Loading...
164 REAR BOSTON STREET - ZBA 164 Boston St. Rear I/R-2 Michael Harrington `i ✓1� �P� I 3 of 2IlPltt� MSSMCh1ISPttS FILEC ryaF Poar 1 Q{ ' 1Yvrzd DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON FOR VARIANCES AT 164R BOSTON ST. (I/R-2) A hearing on this petition was held March 15, 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. , Bencal, Nutting, Strout and Associate Member Labrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusett General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner, represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, is the owner of the property, which was formerly used as a site for a leather tanning factory. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow a multi-family residential use in this Industrial/R-2 district; as well as variances from density requirments of setbacks and maximum building height. A new building would be constructed on the site containing sixty-four (64) residential units. During the hearing, the petitioner modified his petition, reduced the total number to forty eight (48) residential units. The variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Several abutters, as well as other residents of the immediate area, spoke in opposition to the project, citing the addition of traffic to heavily travelled adjacent streets. 2. Other concerns raised by the abutters and residents were the impact on public safety demands, the disposal of sewerage, rodent control, the loss of natural wetlands, the effect on the Salem school system 3. The proposed building, because of its size and height, would not be in conformity to the existing neighborhood and would dominate the area too greatly. 4. The property can be developed industrially, adding greater tax dollars to the City. 5. The additional traffic generated by the proposal would have an adverse effect on the planned connector road and the realignment of Route 114. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON FOR VARIANCES AT 164R BOSTON ST. , SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially the subject property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 4. Petitioner failed to prove the requisite hardship. Therefore, after a motion to grant the requested variances with nineteen ( 19) conditions was made and duly seconded, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 1-4, (Mr. Fleming in favor) , against granting the requested variances. The petition failed to receive four (4) affirmative votes and, therefore, the variances are denied. VARIANCES DENIED ames M. Fleming, Esq. 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 `ria VS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 11LIN3 OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO NiASS. GENERAL L W.i, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE - R S". GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TA.;E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE::T_CISIJN. FICATION OF THE LNY CLERK THAI 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED 1,N1 N3 APPEAL HAS 3E L' .,. uR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS-BEEN TILE. THAT IT H•TS BEEN DISMISSED CR RECJRDEO IN THE SOUTH ESSC% P,E,;ISTRY OF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAIBE LF THE . '. t OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL n �} IL `_ I LJ S8 Division USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) p 0. 10, FPO San Francisco , CA FEC l u 96636-2810 S -- Ss.. 5 February 1989 CITY CP Board of Appeals City Hall Salem , MA 01970 Dear Mr . Fleming, I have lived my entire life prior to entering the service at 22 Silver St . I have been made aware of a recent developer ' s proposal to significantly change the neighborhood I still consider home . Specifically , this is the area known as the Old Mill Pond . The area is being developed by a Mr . Harrington . The location is South of Harmony Grove Road . Below are listed several of my concerns : The height of the buildings should not exceed the ground level at the top of the hill . I believe the height to be about thirty feet . A change in the areas zoning would provide a great deal of lost potential revenue for Salem. Several of these business lots have railroad access , which I believe is something of exceedingly increasing value . I have seen increased use of rail throughout the many states in which I have served . I believe that any increase in residential population would not be accommodated well with the existing traffic patterns . For at least the last twelve years the cities of Salem , Beverly and Peabody have been trying to remedy the traffic choke points as well as access to Route 128. A development in the area would be like throwing salt on a wound . After having frequently sat at the intersections of Main Street and Howley Street in Peabody for several minutes waiting for a break in traffic , I believe a Peabody access is no solution . Another entrance for traffic to Boston Street will severely choke traffic . As a paper boy I often had to wait five minutes to cross Boston Street . That was several years ago when the city ' s population was much smaller . What