Loading...
R164 BOSTON STREET - ZBA R164 Boston St. (I/R-2) Michael J. Harrington / \ Comprehensive Permit y hJ m �J CITY OF SALEM i' 5� In City Council, December 17 , 1990 �A '�C°I4MW Wilt~ Ordered: That the attached letter from the Department of Environmental Protection, relative to a proposed project on Howley and Main Street in Peabody, and extending into Salem City limits, be received and placed on file. AND BE IT FURTHER ORDERED: That a copy be sent to the City Planner, Building Inspector, Board of Appeal, and the City of Peabody Ward Three Councillor . In City Council December 17 , 1990 Adopted as amended ATTEST: OSEPHINE R. FUSCO • �r oefIn ��o�i tarr 00&vtz, - _Ao � 6 G't�m�ncyu�'ea/�frr ..kue� Daniel S. Greenbaum voi/aI , ✓ffaMadW&& t& omo/ Commissioner December 13 , 1990 (617) 935-2160 Ms. Susan L. Riess WETLANDS/SALEM 30A Silver Street DEP File -64-181 Salem, MA 01970 Superseding Order of Conditions (DENIAL) Dear Ms. Riess & abutters : The Metropolitan Boston/Northeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Protection has completed its review of the above-referenced file in preparation to issuing a Superseding Order of Conditions. Under the provisions of the wetlands Protection Act, M. G. L. Chapter 131, Section 40 the Department is issuing the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions denying the proposed project based upon: 1) information and revised plans submitted, 2) information gathered during an on-site inspection , 3) reasons the Department has deemed necessary to protect the statutory public interests identified in the Act. The project site consists of an approximately 6 acre parcel of land which was a former tannery operation. The remainder of the buildings will be removed from the site in order to construct two multi-family buildings. The project site is located at the intersection of Howley and Main Streets in Peabody, and extends into the Salem City Limits. The North River lies adjacent to the project site. The proposed project consists of the construction of two multi-family dwellings, driveways, parking facilities , utility lines, drainage facilities and structures , and a compensatory flood storage area. The project site lies within the flood plain of the North River. The project was filed under two Notice of Intent filings ( Y64-181 & -55-251) . The Denartment is issuing to separate Superseding Order of Conditions for each filing, however the project was reviewed as one entity. The Department ' s review of the file and on-site inspection confirmed that the project site contains the following Areas Subject to Protection Under the Act; 1) Bank, 2) Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, 3 ) Land Under a Waterway, and 4 ) Bordering Land Subject to Flooding. In accordance with M. G. L. Chapter 131 , section 40 and its regulations, 310 CMR 10 . 00 et. sea. , specifically sections 10 . 54 through 10 . 57 inclusive, each of the aforementioned Areas are presumed to be significant to one or more interests identified in the Act: 1) public or private water Original Printed on Recycled Paper �• j I Page-2- DEP File 4,64-181 supply, 2 ) groundwater supply, 3) flood control , 4) storm damage prevention, 5) prevention of pollution, 6) the protection of fisheries, and 7) wildlife habitat. The project as proposed %::ould alter Bank, Bordering Vegetated Wetland, and Bordering Land Subject to Flooding. The Notice of Intent files were filed for work within the buffer zone. The Profile data and FIRM maps provided by the National Flood Insurance Program for the Town of Peabody, dated May 15 , 1980 provides a 100-year flood elevation at 12 feet and the 10-year flood plain at 11 feet (N.G.V. D. ) , thereby determining this project site within the flood plain to the North River. The on- site grades range from 8 to 40 feet. Upon review of the Notice of Intent, the revised plan dated September 20 , 1989 , and additional information the Department noted that there are outstanding concerns regarding the flood plain associated with the North River. The applicant ' s additional information in a letter dated November 28 , 1989 and the revised plan address the projects proposed compensatory flood storage. However, the revised plan is still deficient in compensatory flood storage between elevations 8 and 9 feet (N.G.V. D. ) . Because the project does not provide the ensa required compensatory p tory flood storage as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 57 (4) (a) the project cannot be approved as proposed. In addition to the above-referenced concern it is the Department' s finding that the proposed project will increase the peak runoff rates into the flood plain on-site thereby further displacing the existing flood plain and thus will not meet the General Performance Standards for Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, 310 CMR 10 . 57 (4) (a) (1) . The additional impervious materials proposed on site, paved parking lots, driveways, and structures, will increase the existing peak flows during storm events. Additional peak flows must be mitigated particularly in the situation where a flood plain already exists on a property site. Examples of mitigating measures would be in the form of removal of contaminates associated with stormwater runoff, and mitigating peak flows with the design of a detention basin. A complete drainage analysis (pre- and post-development) is necessary in order for the Department to make a proper determination of the effects the project will have on the Wetland Resource Area. The U.S . Soil Conservation Service, Technical Release No. 55 (TR-55) method should be provided with any refiling for this project. In addition, the project does not comply with the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations 310 CMR 10 . 57 (4) (a) (3 ) , in that the applicant has failed to file a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation. More than 5, 000 square feet of flood plain within the 10-year flood plain will be altered on the project site. This amount is beyond the threshold, and therefore a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation must be filed as set forth in 310 CMR 10. 60. Page-3- DEP File =64-181 The project as proposed will alter the Bank of the North River. There are three stormwater runoff outfalls proposed within the Bank adjacent to the site. These stormwater discharge pipes will be placed into the bank of the North River, below the elevation of the top of the bank. The applicant has not overcome the Presumptions of Significance that the installation of these stormwater outfall pipes will not have a long term impact on the stability of said bank, as set forth in -310 CMR 10 . 54 (4 ) (a) ( 1) . The above referenced concerns as well as the following should be addressed in any future filings for this project. There is a floodway associated with the North River at this portion of the River. In order to make a proper analysis of the projects impacts to the flood plain, this floodway zone should be delineated on the site plan. Any revised plans should have a stamp from a Registered Professional Engineer from the State of Massachusetts . It is the Department ' s opinion that a project of this magnitude should be designed by a Professional Engineer, P. E . . As discussed during the Department ' s in house meeting held on October 24 , 1989 with all parties, the project requires MEPA review. Please refer to the final statement at the end of this document. For the aforementioned reasons, the Depart::�ent has determined that the proposed project does not meet the minimum performance standards of the wetlands Protection Act Regulations and that the proposed project will not contribute to the protection of the statutory interests identified in the Act. The Department has enumerated its reasons for denying the project within the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions. It is the Department ' s position that the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions denying the proposed project serves to protect the statutory interests identified in the wetlands Protection Act , M.G. L. Chapter 131, Section 40 . However, the Department reserves the right, should there be further proceedings in this case, to raise additional issues and present further evidence as may be appropriate. Should you or any concerned party dispute these findings, your attention is directed to the language at the end of the enclosed Order specifying the rights and procedures for appeal. � Page-4- DEP File `n64-181 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Ms . Tracy A. Peter at (617) 935-2160 . Very truly yours, C�4i Sabin M. Lord, Jr. Regional Engineer for Resource Protection i 64-181DE SML/TP/tp cc: Salem Conservation Commission, City Hall , 1 Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970 Peabody Conservation commission, Town Hail , 24 Lowell Street, Peabody, MA 01970 Mr. Michael Harrington, Ronan, Segal & Harrington, 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970 Ms. Joan M. Sweeney, 22 Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970 s 310 CMR 10 . 99 DEP File No. 64-181 Form,. 5a (To be provided by DEP) .gAT.zM Commonwealth Of City/Town Massachusetts App i cant--Harrington SUPERSEDING ORDER OF CONDITIONS DENIAL MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT G.L. c. 131, 5. 40 From: The Department of Environmental Protection To: Michael J. Harrinaton Same (Name of applicant) (Name of property owner) Address: 09 Federal Street Address: Same Salem, MA 0 970 This Order (Denial) is issued and delivered as follows : by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date) X by certified mail , return receipt requested on Degember 13 , lggn Project Location: 164 Rear Boston Street, Salam (date) Howley Street, Peabody Prcnerty recorded at the Registry Of: Essex Ccmnt-v Book: gOg6 8�ge: a Certificate if registered: 8843 & 8076 X77, Notice of Intent filed on: .7vly 5 19Rq (Cute) FINDINGS : The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the above-referenced Notice of Intent and plans listed below. Based on the information available to - he Departne_^.t at th45 -�•�+A ^e Department has determined that the area On wnicn tneprOpOseg wori: is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with the Presumptions of Significance set fourth in the regulations for each Area Subject t0 Protection Under the Act (check as appropriate) : '- X Public water supply Prevention Of pollution X Private water supply X _Land containing shellfish XGr .nc water supp'v fisheries XStorm damage preventicn �F. xSocontrol Protection of wildlife habitat Storm Page 1 Ca. Therefore, upon through deliberation and to protect said interests, the Department hereby denies the above-referenced project and orders that no Activities Subject to Regulation Under the Act as describe, in 310 CMR 10. 02 (2) of the Regulations be undertaken. The Department's reasons for denying said project are outlined below. (See attached sheets) LIST OF PLANS: Plan entitled "Site Development Plan of Land, Located in Peabodv & Salem, Mass. ," by Christopher R. Mello, P.L.S. , of Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc. , dated June 30, 1989 and most recently revise] on September 20, 1989, scale 1"=20' , one (1) sheet, #F 8131 . Letter by Christopher Mello dated November 28, 1989 and attached sheets (4) . Page 2 Page-1- Reasons For Denial DEP File 464-181 1) The project as proposed does not meet the General Performance Standards for Bordering Land Subject to Flooding as set forth in 310 CMR 10. 57 (4) (a) . The revised plan and information submitted does not provide the required compensatory flood storage volume. The proposed compensatory flood storage is deficient between elevations 8 and 9 , N.G.V. D. . Therefore, the Department cannot allow the project as proposed. 2) From the information contained in the file it is the Department ' s contention that the project as proposed will increase the peak rate of runoff into the existing flood plain on-site, thereby contributing to the increase in the horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak flows. Therefore, the project as proposed does not meet the General Performance Standards for Bordering Land Subject to Flooding as set forth in 310 CMR 10. 57 (4) (a) (1) . 3) The project as proposed does not overcome the Presumptions of Significance for Bank. The Department finds that the project will impact a portion of the Bank to the North River from the construction of three stormwater drainage pipes. The outfall of these pipes are proposed below the top of the bank. The proposed activity will have an impact on the stability of said bank. The applicant must meet the General Performance Standards as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 54 (4) (a) (1) . Therefore, the Department may not allow the proposed as proposed. 