney,
i
Will am an, III
BBO 457060
Pearl, McNiff, Crean,
Cook & Sheehan
30 Main Street
Peabody, MA 01960
(978) 531-1710
Dated: December 23 , 1998
4
CITY10F SA. IEM. A
aity of ntem, ffln55adjuSeffiB li,^
r
>4... Pottrb of 4pezd
1998 DEC -1 P2: 4l
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET
A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1998 and continued to
December 2, 1998 with the following Board members present: Nina Cohen,
Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice
of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearine
were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with V
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting on Lot A, Variance for use and dimensional
reouirements in a buffer zone in a BPD district, Lot B, Variance from
relief on buffer zone requirements for the property located at 44-60
Boston Street.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this
board that:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the
land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting
other land, buildings, or structures in the same district.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at
the hearing, makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner has an agreement to purchase a site at 60 Boston Street
consisting of 3.2 acres of undeveloped land formerly used by Osram
Sylvania in association with their electric light business. This
site is zoned for Business Park Development (BPD) under the City of
Salem Zoning Map.
2. Petitioner, who was represented by Joseph Correnti, Esq. , of Serafini,
Serafini S Darling. sought three variances from the zoning ordinance.
The most highly contested variance was the request to develop a retail
drugstore on a 1.81 acre lot at the southeast edge of the site, with
frontage on Boston St. and Bridge St. Petitioner also sought variances
to enable the proposed drugstore and a second proposed structure, a 3
story office building, to be built fifty feet from the rear property
line, which is within a mandated 75 foot buffer zone.
3. Petitioner met with the Federal Street Neighborhood Association on or
about October 13, 1998. At that meeting, following a presentation on
petitioner's proposal, the neighborhood association elected to oppose
the application.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET
page two
4. The Zoning Board of Appeals heard arguments on Kennedy Development's
petition at its regular meeting on November 18, 1998. At that meeting
the Board requested additional information regarding the issue of the
traffic impact of the drugstore on traffic flow on Boston and Bridge
St. Petitioner agreed to continue the hearing on the petition in order
to present an analysis of traffic impact, and a second hearing the Board
was scheduled for December 2, 1998.
5. At the December 2, 1998 hearing, Bruce Campbell of Transportation
Engineers & Planners, presented an analysis of the proposed
development's traffic impact. The architect presented rendering of the
proposed structures, including elevation drawings. The developer, Tom
Kennedy, was also present.
6. With respect to the legal issues, petitioner argued that the existence
of a retail zone on the southern side of the property (across Boston Stl
and of a residential zone on the property line to the southeast creates
a situation that would make literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance
a hardship. The Board made no finding on the issue.
7. Vigorous opposition accompanied both presentation before the Board. The
Board heard critical comment from more that 45 Salem residents,
including 3 members of the City Council (Two City Councillors, Regina
Flynn and Scott McLaughlin were strongly opposed, Joan Lovely, explained
that due to a conflict she was unable to take a position) .
8. Residents voiced concern about the impact of the proposed retail use
of traffic flow through the intersection of Boston and Bridge Sts.
(which is currently rated at a Level of Service F, according to Mr.
Campbell, the traffic expert) , the impact of additional spill-over
traffic on adjacent street, including Federal St. , the failure to
explore alternate sites, the impact on property values within the
historic district adjacent to the site, the impact of a low-end use upon
a site that is in the entrance corridor to the City of Salem, the
failure to adhere to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, the failure
to adhere to the City of Salem Master Plan, the impact of the proposed
development upon planned state-funded improvements to the Bridge Street
corridor, the presence of several other drugstores, including a planned
Walgreen's across Boston Street, the absence of demand for additional
such stores, and the precedential value of "spot zoning".
9. The Board also received a petition in opposition to the proposed
development, signed by 25 Salem residents.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subiect property
and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the Drovisions of the Zoning Ordinance would
involve substation hardship to the petitioner.
3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to
public good and without nullifying and substantially derogating from
the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. - v
M
Om �i U
J CD D
T O r-
V
T S
N n
m 3
� D
- -- a.vui.,v.r ncivr unuur nc%�uaniinu n
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET
page three
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented
at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 to grant
the variance requested, subject to the following conditions:
I. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances.
codes and regulations.
2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions
submitted.
3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and
fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
5. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission
having iurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board
6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained.
7. Applications for building permits on Lot A and Lot B shall be Dulled
simultaneouslv.
8. Hours of operation for drug store use shall be Monday thru Saturday
8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Variance Granted Cs-Ch)
December 2, 1998
Nina Cohen, Chairman
Board of Appeal
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 after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the Citv
Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section ll,• the
Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certification 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 is recorded in the South
Essex Reeistry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record
or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
c-
r�
A THE COPY ATTEST o M,T
�Cn
IT$ eRK -0 „n
SALEM, MASS. -'
In.
.• my
� D
J
October 23, 1998
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear sirs/mesdames:
On behalf of the Federal Street Neighborhood, we wish to advise you of our position
relative to the Osram site at the corner of Bridge and Boston Streets, which we
understand is expected to come before you soon for a variance request.
The Federal Street Neighborhood Association voted on October 13, 1998 to oppose the
application for a variance to permit a change of use from Business Park Development to
retail.
This vote was taken after considerable discussions and presentations to abutters and
neighbors by Serafini, Serafh &Darling on behalf of Kennedy Development and Osco
Drug.
As neighbors and abutters to this property, we respectfully request that you take our views
into consideration in making a decision regar ing the Osram site.
For
the
Federal Street Neighborhood
Betsy BurAs Meg T o y
22 Beckford Street 122 Fe Street
Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
745-1896 " 744-6702
cc: Regina Flynn
Darrow A. Lebovici
122 Federal Street
Salem,Massachusetts 01970
November 16, 1998
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem,MA 01970
Gentlemen and Mesdames:
I am writing to record my opposition to the proposal by Kennedy Development to build an Osco drugstore
on the Osram/GTE Sylvania property at the corner of Bridge and Boston Streets. I urge you to reject this
ill-advised and inappropriate request for a variance to our zoning ordinance:
• Retail use will create enormous traffic problems on Boston,Bridge and throughout the
neighborhoods adjacent to the Osram site. This traffic will add to the increased traffic that
will be generated by the Walgreen's drugstore already approved across the street.
• Retail use will not produce the tax benefit claimed for it. If we really want to increase the
tax base,we should preserve the Business Park Development zoning in place and attract
high value businesses which will restore good, high paying jobs to Salem. Most of the value
claimed for the site would come from the office building-a permitted use-not from the
Osco drug store. The Osco property would need an assessment at least five to ten times the
assessment of nearby CVS and Walgreen sites to justify the tax revenues claimed by the
Mayor
• Even if the alleged tax value were realized somehow and not negotiated away through a TIF,
the taxes would be offset by reduced property values in adjacent residential districts and the
loss of tax revenues from existing businesses downtown and on Highland Avenue.
• There is plenty of empty retail space in Salem If we want to create more,we should do so
through the proper process which requires approval of the City Council. This proposal is
spot zoning at its worst,promoted by a Mayor who promised during his campaign to oppose
retail use of the site.
• If allowed,the downgraded retail usage would establish a precedent for retail use of other
properties in the area also zoned for Business Park Development-all along Bridge and
Mason Streets. This is the first step towards turning Bridge Street into Highland Avenue
and Salem into another Lynn.
• There is no validity to Kennedy's hardship claims. They don't own the site and their option
(which has expired)was acquired knowing that the site zoning precluded retail use.
Salem is at a crossroads. After two decades of economic decline,we can encourage orderly development
which will preserve the the values which attracted and keep many of us here or we can endorse any
proposal regardless of its adverse effects on our neighborhoods and the City as a whole.