is the Developers solution for the general public who will bear this additional inconvenience? Would not this increased traffic further cripple the City ' s goal of attracting new business? Any development on the area will be affected be flooding . Over the years I noticed several substantial floods . What has the developer done for the potential occupants? Will he pay their flood insurance? Should this flood area be developed what will the impact be on the residents of the areas north of Lowell Street in Peabody? That area is not far up the river . The old marshes served very well as a flood plain until developed in the last ten years . The area was also severely polluted over the years with industrial wastes . The ground and water should be checked to ensure that if developed there would be no Salem version of Love Canal . Simply covering the wastes over is an outdated and disproved practice . I studied this problem since 1970 . It has not been resolved , based on a walk through the area in December 1988 . I believe that the slick approach that Mr . Harrington showed in the absence of Mr . 0 Leary demonstrates a lack of concern for the area or the neighbors . This is not the blighted area as some recent articles would lead one to believe. These families which will be affected did not speculate on their homes . They bought them over the years because they loved the building and the neighborhood. Many of these families have been in their homes for over fifty years . That concern should weigh heavily on the Board ' s decision making. The Sweeney family has live in the same house for over seventy years . This is the family homestead . The sweat , toil and personal energy that went into that home cannot be measured by a financial slide rule . The developer knew the potential risks prior to purchase . He should be politely reminded of that fact and held accountable for his decisions as I hold my men accountable for theirs . Most of my neighbors are not happy with these developments. Despite my distance , there is no lack of interest . I would fly home and express this in person if my duties did not preclude the trip . Your response is appreciated . Sincerely , � I CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL Due to scheduling conflicts the hearing of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal relative to the petition of MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON for multi-family housing at R164 Boston St. , Salem for February 22, 1989 has been cancelled. The hearing has been rescheduled for WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of ONE SALEM GREEN. James M. Fleming Chairman, Board of Appeal %. �. Via' pu nld U1 L kppeal Reunt.�+r' &/ e-7 M 1 � � Citp of *alem, Ma m5acbus'ett!5 Avg Office of the Citp Council 3 VINCENT J. FURFARO WARD COUNCILLORS COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE 1989 PRESIDENT 1989 GEORGEA.NOWAK DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO NEIL J.HARRINGTON LEONARD F.O'LEARY GEORGE P.McCABE JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 24 , 1989 Mr. Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Michael: I received your letter relative to the neighborhood meeting on your project in Ward Four. The basic issue is that a neighborhood meeting on a project of this size is fundamental . Neighborhood means exactly that. It does not mean just abutters to the property, or those who have shown an interest. It means notifying the neighborhood. That is the way I have conducted myself in connection with all projects that take place in Ward 4 . You know that this particular project is much larger than any other project in that section of the City, and not to get the full input from City Departments Heads so that the neighbors can understand exactly what' s going to happen is not acceptable. You should have been aware of that situation. My only motive is to do the best I can for the neighbors , none of whom have high-priced lawyers or high-priced engineers or consultants . They depend upon me and the City to give them whatever assistance they can. A neighborhood meeting is essential, and at that meeting, I will ask the City Planner, City Engineer, City Health Agent, and all other interested departments to be present to answer the questions that will be raised. Because I , as representative of the people of Ward 4, do my best to protect their interest does not mean, nor should it require, any inference on your part of any other motivations other than that. Consider my office a public duty to perform to the best of my ability. The people who voted for me expect that, and I intend to represent them. -2- You were wrong in going ahead with the meeting as you did, because it did not cover all the areas that have to be covered, nor did all of the people affected have an opportunity to become involved. You should have been aware of that. I will ask the Board of Appeals to consider the matter i pp n the light of my previous letter to them. Very �truly � yours, LEONARD F. O'LEARY COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR LFO 'L/deb Copy: Board of Appeal All Councillors Mayor Salvo 1, Board of Appeal City of Salem Salem, MA 01970 Re: /tp41 e '� � The undersigned hereby waives the time requirement, which the Board has to act on the above referenced petition under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15, '["V rvC' a2' 1Y�9 �aND�r (Up of Oatem, Aasgacbusettg Office of the Citp Council Citp batt �A�llN6 WARD COUNCILLORS VINCENT J. FURFARO COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE 1989 PRESIDENT 1989 , GEORGE A.NOWAK DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO NEIL J.HARRINGTON LEONARD F.O'LEARY GEORGE P.McCABE JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 24 , 1989 Mr. Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Michael: I received your letter relative to the neighborhood meeting on your project in Ward Four. The basic issue is that a neighborhood meeting on a project of this size is fundamental. Neighborhood means exactly that. It does not mean just abutters to the property, or those who have shown an interest. It means notifying the neighborhood. That is the way I have conducted myself in connection with all projects that take place in Ward 4 . You know that this particular project is much larger than any other project in that section of the City, and not to get the full input from City Departments Heads so that the neighbors can understand exactly what' s going to happen is not acceptable. You should have been aware of that situation. My only motive is to do the best I can for the neighbors, none of whom have high-priced lawyers or high-priced engineers or consultants . They depend upon me and the City to give them whatever assistance they can. A neighborhood meeting is essential, and at that meeting, I will ask the City Planner, City Engineer, City Health Agent, and all other interested departments to be present to answer the questions that will be raised. Because I , as representative of the people of Ward 4 , do my best to protect their interest does not mean, nor should it require, any inference on your part of any other motivations other than that. Consider my office a public duty to perform to the best of my ability. The people who voted for me expect that, and I intend to represent them. -2- You were wrong in going ahead with the meeting as you did, because it did not cover all the areas that have to be covered, nor did all of the people affected have an opportunity to become involved. You should have been aware of that. I will ask the Board of Appeals to consider the matter in the light of my previous letter to them. Very truly yours , 0 ° LEONARD F. O 'LEARY COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR LFO 'L/deb Copy: Board of Appeal All Councillors Mayor Salvo �DBN� �itp of Oaiem, Aiaggarbugettg Office of the Citp council 4l�- is mNa W� WARD COUNCILLORS COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE VINCENT J. FURFARO1989 PRESIDENT 1989 GEORGEA.NOWAK DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO NEIL J.HARRINGTON - LEONARD F.O'LEARY GEORGE P.McCABE JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 24 , 1989 Mr. Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Michael: I received your letter relative to the neighborhood meeting on your project in Ward Four. The basic issue is that a neighborhood meeting on a project of this size is fundamental. Neighborhood means exactly that. It does not mean just abutters to the property, or those who have shown an interest. It means notifying the neighborhood. That is the way I have conducted myself in connection with all projects that take place in Ward 4 . You know that this particular project is much larger than any other project in that section of the City, and not to get the full input from City Departments Heads so that the neighbors can understand exactly what ' s going to happen is not acceptable. You should have been aware of that situation. My only motive is to do the best I can for the neighbors, none of whom have high-priced lawyers or high-priced engineers or consultants . They depend upon me and the City to give them whatever assistance they can. A neighborhood meeting is essential, and at that meeting, I will ask the City Planner, City Engineer, City Health Agent, and all other interested departments to be present to answer the questions that will be raised. Because I, as representative of the people of Ward 4, do my best to protect their interest does not mean, nor should it require, any inference on your part of any other motivations other than that. Consider my office a public duty to perform to the best of my ability. The people who voted for me expect that, and I intend to represent them. -z- You were wrong in going ahead with the meeting as you did, because it did not cover all the areas that have to be covered, nor did all of the people affected have an opportunity to become involved. You should have been aware of that. I will ask the Board of Appeals to consider the matter in the light of my previous letter to them. Very truly yours, �4� X00 LEONARD F. O'LEARY COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR LFO 'L/deb Copy: Board of Appeal All Councillors Mayor Salvo Citp of 6alem, Aaggacbm5ettg Office of the City Council 4MM6 VINCENTWARD COUNCILLORS COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT ARO 1989 1989 GEORGE A.NOWAK DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO NEIL J.HARRINGTON LEONARD F.BLEARY GEORGE P.McCABE JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 18, 1989 Mr. Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Harrington: I am writing to you with regards to my concern for the meeting you held on Tuesday evening in the City Council Chamber. I find it disturbing that after leaving a message for you that I have cancelled the meeting because of medical reasons, you held this meeting without regard to my position as an elected official, and without the courtesy of notifying the President of the City Council of your intent. It seems to me that you are only interested in holding this meeting to go through the motions of a neighborhood informational gathering so that you could announce to the Board of Appeals that the neighbors were fully informed of your project. This is not the case. I intend to bring this matter and your methods to the attention of the neighbors who were not informed of this meeting, to the Ward 6 Councillor whose area that she repre- sents also abuts the proposed project, and also the Board of Appeal. Yours truly, IY117D 1. O'LEARY COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR LFO 'L/deb / Copy: Board of Appeal V Ward 6 Councillor Council President DNS Citp of 9palem, Magoubuatto Office of the Citp Council .... Citp iball VINCENT J. FURFARO WARD COUNCILLORS COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT 1989 1989 GEORGEA.NOWAK DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO NEIL J.HARRINGTON LEONARD F.OTEARY GEORGE P.McCABE JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 18 , 1989 RE: PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS - SALEM/PEABODY Dear Resident: As all of you are aware, at a previous meeting of the Board of Appeals when this matter was presented for the first time, there were various questions that I raised which had not been answered. It was apparent that the developer, Harrington & Company, had never shown their plans to any of the City Departments which would be involved in such a project of this size. This project, when combined with the project in Peabody, which is the other half, is one of the largest projects this section of Ward 4 has ever had. The consequences on traffic, use of utilities, use of facilities and just general environmental concerns must all be analyzed before any action can be taken. No meeting prior to the submission to the Board of Appeals was held with any of the neighbors . The developer simply filed his plans with the Board of Appeal, got himself on the agenda, and never bothered to discuss the matters with the neighbors. This, in effect, put the neighbors and myself at a disadvantage. After the meeting, I suggested that a neighbor- hood meeting would have to be held and that the City Planning Department and other Departments had to be involved before this development could be considered by the Board of Appeals . In the process of having such a meeting, I became ill and required an operation. I entered the hospital and underwent surgery on Monday, January 16 . Prior to my going into the hospital, I advised the developer, through his secretary, of my medical problem and suggested that as soon as I was on my feet that I would schedule another neighborhood meeting at which time the City Department Heads would be in attendance. The reason all this input is required is so that all the neighbors can understand how this development is going to impact the area and they can get objective answers from the City Engineer, City Planner, Health Agent, and Building Department. My concern is for the neighbors in the neighborhood. I am not concerned for the developer. In past practice, developers come in; they build their development, and then they are gone and the neighborhood is left to live with whatever problems are created. I like to avoid these problems in the beginning by putting everything on the table and letting the neighbors decide. This is my practice as your Ward Councillor. It is -2- also the practice of all Ward Councillors. This simple courtesy was denied me by the developer. Mr. Harrington went ahead, despite my request, and had a meeting with some of you. As I understand it, there were no City Department Heads present. Whatever questions were raised were answered simply by the developer and his people. I am getting this information to you so that you do understand the importance of having a full scale discussion of all of these things, together with the appropriate City people so that you can get all the answers to your questions. I am suggesting again to the Board of Appeal that either Mr. Harrington grant an extension at the next meeting of 60 days so that this matter can be properly considered, or that the Board deny the request, or give him leave to withdraw it and have him file again after going through a full review of the process . He should have done this before filing with the Board. I am just very concerned with the developer who, in spite of his knowledge of my being