4) The proposed project will alter more than 5 , 000 square feet of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding within the 10-year flood plain, 310 CMR 10. 57 (4) (a) (3) . Due to this activity the applicant must file a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 60 . Page-2- Reasons For Denial File #64-181 Findings Pursuant to the M.G. L. Chapter 30 , Sections 61 to 62H inclusive (M.E. P.A. ) The project as described in the Notice of Intent for DEP File r64-181 is "categorically included" pursuant to the "Implementation of the Massachusetts Policy Act" as adopted by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs. The project is "categorically included" as the Wetlands Thresholds established under 301 CMR 11. 26 (7) (a) (3 ) of M.G. L. Chapter 30, Sections 61 to 62 H inclusive have been exceeded. However, due to the denial of a Superseding Order of Conditions it is the Department ' s opinion that it is not in the best interest of all parties to require the submittal of an ENF at this time. Please be advised that in the event this Superseding Order is appealed, the Department will require the submittal of an ENF and the completion of the MEPA Review process in accordance with 310 CMR 10 . 07 of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations before issuing a Final Order of Conditions. Issue: oy 1ne De:anmer.t c. _nvnel est Pr:l_ tlor �• S�Dnalure On IMIS cay c Dec2m_her 1990 Delore me De,Sonally aooea,eC Sabin M. lord JY'ajiDondl ineer }tto,me kno•'•n to oe the cerSon peap]DeO In and wno execute: :'1e loreoolno]-sir nl4l��� i� aa.uap aS ne eae Cutee Ine sale. aS n,S-net Ire !. anc cee^ n pt y Publi2- -M—y My Cbm !,,lois ezDdes The dm.Int.the parson aee^rvee M the Sud mvddnc Order.any Owner of lane loudmC the land uW wnieh the prcdose, —.,it s to D.done.d,env\en O.1SCM a ovrsuant m G.L.C.30A 110A.all nenw narin^d 01 Motor non]to,riduan an apNmealit,he.,,-, Dunuam to G.L.C.30A. 110.mwto,n,the tecueat d mad.0,Cennteo that a nano de.very Io the Deoanmenl.mm me eooloonale f l,n^Iwe aM PI a LensmmV F,r'm as P,ovroe0,n 310 CMP t0 CX7).amnln len ows both no owe of ivuann of this S.Mn,CmC Draft,, no Is e o0,eSa00 10.DW.et Claw..Orkc.01 Garw,w lyunset,Dedam .m E^v,m n 01 ndrntnal Pm1eC110.1.One Winter Sir",.Boston.MA 0$10e. R:Coy 0,list rhves]snail w In,same isle.oa Senl p Cernbep mal o-nano o,,,,to]Me Conservation ddmmnsion the adoLoan{,and rnv other dam R NOUCt W Cta.m]ol.n 401v02TIDry Me e,rnc 1MTII CornDly w:th Ine Cedanmenf S Rules 10,AdIU0::a1Ory PrdCee9n^s. 31 C CIA= 1 01161 .rid snap eomam Ine Iduowmp m]Drmall0n tel Ine CEP Welland,Fiie Numper nam.o'Ine ao01]eiltl and address Of the pmlep. ._. one ccmofele name,adCess anO tete Ohone number OI the CBT•filing Ine reduesl.and 11 remesented by counsel,the name TMC address of me anomev: ICI Ine names an:a00re Sses o'a::otMet daisies.it known: 1=1 a Clear and CO-:Re Sialemenl of 11)Ine ITC's wruch are et c:Y=S for the ort=ee O]nq.121 the Co!e G]on,IC ons Su=erseDmg CI Tv rn:^sOm=sDw=n,Daay the manse•m wmen OM anode=1d de m:onsrslwm—IM Ine De Darm11m S W enangs kepulabons 131 0--IAF 1 h CCI"C-Des net cdmnovir In]Me ololechun or Into tnle,eSM t0enulleC In the ACL anO i3l the rebel souznl IM,ouo_n the app. w=atery ne time.maudthd spe:lb:auv Ise cnanoes glossed m Ine SuDelsedne O,oer, le! a slatelhen:•',a:a trip,of rne'ecvCs:rias Ceen$ent ID IMe 21WICTn! Ine CMServTnon CommISS,^,and eaCn dthet Came Or red. resenta,ve o1 suds Deny.it known Failure IC SUDmd an ne CessaN mlTntauoh ma,result on a OlSm\SS31 Dy the DedaMment DI 1Me Non=e 01 Clam to,Tis A01vo1=atop,Me]nn: Dotaen on Dolteo Ilne end svomll 10 the �_'eG_ D,\C:11^OTTen C'aTlnl of—D,x. _ _c___C71. _ - :CSUmC AUt-„nt'; Please De advise:1-211 me OrCr,of Conod,onS lot?Me o,,,eC:a• F ne Numde• anc has orlon 10111-M,he Chan W rine 11 Ine.uened dooem In 1=110ahCe wnm General CMOnron a on . 19 II r.=^,d,T p^,=, In..ns;N-+.nl nUmo•r .,n.dh lodes M'Cs Iles I,ahS -Irvh is r• D'CM0%.,e ' d.<anikip ,/�1}IIN\. CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS KEVIN T.DALY Legal Department LEONARD F FEMINO City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor 508-745-0500 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990 December 14, 1990 John F. Tierney, Esquire 133 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 in re: Joseph R. Collins vs. James W. Shea Civil Action No. 85-21 Dear Mr. Tierney: Thank you for the correspondence regarding the above-mentioned matter dated December 11, 1990. The City of Salem Board of Appeals will not object to your motion for the obvious reason that your success in this regard will enforce and support the Salem Board of Appeals decision. If I can be of any assistance in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, t Q�eonoajrdF. Femino LFF/sbh cc: Kevin T. Daly, Esq. Richard A. Bencal L_ ` COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss . Superior Court Civil Action No. 89-1496 n O SUSAN L. REISS, JOAN M. SWEENEY ) =s AND THOMAS J. BRENNAN, ) '= PLAINTIFFS ) ^r CD co ni cIW VS. yr*s r T MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, MARGARET M. ) r� BUCKLEY, AND JAMES M. FLEMING, ) �' RICHARD A. BENCAL, JOHN R. NUTTING, ) rn cca EDWARD LUZINSRI, PETER DORE, ARTHUR) LABRECQUE AND PETER STROUT, AS THEY) ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF ) APPEAL, ) DEFENDANTS ) OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS TO DEFENDANT MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Now come the plaintiffs and oppose the defendant Michael J. Harrington' s motion for summary judgment for the following reasons : 1 . Whether the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal in granting the comprehensive permit was arbitrary, capricious and in excess of its authority is a question of fact to be determined at a de novo hearing before the Superior Court, G.L. c . 40B, § 21, G.L. c . 40A, § 17 . There are genuine issues as to that question of fact making summary judgment inappropriate. Mass . R. Civ. P. 56 . 2 . The defendant 's motion is supported by hearsay, for example, letters from various boards and agencies, and by unauthenticated documents, making summary judgment inappropriate. Mass . R. Civ. P. 56 . 3 . The defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law since he is not a public agency or limited dividend or non profit organization within the meaning of G.L. , c . 40B, S 21 . i 4 . Such other reasons as may be contained in plaintiff 's memorandum in opposition to defendant 's motion, or as may be raised at the hearing on defendant's motion. Respectfully submitted, By their Attorney, LCV Willi4l 4-Y. Heehan� Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan 30 Main Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Telephone: (508) 531-1710 Dated: October 23, 1989 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss . Superior Court Civil Action No. 89-1496 C=1 A C SUSAN L. REISS, JOAN M. SWEENEY ) � AND THOMAS J. BRENNAN, ) PLAINTIFFS ) T N C1 C9D VS. MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, MARGARET M. BUCKLEY, AND JAMES M. FLEMING, RICHARD A. BENGAL, JOHN R. NUTTING, ) EDWARD LUZINSRI, PETER DORE, ARTHUR) LABRECQUE AND PETER STROUT, AS THEY) ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF ) APPEAL, ) DEFENDANTS ) OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS TO DEFENDANT MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Now come the plaintiffs and oppose the defendant Michael J. Harrington's motion for summary judgment for the following reasons: 1 . Whether the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal in granting the comprehensive permit was arbitrary, capricious and in excess of its authority is a question of fact to be determined at a de novo hearing before the Superior Court, G.L. c . 40B, § 21, G.L. c . 40A, § 17 . There are genuine issues as to that question of fact making summary judgment inappropriate. Mass . R. Civ. P. 56 . 2 . The defendant' s motion is supported by hearsay, for example, letters from various boards and agencies , and by unauthenticated documents , making summary judgment inappropriate. Mass . R. Civ. P. 56 . 3 . The defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law since he is not a public agency or limited dividend or non profit organization within the meaning of G.L. , c . 40B, S 21 . 4 . Such other reasons as may be contained in plaintiff 's memorandum in opposition to defendant 's motion, or as may be raised at the hearing on defendant's motion. Respectfully submitted, By their Attorney, Willi�a H-." heehan1-1-rT Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan 30 Main Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Telephone: ( 508) 531-1710 Dated: October 23, 1989 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss . Superior Court Civil Action No. 89-1496 SUSAN L. RIESS, JOAN M. SWEENEY ) AND THOMAS J. BRENNAN, ) o PLAINTIFFS ) 1 VS. r" u C'0 r-- MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, MARGARET M. ) r" . • ) rr v BUCRI,EY, AND JAMES M. FLEMING, k RICHARD A. BENCAL, JOHN R. NUTTING, ) EDWARD LUZINSKI, PETER DORE, ARTHUR) N f LABRECQUE AND PETER STROUT, AS THEY) ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF ) APPEAL, ) DEFENDANTS ) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Now come the plaintiffs and move this Honorable Court, pursuant to Mass . R. Civ. P. 56, to enter summary judgment for the plaintiffs and against the defendants annulling the decision of the defendant Salem Board of Appeal . In support of this motion, the plaintiffs state there is no genuine issue as to the facts material to the instant action and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, all as shown in plaintiffs ' memorandum of law filed herewith. Respectfully submitted, By their Attorney, � y � William H. Sheehan I 3;BBO #457060 Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan 30 Main Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Telephone: (508 ) 531-1710 Dated: October 24, 1989 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss . Superior Court Civil Action No. 89-1496 SUSAN L. RIESS, JOAN M. SWEENEY ) AND THOMAS J. BRENNAN, ) PLAINTIFFS ) VS. ) MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, MARGARET M. ) BUCKLEY, AND JAMES M. FLEMING, ) RICHARD A. BENCAL, JOHN R. NUTTING, EDWARD LUZINSRI, PETER DORE, ARTHUR) LABRECQUE AND PETER STROUT, AS THEY) ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF ) APPEAL, ) DEFENDANTS ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION The plaintiffs ' action is an appeal pursuant to G.L. , C . 40B, § 21 and G.L. , c . 40A, § 17 from a decision by the defendant Salem Board of Appeal ( "Board" ) granting a comprehensive permit to defendant Michael J. Harrington. Both the plaintiffs and defendant Harrington have moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs contend they are entitled to judgment annulling the decision of the Board because the defendant Harrington did not have the legal capacity to apply for and receive a comprehensive permit. References to exhibits' are those submitted to the court by the defendant Harrington in support of his motion for summary judgment. FACTS The facts material to plaintiffs ' motion are undisputed. On March 16, 1989 , defendant Harrington, individually, (see Answer of Harrington to Interrogatory No. 5, copy ' l attached) applied to the Board for a comprehensive permit pursuant to G.L. , c . 40B, § 21, to construct sixty four units of mixed-income rental housing on a 100,562 square foot parcel of land in Salem, Massachusetts, off of, and to the north of Boston Street. (Exhs . 1, 10, 11) That parcel is located in both an I (industrial) district and an R-2 (two-family) district under the Salem zoning ordinance. (Exh. 1) In neither district is multi-family housing a permitted use. (copy of portion of Salem zoning ordinance attached) In his application, Harrington listed the requested exceptions to the Salem zoning ordinance as a variance to allow multi-family residential use in Industrial/R-2 district and variances from density requirements of front, side and rear yard depths and maximum building height. (Exh. 11) By decision filed with the Salem City Clerk on May 18, 1989 , the Board issued to Harrington a comprehensive permit for the construction of one building containing forty-eight residential units on said parcel, subject to twenty-two conditions . (Exh. 5) The plaintiffs Riess, Brennan and Sweeney appealed the Board's grant to this court. Plaintiff Riess owns and resides at 30 Silver Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and is a direct abutter of the Harrington parcel . (Exh. 18; defendant Harrington's Admission No. 1A, copy attached) Plaintiff Brennan owns and resides at 160 Boston Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and is a direct abutter of the Harrington -2- parcel. (Exh. 18 ; defendant Harrington's Admission No. 1C, copy attached) Plaintiff Sweeney owns and resides at 22 Silver Street and, while not a direct abutter, is a property owner neighboring the Harrington parcel . (Exh. 18; defendant Harrington's Admission No. 1B, copy attached) ARGUMENT 1. The plaintiffs argument to maintain the instant appeal. The plaintiffs have standing to maintain the instant appeal because each is a person aggrieved within the meaning of G.L. , c . 