I urge you in the strongest possible way to deny the variance appeal by Kennedy Development and to
support the Salem Master Plan and our zoning ordinance.
Sincerely yours,
cc: City Council members
Mayor Stanley Usovicz
November 17, 1998,
Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Salem
1 Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Members,
We the undersigned members of the Ward 4 Gallows Hill Community Group strongly
oppose any zoning change to allow retail use of the land at 60 Boston Street (the Osram
lot). This site is an entranceway to our city and an appropriate development should be
sought.
Any retail use of this land would not be in the best interest of the city of Salem having a
negative impact on the traffic on Boston, Bridge and Essex Streets and will make it
difficult for both residents and visitors to use these roadways.
The city has adequate retail zoning to accommodate the proposed development. It is not
an appropriate use of this site. This variance should not be granted and the site should
remain a Business Park Development zone.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Na e Address
,/ o
r
5T
i22; W
L-FSL`teL ittama 5 N-F (�
10 Pkaot 9f -
��d-
TENANTS' RESOURCES
tenant) are less than the amount owed to the landlord The Self-Help Guide in the Community Service pages t
(e.g.,back rent),the tenant has?days to paythe balance, local telephone directory lists a number of area orgeni:
with interest'and court costs, and thusavoid eviction which provide assistance to tenants (e.g.. boards of
(M.G.L., c. 239, §8A). ` legal aid services, consumer and tenant groups). Tele
numbers for local housing authorities,rent control boar,
The Eviction: When the date on the execution order district courts are listed in the blue pages of your phone
arrives, you must,move out.The landlord is not required Housing Discrimination:
to give you any further notice oncetheeviction order has Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
been executed. It is best to move out your own furniture. One Ashburton Place, 6th Floor
If you do not, the sheriff or constable will forceably move Boston, MA 02108
you out and place your possessions in storage. (617) 727-3990
You should make a list of the stored items and any Boston Fair Housing Commission
identifying marks. Your furniture cannot be put on the City Hall, Room 966
street unless you give permission.Though not stated by Boston. MA 02201
law, usual practice holds that you will be responsible for (617) 635-4408
(Boston Residents only)
the cost of storage after the first three months. Your
former landlord may also sue you for the cost of eviction Complaints against Real Estate Ager WSalespersons:
(e.g., 3 months storage, constable and moving fees). If Division of Registration
you do not get your furniture out of storage within six Investigative Unit
months, the person storing it has the right to sell it. 100 Cambridge Street, 15th Floor
However, you do not have to pay back rent to get your Boston, MA 02202
furniture out. (617) 727-7406
Lead Paint Removal:
Department of Public Health
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
State Laboratory
305 South Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
(617) 522.3700
Toll Free: (800) 532-9571
Housing Courts:
Boston Housing Court
Suffolk County New Court House, 10th Floor
Government Center
Boston, AGA 02108
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION: State law requires that (617) 725-8495
an owner who is converting rental units to condominiums (617) 742-5822 (Emergencies, Nights, Sundays,Holidays,
or cooperatives must give tenants a notice to vacate of Hampden County Housing Court
one full year oruntil the expiration ofthe lease,whichever 37 Elm Street
is longer. If the tenant is elderly (62 and older), Springfield, MA 01103 +
handicapped, or low/moderate income, the tenant must (413) 748-7838
be given two years to vacate the apartment. The notice Worcester County Housing Court
of condominium conversion must be sent certified or Worcester County Court House
registered mail, return-receipt requested. 2 Main Street. Room 101
Worcester, MA 01608
During this time period, rent cannot be raised by more (508) 792-0800
than 10% or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is
lower. The owner is required to pay up to$750 per rental Face-to-which
Face Mediation in the S f-He/p Gudeact in the conn
group which is listed in the Se!/-Help Guide in the telep�:
unit for relocation expenses;$1000 per unit if the tenants directory or call the Attorney General's Consumer Hotlir
are elderly, handicapped, or low/moderate income. The 727-8400 — which can also direct you to a program in
owner must also assist elderly, handicapped, or low/ area.
moderate income tenants to find comparable housing in Housing Services Program: The Housing Services Prot
the same city Or town. provides tenant and landlord mediation,tenant counseling
Each ;enan; must be given the opportunity to purchase the information to low-to-moderate income tenants and landlf
unit s,he occupies. The conditions of the purchase must be To find out which community agency covers your city or t
equal .o or better than those offered to the public. contact the Executive Office of Communities and Developf
Massa-chusetts cities and towns have the right to modify at (617) 727-7127
General.Landlord and Tenant Questions:
state condominium laws.
Note :or ;hose communities that were former) subject to Office h Consumer Affairs
Y I One Ashburton Place, Room 1411
rent cor„rl (e.g. Boston, Brookline and Cambridge), ten- Boston, MA 02108
ants s;-,cull check with their city or town for more informa- (617) 727.7780
tion --. ':c.=_, laws that impact condominium rnnvorc;nr, E-mail: ask®consumeccom
I
November 13, 1998
To Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
From: The Federal Street Neighborhood Association
Re: Osco Drug Proposal for OsramfSylvama. site
Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Scheduled for November 18, 1998
at 6:30 p.m.
Osram Sylvania is the owner of this site. Kennedy Development,represented by Serafini,
Serafini, and Darling, has proposed the construction of a one-story,drive-through OSCO
Drug Store with 65 parking spaces at the corner of Boston and Bridge Streets and an
adjacent 24,000 square feet four-story commercial building with 75 parking spaces,the
parcel to be subdivided. The City Administration favors this proposal primarily because
they have estimated that the approximately $7,000,000 development will generate
$250,000 annually in tax revenue. The proponents are asking for the following variances.
(1) a variance to allow retail development, a non-permitted use, in a Business Park
Development District
(2) a variance from the set back requirements in the rear property line
We are opposing the first variance for a chang of use on this site. Zoning is
very important to control the location of uses in the Cit:;, and a change of use should only
be granted if the development has a clear benefit. We think that this proposal has a more
detrimental effect than other uses that are allowed on the site, and that the variance request
should be denied. The uses which are allowed on this site which is in a Business Park
Development District, are described on the following page.
Retail use will create more traffic problems than a commercial use,especially because
of cars constantly entering and exiting the site.
• Retail use will generate more traffic for more hours of every day than a commercial use.
• A new drive-through Walgreens directly across the street at the bottom of Gallows Hill
has already been approved. It is estimated that each drive-through drug store generates
between 800 and 2,000 cars per day. Traffic is already a problem for residents, and
access to the City is already a problem for businesses. This additional traffic poses the
significant threat of tying up one of Salem's most important intersections and entrance
corridor.
• / Should either one of these drugstores fail, Salem will be left with a retail use at these
sites forever, with no way to control the type or quality of the retail use.
• Retail will require more lighting at night and for longer periods of time than other uses
allowed in a Business Park Development District, further impacting the adjacent
McIntyre Historic District.
• Retail uses are already adequately accommodated by Salem's zoning code,including
Highland Avenue, Downtown, and Pickering Wharf, all of which have available retail
space; there is no need to create new additional retail space in the City.
• Allowing a change of use to retail amounts to spot zoning, and sets a precedent for
allowing similar variances the length of Bridge Street, which could turn Bridge Street
into another Highland Avenue or Route 114.
• This development will have a negative effect on nearby residential property values and
create a poor entrance corridor into our downtown. '
• The estimates of an increase in tax revenue cannot be accurately estimated as it needs to
be compared to the tax revenue generated by an allowed use and to take into account the
negative impact of the development.