hospitalized; has gone ahead and tried to get around the usual process that neighborhood like to go through with an elected representative. I will keep you advised as to what is going to happen in the next few days, but in the event that the developer does not change his mind and request the extension at the next meeting, I will suggest to the Board of Appeal that the application be denied, or he be given leave to withdraw. In any event, any of you that attend that meeting, and I believe there should be a full representation of the neighborhood at the meeting, please voice your objections to the tactics that have been used in this particular matter. You are entitled to be represented by the Ward Councillor and City Department Heads before you are asked to support a project of this size. Very truly yours, 4�;ZLEONARD F. O'LEARY COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR COPY: Board of Appeals All City Councillors :rub �P Citp of 6atem, ;01aggaCbU!5ett9 Office of the Citp (Council ^'2 Ctp fall �MIN6 W WARD COUNCILLORS VINCENT J. FURFARO COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE 1989 PRESIDENT 1989 GEORGE A.NO WAK DONALD T.RATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO NEIL J.HARRINGTON LEONARD F.O'LEARY GEORGE P.McCABE JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 18 , 1989 Mr. Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Harrington: I am writing to you with regards to my concern for the meeting you held on Tuesday evening in the City Council Chamber. I find it disturbing that after leaving a message for you that I have cancelled the meeting because of medical reasons , you held this meeting without regard to my position as an elected official, and without the courtesy of notifying the President of the City Council of your intent. It seems to me that you are only interested in holding this meeting to go through the motions of a neighborhood informational gathering so that you could announce to the Board of Appeals that the neighbors were fully informed of your project. This is not the case. I intend to bring this matter and your methods to the attention of the neighbors who were not informed of this meeting, to the Ward 6 Councillor whose area that she repre- sents also abuts the proposed project, and also the Board of Appeal. Yours truly, ERD F. O'LEARY COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR LFO' L/deb / Copy: Board of Appeal ✓/ Ward 6 Councillor Council President Citp of Oalem, Mags'arbuzetto n Office of the QCitp council �nNa�N VINCENT J. FURFARO WARD COUNCILLORS COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT 1989 1989 GEORGEA.NOWAK DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO - NEIL J.HARRINGTON- LEONARD F.O'LEARY GEORGE P.McCABE JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 24 , 1989 Mr. Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Michael: I received your letter relative to the neighborhood meeting on your project in Ward Four. The basic issue is that a neighborhood meeting on a project of this size is fundamental. Neighborhood means exactly that. It does not mean just abutters to the property, or those who have shown an interest. It means notifying the neighborhood. That is the way I have conducted myself in connection with all projects that take place in Ward 4 . You know that this particular project is much larger than any other project in that section of the City, and not to get the full input from City Departments Heads so that the neighbors can understand exactly what' s going to happen is not acceptable. You should have been aware of that situation. My only motive is to do the best I can for the neighbors, none of whom have high-priced lawyers or high-priced engineers or consultants . They depend upon me and the City to give them whatever assistance they can. A neighborhood meeting is essential, and at that meeting, I will ask the City Planner, City Engineer, City Health Agent, and all other interested departments to be present to answer the questions that will be raised. Because I, as representative of the people of Ward 4 , do my best to protect their interest does not mean, nor should it require, any inference on your part of any other motivations other than that. Consider my office a public duty to perform to the best of my ability. The people who voted for me expect that, and I intend to represent them. l w, -z- You were wrong in going ahead with the meeting as you did, because it did not cover all the areas that have to be covered, nor did all of the people affected have an opportunity to become involved. You should have been aware of that. I will ask the Board of Appeals to consider the matter in the light of my previous letter to them. Very truly yours, 4 --? 