40B, § 21, the statute authorizing an appeal from the issuance by a board of appeals of a comprehensive permit, and within the meaning of G.L. , c . 40A, § 17 , which statute is expressly incorporated by reference into the former statute and governs the procedure of the plaintiffs ' instant appeal. G.L. c . 40B, § 21 expressly provides that the provisions of G.L. , c . 40A, § 11 applies to a hearing on a comprehensive permit application, which latter statute mandates that notice of the hearing be mailed to "parties in interest" which term includes, among others, abutters to the locus affected by the application. Plaintiffs Riess and Brennan, abutters, as "parties in interest, " are presumed to have standing. Marotta vs . Board of Appeals of Revere, 336 Mass . 199 , 204 ( 1957 ) Moreover, each of plaintiffs Riess and Brennan own and reside in homes abutting the locus and will obviously be directly affected by Harrington's proposed use. -3- l Plaintiff Riess owns and resides in her home located in an R-2 (two-family residential) district. The portion of Harrington's locus abutting Riess ' property is located in said district. l Multi-family dwellings are not permitted in an R-2 district, yet Harrington's comprehensive permit allows such multi-family use. Riess ' standing is controlled by Murray v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 22 Mass . App. Ct. 473 ( 1986 ) wherein the court ruled that an abutter to an abutter in the same zoning district, a single-family district, as the locus at issue had standing to appeal a board's decision permitting multi-family housing in such a district. See also Rafferty v. Sancta Maria Hospital, 5 Mass . App. Ct. 624, 629-630 ( 1977 ) (homeowner in a residence B district who was an abutter or an abutter to an abutter to the locus in question was a person aggrieved by variance granted for construction by a hospital in said district, which hospital was a nonconforming use, of a professional office building and parking garage, both prohibited uses in the district) . Riess has standing to object to the excessive congestion to be created by 48 units in 100,562 square feet, less than one-third of the 7,500 square feet per unit required by the Salem Zoning Ordinance in the R-2 district. (copy of Salem 1 Harrington's own application (Exhibits 10, 11 ) admits that it seeks "Variance to allow multi-family residential use in Industrial/R2 district. " -4- J zoning ordinance attached) Plaintiff Brennan owns and resides in his home located in the I (industrial) district which is the same district as the larger portion of the Harrington locus . Brennan does not lose his standing by virtue of his lawful nonconforming use in the industrial district. Reynolds v. Board of Appeals of Springfield, 335 Mass . 464, 470 ( 1957 ) ; Vainas v. Board of Appeals of Lynn, 337 Mass . 591, 594 ( 1958 ) Brennan, a direct abutter, owner and occupier of property in the same zoning district as the Harrington locus, has standing to object to a proposed use in that district which is not permitted in that district. Murray v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, supra. The three cases cited by Harrington in his memorandum challenging the plaintiffs ' standing are inapproprite. Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc . v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass . 427 ( 1949) (competing restaurants ) and Waltham Motor Inn v. La Cava, 3 Mass . App. Ct. 210 ( 1975 ) (competing hotels) simply stand for the proposition that zoning cannot be used to afford a business advantage, or, put another way, to prevent a business disadvantage by opposing the arrival of a competing business, by a commercial user. The Circle Grille rule, that a proprietor in a less restricted zone is not a "person aggrieved" by the introduction into a more restricted zone of any use permitted in the zone in which the proprietor's property is located, is totally inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. The multi-family use proposed by Harrington -5- i is not permitted in either the B-2 district (plaintiff Riess ) or the I district (plaintiff Brennan) and neither Riess nor Brennan seeks a business advantage by her/his appeal . ' Similarly, Sherrill House, Inc . v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 19 Mass . App. Ct. 274 ( 1985) involved an institutional (nursing home) appellant who was ruled not to have standing, unlike the homeowner-resident appellants here. Indeed, the Sherrill court specifically recognized the important distinction between residential owners claiming standing and institutional or business proprietors claiming same. Id. at 278 . Where, as here, plaintiffs Riess and Brennan are homeowners-residents of property abutting the Harrington locus, located in the same zoning districts as the Harrington locus, to be affected directly by the Harrington project,2 those plaintiffs have standing. The plaintiff Sweeney does not enjoy the presumption of standing as do plaintiffs Riess and Brennan, but plaintiff Sweeney is a homeowner-resident in the B-2 district no more than approximately one hundred fifty feet from the Harrington parcel. (Exh. 18, Assessor' s map) All of the plaintiffs are residents of the neighborhood of the proposed building of Harrington and, as such, are proper appellants from the 2 The conditions of the grant of the comprehensive permit provide evidence of the direct effect of the project on the plaintiffs including the height of the building, forty-five feet (condition 6 ) , rodent problems (condition 7 ) , traffic concerns (condition 14 ) and drainage concerns (condition 8 ) . -6- issuance of the comprehensive permit, just as were the neighbors in Bagley vs . Illyrian Gardens , Inc . , 401 Mass . 822 , 823 ( 1988) where the court said: Illyrian proposes to build subsidized housing for low and moderate income elderly and handicapped persons . After hearing, the board voted to grant Illyrian a comprehensive permit. As granted, the permit represents a substantial variance from applicable zoning regulations . The plaintiffs are residents of the neighborhood of the proposed building, and are aggrieved by the issuance of the permit. The Bagley case controls the instant case and compels the conclusion, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs have standing. 2 . The defendant Harrington was not lawfully entitled to apply for, or be granted, a comprehensive permit. The defendant Harrington was not lawfully entitled to apply for a comprehensive permit. G.L. , c 40B, § 21 states, unambiguously, the following: "Any public agency or limited dividend or nonprofit organization proposing to build low or moderate income housing may submit to the board of appeals, established under section twelve of chapter forty A, a single application to build such housing in lieu of separate applications to the applicable local boards . " (emphasis added) Mr. Harrington is not a public agency, a limited dividend organization or a nonprofit organization and, therefore, had no lawful right or standing to maintain an application for a comprehensive permit and be awarded same. -7- J Harrington's argument, contained at pages 15-19 in his memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment, that he need not meet the clear statutory mandate until he obtains funding from a state agency is totally without merit or support. First, it is contrary to the express language of the statute. If, as Harrington would have this court hold, any' person could apply for and be issued a comprehensive permit so long as he qualified for funding, G.L. , c . 40B, § 21 would simply have begun: "Any person proposing to build low or moderate income housing . . . . " Secondly, 760 CMR 31, . 00 et seq. 3 entitled "Housing Appeals Committee: Criteria for Decisions Under M.G.L. c . 40B, §§ 20-23, " relied upon by Harrington, affords no support for his position. That regulation governs only procedure before the Housing Appeals Committee and is totally inapposite to the instant action since the defendant Board granted the comprehensive permit with conditions and Harrington did not appeal that grant with conditions to the Committee pursuant to G.L. , c . 40B, § 22 . Thirdly, the Department of Community Affairs, promulgator of 760 CMR 31. 00 et seq. , has no power to promulgate a regulation which would be inconsistent with the express terms 3 Harrington cites language from 760 CMR 31 . 00 et seq. at page 16 of his memorandum. His citation to 760 CMR 30 . 01 is in error. _g_ J of G.L. , c . 40B, S 21 . See Commonwealth vs . Johnson Wholesale Perf . , 304 Mass. 452 ( 1939 ) (regulation of department of public health invalid as being inconsistent with G.L. , c . 94 § 193) ; and Commonwealth vs . McFarlane, 257 Mass . 530 ( 1926 ) (regulation promulgated by Registrar of Motor Vehicles invalid as purporting to regulate something, a motor vehicle's being equipped with a suitable bell, horn or other means of signalling, already regulated by an existing statute) . Any regulation which would permit an applicant other than the three classes specified by G.L. , c . 40B, § 21 to apply for a comprehensive permit would be invalid as both inconsistent with the statute and as regulating something already regulated by the statute. Fourth, the two cases cited by Harrington do not support his position. In 'Board of Appeals of Maynard v. Housing Appeals Committee, 370 Mass . 64 ( 1976 ) the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Housing Appeals Committee's ruling that the developer was an "organization" at the time it applied to the local board for a comprehensive permit and that the developer was a "limited dividend organization" prior to the issuance by the Committee of the comprehensive permit. In the instant case, unlike Maynard, the applicant Harrington was neither an "organization" at the time of his application nor a "limited dividend organization" prior to the issuance by the defendant Board of the comprehensive permit. In the instant case, unlike Maynard, the comprehensive permit was issued to an individual -9- l who did not meet the express requirements of G.L. , c . 40B, S 21. The successful applicant in Board of Appeals of Hanover vs . Housing Appeals Committee, 363 Mass . 339 ( 1973) was a corporation which had "set forth in its articles of organization the fact that the corporation was organized for the specific purpose of constructing low and moderate income homes and that the corporation may not make any distributions to stockholders, in any year, in excess of the amounts permitted for eligible funding applicants under the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency's program. " Id. at 379 . There is absolutely no similarity between the Hanover applicant and Harrington. Indeed, the Hanover case supports the plaintiffs ' contention, the court there saying, as the plaintiffs here say, "General Laws c . 40B, S 20, limits the class of proper applicants under c . 744 to public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and limited dividend organizations . " Id. at 345 . fn. 6 . Where, as here, the applicant is not a member of that limited class, the applicant cannot apply for, or obtain, a comprehensive permit. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiffs ' motion for summary judgment should be allowed and the Board's decision issuing the comprehensive permit should be annulled. -10- Respectfully submitted, By their Attorney, William H. Sheehan III, Be-*4"57060 Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan ' 30 Main Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Telephone: (508) 531-1710 Dated: October 25, 1989 -11- 'f b• There is no tan Y gible harm tany plaintiff named in the above-captic defendant 's oned action caused by the receipt of a comprehensive permit . C. Plaintiffs have no legal interest the industrial district or restricting in Preserving g residential use d- Plaintiffs ' interest in the proposed use of the Property located at Rear 169 Boston Street (the "site") is no more than a general civic interest . e• The residential use proposed under the comprehensive Permit is a higher use than that permitted as of right in the industrial zone. 3 • Question : Please state the date of the decision of the Board of Appeal to issue to the defendant Harrington a comprehensive permit . 3• Answer: The Board voted to issue said on May 9 , 1989 and filed its decision on May With the cit permit decision, as it I do not know e f e does not a the date of the appear thereon. 