• A variance,.particularly one for a change of use, should not be granted to increase tax
revenues. If it were,then any variance requested by a commercial interest would have
to be granted.
• If the City wants to change the type of use allowed in the Business Park Development
District, or if it is concerned about the types of uses allowed in this District,then it
should follow the appropriate procedures to change City zoning, which includes
approval by the City Council.
Section 5-2(i) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance
This section of the zoning code describes the types of uses that are permitted in a Business Park
Development District, which is the zoning for the Osram/Sylvania site.
(i) Business Park Development Districts. The following are permitted uses in the Business Park
Development Districts:
(1)General office buildings including business and professional offices and ancillary activities(i.e.,
cafeteria facilities).
(2)General storage,warehousing and wholesale distribution uses.
(3)Manufacturing,packaging,assembly,reconditioning,processing,research and testing of the
following types of industries:pharmaceuticals and other related products,food and kindred products,
apparel,electronic and electrical products,furniture and fixtures,primary and fabricated metal
products,box manufacturing,textile manufacturing, frozen food storage,ice manufacturing,
including the storage of new materials and containers used in or incidental to any of the foregoing.
Provided that such operations:
a.Are not specifically prohibited from the City of Salem according to the schedule of
prohibited uses in section 5-3(h)(3)herein.
b. Are not dangerous by reason of hazard from fire or explosion.
c.Are not offensive,detrimental,injurious,noxious or hazardous by reason of causing
dust,smoke,odor, fumes,radiation,groundwater discharge,noise,vibration,traffic
congestion or other nuisance.
d.Are compatible with adjacent nonindustrial uses.
(4)Laboratories or research facilities,including medical and other research,provided manufacturing is clearly
incidental to the operation of the facility,does not exceed fifty(50)percent of the gross floor area of the
building and is not offensive,injurious,noxious,detrimental or hazardous by reason of dust,smoke,odor,
fumes,noise,radiation,groundwater discharge,traffic congestion or other nuisances.
(5)Assembly or packaging of articles not exceeding two hundred(200)pounds in weight,provided that no
manufacturing or processing is carried out.
(6)Fobd and beverage manufacturing,bottling or processing or commissary.
f, I
November 18, 1998
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Board Members:
On behalf of the Federal Street Neighborhood, we have attached a summary of the issues
we see regarding the granting of a variance for retail use at the Osram site. This summary
was prepared by a group of neighbors on behalf of the neighborhood.
We ask that you do not grant the variance requested for Retail use for the reasons
enumerated. Thank you for your consideration.
For the Federal Street Neighborhood
Betsy Burns Meg Twohey
Co-Chair Co-Chair
22 Beckford St. 122 Federal St.
Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
745-1896 744-6702
192 Federal Street
Salem, Ma. 01970
October 20, 1998
Planning Board
One Salem Green
Salem, Ma. 01970
To the Members of the Planning Board:
Please be advised that we, as abutters, object to the granting of a variance for a
change of use from Business Park Development to Retail for the Osram Sylvania
property located at the comer of Bridge and Boston Streets.
We have serious reservations about the impact of an Osco Drug or similar retail
business operating on the property. Among our concern are increased traffic
(including large delivery trucks) in an already congested area, increased noise
levels in a residential neighborhood, the negative impact on property values, and
the general inappropriateness of retail development on land adjacent to the
Historic District. High end use of the property, such as an office building or a
school would certainly provide a better aftemative.
Salem is a wonderful city and we are confident that we can work together to
ensure that this property is developed in a manner that would benefit the'city and
the residents of this community.
sins
Rita Markunas
Barbara Schauer
cc: Mayor Stanley tlsovicz
October 23, 1998
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear sirs/mesdames:
On behalf of the Federal Street Neighborhood, we wish to advise you of our position
relative to the Osram site at the corner of Bridge and Boston Streets, which we
understand is expected to come before you soon for a variance request.
The Federal Street Neighborhood Association voted on October 13, 1998 to oppose the
application for a variance to permit a change of use from Business Park Development to
retail.
This vote was taken after considerable discussions and presentations to abutters and
neighbors by Serafini, Serafini & Darling on behalf of Kennedy Development and Osco
Drug.
As neighbors and abutters to this property, we respectfully request that you take our views
into consideration in making a decision regard\g the Osram site.
For theh Federal Street Neighborhood
Betsy BuAs M4TY22 Beckford Street 12treet
Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
745-1896 744-6702
cc: Regina Flynn
November 17, 1998,
Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Salem
1 Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Zoning Board of Appeals Members,
We the undersigned members of the Ward 4 Gallows Hill Community Group strongly
oppose any zoning change to allow retail use of the land at 60 Boston Street(the Osram
lot). This site is an entranceway to our city and an appropriate development should be
sought.
Any retail use of this land would not be in the best interest of the city of Salem having a
negative impact on the traffic on Boston,Bridge and Essex Streets and will make it
difficult for both residents and visitors to use these roadways.
The city has adequate retail zoning to accommodate the proposed development. It is not
an appropriate use of this site. This variance should not be granted and the site should
remain a Business Park Development zone.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Name Address
✓ O
November 15, 1998
r.
Salem Zoning Board
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed building of an Osco drugstore at the
former Osram/Sylvania site on the comer of Bridge and Boston streets. As a resident of Salem
and the adjoining historic district, I firmly believe that granting a variance to allow a drugstore on
the site would diminish the value of my home, my neighborhood and Salem.
Some specific issues that I feel argue against the proposed variance include:
1. The site is an entry point into our city and should make a statement about the quality
and heritage of our city. A drug store does not do the site justice.
2. This variance sets the precedent for spot zoning along Bridge Street and the further
expansion of retail use. How is this justified in light of the development along
Highland Avenue or Route 114? Is Bridge Street to become another Highland
Avenue, another 114? The thought of such retail development in the backyard of one
of Salem'sneighborhood jewels is an insult to the concept of the entire McIntyre
Historic District.
3. I do not for one minute believe that the proposed development will increase our tax
base. Any increased caused by the retail development would be offset by the lower t
property values in the historic district. The traffic, noise and lighting are all major
negatives that will negatively impact the value of my neighborhood.
What I also find perplexing is that the proposed retail variance is a major set back to the Salem
master plan. If we do not adhere to the plan, what is its purpose?
I have great pride in Salem, my neighborhood and my home and consider the proposed variance a
threat to them all. I strongly encourage you to reject the proposed variance.
Sincerely,
34ff+e a-- 111 6pvdkW,
November 17, 1998
Ms. Nina Cohen, Chairman
Salem Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Proposed Osco Drug Store, corner of Boston and Bridge Streets
Dear Ms. Cohen:
I am writing to express my concern over locating an Osco Drug store at the corner
of Boston and Bridge Streets. We have well-established retail corridors along
Highland Avenue, Canal St., and at Vinnin Square. We also have empty retail space
both downtown and along Highland Avenue. These are the places to encourage
further retail development.
The proposed location is a relatively large parcel for Salem and it merits a more
significant use. Also, it is a difficult intersection for the number of cars that would
be entering and exiting a drugstore parking lot. As we already funnel a tremendous
amount of tourist and local traffic from Route 128 to this intersection, we needn't
further strain this corner with competing retail traffic.
If Walgreen's goes in across the street, that store will more than adequately serve
our pharmaceutical needs at this location. The proposed 24,000 s.f. four-story
commercial building included in the Kennedy Development Group's proposal
would better suit this site on its own without the Osco Drug.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Axt_J�
Andrew Knapp
23 Linden St.
Salem
November 18,1998
To Zoning Board of Appeals
Re Variance request for Development plans on Osram/Sylvania Site
Please be advised of our strong opposition to the granting of a variance requested by Developers of the
Osram/Sylvania site.