0o LEONARD F. O'LEARY COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR LFO 'L/deb Copy: Board of Appeal All Councillors Mayor Salvo C�`U. o Citp of *alem, Angubugettg Office of the ctCitp Council _ citp *aU �N WARD COUNCILLORS COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE VINCENT J. FURFARO 1989 PRESIDENT 1989 GEORGE A.NOWAK DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO NEIL J.HARRINGTON LEONARD F.O'LEARY GEORGE P.MCCABE JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 18 , 1989 RE: PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS - SALEM/PEABODY Dear Resident: As all of you are aware, at a previous meeting of the Board of Appeals when this matter was presented for the first time, there were various questions that I raised which had not been answered. It was apparent that the developer, Harrington & Company, had never shown their plans to any of the City Departments which would be involved in such a project of this size. This project, when combined with the project in Peabody, which is the other half, is one of the largest projects this section of Ward 4 has ever had. The consequences on traffic, use of utilities, use of facilities and just general environmental concerns must all be analyzed before any action can be taken. No meeting prior to the submission to the Board of Appeals was held with any of the neighbors . The developer simply filed his plans with the Board of Appeal, got himself on the agenda, and never bothered to discuss the matters with the neighbors . This , in effect, put the neighbors and myself at a disadvantage. After the meeting, I suggested that a neighbor- hood meeting would have to be held and that the City Planning Department and other Departments had to be involved before this development could be considered by the Board of Appeals . In the process of having such a meeting, I became ill and required an operation. I entered the hospital and underwent surgery on Monday, January 16 . Prior to my going into the hospital, I advised the developer, through his secretary, of my medical problem and suggested that as soon as I was on my feet that I would schedule another neighborhood meeting at which time the City Department Heads would be in attendance. The reason all this input is required is so that all the neighbors can understand how this development is going to impact the area and they can get objective answers from the City Engineer, City Planner, Health Agent, and Building Department. My concern is for the neighbors in the neighborhood. I am not concerned for the developer. In past practice, developers come in; they build their development, and then they are gone and the neighborhood is left to live with whatever problems are created. I like to avoid these problems in the beginning by putting everything on the table and letting the neighbors decide. This is my practice as your Ward Councillor. It is -z- also the practice of all Ward Councillors . This simple courtesy was denied me by the developer. Mr. Harrington went ahead, despite my request, and had a meeting with some of you. As I understand it, there were no City Department Heads present. Whatever questions were raised were answered simply by the developer and his people. I am getting this information to you so that you do understand the importance of having a full scale discussion of all of these things , together with the appropriate City people so that you can get all the answers to your questions . I am suggesting again to the Board of Appeal that either Mr. Harrington grant an extension at the next meeting of 60 days so that this matter can be properly considered, or that the Board deny the request, or give him leave to withdraw it and have him file again after going through a full review of the process . He should have done this before filing with the Board. I am just very concerned with the developer who, in spite of his knowledge of my being hospitalized, has gone ahead and tried to get around the usual process that neighborhood; like to go through with an elected representative. I will keep you advised as to what is going to happen in the next few days, but in the event that the developer does not change his mind and request the extension at the next meeting, I will suggest to the Board of Appeal that the application be denied, or he be given leave to withdraw. In any event, any of you that attend that meeting, and I believe there should be a full representation of the neighborhood at the meeting, please voice your objections to the tactics that have been used in this particular matter. You are entitled to be represented by the Ward Councillor and City Department Heads before you are asked to support a project of this size. Very truly yours, O i . LEONARD F. O'LEARY COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR COPY: Board of Appeals All City Councillors Memorandum of Understanding Between Michael J . Harrington IJV '":; ,, and Community Development Department Acting F 'or'e And On Behalf of the City of Peabody Re : Zone Change Former Flynn & Sons Property at Main and Howley Streets Lots 132 , 133 and 134 , Map #86 Date : April 15 , 1988 Reference is made to your memorandum to the Peabody City Council dated April 11 , 1988, with specific reference to Page 3 of that document , outlining conditions of a contractual understanding between myself and the City of Peabody . In order to aid in the timely resolution of the pending petition for rezoning which is presently before your Planning Board and the City Council , I propose to covenant with the City of Peabody on the following terms and conditions : 1 . That the Community Development Department will have the right of review and approval of all site and land- scaping plans before a building permit is issued . 