4 • Question: Please state all reasons that the defendant Buckley was not an applicant for the comprehensive permit for the locus . 4 • Answer: The defendant objects to this interrogatory as it seeks information which is protected by the work product objection Privilege. Without waiving this ubject to a right to amend this answer Y, defendant states on furthertes as follows : a• Defendant Buckley did not petition the Board of Appeal for relief under M.G.L. c. 40B. b• Defendant Buckley was not and is not a business Partner of defendant Harrington. C. Defendants Buckley and Harrington own the site as tenants-in-common. / 5• Question: Please identify each and every V applicant for the comprehensive permit for the locus . 5• Answer: Michael J. Harrington. 6 • Question: Please state each fact upon which You base your denial (see defendant Michael J. Harrington 's response to first request for admission Propounded by plaintiff Susan L. Reiss) that the reasons 2 l COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS . SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 89-1496 SUSAN L. REISS, ET AL, ) Plaintiffs ) V. ) MICHAEL J . HARRINGTON, ET AL, ) Defendants ) DEFENDANT, MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON' S RESPONSE TO FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF, SUSAN L. REISS 1. A. Statement: The plaintiff Susan L. Reiss owns and resides at property located at 30 Silver Street, Salem, Massachusetts ., 1 . A. Answer: Admitted. B. Statement: The plaintiff Joan M. Sweeney owns and resides at property located at 22 Silver Street, Salem, Massachusetts . B. Answer: Admitted. C. Statement: The plaintiff Thomas J. Brennan owns and resides at property located at 160 Boston Street, Salem, Massachusetts . C. Answer: Admitted. D. Statement: The defendant Michael J. Harrington has a usual place of business at 59 Federal Street, Salem, Massachusetts . D. . Answer: Admitted. 1 DENSITY RcG,. _ -, i 1 = TION VI (^ TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DENSITY REGULATIONS 1 t R-C R-1 ::;:R-2 ' -:R-3 Minimum Lot Area (sq . ft. ) 80,000 15,000 j15,000 25,000 Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit 80,000 15,000 7,500 3 ,500 Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 200 100 100 100 Maximum Lot Coverage by all buildings 20q 30% 359 350 I Minimum Depth of Front Yard (ft. ) 40 15 15 15 Minimum Width of Side Yard (ft.) 40 10 10 20 i Minimum Depth of Rear Yard (ft.) 100 30 30 30 Maximum Height of Buildings (ft.) 35 35 35 1 45 Maximum Height of Buildin s (No.of Stories) 2F 2} 2z 3 Maximum Height of Fences/Boundary Walls(ft.) 6 6 6 6 Minimum Distance Between buildin s on lot 100 I 40 30 40 Density Regulations in R-1 Districts will not apply to Dormitories built by the Salem Hospital or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Stare College at Salem. These density regulations relative to height will apply to all housi -.ri pro- jects even though financed in whole or in part by the U.S . Public Horsing Authority and/or Commonwealth of Massachusetts , Department of Community Affairs, Division of Public Housing. Specifically excluded will be_ housl•. for the elderly constructed by the Salem Housing Authority. Multi -family dwellings building in R-3 Districts on lots held under a single ownership and consisting of a minimum of two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet may be built to a maximum height of 50 feet or four storio, he.i _;ti+. (2/3/75) . i! nirq a.ziIs , boundary wall, and/or fences may be built. abut' ing r,., erty c r:ci "iL ;^f the retaining wall ; , bocndaiy Miall . and/or recce sl or the inside face of the structure on the o-.iris side . R_,fer to Section VII -G for "Visibility at Intersections." 40 USE REGULATIONS SECTIO'; V A. Permitted 1"ses �l I . R-C and n-1 Districts - Residential - Conservation and One-i'amily Residential a. Detached single-family dewllings . b. Customary agricultural , horticultural , and floricultural operations, provide(, that : ( 1 ) All the buildings combined shall not occupy a greater percentage of the lot area than listed in 'fable 1 . (2 ) '',To storage of manure or odor or dust-pro- ducing substance and no building in which farm animals are kept shall be permitted within one hundred ( 100) feet of any pro- perty line. ( 3) No greenhouse heating plant shall be operated within fifty ( 50) feet of property line. (c ) No products shall be publicly displayed or offered for sale from the roadside . C . Nursery , elementary , and secondary schools , public parks and playgrounds, and public libraries. d. Churches and similar plates of worship . e. Parish houses, convents and monasteries. f . Institutions of higher education . g . Public and private golf courses . h. Private garages and other accessary uses ar:d buildings , provided that such uses are clearly incidental to the principal use . All the buildings on the lot shall not occupy a greater percentage of the lot area than listed in 'i :ulv i 2 . R-2 -`istricts - 'fcro F2,mily Residential a . All uses permitted in E-C and fl- ] D.Jstricts e::cept ricult ; : al , . horticultural , v.nd flori - cultur,l operations. b . Taro-fa:oily d:cellin s detached or attached . C . Roomin- and boa--din- of not more than t•..o 19 USE REGULATIONS SECTIO;! `i d . Historic buildings open to the public. `�.%• e . ;.eU 5eUMS. f . Private garages and other accessory uses and b--,ildings, provided that such uses are clearly incidental to the principal use . g . Buildings and facilities for Elderly Housin, projects built under the jurisdiction of the Salem Housing Authority and financially aidad by either the U . S . Public Housing Administration and/or the Co:^r,-onw(-alth of Nass.tchusetts Department of Commerce - Division of Public Housing. 3 . R-3 Districts - Multi-Family Resid•z,tial a. All uses permitter] .in R-2 District s b . t.fulti-family dwellings. C. Private garages and other accessory uses and buildings , provided that such uses are clearly incidental to the principal use . 4 . B-1 Districts - Neig-hborhood Business a. all uses permitted in R-3 Districts , subject to all the provisions specified for each set use . b. Grocery , fruit , vegetable, and meat stores, delicatessens. C. Bakeries , provided that all baked goods are sold at retail on the premises only . d . Drugstores . e . Stores selling liquor , beer , anc! wine for con- sumption off the premises. i . Nessstands and variety stores. g . Dry goods and notions stores. h . Boo:: , stationery , and gift stores . i . Flo: i <st shop , but e\cluclin, greenhouses . j Iiard.:ara stor k. Banks :and savings and loan institutions. 1 . Barber- shops and beauty parlors . 20 USE REGULATIONS SECTION V i. Research and development facilities. j . Publishing and printing establishments. k. Warehousing and distribution. 1. Laboratories, provided however that no noxious odors are emitted. M. General office buildings and other similar and related uses. 6. B-4 Districts - Wholesale and Automotive Business a. Automobile service stations, subject to the restrictions of Section VII B. b. Automobile, trailer, and boat sales and service . C. Plumbing , carpentry , and sheet metal shops . d . Printing establishments . e. Sale and storage of building supplies . f . Warehousing . g . Wholesale merchandise brokers and wholesale storage. h. Service establishments exceeding the require- ments for such businesses in B-I Districts , such as major laundry , dry cleaning , and baking establishments . i . Churches and similar places of worship , public and private nursery , elementary , and secondary schools, institutions of higher education . j . Off-street parking and loading facilities and other accessory uses and buildings, provided that such uses are clearly incidental to the principal use. k. All uses permitted in B-1 Districts , subject to all provisions specified for such uses , except that all residential uses are prohibited. 1 . Retail uses relating to the permitted uses in this Paragraph 7. 22 JJ USE REGULATIONS SECTION V 8 . I-Districts - Industrial a. All uses permitted in B-4 Districts , subject to all the provisions specified for such uses . 9. Business Park Development Districts : a. General office buildings including business and pro- fessional offices and ancillary activities (i . e. cafeteria facilities) . b. General storage, warehousing and wholesale distribution uses. C. Manufacturing , packaging , assembly, reconditioning , processing, research and testing of the following types of industries : pharmaceuticals and other related products, food and kindred products, apparel , electronics 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 : 1. are not specifically prohibited from the City of Salem according to the schedule of prohibited uses in Section V-B, subsection 9c. 2 . are not dangerous by reason of hazard from fire or explosion. 3. are not offensive, detrimental , injurious , noxious, or hazardous by reason of causing dust, smoke, odor , fumes, radiation , ground water discharge , noise , vibration, traffic congestion, or other nuisance. 4 . are compatible with adjacent non-industrial uses. d. 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, ground water discharge, traffic congestion or other nuisances. e. Assembly or packaging of articles not exceeding two hundred (200) pounds in weight, provided that no manufacturing or processing is carried . f. Food and beverage manufacturing , bottling or processing or commissary. (6/17/85) ' �d l COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss . Superior Court Civil Action No. 89-1496 SUSAN L. RIESS, JOAN M. SWEENEY ) AND THOMAS J. BRENNAN, ) PLAINTIFFS ) VS. ) MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, MARGARET M. ) BUCKLEY, AND JAMES M. FLEMING, ) RICHARD A. BENGAL, JOHN R. NUTTING, ) EDWARD LUZINSRI, PETER DORE, ARTHUR) LABRECQUE AND PETER STROUT, AS THEY) ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF ) APPEAL, ) DEFENDANTS ) PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HARRINGTON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION The plaintiffs ' action is an appeal pursuant to G.L. , c . 40B, § 21 and G.L. , c . 40A, § 17 from a decision by the defendant Salem Board of Appeal ( "Board" ) granting a comprehensive permit to defendant Michael J. Harrington. Both the plaintiffs and defendant Harrington have moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs contend they are entitled to judgment annulling the decision of the Board because the defendant Harrington did not have the legal capacity to apply for and receive a comprehensive permit. The plaintiffs submit this memorandum in support of their position that the defendant Harrington is not entitled to summary judgment. References to exhibits are those submitted to the court by the defendant Harrington in support of his motion. ARGUMENT The defendant Harrington's motion for summary judgment should be denied because there are genuine issues of material fact and the defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant Harrington must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mass . R. Civ. P. 56 (c) . The burden is on the moving party to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Community National Bank v. Dawes , 369 Mass . 530, ( 1976) . In addition "on summary judgment the inference to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. " United States v. Diebold, Inc . , 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S . Ct. 993, 8L. 2d 176, 177 ( 1962 ) . A review of the materials contained herein, in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, indicates that there are genuine issues of material fact and that the defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 . There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Board's grant of the comprehensive permit to defendant Harrington was in excess of the Board's authority. G.L. , c . 40B, § 21 incorporates by express reference the procedure for judicial review provided in G.L. , c . 40A, § 17 for an appeal taken pursuant to the former statute. Thus, the Superior Court, on appeal, ' . . . shall hear all evidence -2- pertinent to the authority of the board. . .and determine the facts, and, upon the facts as so determined, annul such decision if found to exceed the authority of such board. . . . "G.L. , c . 40A, § 17 . The standard which was to be applied by the Board on Harrington's application is that of "consistent with local needs, " as set out in G.L. , c . 40B, § 20 . 1 Board of Appeals of Hanover vs . Housing Appeals Committee, 363 Mass . 