To allow retail development in the Business Park Development District will present a very detrimental impact on our
neighborhood and Salem itself.
Some of our concerns are:
Increase traffic, noise and lighting will negatively impact immediate neighborhoods.
Retail change will negatively affect nearby residential property value.
Retail plans will create a poor entrance corridor to our city.
Salem has adequate available retail space, (Highland Ave., Downtown, Pickering Whart) and should not create
more.
An already approved new Walgreens directly across street.
Should the drug store fail, we will have yet another retail space with no control over type or quality.
In the best interest of Salem and the McIntyre Historical District we urge you to deny anf variance request.
hanL. m
dil
i y Bso
155 Federal St. 155 F I St.
November 17, 1998
To: The Salem Board of Appeals
Fr: JP Lenney
121 Federal St.
Salem, MA
I write to you to express my opposition to the proposed variance on the
zoning of the Osram site from Business Park Development to Retail. This is
a dramatic change in use that will have a negative impact on the adjacent
residential. area. This is already a high-traffic and congested area. Retail use
will cause an increase in traffic, noise, and lighting, and it will have a
negative impact on residential property values.
While I am a strong proponent of business development in Salem it should
occur through planning and proper zoning. Variances to a master plan
results in "spot' zoning and a lack of execution of thoughtful planning and
development.
I respectfully urge you to turn down the requested variances for retail use
and additional parking for the Osram-Sylvania site.
Thank You.
November 15, 1998
Salem Zoning Board
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
To Whom It May Concern:
1 am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed building of an Osco drugstore at the
former Osram/Sylvania site on the corner of Bridge and Boston streets. As a resident of Salem
and the adjoining historic district, I firmly believe that granting a variance to allow a drugstore on
the site would diminish the value of my home, my neighborhood and Salem.
Some specific issues that I feel argue against the proposed variance include:
I. The site is an entry point into our city and should make a statement about the quality
and heritage of our city. A drug store does not do the site justice.
2. This variance sets the precedent for spot zoning along Bridge Street and the further
expansion of retail use. How is this justified in light of the development along
Highland Avenue or Route 114? Is Bridge Street to become another Highland
Avenue, another 114? The thought of such retail development in the backyard of one
of Salem's neighborhood jewels is an insult to the concept of the entire McIntyre
Historic District.
3. I do not for one minute believe that the proposed development will increase our tax
base. Any increased caused by the retail development would be offset by the lower
property values in the historic district. The traffic,noise and lighting are all major
negatives that will negatively impact the value of my neighborhood.
What I also find perplexing is that the proposed retail variance is a major set back to the Salem
master plan. If we do not adhere to the plan, what is its purpose?
I have great pride in Salem, my neighborhood and my home and consider the proposed variance a
threat to them all. I strongly encourage you to reject the proposed variance.
Sincerely,
S Ok- em (h(A 0I
November 15, 1998
Salem Zoning Board
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed building of an Osco drugstore at the
former Osram/Sylvania site on the comer of Bridge and Boston streets. As a resident of Salem
and the adjoining historic district, I firmly believe that granting a variance to allow a drugstore on
the site would diminish the value of my home, my neighborhood and Salem.
Some specific issues that I feel argue against the proposed variance include:
1. The site is an entry point into our city and should make a statement about the quality
and heritage of our city. A drug store does not do the site justice.
2. This variance sets the precedent for spot zoning along Bridge Street and the further
expansion of retail use. How is this justified in light of the development along
Highland Avenue or Route 114? Is Bridge Street to become another Highland
Avenue, another 114? The thought of such retail development in the backyard of one
of Salem's neighborhood jewels is an insult to the concept of the entire McIntyre
Historic District.
3. 1 do not for one minute believe that the proposed development will increase our tax
base. Any increased caused by the retail development would be offset by the lower
property values in the historic district. The traffic,noise and lighting are all major
negatives that will negatively impact the value of my neighborhood.
What I also find perplexing is that the proposed retail variance is a major set back to the Salem
master plan. If we do not adhere to the plan,what is its purpose?
I have great pride in Salem, my neighborhood and my home and consider the proposed variance a
threat to them all. I strongly encourage you to reject the proposed variance.
Sincerely,
November 18, 1998
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Board Members:
I am writing this letter to register my objections to a"change of use" for the Osram
Sylvania site, now zoned Business Park Development.
To change the use of this site to Retail can only mean the development of a myriad of
serious concerns to the neighborhoods and ultimately our wonderful City; viz., traffic,
noise, lighting, parking, the risk of failed businesses because of the over-abundance of
drugstores and, finally, a decrease in property values.
In view of the above, I strongly urge that you reject the proposed variance for"change of
use". Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully, Q/
Ci� Ali:2
Arlene O'Shea
1 Lynn Street
Salem, MA 01970
Kimberley A. Russell
5 Carpenter Street
Salem, MA 01970
978-744-1822
November 18, 1998
To The Appeals Board of Salem:
I am opposed to changing the zoning of the old Sylvannia site at the corner of Boston and
Bridge Streets. The granting of a variance that allows the use of the property to go to
retail, in particular, Osco Drug Company, and to a four story office building is incorrect
use of that property. It will result in a multitude of problems that will detrimentally affect
the welfare of the people of Salem.
That site is one of the few gateways into Salem and such use of that site will surely
diminish all of the effort that has gone into the North River Neighborhood Improvement
Project.
Sincerely,
Rull
Cynthia Griffin
4 Orne Square
Salem, MA 01970
(978)745-9448
Dear Nina Cohen, November 18, 1998
I a writing to you as a long time resident of Salem to express my concern
for the proposed use of the Osram/Sylvania site for an Osco Drug Company. As I
am unable to attend the Zoning Board's meeting this evening I would appreciate
you sharing my concerns.
After careful consideration of the positive and negative impacts of such a
use of the land I have become convinced that it is important to speak of my
opposition. There are several points that must be noted.
• The development of generic architectural commercialism in Salem will
devalue the uniqueness and charm that Salem is trying so hard to preserve, build,
and celebrate.
• There are offices and business spaces for use in both the downtown and
on Pickering Warf. It would be disadvantageous to other businesses who are in
these areas to open new land for retail while letting commercial areas in our
downtown lie fallow.
• Entrances to a city are often an invitation to travelers and business people.
This site is in a prominent location and could be used to s speak of Salem's history,
heritage or values. A generic drug store will not add charm to Salem.
• The impact of a high volume commercial use of that site will have a
strong negative impact on the neighborhood that it abuts. The residents will be
confronted with lights and traffic that take away from the sense of dignity and
community that the neighbors are trying to preserve in the light of the current
challenges of increased traffic on Bridge Street.
To honor our city and its established (and new) businesses and its
residential communities let us look carefully at what the full impact of having yet
another drug store would be. The negatives far outweigh the positives. We have
the opportunity to enrich our uniqueness by not becoming more generic. We have
a chance to say we value those who reside and work here. The use of our land can
say, "Come see us, we are a special place." Let us use it properly.
Sincerely,
31 Broad Street
November 17, 1998
Salem Zoning Board
Dear Sirs:
The Salem Zoning Board is currently considering the use of the former Osram Sylvania parcel at the
corner of Bridge and Boston Streets. A proposal to for retail development at the site has been put forward.
Since the area is not zoned for retail,a zoning variance is required before the plan can go forward.
We ask you to carefully consider the effects that your decision on this variance request will have on the
neighborhood and on Salem as a whole. What are the benefits to the city,and what are the costs?