2 . That I , as developer , agree to place in all deeds relative to this project , . a disclosure identifying potential inconveniences which may exist in the area due to proximate industrial uses . 3 . That I , as developer , will build no more than 197 units on the site , and will provide t-wo ( 2 ) parking spaces for each of the units constructed . 4 . That all issues relative to property lines and rights of way will be resolved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department before a building permit issues . 5 . That I , as developer , agree to proceed with whatever land use changes are required by the City of Salem on the basis of this agreement with the City of Peabody . It is understood by the parties to this agreement , that the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to : a ). Recognize and address the concerns expressed in your memorandum of April 11 , 1988 to the Peabody City Council . �A Page 2 Memorandum of Understanding April 15 , 1988 b ) To provide a format for the commencement of similar initiatives with respect to the City of Salem as to any changes required by their existing zoning ordinance , and in order to address any other requirements it may impose in the course of the approval process . . . c ) To enable myself , as the developer , to undertake activities with respect to the "clean up " of the site , and the demolition of the existing buildings located thereon . I think we both agree that the approach taken to date ; namely treating this site as an entity notwithstanding city boundaries , is in the interest of the parties involved and lends itself to a timely resolution of the remaining issues , and the early commence- ment of the project which would inure to the benefit of the more boradly defined community interest . I want to thank both yourself and your staff for both their timely availability . and helpfulness with respect to the ongoing effort , and hope that this agreement will serve as a catalyst for the resolution of the land use issue presently being addressed . . Micn-ael J . Harring on City of Peabody Community Development Department By : Department of Community Development & Planning City of Peabody Janaury 24 , 1989 Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Michael: Re: Housing Development at the Flynn Tannery site on Howley Street As per your request, we have evaluated the emergency service needs of your proposed housing development on Howley Street in Peabody . As you know, projects in two communities is not uncommon. For example: Twin Rinks on Route 114 is in both Peabody and Danvers, King' s Grant Hotel is in both Danvers and Beverly, and the Ferneroft Tara Hotel is in both Middleton and Danvers. In these instances both communities work together to provide emergency services. Therefore, although the subject project is in both the Cities of Peabody and Salem, the City of Peabody can have its public safety departments include this project in their service area. Police, Fire and Ambulance services are all within a short distance from the proposed site and access to the property is on Howley Street in Peabody. When the project moves forward , we will discuss this situation with the City of Salem and prepare a mutual aid agreement relative to this project. Please feel free to contact me if you need any clarification of this commitment. Sincerely, Dennis DiZoglio, Dj a for PEABODY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DD:mf City Hall • 24 Lowell Street • Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 •(508) 532-3000 �, J. Department of Community Development & Planning City of Peabody Janaury 24 , 1989 Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Michael: Re: Housing Development at the Flynn Tannery site on Howley Street As per your request, we have evaluated the emergency service needs of your proposed housing development on Howley Street in Peabody . As you know, projects in two communities is not uncommon. For example: Twin Rinks on Route 114 is in both Peabody and Danvers, King' s Grant Hotel is in both Danvers and Beverly, and the Ferncroft Tara Hotel is in both Middleton and Danvers. In these instances both communities work together to provide emergency services. Therefore, although the subject project is in both the Cities of Peabody and Salem, the City of Peabody can have its public safety departments include this project in their service area. Police, Fire and Ambulance services are all within a short distance from the proposed site and access to the property is on Howley Street in Peabody. When the project moves forward , we will discuss this situation with the City of Salem and prepare a mutual aid agreement relative to this project. Please feel free to contact me if you need any clarification of this commitment. Sincerely, Dennis DiZoglio, Dae for PEABODY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DD:mf City Hall 9 24 Lowell Street 0 Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 9 (508) 532-3000