339, 364-365 ( 1973) . Thus, this court must, at trial, make findings on such factual issues as: Is there a local need for low and moderate income housing? Is there a regional need for low and moderate income housing? What is the number of low income persons in the City of Salem? Does the Harrington proposal make adequate provision for traffic control and congestion? For protection against dangers associated with illegal dumping at the site? (Exh. 8, p. 2) For rodent control? (Exh. 5) What are the drainage effects of the proposed building and parking areas? Defendant Harrington concedes in his brief, at page 28, that " [u]pon appeal it is the duty of the judge to hear all the 1 G.L. , c . 40B, § 20 provides , in pertinent part, as follows: "Consistent with local needs " , requirements and regulations shall be considered consistent with local needs if they are reasonable in view of the regional need for low and moderate income housing considered with the number of low income persons in the city or town affected and the need to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or of the residents of the city or town, to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, or to preserve open spaces, and if such requirements and regulations are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing. -3- J evidence and find the facts . He is not restricted to the evidence that was introduced before the board. " Citing Parrish v. Board of Appeal of Sharon, 351 Mass . 561, 567 ( 1967 ) The defendant's own exhibits submitted in support of his motion show the existence of genuine issues of material fact. For example, City Planner Luster contends that the City of Salem had as affordable housing units in excess of ten percent of its housing stock; (Exh. 14) ; defendant Harrington contends it is less than ten percent and points to information from the Executive Office of Communities and Development (Exh. 13) . Nowhere in the record is there any evidence of the number of low income persons in Salem or of safeguards against the illegal dumping at the site. The only traffic study (Exh. 21) contained in the record is the traffic impact of the project in the City of Peabody, not in the City of Salem. Where, as here, there are factual questions in dispute, summary judgment must be denied. 2 . The defendant Harrington is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because he was not a lawful applicant for a comprehensive permit. The plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference their memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, defendant Harrington's motion for summary judgment should be denied. -4- J Respectfully submitted, By their Attorney, William H. Sheehan III, `BBO #457060 Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan 30 Main Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Telephone: (508) 531-1710 Dated: October 25, 1989 _ t= Irn n v � -5- J COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss . Superior Court Civil Action No. 89-1496 SUSAN L. RIESS, JOAN M. SWEENEY ) AND THOMAS J. BRENNAN, ) PLAINTIFFS ) VS. ) o m ca O MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, MARGARET M. ) t o BUCKLEY, AND JAMES M. FLEMING, ) m p RICHARD A. BENGAL, JOHN R. NUTTING, ) 9�� Co EDWARD LUZINSKI, PETER DORE, ARTHUR) r < N LABRECQUE AND PETER STROUT, AS THEY) a o ut ° ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF ) v APPEAL, DEFENDANTS STIPULATION Now come the plaintiffs and the defendant Harrington, by their counsel, and stipulate and agree that the plaintiffs ' motion for summary judgment be heard at the same time the defendant Harrington's motion for summary judgment is heard, which latter motion is now scheduled for Monday, November 6 , 1989 . The plaintiffs, Michael J. Harrington, By their Attorney, defendant, By his Attorney, William Sheehan George W Atkins III, Esquire BBO #457060 59 Federal Street Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Salem, MA 01970 Sheehan Telephone: (508 ) 744-0350 30 Main Street Peabody, MA 01960 Telephone: (508) 531-1710 Dated: October 25, 1989 J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William H. Sheehan III , Attorney for the Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I have today, served the foregoing Plaintiffs ' Motion For Summary Judgment, Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiffs ' Motion For Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs ' Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant Harrington's Motion For Summary Judgment and Stipulation, by mailing a copy of same, postage prepaid, to George W. Atkins, Esquire, 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970; Paul M. Osborne, Esquire, Regnante, Regnante, Sterio & Osborne, One Essex Center Drive, Peabody, MA 01960; and Salem Board of Appeals . 0 William H. Sheehan III,Esquire Dated: October 2 1989 co ti m � n -7D b n � co 'O $Y 7 r V7 � a y m [E cf -00altr� ofSiu��2641 svi�z� ./&&aA oo&011, - -Ivo,,lleasb gegio>L DE, V0 (� NOISS TIIEOEPARTMEMOF IO � � o7V(71 ENVVIONYENTAL PROTECTION PROTECTION S. Greenbaum !'{� V Commissioner (617) 935-2160 October 11 , 1989 Mr. Michael Harrington RE: WETLANDS/SALEM Ronan, Segal & Harrington DEP File #64-181 59 Federal Street Notice of Department Salem, MA 01970 Meeting Dear Mr. Harrington: The Department of Environmental Protection is holding a meeting to discuss your request for an expedited review for the appeal filed against the above referenced project. The purpose of this meeting is to determine if the project meets the Departments' criteria for an expedited review process and to informally discuss those issues relevant to other Departmental actions. The meeting is scheduled to take place at 10: 00 a.m. , on Tuesday, October 24 , 1989, at the Departments' Northeast Regional Office, 5 Commonwealth Avenue, Woburn, MA 01801. All other parties are invited to attend. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Mr. Sabin M. Lord at (617) 935-2160. cn , V y tr y ours r` Lux Sabin M. Lord, Jr. Regional Environmental o U7 c N Engineer for Resource LU w Protection SM-L/TPS c �- 1- m V cL� Alem Conservation Commission, 1 Salem Green, 2nd Floor, Salem, MA 01970 Salem Board of Appeals, 1 Salem Green, 2nd Floor, Salem, MA 01970 Peabody Conservation Commission, 24 Lowell Street, Peabody, MA 01960 Peabody Board of Appeals, 24 Lowell Street, Peabody, MA 01960 Ms. Susan Riess, 30A Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970 Original Printed on Recycled Paper RONAN, STROME, SEGAL& HARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT(AW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER,MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON (508)283-7432 JACOB S,SEGAL (508)744-0350 (508)283-7435 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)744-7493 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III 73 WASHINGTON STREET MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON SALEM,MA 01970 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)744-5230 JOHN H.RONAN (508)744-0372 PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY ELLEN M,WINKLER FILE NO. J.MICHAEL SMITH OF COUNSEL n April 24, 1989 74 N O� L Cn<� Salem Board of Appeals re R1 m One Salem Green C3 st Salem, MA 01970 m N C7 N f� RE: Petition of Michael J. Harrington RE: R-164 Boston Street Gentlemen: As additional submittal material reference the above cited petition, enclosed please find the following: / 1. Copies of deeds evidencing petitioner's interest in the site. l 2. Additional preliminary site development plans signed by CSS Architects to include: a. Site/landscape Plan dated December 1, 1988. b. Typical Building Floor Plans dated April 20, 1989. c. Exterior Building Elevations dated April 20, 1989. d. Unit Plans and Wall Sections dated April 20, 1989. 3. Existing Site Plan dated April 6, 1989. 4. Salem Assessor' s Map with Abutter List. 5. Report of Existing Conditions. 6. Building Tabulation and Lot Coverage Summary. ✓ 7. Subsurface Hazardous Waste Report. ,/ Vel truly yours, zvf� isJ.0 George W. Atkins, II�I GWA:ph Enclosures RONAN, STROME, SEGAL& HARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER,MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON (508)283-7432 JACOB S.SEGAL (508)744-0350 (508)283-7435 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)744-7493 GEORGE W.ATKINS.III 73 WASHINGTON STREET MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON SALEM,MA 01970 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)744-5230 JOHN H.RONAN (508)744-0372 PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY ELLEN M.WINKLER FILE NO. J.MICHAEL SMITH OF COUNSEL May 1, 1939 a ca City of Salem z Board of Appeals _ One Salem Green ^' Salem, MA 01970 s x RE: Rear 164 Boston Street � m ca Gentlemen: In accordance with the Board's request at the most recent meeting reference the above matter, enclosed are substitute plans which have been stamped and signed by a registered architect. These are the same plans previously submitted except that an informal wall section (the result of a computer design malfunction) has been replaced by a formal plan. No amendments have been made to the detail of the plans previously submitted. Very truly yourGeorge W. tkins, III GWA:ph Enclosures N C" bi J 4 BLD C,z . J C aD Bt Q N r � a 03 $ v REPORT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The Salem site contains two dilapidated and unused storage sheds P 9 and has been subject to illegal dumping and lack of maintenance over many years as evidenced by the attached photographs. (See Existing Site Plan). The adjacent Peabody parcel on the west is the site of a small woodworking firm and buildings formerly used in the leather industry and recently subject to a fire of suspicious origins. The Salem site is abutted on the north by the B & M Railroad, and on the south and east by a lumber yard and residential property. The site is accessed by Howley Street in Peabody which has further access to Main Street, Peabody and Boston Street, Salem on the South and Walnut Street, Peabody and Harmony Grove Road, Salem on the north. The total Salem-Peabody site is bordered on the South by open area of the City of Peabody ("Olde South Buring Ground") consisting of approximately one (1) acre; and on the north by a B & M right of way, the North River Canal , and Harmony Grove Cemetary consisting of approximately 120 acres of open area. BUILDING TABULATION Salem Buildings - one (1) No. of Stories - five (5) No. Of units - 64 One bedroom Units - 33 Two bedroom Units - 31 Footprint - 15,500 SF Floor 1 - parking (15,500 SF) Floors 2-5 - residential (62,000 SF) LOT COVERAGE SUMMARY Salem Building Footprint - 15,500 SF Salem Parcel a cel - 100,000 SF Building Coverage - 15% Paved Area - approximately 30% Open '"Area - approximately 55% Cf Uf r e 69a� 8849MS 6( �f.'i QUITCLAIM DEED ( / a I, Dale Q. Dick, Trustee of The Howley Street Trutt, u/d/t At>-: February 23, 1987, recorded herewith, for consideration paid of .0� ? $750,000.00, grant to Nichael J. Harrington, C/o 59 Federal Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, with QUITCLAIM covenants, the land in Peabody, Essex County, Massachusetts! vizi Parcel 1 £ A certain parcel of land with the buildings thereon situate on Howley Street in said Peabody, being shown as Lot A on a plan entitled 'Land of Samuel R. Hingston, Peabody, Maes., Scale 1 In-40 ft., July, 1965, Thomas A. Appleton, C.E.,' recorded with to EssexC..South District Registry of Deeds. Book 3418, Page 121: and N bounded and described as followat Beginning at the northeasterly corner of the granted premises on Howley Street at the location of the Boston a Main Railroad and thence running southwesterly by Howley Street two hundred eight and 07/100 (208.071 feet to land of Jd,n Flynn a Sons, Inc.[ thence running southeasterly two hundred twenty-two and 15/100 (222.15) feet to a point, thence turning and running northeasterly two hundredsfifteen (215) feet o to the location of Boston 6 Maine Railroadr thence turning and running northwesterly by said location of Boston a Maine Railroad c two hundred sixteen (216) feet to Howley Street and point of 0 beginning. Containing 45,030 square feet. Subject to a thirty v (3'0) foot right of way over the premises to Howley Street as Co shown on said plan and marked 'New Nay', to be used in common with Samuel R. Hingeton, his heirs and assigns, and all other pereo9s who may have the Like right to pass and 'repass with — vehicles and otherwise, at all times and for all purposes for which rights of ways may be used. Together with the right to construct and maintain a branch railroad track over the ^ northwesterly corner of Lot C running from the location of the 'U Boston a Maine Railroad to the norEheastarly corner of Lot A. Q Parcel IS Yf; Q ``-1'• A certain parcel of land with the buildings thereon situate In %�'?;�. the rear of Howley Street in said Peabody, and shown as Lot B on 6 the above mentioned plan, and bounded and described as follows[ Beginning at a point which is two hundred nine and 32/100 (209.32) feet southwesterly by land of John Flynn a Sons, Inc.