The proposed use includes a drug store, similar to one that has been approved for a nearby site. Another
drugstore is already located within blocks of the site, and several more nearby in downtown Salem. No
services not already available nearby will be offered to Salem's citizens. So what are the potential
benefits? Some, including our august mayor, say that this project will increase the city's tax revenues,but
this is far from assured. While taxes on this particular parcel of land may increase, this must a) be
weighed against potential negative effects on the tax base of nearby residential properties and b) be
compared to potential revenues from a conforming use.
The plain fact is that putting another drugstore at the corner of Bridge and Boston streets won't benefit
Salem. Does anyone really believe that there is some demand for drugstore merchandise that can't be
met by similar stores(current and planned)in the area?
There are also costs to consider. The site in question is highly visible, and is located on key transportation
routes in and out of the city. Access to Salem has long been a key development problem, and this problem
could only be exacerbated by the presence of a high-volume retail business. The traffic in and out of
Dunkin Dougnuts is already sufficient to jam up this intersection. A big retail business would attract large
amounts of vehicle traffic for long periods of every day, making access to the city via Boston Street much
more difficult. The noise and lighting would certainly be a nuisance to those who live nearby. A
conforming use for the site would not cause nearly so many problems.
Also worth considering is the economic character of the proposed development. Very few high-paying
jobs are available in retail. More stores will not enhance the city's economic base. Conforming uses, such
as office buildings or manufacturing and distribution facilities, offer more real opportunities to the
community.
Salem's current zoning policy makes sense. Areas such as Highland Avenue, downtown and the
waterfront are excellent places for retail development. Why change this policy for the dubious proposal at
hand?
We urge you to deny this request for a variance
Sincerely,
S phen K. G herger
Kat van Dke�
30 Ocean Avenue
Salem MA 01970
November 30, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green, Second Floor
Church Street
Salem MA 01970
To Whom This May Concern:
Please know advised that we, the undersigned citizens of the City of
Salem, are opposed to the zoning change proposed for the
OSRAM/Sylvania property at the corner of Boston and Bridge Streets.
We support the current designation for Business Park Development,
which is much more suited to the preservation of this historic
neighborhood. Business park development is favorable because of
the parcel's proximity to the North Shore Medical Center and would
be a more appropriate development for one of the most important
entrances to the City.
We oppose the zoning change to Retail. There is NO NEED for a third
drugstore in this area; one exists already at Highland Avenue and
another is slated to be built across the street on Boston Street.
Business or office development is preferrable to yet another vacant
storefront in the City.
Thank you for your consideration of our position.
CJ
Patricia V. Markunas Timothy K. Van Wey
30 Ocean Avenue
Salem MA 01970
November 30, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green, Second Floor
Church Street
Salem MA 01970
To Whom This May Concern:
Please know advised that we, the undersigned citizens of the City of
Salem, are opposed to the zoning change proposed for the
OSRAM/Sylvania property at the corner of Boston and Bridge Streets.
We support the current designation for Business Park Development,
which is much more suited to the preservation of this historic
neighborhood. Business park development is favorable because of
the parcel's proximity to the North Shore Medical Center and would
be a more appropriate development for one of the most important
entrances to the City.
We oppose the zoning change to Retail. There is NO NEED for a third
drugstore in this area; one exists already at Highland Avenue and
another is slated to be built across the street on Boston Street.
Business or office development is preferrable to yet another vacant
storefront in the City.
Thank you for your consideration of our position.
Sincerely,
VaOtriciaV. arkunas Timothy K. Van Wey
ctCitp of 6alem, ltiammcbwmt.5
Mepartment of Public &erbice$
One :0ialetn oreen
(978) 745-9595 (Ext. 321
STANLEY I.BORNSTEIN,P.E.
City Engineer _fax: (978) 745-5877
Director of Public Services
December 2, 1998
Mayor Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr.
City of Salem
93 Washington St.
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mayor Usovicz:
I have reviewed the traffic study by Bruce Campbell. Mr. Campbell has taken into consideration the
Boston Street Improvements as well as the Stop & Shop, and I concur with his conclusion and
support his set of recommendations with regards to sequencing and timing of lights at the
intersection.
Very truly yours,
Stanley I. Bornstein, P.E.
City Engineer/Dir. of Public Services
SID/Idw
December 2, 1998
Dear Whom Ever this May Concern,
Hi, we are two Salem residents who would like to
share our opinions about building a drug store grocery
market type place behind our home. Our home for all our life.
Thirteen safe, quiet, years we have lived here. If you plan on
pursuing this idea of building a store, those thirteen,
pleasant, years will be over.
I know, I'm only 12, and my sister 9, but it's pretty
important to us to get our point across. Have you every
walked behind Crosby's Market? l have_ It's- really smelly
back there. I walk behind Crosby's to get home faster, or to
avoid kids that want to fight, I hate it. I have to hold my
breath every time I walk back there or else I might throw-up!
When, and if, you build this store your talking about,
the same smell will be in my backyard. In my backyard
have my own strawberry patch and vegetable garden. I don't
want it to have a stinky garden! I like gardening.
I understand you bought the land back there and you
reserve the right to put a store on it. I just think you should
be somewhat considerate and respect other people. Also, if
you do something that really ticks people off, word will
spread you're self centered pee-brains who don't give a
darn about other people. That will really help your sales.
My dad, Paul Konstadt, told me about this store, and
it was my idea to write these letters, not his. I really care to
stop the building of this store. Thank you for you time and
ears. I hope you guys keep in mind every thing I said. You
don't want to ruin a young mans garden and put a bad name
on your store, do you? Once again thanks for listening.
Sin?11
Nidk Konistadt
A.
December 2, 1998
Dear whom ever may read this letter,
Hi. I am Marissa Konstadt. I am a resident of Sale Unfortunately
1 live right behind the spot were you are planning to build this drug store.
I have been behind drug stores and believe me it stinks.
I have lived a beautiful 9 year life and if this building process_
continues that beautiful life will be over.
In our backyard, I think we have a wonderful vegetable garden, _
but have you noticed that people that live behind stores do not.grow good
crops. People can't really grow good crops because the terrible smelling
perfumes of litter,garbage etc. will travel to our garden.With that our crops
won't only smell bad but taste just as bad which will make them not edible.
In a small matter of time.itwiliturn into nota drug store, but
more of a smelly dump. Did you know that if you do something like this
people like me will not approve.
Please, I beg of you, do not build this store.
Sincerely yours,
Marissa Konstadt
December 2, 1998
Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Board Members,
We are opposed to the change of use for the Osram site from Business Park
Development to Retail. This property, located adjacent to the Federal
Street Historic District, is not an appropriate location for retail operations.
Boston Street is a gateway to Salem and further traffic congestion will make
it yet more difficult to get downtown for both residents and visitors.
Salem already has at least six drug stores, with another planned for across
the street from the Osco site. How many more drug stores does Salem need?
We urge the Board to deny this request for change of use. y
Sincer ,
Donal F. & Elizabeth S. Hunt
2 Riv r Street
Salem MA 01970
f
L. Thomas Turner
5 Carpenter Street
Salem, MA 01970
978-744-1822
November 18, 1998
To The Appeals Board of Salem:
I am opposed to changing the zoning of the old Sylvannia site at the corner of Boston and
Bridge Streets. The granting of a variance that allows the use of the property to go to
retail, in particular, Osco Drug Company, and to a four story office building is incorrect
use of that property. It will result in a multitude of problems that will detrimentally affect
the welfare of the people of Salem.
That site is one of the few gateways into Salem and such use of that site will surely
diminish all of the effort that has gone into the North River Neighborhood Improvement
Project.