* thirty-nine and 55/100 (39.55) feet to a polntf then running southwesterly but more westerly by said land of said Flynn seventy-tow (72) feet to Cemetery land[ thence running southeasterly nineteen and 62/100 (19.62) feet to a point, thence continuing in the same direction by said Cemetery land eighty-six and 37/100 (86.37) feet to Lot C as shown on said plan, thence running northeasterly by said Lot C (70) feet to a way shown on said plan, thence running northwesterly by said way thirty (30) i '•;'.- feet to a pointy thence running northwesterly sixty-two and >'t 37/100 (62.371 feet to a Nay as shown on said plant thence running northwesterly by said way and a portion of Lot A, twenty-four (26) feat to the point begun at. Containing 6541 square feet. Together with the right to use in common with ?v+: others, both rights of way shown on said plan leading from said Lot R to the location of the Boston a Maine Railroad. 3r M or etS C-) PARCEL lir. else 884aPf116 The land with the buildings and improvements thereon in Peabody, Essex County, Massachusetts, situated on Main Street and Howley. Formerly Grove Street, bounded and described as follows, Beginning at the corner of Main and Howley Street, thence i northeasterly by Howley Street on two course, about eighty-four !111 (84) feet to the second parcel hereinafter described, thence i southeasterly by said second parcel forty-eight and 25/100 (48.25) feet to a atone wall, thence northerly by said stone wall four and 8/10 (4.8) feet to the corner of said wall, thence j easterly by said wall ten (10) feet to a bolt in the wall, thence j northeasterly by land hereinafter described twenty-seven and 7/10 (27.70 feet to a bolt in the ground, thence southeasterly sixty-two and 5/10 (62.5) feet to the cemetery, thence ' southwesterly as the fence stands bounded southeasterly by the ,•�. cemetery fifty-eight and 1/10 158.1) feet, thence southwesterlya e little more southerly as the fence no stands bounded southeasterly by the cemetery fifty-nine and 68/100 (59.681 feet to Main Street, thence northwesterly by Main Street thirty-six ! and 75/100 (36.75) feet to an angle, thence northwesterly, but more westerly, by Main Street, seventy-three 3/10 (73.3) feet to a point of beginning. Containing about 10.736 square feet of land. 6 Meaning to convey Lot A Shown on plan of 'Land of Estate of Thomas J. O'Shea, Peabody, Mass., Scale 1 inch equals 20 feet, February 1923, Thomas A. Appleton, C.S.' t 4 PARCEL IV 2. A parcel of land with the buildings thereon situated in as Id Peabody and adjoining the parcel above decribed. Beginning at a point on the southeasterly line of Horley Street at the northwesterly corner of the lot above described thence northeasterly by Howley Street one hundred fifty-seven and 5/10 (157.5) feet to the third parcel hereinafter described, thence southeasterly by said third parcel of about one hundred i !�n sixty-five (165) feet to the cennetery, thence southwesterly by the cemetery about one hundred fourteen and 6/10 (114.6) feet to tl r the above described parcel, thence northwesterly, nearly S-}! westerly, by the above described parcel &ixty-two and 5/10 (62.5) •i ! feet to a bolt in the ground, thence southwesterly twenty-seven and 7/10 (27.7) feet to a bolt in the stone well, thence westerly iJ by said stone wall ten 110) feet WD the corner of said wall, thence southwesterly by said atone wall four and 9/10 (4.81 feet to a point, the last four courses being by the parcel above described, thence northwestgrly by said parcel above described forty-eight and 25/100 (49.115) feet to Howley Street and the point of beginning containing about 17.400 square feet. COMMO�N tIM OF MA15AC1M8719 COM OF MASS°iun'r�11-. - DF. =i�i EXCISE men., e ooh I ti W L1.1 .rs o� CL_ w O W LL CV F- ! 43[1 I i �1 i , ! I esus 884316117 •aning to convey Lot a as sham on said plan. Said Lot B is conveyed subject to the right of drainage granted in deed from William Sutton, Jr. to James Buxton, dated December 71, 1881 and recorded in Rues South District Registry of Deeds, Book 1072, Page 257. PARCEL V A pa Cel of land with the buildings thereon adjoining the above described Parcel TV. Beginning on the easterly side of Howley Street at the northerly corner of the granted premises thence southeasterly by a private way about two hundred eleven (211) feet to land now or formerly of the heirs of Clark: thence sout8weaterly by said Clark land about one hundred eight and 9/12 (108-9/12) feet to the second parcel above described; thence northwesterly by said second parcel one hundred sixty-seven and 6/12 (167-6/12) feet to Howley Street; thence northerly by said Hooey Street ninety-nine and 7/12 (99-7/12) feet to the point of beginning. Subject to any rights of way that may now lawfully exist war the same. Meaning and intending to convey the premises conveyed to me this day by deed of John Flynn c Sone, Inc., recorded previously this day. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal this day of March, 1987. - /t. Ids-._ DALE G. DICETrustee COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACIUSETTS Essex, as. March IL 1987 Then personally appeared the above-named, Dale (:!: G. Dick, Trustee of The Howley Street Trust, and acknowledged the foregoing to be her free act and deed, before me, i Notary Public " t My commission expires: I, �i I' . CT'J` tT7J En, e� rzv J G:. /i.. L0 d U3 ui.q. r m'O' O �t- ' eaoe 3096?,471 GEORGE R. HINGSTON - of A19 Howley Street, Peabody, Dssex County, Meeeachusetta - .in consideration of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($350,000.00) Brants to MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON of 59 Federal Street with gmtlrlahn restraint, Salem, Massachusetts the,lul,dxx An undivided one-half interest in the land with the buildings thereon situated in Peabody and Salem, Esser County, Massachu- setts, as shown on 'Plan of Land in Peabody and Salem, Property Of Estate of Samuel R. Hingston, Scale: 1' a 40' September 26, '- 1979,` said Plan recorded with the Esser South District Registry of Deeds in Book 157, Plan 3, and more Particularly bounded and described as follows, Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly corner thereof at m land of the Boston 4 Maine Railroad and thence running w� r SOUTHERLY by land now or formerly of John Flynn, Inc., as u shown on maid plan, 203.14 feett thence turning a and cunning z EASTERLY as shown on said plan, 38.07 feet; thence turning and running r o SOUTHERLY as shown on said plan, 132.75 feats thence turning 3 1 and. running s.n SOUTHEASTERLY by land of Pea body Cemetery,y, as shown on said wplan, 102.50 feet; thence turning and running W NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of Federal Machine Co., m y Inc. as shown on said plan, 95.1 feet; thence y turning and running Y W so NORTHEASTERLY by landnow a[ formerly of Federal Machine Co., Ire, °s m Inc. 68.21 feet; thence turning and running ,,j_S N0AT8ERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers, •a.:.z 116.01 feet; thence turning and running =a EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers, m 41.40 feet; thence turning and running i pq SOUTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers ala, and a way, as shown on said plan, 52.0 feet; thence turning and running it t$ SOUTHERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers, % 179.0 feet). thence turning and running EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers, `Sv Thomas Brennan, Marlow Dennehy, and Barbara PpSZ'`r� Drebit, as shown on said plan, 125.5 feet, 51.0 Peet; and 76.0 feet; thence turning and running SSV�1 �d _ 68y w� LZ ,', SlV3ddtl;.d0 piltl09 afj� ' R n4} "3��6 "47ti 7 �;( d, NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of George, and land now i' or formerly of Robinson, 117.01 feet' thence �f� ( turning and running NORTHEASTERLY by land now Or formerly of Reddy, as shown on said plan, 59.2 feet; EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Reddy, as shown on } "� F� •i said plan, 64.3 feet and 60.5 feet, thence { '•� P ii turning and running NORTHEASTERLY b land now or formed of Redd ` Y Y y, as shown on said plan, 7.7 feet; thence turning and cunning EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Reddy and land now or formerly of Galaris, as shown on said plan, ' 86.0 feet and 57.3 feet; thence turning and run- ning NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of %ar rae, as shown on . ; said plan, 54.0 feet; thence turning and running e ! WESTERLY by land of the Boston 6 Maine Railroad, 230.0 feet; thence turning and running SOUTHWESTERLY by land now or formerly of the Boston 6 Maine Corporation, as shown on said plan, 76.0 feet and 149.0 feet, thence turning and running NORTHWESTERLY by land now or formerly of the Boston 6 Maine xo }! Corporation, as shown on said plan, 110.0 feet i v and 81.0 feet; thence turning and running eT WESTERLY by land of the Boston a Maine Corporation, as shown on said plan, to the point of beginning 222.05 feet. Containing according to said plan, 3.6 acres more or leas. jSubject to and with the benefit of all rights of way as shown 04, on said plan. Y FFor my title see Deed dated December 31, 1979 and recorded with the Esse: South District.Registry of Deeds in Book 6671, Page 110. i i t. -'48 Y kli`k13�'I;C S 3@ Au9� 684 LI s�v��d Jo moo fy� • f� sa y 110.4 909WC473 Ayr t+`�uiT i l� I Y w,—.:s: f ' s di t f 1 - Executed m a ee.led inshnment t61e 24th day of July 18 87 t '� eorge A. Hin tan u, { r „Y�i :,.::- Yl1Ie VLa1W11YilYWitlU1d L11imNL�lltl - X'ti!-$S:1= ESSEX rm. July 24, 19 87 i Y t Then pe...Ily.,,e.red the.b,.v.named George R. Hingstoh - I / sr F ,t and acknowledged the foregoing ilutrument to he h ( c t/ .!i x.� enneEh E. Llndauer Nabp�Wtle � ndcllRSfQ A commission ermim SipQOmber 2. IWO Y c , t � au- r (,fahSt4 y�TLT t;F AlRS \f� *tS / n J S VWrW31VS 30 "13 ��. 03A1333*d SIV3ddV 30 03408 ,vca�ny �� bs Ctg of tt1em, � ttsstztljrasetts '; •'� Potts of Appeal July 24, 1989 William H. Sheehan, III, Esq. 30 Main Street Peabody, MA 01960 RE: Utility Plan - 164R Boston St. Dear Mr. Sheehan: Enclosed is the utility plan submitted by Mr. Harrington on May 4, 1989 as requested by the Board of Appeal . Said plan was erroneously filed, I apologize for any inconvenience. Sincerely, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board Keeper of the Records Enclosed: Utility Plan dated 11/30/88 rev: 5/2/89 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA: DUCES TECUM FORM 494 DS HOBBS & WARREN INC. WITH OFFICERS RETURN OF SERVICE REVISED 7-7-74 Tumutilumpalt4 of Malwar4ullats Essex , as. Superior Court Susan L. Reiss, Joan M. Sweeney Docket No. 89-1496 and Thomas J. Brennan Plaintiff(e) M. R. C. P. Michael J. Harrington, Margaret M'. Rule 30(a) & Buckley and. Salem Board of Appeals Rule 45 Defendant(B) i To: Keeper of Records Salem Board of Appeals Salem City Hall , 93 Washington Street , Salem, MA 01970 Greetings: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED in the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in accordance with the provisions of Rule 45 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure to appear and testify2m2"ttifxi7fX before a Notary Public of the Commonwealth, at the office of Attorney William H. Sheehan III No, 30 Main Street, in the City of Peabody, MA 01960 on the. 21st day of July 19 89 , at 2 : 00 o'clock P. M., and to testify as to your knowledge, at the taking of the deposition in the above-entitled action. " And you are further required to bring with you All tape recordings and transcriptions and minutes of those portions of public hearings and meetings before, and of, the Salem Board of Appeals conducted on April 6 , 1989, April 26, 1989, and May 9 , 1989 , concerning the application by Michael J. Harrington et al for a comprehensive permit for Rear 164 Boston Street , Salem, Massachusetts. A TRUE COPY A re CONS ABLE RICHARD S.WIPER Hereof fail not as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in the law in that behalf made and provided Dated June 12 19 89 . William H. Sheehan III Attorney for 30 Main Street ��((�j. y" ` C.�c, -F' Address Notary Public Peabody, MA 01960 My Commission expires ��-����-C�:S , 19 City or Town 'Strike out the words "And you are further required to bring with you" unless the subpoena is to require the Production of Documents or tangible things, in which case production of document or tangible things should be designated in the space provided. RICHARD S. WINER CONSTABLE TWO NORTH STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Keepea ob the necondz Salem Boand o6 Appeatz Satem City Haft 93 Waehington Stneet Salem, MA 01970 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss. Superior Court Civil Action No. 89-1496 SUSAN L. REISS, JOAN M. SWEENEY ) AND THOMAS J. BRENNAN, ) PLAINTIFFS ) VS. ) ) MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, MARGARET M. ) BUCKLEY, AND JAMES M. FLEMING, ) RICHARD A. BENCAL, JOHN R. NUTTING, ) EDWARD LUZINSKI, PETER DORE, ARTHUR) LABRECQUE AND PETER STROUT, AS THEY) ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF ) APPEAL, ) DEFENDANTS ) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION To: All Defendants Please take notice that on July 21, 1989, at 2 :00 p.m. , at the offices of Pearl , McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan, 30 Main Street, Peabody, Massachusetts, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 30, the Plaintiff will take the deposition of Keeper of Records, Salem Board of Appeals, Salem, Massachusetts, before a notary public or other officer authorized by law to administer oaths or take deposition. The deponent is required to bring with him all tape recordings and transcriptions and minutes of those portions of public hearings and meetings before, and of, the Salem Board of , Appeals conducted on April 6, 1989, April 26 , 1989, and May 9, 1989, concerning the application by Michael J. Harrington et al { for a comprehensive permit for Rear 164 Boston Street, Salem, Massachusetts. You are invited to attend and cross-examine. The deposition will continue from day to day until completed. You are invited to attend and cross-examine. By her Attorney, ale William H. Sheehan III Pearl , McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan 30 Main Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Telephone: (508) 531-1710 Dated: June 12, 1989 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss. Superior Court Civil Action No. 89-1496 SUSAN L. REISS, JOAN M. SWEENEY ) AND THOMAS J. BRENNAN, ) PLAINTIFFS ) VS. ) MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, MARGARET M. ) BUCKLEY, AND JAMES M. FLEMING, ) RICHARD A. BENCAL, JOHN R. NUTTING, ) EDWARD LU7,INSKI, PETER DORE, ARTHUR) LABRECQUE AND PETER STROUT, AS THEY) ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF ) APPEAL, ) DEFENDANTS ) FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF SUSAN M. REISS TO DEFENDANT MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 36, the Plaintiff Susan M. Reiss requests the Defendant Michael J. Harrington, within forty-five days after service of this request, to make the following admissions for the purpose of this action only and subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which may be interposed at trial : 1. . That each of the following statements is true: A. The Plaintiff Susan L. Reiss owns and resides at property located at 30 Silver Street, Salem, Massachusetts. B. The Plaintiff Joan M. Sweeney owns and resides at property located at 22 Silver Street, Salem, Massachusetts. C. The Plaintiff Thomas J. Brennan owns and resides at property located at 160 Boston Street, Salem, Massachusetts. D. The Defendant Michael J. Harrington has a usual place of business at 59 Federal Street, Salem, Massachusetts. E. The Defendant Margaret M. Buckley resides at 1212 Ocean Boulevard, Rye, New Hampshire. F. The Defendants Harrington. and Buckley are the owners of record of real property located at Rear 164 Boston Street, Salem, Massachusetts (hereafter called the "locus") . G. The Defendants Harrington and Buckley were the sole beneficial and legal owners of the locus as of March 16 , 1989 , and May 9 , 1989 . H. On March 16 , 1989 , April 6 and 26, 1989, and May 9 , 1989, the Defendant Salem Board of Appeal (hereafter "Board") was comprised of the following individuals : James A. Fleming, 47 Buffum Street, Salem, Massachusetts; Richard A. Bencal , 19 Goodell Street, Salem, Massachusetts; John R. Nutting, 68 Moffat Road, Salem, Massachusetts; Edward Luzinski, 25 Hardy Street, Salem, Massachusetts; Peter Dore, 12 Bentley Street, Salem, Massachusetts; Arthur LaBrecque, 11 Hazel Street, Salem, Massachusetts; and Peter Strout, 29 Intervale Road, Salem, Massachusetts. I . The Plaintiffs are owners of real estate as aforesaid and are parties aggrieved within the meaning of G.L. c . 40B, Section 21 and G.L. c . 40A, Section 17 , by the issuance by the Board on May 9 , 1989 , of a comprehensive permit to the Defendant Harrington. J. The issuance by the Board of the comprehensive permit is evidenced by its decision dated May 9 , 1989 . K. A genuine copy of said decision is attached hereto and marked "A" . L. The Defendant Harrington was an applicant for the comprehensive permit for the locus. M. The Defendant Buckley was an applicant for the comprehensive permit for the locus. N. The Defendants Harrington and Buckley constitute all of the applicants for the comprehensive permit for the locus. r O. A genuine copy of the Defendants ' application for comprehensive permit is attached hereto and marked "B" . P. By said Defendants application, said Defendants sought a comprehensive permit so as to construct a 64-unit mixed-income rental housing development. Q. The Board conducted a hearing of said application on April 6 and 26 , 1989 , and voted to issue the comprehensive unit on May 9, 1989 . R. The reasons for the issuance of the comprehensive permit by the Board are insufficient in law to warrant the said issuance under the provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws, c . 40B, Section 21. S. The application filed by the Defendants Harrington and Buckley is insufficient as a matter of law to warrant the issuance by the Board of a comprehensive permit. T. The Board issued the comprehensive permit to fewer than all applicants for the permit. U. The issuance by the Board of the comprehensive permit to fewer than all of the applicants is unlawful , void, and of no force and effect. V. The issuance by the Board of the comprehensive permit to the Defendant Harrington is contrary to law, void, and of no force and effect. W. The Board ' s findings of fact are arbitrary, capricious .and unsupported by evidence adduced at the public hearing. X. The Board' s conclusions are arbitrary, capricious and unsupported by its findings of fact and by the evidence adduced at the hearing. Y. The Board' s conclusions and reasons for its issuance of the comprehensive permit are recitations of the statutory prerequisites to the issuance of a comprehensive permit. Z. The Board failed to notify and/or consider the recommendations of the local boards of the City of Salem, all in violation of G.L. c. 40B, Section 21. AA. The Board failed to request the appearance at the public hearings of representatives of local boards who were necessary to the decision to be made by the Board on the application for comprehensive permit. BB. The Board voted to issue the comprehensive permit subject to subsequent approvals by various city officials, agencies and boards. CC. The Board voted to issue the comprehensive permit subject to subsequent approvals by various city officials, agencies and boards, thus violating G. L. c . 40B, Section 21 which requires the Board, not said city officials, agencies and boards, to decide whether to issue a comprehensive permit. DD. The Board ' s decision, leaving as it does subsequent approvals of the comprehensive permit to the discretion of various city officials, agencies and boards, constitutes an unlawful delegation of authority by the Board to said city officials, agencies and boards, which authority was vested by the General Court solely in the Board. EE. The Board' s decision does not provide for any low or moderate income housing. FF. The Board' s decision does not contain any requirement or condition as to the number of low or moderate income housing units to be constructed on the locus. GG. There is no need for low and moderate income housing in the City of Salem. HH. The comprehensive permit could not be issued without substantial detriment to the public good and without derogating from the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or the residents of the City of Salem. II . The Board' s decision is inconsistent with local needs. JJ. The Board' s decision purports to permit construction of forty-eight residential units not only without making provision therefor for water, sewer, storm drains, and electricity to service said units, but expressly stating that the City of Salem would not provide said services. KK. The Board ' s decision on the issuance of the comprehensive permit was filed with the City Clerk on May 18, 1989 . LL. The Plaintiffs ' instant action is timely filed. Respectfully submitted Susan L. Reiss, By her Attorney, Dated: June 12 , 1989 William H. Sh ehin III, BBO #457060 Pearl , McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan 30 Main Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Telephone: (508) 531-1710 Zito of 5alen1, 'Mazda luuth FILE; Wourb of (tAppeal ;I Gi_.r , ITY DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT AT 164R BOSTON STREET P A public hearing on this petition was held on April 6, 1989 and continued i to and closed on April 26, 1989 with the following Board members present: James Fleming , Chairman; Messrs. Bencal , Strout, Dore and Nutting. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening Nevis in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Additional public board meetings were held on April 20, 1989 and May 9, 1989. The petitioner, represented by Attorney George W. Atkins , III , is requesting a Comprehensive Permit to allow construction of sixty-four (64) units of mixed income rental housing under the provisions of Massachusetts ' General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20 to 23 inclusive. The locus of the property is on both an I and an R-2 District. The petitioner plans to construct a new building containing 64 units of mixed income rental housing on the site. The Comprehensive Permit which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that the proposed development is consistent with local needs in view of the regional need for low and moderate income housing considered with the number of low income persons in the City of Salem, as . balanced against the need to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or the residents of the City of Salem, the need to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, and the need to preserve open spaces. The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition to the petition was presented by the Salem Planning Board , the Salem Historical Commission, the Salem Board of Health, the Fire Marshal or the Chief of Police. 2. There was neighborhood opposition expressed to the petition. Concerns expressed were public safety demands , the addition of traffic to adjacent streets, rodent control , and the impact on City services. These factors were considered by the Board and adequately addressed by the petitioner and by the imposition of conditions provided in this decision, as well as existing City ordinances. 3. The petitioner has complied with all requests made by the Board pursuant to the requirements of 760 CMR31.02(2) by direct submissions of requested materials to the Board and agreement to approval conditioned upon receipt of a site approval letter. 'Pa9 a 2. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. There is a need for low and moderate income housing in the City of Salem; 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without derogating from the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or the residents of the City of Salem; 3. The proposed development is consistent with local needs . Therefore , the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 to 2 to grant the Comprehensive Permit subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to this project, including the following conditions : a. The proposed building be provided with a residential fire sprinkler system, installed in accordance with the provisions of NFiPA Standard 13R, and Article 12 of the Massachusetts State Building Code. b. Access to the building for fire fighting purposes be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department, and shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of 527 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 25.00. c. A right of way from Boston Street, on the Salem side, be maintained as a second means of access to the property for use in emergency response. Dimensions of said right of way shall be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department. d. Connection of the fire alarm system within the proposed building shall be by means of a master fire alarm box connected to city fire alarm circuits. Such fire alarm box shall be capable of serving as a "street box" for use from outside of the building. e. The primary response to fire related emergencies shall be made by the Salem Fire Department as per current departmental policy. Mutual or outside aid response to the site shall be in accordance with present or future agreements between heads of fire departments in the Cities of Salem and Peabody. f. Fire supply to the site , including type and location of fire hydrants , shall be acceptable to both the Salem Fire Department and the Director of Public Services for the City of Salem. 