Sincerely,
L. Thomas Turner
Timothy H. Doggett
9 Lynn Street
Salem, MA 01970
Phone 978 745 2708
The Board of Appeals
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
November 18, 1998
Ladies and Gentleman of the Board
I strongly urge you to reject the submission by Kennedy Development for a change of
use and other variances at the Osram Sylvania site on the corner of Boston and Bridge
streets.
Of great concern is the dramatic change in use that has been requested and the
permanence of your decision.
Allowing this sort of change is spot zoning. Changes in zoning are only acceptable when
a project provides an overwhelming advantage to the City, and only when the zoning
change has been approved by the City Council.
Not withstanding the legal issues of spot zoning, this project is far too pedestrian to
qualify for any such treatment.
Sincerely,
Timothy H. Doggett
.` a .� � V My rr wy ��'�'Grp �a.�'��y t s �+v v.�r�S r .; .w • ` �. � �+Nv�►..
ON ._ � i Al
• µ .
November 9, 1998
Mayor Stanley Usovicz
Members of the City Council
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Salem
Salem, MA 01970
Mayor Usovicz and Members of both the City Council and Zoning
Board of Appeals:
We oppose the proposal to change the zoning for the former Osram
Sylvania site at the comer of Bridge and Boston Streets to allow for
an Osco Drug Store. There are a number of reasons for our opposition
and they are as follows:
• drug stores - There is an overabundance of drug stores in Salem.
The existing stores are never crowded indicating that the needs of
Salem residents are fulfilled by the existing stores.
• minimum wage jobs - There is likewise an overabundance of
minimum wage jobs in Salem. The former occupants of the Osram
Sylvania site created varied levels of skilled jobs for Salem. With
yet another drug store, the only new jobs created for the people of
this city will be minimum wage retail jobs. This is shameful and
reflects negatively on our elected and appointed city officials!
• strip malls - Strip malls have become an eyesore in Salem.
Many of them contain abandoned stores and potholed parking
lots. Because of the lost revenue from these abandoned stores,
strip mall owners cannot afford to continue building and parking
lot maintenance, and so they deteriorate. These eyesores show
our community in a bad light. Rather than making improvements
to the site at the corner of Bridge and Boston Streets, a zoning
change to allow for an Osco Drug Store will, over time, create
another abandoned property and public eyesore.
• proximity to the historic district - Historic district residents
near the comer of Federal and Boston Streets own property that is
not as insulated as the mayor's and many city councillor's! Our
elected officials should take into consideration how a change
would impact these taxpayers. Knowing the mayor's opinion of
historic districts, this point may fall on deaf ears. However, what
makes Salem unique is its history. Recent trends show that
businesses are mobile and relocate at the drop of a hat, holding
cities, towns and states hostage by negotiating tax rates that are
no longer 'mutually' beneficial. Salem should capitalize on what
we are most noted for, our history. That in turn attracts not only
tourists, but home owners and businesses, if we market ourselves
properly. An Osco Drug Store at the comer of the Macintyre
historic district speaks volumes of disrespect for our history.
• entrance corridors to Salem - So much has been said about
how visitors perceive our city, be they tourists, potential
businesses (those who would generate more money for Salem
than simply being on the tax role) or potential residents and home
owners. With both Osco and Walgreen Drug Stores at the
intersection of Boston, Bridge and Proctor Streets, Salem will be
perceived as shabby and overcrowded (these stores will generate
a lot of traffic, not to mention traffic accidents). Siting such
needless 24-hour dueling drug stores at this entrance corridor will
show that Salem has no pride in its past, present or future.
As other, forward looking communities work to preserve their
history, clean up their waterfront, and utilize green space for the
community's enjoyment, we are building more strip malls, these in
particular will be located adjacent to national historic sign posts,
showing that we have a 50's vision of progress and lack the foresight
needed to tum around Salem's negative reputation. It would be
irresponsible for the city to allow this to happen.
Thank you for taking our concerns about this issue into
consideration.
Regards,
Fran Atchison & Elliott Milford
�' ,, o caiLa o a ppe.a �/J
Mary Lee Storrs
26 Beckford Street
Salem,Massachusetts
01970-3239
November 16, 1998
City of Salem,Massachusetts
Board of Zoning Appeal
Re: Request for Zoning Variances on 60 Boston Street(formerly Osram Sylvania plant)-Petitioner:
Kennedy Development Group, Inc.
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am a resident of the McIntire Historic District adjacent to the site referenced above, having relocated to
Salem from out of state 7 years ago. In choosing Salem, its unique historic character and potential for
providing a quality living experience within that context were paramount. Certainly the strong presence
and integrity of the U.S.Park Service's National Historic Maritime Site and the proposed expansion of the
Peabody and Essex Museum underlined the commitment to the preservation/development of what is
special about Salem. Even The Wall Street Journal concurrent with the period of my relocation reinforced
that Salem was one of the ten U.S. cities with the potential to be a choice place to live. All of these
indicators emphasized"potential."
In light of Salem's"potential," 1 am concerned that granting the above request would be a short-sited
move in the wrong direction.Any new development in Salem should be consistent with the overall plan
or vision for Salem's rejuvenation,not just a quick fix to the tax rolls. The variance for the retail usage and
the variance from the set back requirements requested would have a negative impact not only on the
character and value of the immediate neighborhood but also on the integrity of development plans for
Salem as a whole.
Please consider:
■ This type of development creates a poor entrance corridor to Salem, failing to be a suitable prelude to
the experience we hope to create for both visitors and residents alike. Certainly the Park Service and
the Peabody and Essex are investing heavily in Salem's inherent character. The City of Salem must
provide consonant support of those goals through its zoning enforcement.
■ Retail usage on this site is redundant to the development on Highland Avenue and to the downtown
Essex Street and Pickering Wharf areas,much of which remains vacant. It would be a wasteful
contribution to Salem's version of urban sprawl,rather than making more economic use of the existing
infrastructure.
■ Traffic in an already congested area will be intensified by a retail establishment. Even the completion
of the Bridge Street extension will not alleviate the problem,forcing more traffic to pour through the
presently stressed streets of the McIntire Historic District's residential neighborhood to avoid the
congestion on Bridge and Boston Streets.
■ The duration of the"business day"will be lengthened from that of the currently zoned commercial
use. This lengthening impacts noise and lighting as well as traffic congestion.
■ A negative precedent will be set for the entire Bridge Street area.
■ Tax revenues alone are not a reason to grant a variance, especially as the overall negative effect upon
other competing businesses' taxes and those of the adjacent residential properties must be factored in.
In conclusion, I ask that the request for the variances be denied in support of the true long-term interests of
the community of The City of Salem.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
J
Mary Lee Storrs
11/18/98 WED 11:43 FAX R091
IN
p roiw
of �rc /� 154'r 1 /sr-�f' yon �'es/.ir, P/rope
CI«ref �, 1 kr�,�rc1 ��/✓y /nJ �fac�
1 ■
�1 11/18/98 {9ED 11:44 FAX Z002
J'Iv'JrM c.7r
November 18, 1998
Peter Strout, Building Commissioner
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
Salem City Hall
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Comments on Request for a Variance by Kennedy Development
Construction of an OSLO Drugstore
Dear Mr. Strout,
we are writing to request that the City of Salem deny the
application of Kennedy Development for a variance from certain
zoning restrictions at the Osram/Sylvania site located at the
corner of Bridge street and Boston Street.
The decision before the Board tonight is especially
important because approval of this project could serve as
precedent to convert other land in Business Park Development
Districts along Bridge Street to retail _ This is a major
decision that should not be made with just an applicant and a
handful of residents present. we think that proposed zoning
variances such as this one represent a haphazard piecemeal
approach to zoning and are in gross conflict with the spirit and
intent of the City of Salem Master Plan,
The City of Salem Master plan states that its purpose is to
act as a "blue print for the future" and "to guide Salem as the
City makes decision to evaluate potential development, protect
and enhance its assets, and take advantage of opportunities. "
The plan designates Highland Avenue Business Corridor as the
location for limited retail growth. No where in the plan does it
recommend converting Bridge Street ' s industrial zoned areas to
retail . It is important that the Salem Board of Appeals maintain
the current zoning status of Bridge Street as a Business Park
Development District so that the city can work to develop a
diverse array of businesses, not just additional drug stores and
strip malls .
In regard to traffic, the Master Plan states that in
traveling within Salem "safety and efficiency are paramount" . As
well, the Plan states "congested and unattractive entrance
corridors and several busy intersections impede access between
the City and Route 128" . The plan specifically points out that
the new Bridge Street improvements will help alleviate some of
these problems. However, the Osco proposal conflicts with that
idea. Instead, it increases traffic volume through the Bridge
Street/Lowell Street intersection and will generate traffic
delays each time customers enter or exit the store location.
11/18/98 {RED 11:44 FAX - X003
.I
Especially problematic will be the issue of drivers attempting to
take left hand turns out onto Boston Street or Bridge Street from
the property. This will require creative and aggressive
maneuvering, resulting in traffic queues, and safety problems,
both of which diminish the intended use of Bridge Street as an
efficient route joining the two sides of the city.
This decision will effect all of Bridge Street and a host of
other industrial areas and this is the wrong forum to be
discussing such a significant issue. Accordingly, we request
that this proposal be denied and that the City of Salem pursue a
more holistic and carefully thought out approach to deciding the
future of Bridge Street .
Finally, we would like to request that the Zoning Board of
Appeals make a decision on this matter tonight and not allow
Kennedy Development or its representatives an opportunity to
delay this meeting to another date . This would be unfair to the
many residents who are attending the hearing tonight. The appeal
of a zoning ordinance is a serious matter and each and every
appeal should be reviewed as it stands the night of the hearing
based on the information the proponent originally submitted in
his or her application. The rescheduling of a hearing muddies
the review process and takes away from the Zoning Board' s ability
to control its review process in a consistent and equitable
manner. We urge the Board to issue its decision tonight based on
the information in its file and the comments delivered this
evening.
Sincerely,
fWA
H. Jeffrey Brandt
Patricia S. Roka
3 Lynn Street
Salem, KA 01970
J9r roa'AR'e'f\C
�a.SYR /yy P 7 R "•� W S
r
�Z.V**�7M � � �.
AM
Jim
pp
� I
T Y
pp1�Qg BI'�7• ..
�,�,m'•� 1 1 1 1
Z w
raorosEo : sroRr ppp���`�`'��'0
l
OROO STORE -'esS4
I y�
M PROPOSED LEGEND
,fn•'"Q \ N'Ar ..0 x•un.0 aro
'�l � ® .0OYI1•plI
MY.tl.1,Ir,1
C• ,p lJl
I.OIY111W r
Site Plan prepared by Geller Associates
B C ®
Figure 2
-�' SITE PLAN
A CEO MG970M
Scale: 1"-100' 9 lem, NA
PR 80 P ft0 R Y BAR
3FLINT STREET J I L FLINT STREET J 1 re FLINT STREET
pp � r r
203 4"
05
N � N
W
Re
m l0 m
I
W F
m„ • �a V
All
4r4t'�`psl 5 �-.701 J I rte~47
+ P, " Yl _ f 74J J
t e,e y
Yf I , 687- �p , 1 14 J e14 1 r �9� 1
641-x , r
5 605 a J.19 1 M 279', Sa J31 o
589-- BOSTON �� STREET, �^ ie� BOSTON STREET BOSTON STREET h
oe
n e 3✓ a d =� a Y�
B C ® Figure Y
1998 EXISTING WEEKDAY
A AM, PM & SATURDAY MIDDAY
oSCO DRUGSTORE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NA to Scale Salem, MA
' P AO PBKAO Y BAR
r D FLINT STREET r B FLINT STREET r0 FLINT STREET
2�
ONO ^EN X00
r s PROPOSED `` r PROPOSED ` � `4 PROPOSED
f r DRIVE Ta 1 OFFICE f r DR"- F OFFICE } DRIVE is I OFFICE
GA 29 on
COMBINED TRIP GENERA710H COMBINED TROP GENERATION . COMBINED TRIP GENERATION
v< PRIMARY P-BY i= PRIMARY P-BY "^+ PRIMARY P-BY
W fL D IN 75 16 = 91 1`10 IN 58 42 - 100 `1D IN 53 47 - 100
s(++) OU7T __� yy0 16 J6 1e(+11) OU 32 4Z 174 14{+1Y) OUT 55 47 102
A�0 32 = ,27 u, + ` MI150—A_i 4 TOTACTO �4
1 r DRIVE /2 f DRIVE Fl f r DMVE Ti
o no 8 00 8 no
PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
OSLO I OSCO c OSCO
DRUGSTORE 1 +B DRUGSTORE m ! ` 49 DRUGSTORE
1 f r DRIVE I" r DRIVE II ' r on1 /l
Fi*
JJ-N `i1 Je� ^6 W
Tv
`1 +
Ll
4 J (-fQ1i on 10, ln 0
I3 I;AJ)4 03 ((+- 2— S, 03
24 '� 1 1
4 y BOSTONpo STREET y BOSTON pp STREET 2. BOSTON STREET
a. I
gg �
B C ® EFigure4
SITE GENERATED TRIPS WEEKDAY
A
AN, PM & SATURDAY MIDDAY
OSCO DRUOSTOR6 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Not U 3mlI Salem, IU
F ID n
E BRIDGE STREET
N /� m `- t27
() J1t1 � J+L r �
n PROCTOR ST 1
_ 592
El O mm 11l mN
BD a -miu
POPE ST
214- } y
N
N
y.�y1 m
fel O � 9
HIGHLAND AVE ~� 282 ESSEX
aY
(ROUTE 107) J ST o
669
346y
9
9
BRIDGE STREET
ri4` s �28
PROCTOR ST.) �� 1W 28
d( a� m r 21,,)f r
519
30 o-.e-
o .J
z �
POPE ST
299J � Zi
62--% m
Y rn
N '9
m �
F� uUw' R
1 %L
HIGHLAND AVE / '2&2�7 ESSEIf �
(ROUTE 107)' 792J ST - o
419—
�p
t BRIDGE STREET
m1�1«
a
�
PROCTOR ST.J
tfr 25
m -O o
c � � z
N1
'0 z POPE ST
to r
'a Tm�.a1}'m 195J - z
"3 DTf 30 e
Aa� Wim- m K
O !!9 HWHUWD AVE `1207 ESSEX
(ROUTE 107) J 'ST
�tj
W,G-< Co.
1� PB A 0 1!PE K 0
SEA
FLINT STREET J ► ` r FLINT STREET J ►` r 1 FLINT STREET
RJR
�w ` RL^ L I
+ r s PROPOSED ►` be PROPOSED 1 1 PROF F GEED
OFFICE OFFICE 1 r DRIVE N
► r DRIVE A ► r DRIVE N T
mn
m
w mm1 ` 10
wWc �j YB ►� �
ppr DRNE ,2 ► r Dr6�u
r Dawe E ooh nn
ao
m $ PROPOSED
N PROPOSED m PROPOSED " OSLO
j DRUGSTORE + IORUGSTORE + 14-9 DRUGSTORE
1 o B
►r DRIVE v ►r DmvE n
n✓]ufCi W N n��~
91
11 �
Rr ve 8J Fin `ppee 4(ejie` ST �„ 1 n�i 31
Iafe F ST \�-.561 20 M�. ► ..-9i1 SPY) 31 J •�—904 n
�-765 J ( 1 �YJ J � 177J
5, 71 1 r 131 1► 6, uj-► �y:, E69 nm �BI� ray �mA �95, �►y
683-+ n� 650 �_ 7 1 �� 6 -► ILMI
6$2� BOSTON n STREET
STREET 136, BOSTON }.. STREET
o
A o0 g ab =--
a
XkA
® WEEKFigurDAY e
2003 BUILD fl'EEKDAY
AM, PM & SATURDAY MIDDAY
osc° osucsroRe PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NDl to Scele Salem, DIA
H1StoI1C Non-ProfitOrganization
U.S. Postage
'incorporated Salem, MA
Permit No. 9
POST OFFICE BOX 865
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
�g- rr tV
Address Correction Requested
as o as
GHisin 1 ' it t
o le
Q:qM
incorporated Salem,
O. Box 865
, Mass.
(978) 745-0799-0799
November 17, 1998
City of Salem
Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Ladies and Gentlement of the Board:
On behalf of Historic Salem, Inc., a citywide preservation organization with more than
400 members, I would like to state that we oppose granting the zoning variance to the
developers of the former Osram Sylvania site to allow it to be used as retail. We are very
concerned that this undermines the intent of the original zoning ordinances and the
citywide master plan that developed the system and delineation of zoning that currently
exists.
We are also concerned that such "spot rezoning" sets a dangerous precedent for future
development and zoning issues in the city and undermines the effectiveness of the
planning board. This is especially critical where development abuts a nationally and
locally registered historic district, as is the case at hand.
We therefore request that the variance not be granted for a non-conforming use on this
site but that the proper review of the site's present zoning disposition be made via the
planning board and in the context of the city's master plan. If the parcel is to be rezoned,
it should be re-zoned pro-actively, not reactively.
Respectfully Yours,
o m M. Wathne, Vice President
Historic Salem, Inc.
SALEM
w� OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT
BRIDGE STREET Bridge Street
Salem, MA
E WAY EWA
E�.T ' ate• u u — — u — — —o — — e— — — a — - -, — — >r — - -e — e. — L'
QT R sTR — — — — * I
O 1 I
PgC �-
E / I �a
/ 12' 6' 12' 24' 17'
I 89
21
I �
S
/ ^ -.. SPA C fs
� ttP. o
` 9 EOJ h� ' I � 1*q•�
135' - 15 EDUAL SPACES 1 6 ELk/.ti SP4
qs
v� EXISTING TREE H
/ TO BE SAVED LOT A
. . _
1° w O
a
LOT B 579'
CL
e( -0
10 EOugC Sp
.4
` DUMPSTER • '1 0 /
CL
CL
pc 1 30' '
m
f Lt1 NII y 24'
PROPOSED 1 STORY o e J SPFROPDRUG STORE 0L
U) ROF-j eS O/(S�RFD�
°l
/
f ¢i
DUMPSTERFF�C
13,600 SQ. FT. TOTAL w1 ee4J /v
GROSS FLOOR AREA 6()00
`; ' Ts� OTJINC SIGNS° EMPLOYEE PARKING0 O
,Y
` SIGNS 30,
EMPLOYEE
vt� e e e e e o PARKING ONLY
�1A100a At,
n`
a s '' '',nk� ��,y,nl >rtiy ,,.�+�ys ys ,• nz,
�` � • <' r� y a s .� - .� ',nl^ s �{'� ;', 9 fou
'rn ^ gy a ''� <• >, < X, ^\ a ys nI ,
<- ° ^ 91 AE SP
ACE-s
�r
aaa 1 ✓
IN
— � ln ,°},n ; 9ry
i� / n• '- )� a s r4 �
as a I ♦ � ` ` /r ����^ . _ � '� o
At
)OPE S Y / �r.�� +9y �,n•�� � 'r ys l
pr1E �A � ` �• / � � y,n1" i �f'�1ys'-',nd^ ' grl�y /
� `'' • $ SYoj w . s
J
J
SITE PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
r � R 2310 WASHINGTON STREET
PNEWTON, MA 02462
PROPOSED LEGEND
617-244-8521
24' LIGHT POLE (SINGLE)
24' LIGHT POLE (DOUBLE)
8' WOOD FENCE
TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW
m WHEELCHAIR RAMP j=�
m �""�
HANDICAP PARKING
�1�
WITH SIGN
cv
m — . - - - -
o PROPERTY LINE
W
0
1n �— TRAFFIC SIGN a
All of
,'y s PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE qb°
50ALE: DATE: 6/141/1419 1
JOB: 41-1055 REV.: 2/141/101418
3 • PROPOSED SHADE TREE
FILE: ALL2PLAN4 "1141141
v DRAWN: TPKDCZ 01/41/Ig018
c
a GHEGKED: JTG 01/16/101418
N
ll41M 011A RILVAM QDN1Y
NOT 7011 11,0NOTRUN,"THON
E
n)
0
20 15 10 5 0 20 40 60
U
(n
O
GRAPHIC SCALE
3
O
I
''7lEtB11Il111
SALEM
OFFICE
DEVELOPMENT
ice' BRIDGE STREET
. Bridge Street
Salem, MA
E WAY NE WA
_ _dOcTor
/ I
R
� it 9• 12' z4' � ,y
199• -
SPACE'S, 0►
TYR
744.
135' - 15 EQUAL SPACES _ O
\ \ TO BENG TRE -H �A °
LOT A
LIJ
,, / ■-•■ -- - 41'. z E SAN
LOT B
'^ a-
o �
DUMPSTER F 4� 00N I c SOACfS W� /
r
C,-
30!
.1- n �
W I v o
PROPOSED 1 STORY o r I r - 24 P �
N DRUG STORE _ PR ROpOs� ♦R�
O FES D DUMPSTER
13,600 SQ. FT. TOTAL 3 1 FF/CE JS/ONq� ° /
GROSS FLOOR AREA 6000 SF
° ° s &UkDINC4 R
SIGNS
PARKINGrofTpp/ T
EMPLOYEE
SIGNS30,
'N EMPLOYEE / n� MlN
e o }� e e PARKING ONLY
Agoy#'�s e
` �► s' �- +'4 Z bys i s ° ,nb^ s yr�j' '1'.n�" e '9
` n y - ''� n '�' , n"\ i s All 9' •� SpA
,� ° a 'w
�dn'
� � �rf 1'7f.,'`���,Y�YJ,'1',�Jy � � \ /I � Y'^° �• i
2°
Y 010,
q. 4 Alls
� J
SITE PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
DELI ER 2310 WASHINGTON STREET
NEWTON, MA 02462
PROPOSED LEGEND is 617-244-8521
0--s 24' LIGHT POLE (SINGLE)
M-9-0 24' LIGHT POLE (DOUBLE)
8' WOOD FENCE
TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW
m WHEELCHAIR RAMIP
m
rn T
N ��Z WITH
WITHCAP PARKING
o — PROPERTY LINE
m
0
�n
TRAFFIC SIGN
Q d s PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE qFp
Ab" 50ALE: DATE: 6/19/199?
L Q�
JOB: 9"1038 REV.: 2/19/1998
rn
a PROPOSED SHADE TREE FILE: ALL2PLAN4 "1/19/1998
c DRAWN: TPKpCZ 9/9/1998
ro
N CHECKED: JTG 9/16/1998
J
a
NOT 71DR Q.QDNOTRUJQ:71' ON
E
p 20 15 10 5 0 20 40 60
U
UJ
O
3 GRAPHIC SCALE
0