2. All construction comply with existing city and state building codes. -Page .3. 3. Dimensions of the building shall be as per plans dated December 12, 1988 (L-1) and April 20, 1989 (A-1 through A-3) submitted to the Board of Appeal May 2, 1989 subject to the following amendments : a. Provisions of these conditions b. Provisions of the Salem Conservation Commission c. Boundaries of the parcel relative to abutter Jeffers , d. Location of the footprint of the building provided said footprint shall be relocated no more than 15 feet. 4. Proper, numbering be obtained from the City Assessors. 5. Minimum of ninety-six (96) legal size parking spaces be maintained on site for the exclusive use of the residents , guests and service vehicles of the building only. 6. height of the building shall not exceed 45 feet. 7 . Plan to be submitted and approved by Board of Flealth; City of Salem, for rodent control during and after construction. 8. Plan for drainage shall be submitted to the Salem Board of Appeal as approved by the Engineering Department, City of Salem. 9. Public safety response (police , fire , civil. defense) shall be provided in accordance with mutual aid agreements determined by public safety officials of Salem and Peabody. 10. All services for water, sewer and storm drains , electricity shall not be the responsibility of the City of Salem. 11. The City of Salem shall not be responsible for solid waste disposal or snow removal for this project. 12. Plan review and an Order of Conditions be done by the Salem Conservation Commission. 13. Petitioner provide South Essex Sewerage District with mitigation relative inflow and infiltration. 14. The proponent participate with traffic mitigation by cooperation with UMPTA study of traffic , including the transfer of any necessary real property to affectuate that study and improvement. 15. Enclosure of the parking area under the building shall be reviewed and approved by the Salem Planning Department, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. 16. That the site contain no more than forty-eight (48) units in Salem. Page 4. 17. Any accessory structures placed on the roof shall be properly screened and noise contained. 18. There shall be no parking east of the Salem building. 19. The area east of the Salem building shall be cleaned and landscaped. 20. Plans for lighting and landscaping shall be submitted to the Board of Appeal and approved by the Salem Planning Department which shall also review and approve construction of same. 21. The main entrance corridor within the parcel shall be curbed with granite. 22. Prior to issuance of permits hereunder, petitioner Michael J. Harrington must obtain a site approval letter from Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development in accordance with 760 CMR31.02(2) (g) . COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT GRANTED Jabs M. Flening, Esq., Chairman' Board of Appeal APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 Of THE Wr6 GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 809. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUBSANT TO LIASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION ll, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEARING THE CERT• FICATION OF THE CYfY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN F'D, OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT.HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIEL RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNE� OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL A TRUE COPY ATTEST: J s phine R. Fusco, City Clerk Date �y )y A copy of this decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk. --------------------- (' APPEAL CASE NO.... ` CITY or, SALEM, MASSACHUSli'TTS l, TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: I'he Uuderolfigled re�reflent that they MI are the owners of a certoln parcel of [nod located at No. 164 Vo$tOn.SCrBeC liegr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xKaKK9aK Znnlog SUa{:d cll . I and R-2 , , , , , , and said Parcel is affected by Sectlon(s). .ff dg V . Table. 11 End Vil . of tile Mx e Salem Zoning ordinance XXXV lBbxKAXAJi>". . . . riaxankxnaaaxarcsKaaaaxsanai3xnrciaean�xrcaa�%x Pinna descrlbtng the work proposed, NNYNXNNNNXKNNnk KxnNKKNxxNKxkwxpNKkNXKNkxNNkkdkagaxkN Y.vdtYdiKiSr,Yd{riKPQIKkYdikp',4iNKxpNc Yip'J',K%KP{x:NYdl%XiNKf5Yf�1U5WKMY31WYdC are attached hereto. � s o u O A n -L1 }l 1 Yin to -, S rn v. P N N r GO N Tile Application for Permit vas denied by the Inspector of guildlugs for the following reasons: Not Applicable: application for Comprehensive Permit. The Undersigned hereby Petitions the Board of Appeals KNxxxxYxkNNxkkxwxxNkx MNMxAx INM X:riY.PfYIYNYd;YSSKNYd'dl%rcWKMYdcHHYdIHNKP(tVkP1 Y1�NXWYdcXdfWKNNWWYd(HNNx XalNyrinwxroxxxiXNNxD(UIMNKYx Hxx dli)�NNN HNYdo%i)1)xlof4lCttxP4riN xp'�1♦WYd1P.W%wNK NNY,IXMk%WK xC;MGi)ticK%N%NN IU(NN wxwNNNd Nwx xwx xxwxK x NiNKPf IiM WM�WNNx%NWK HNx�KV1YtY MYWYd(KYNxKN xt1NHNMNK KKd:wYa(MNI(Of NkaUMkiHHKW�(Nwx NNN NNN!lK:Cw�' I KYaYYt1 KVjKY,Y K Yd1Wk>IAWYd5Nx7,lSWY N%NW N MrJ(Nd YC1 xN.M,x NY,N Y�1NNxINNK NwwN NNw)f NNNNwxNwwxK6(D}x xkwxkx d:wX%YIY wM)lnttxat Yd(x%gNNN%%M nk KHIN(HHYa(NkM xllINK K3oN%MryK N1oHkM xM1NNK%NNk NNxoxblkBl nK NNNkx)Fxwx NdNX W(NNNxN4y Wy. Xxx: To Issue a Comprehensive permit in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40U, Section 21, to construct a 64-unit mixed-Income rental , housing development In accordance with the attached plans. See Attachment "A" for the list of requested exceptions to the Salem Zoning Ordinance. d i f' p:-..�!d'lsl♦�„` ,� � a 41,115hael J Ilarrington G-ar.t •dr �'a�{ : t ': Addree• .... :.yam r ' ,,r Date Telep 11 iij?h one. Br Fiichael J. Harrington 'three copies of tale application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of Appeals with a check, for advertising in ti:e amount of $ . . . . . . . . . • , four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening News. Attachment A List of Requested Exceptions to the Salem Zoninq ordinance I. Variance to allow multi-family residential use in Industrial/11-2 District. 2. Variances from density requirements of Front, Side and Rear Yard Depths and Maximum Building Height. i A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William H. Sheehan III, Attorney for the Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I have today, served the foregoing First Request For Admission Propounded By Plaintiff Susan M. Reiss to Defendant Michael J. Harrington, by mailing a copy of same, postage prepaid, to Michael J. Harrington, Margaret M. Buckley, James M. Fleming, Richard A. Bencal , John R. Nutting, Edward Luzinski, Peter Dore, Arthur Labrecque and Peter Strout. Dated: (j��w( (� Will fjah6ehan III, Esquire I � v roe L ,� T n-1 tLtQ C IG-P C't7tzrt�j r e pl v IT 2� _ w n 2l ✓L, U-1 .p Not w a 31, a I I I l i -- - -� I I ----.� ---�-1 - ---� ; ---- - -- ------- - - --- - -+I-- - --- -- - -- -- - � I - -- -�-- - - 1-I- - i - - ' i i - - �! --- _ � i -- --- - -- _ ---a+ ------- DATE OF HEARING � r— PETITIONERtira e l LOCATIOP: MOTION: `PT-&h d / SECOND 2 / � N �\ SECOND b� 0HEAR SECOND LEA W AW � SECOND I V � g TO CONTINUE SECOND 'WLR ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT� A�-HEAR CBNTIN[�'E— ' u" RICHARD BENCAL JAMES FLEMING ✓ I pnc �cuil ' JOHN NUTTING PETER STROUT I I ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PETER DORE A- ' \ I ,j i DATE OF HEARING 07 PETITIONER LOCATION MOTION: TO GRANT 2 _<;;�'— SECOND TO DENY SECOND TO RE-HEAR SECOND LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND / TO CONTINUE SECOND h�✓ . ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE RICHARD BENCAL JAMES FLEMING 9ntLLLU-aI-NSK3 JOHN NUTTING PETER STROUT ASSOCIATE MEMBERS PETER DORE AR-T-4U.R_LAB.RECQUE— CONDITIONS: / (gap 4r- va, v CITY OF SALEM :,, �, �' b CITY OF.SALEM gOAyRD OF APPEAL �/��` BOA RD OF--.APPEAL public hearing for all persons inter q, Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter t Wlll.hold a p +g ted in the petition of Michael J.Harrington for p led in the petition of Michael Jd Harrington for r �Comin the petition Permit in accordance with MGL ✓°a Comprehensive Permit in accordance with MGL Chapter-40B, Section 21.to construct a 64 unit Chapter 40B, Section 21, to-construct a 64 unit 'mixed income rental housing at R164 Bosto s to:� `mixed income rental housing at R164 Boston'St. s miR-2).Variances requested from use,front, .�(ISR-2).Variances requested from use;front,side" depths and height.Said hearing to and rear yard depths and height. Said hearing to ( and rear yard April 6,1989 at 7:00 P.M,One be held Thursday,April 6 1989 aC7:00 P.M.,One;:: be held Thursday, P 'eSalem Green 2nd floor.. Salem Green 2nd poor, ES M +LEMING Esq JAMES M.'9 LEMING Esq; March 23 300989AI March 23 30 1989 q;4 e y CITY OVI SALEM rY gppRD OF APPEAL V+gfj,fiold a public heanng for-all persons inter or '"�rsted in the pettion oC Michael J:Harrington f %pra Comprehensive c ermit into°construct a+64Nun t "r'Chapter 40B, Section 21, ston mixed+Variances relquestedf rotm use,Bfront sae`5 (IIR-2). the and height.Said hearing to,, and rear Yard deP ril 6,1989 a47:00 P.M.,Ones;, be held Thursday, Salem Green 2nd °T : .� f3 JAMES M 'P`LEMING yq w March 23 30 1989E : +r•' ,',_ .w„ ,, •a.A F In'..-:h x._ 'fir a,5y4. .. -� CITY ON SALEM�" a 3 •'-BOP.RD OF.APPEAL .. ., '• ,Wli1,hold a public hearing for all persons inter-'!' r F 3 >CStedin the petition of Michael J.Harrington forCITY-OF' SALEM"-',x f. BOARD OF.APPEAL , #i ,�a Comprehensive Permit in accordance with MGL ° Will,hold a public hearing for all persons inter ' -:Chapter 40B, Section 21, to construct a 64 unit : 'listed in the petition of Michael mixed income rental housing aPR164 Boston St ri ?acomprehensive Permit i accordance J. Harrington arri ig�rMGL ; � '.(I/R-2). Variances requested from use;front,side '.Chapter 40B, Section 21, to,runs GL a 64 unit e`F' and rear yard depths and height. Said heating to mixed income rental housing atJR164 Boston64ufit °; .be held Thursday,April 6, 1989 at 7:00 P.M.,One .(I/R-2). Variances requested from use, ode "y' -Salem Green 2nd floor. ��,, .r.. and.rear yard depths and height. Said'heating to JAMES M 'N"IEMING Esq r�'` be held Thursday April 6,.1989 at 7:00 P.M.,One,=` March 23 �301989� .. i it ri�t sy � 3 .rx Salem Green, 2nd floor. ,.� JAMES M�ft'EMING Esq March 23-,30.1989.- DATE:............. ............ APPEAL CASE NO.... ... _....... . . CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS AF�I�IINE�*n TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that they M are the Owners of a certain parcel of land located at No. 164 Uo5t9n•Strget Redr. t and R-2 Xg88E8tX Zoning �``)jjstrjcr • . ; and said Parcel Is M and V Tabje. l1 Ono ylj affected by sectton(s) . . f . 2SEX1(NgxNddd>f2SISiSdgK1(t;Xg1S�14�xMiS l2f iS,xof the Salem Zoning Ordinance XJtVEC")MAMXAK" g �smx. Plans describing the work proposed, NriVNXk'"fKX (NMn'X'('(dxKOOXKNM"K OMMOXXNRXRNkkdk0(9XX MXt< XAcxd11�X�Jiif�Sicx)�FlteficlftHOC are attached hereto. n M as Ln a M c The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons: Not Applicable: application for Comprehensive Permit. The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals KQ(xwxxyxxko(XKRKo42(XN8XKh0(x$NkA(d 7�x�t'�C xws��tFrdc x�t�x/�c wx Yd(NDV1(�cRx��,lc xr<y<rd(x�wx xw>Frdax xix N�(x w N�N�ax rsx x,asc�a icrxu(ka,e�(xixx ��36Xi3srdc X(pYeX x-11iyXQfP�d(3(t3EYc3f K XiydOc XiYd43Sif,�J�(X@(i(xN1fN(Nd( xe(tc7ENk)c x�(xiti N9c xNf6S(X�Yi}ENMN qx xx(x x�eKutk x �d4IfQ4Y$c N3gK�91�t•Ycl(xd4ydc N341tQ(pcHp4t'�(xJQYd'd(x,YdO(7ck XQON4xAt10(4l(dtadaxYcNd(p(xxKCa�(»wx xx N Nitkjf,��g7g• tiC3�t'diicPi?:xtxox xpt iH(�Q)iY<Y>SYd4Q�f Yd'ci Xiii'dc xadax�d�c NIK3,}x xi0c YsIQY�'ck xrmml NNMX�saxnnxix xiraxXMDP,c xsHaxx fc ¢ctaxr?ai�c xemota(x�x 10(xt4tardaw(xasrd(�gNw�rcx�c xrss(XOdN3C x�Nxaa:gc x>axkR:ratNxx xaaxk>80dxMkba�c ukxleOQx xix:c�tNx ftWb (4d0WXV0MX)4M' To issue a Comprehensive Permit in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 408, Section 21 , to construct a 64-unit mixed-income rental housing development in accordance with the attached plans. See Attachment "A" for the list of requested exceptions to the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Owner. Michael J. Harrington et al Address. 59 Federal Street, .Salem, MA. 01970 Telephone, . . . 744-0350 _ . . Same Petitioner . . . . . . . . . . . . Date Address. . . . . . . Telep one. By .. r. Michael J. Harrington 11iree copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of $ . . . . . . . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening News. i Attachment A List of Requested Exceptions to the Salem Zoning Ordinance 1.. Variance to allow multi-family residential use in Industrial/R-2 District. 2. Variances from density requirements of front, Side and Rear Yard Depths and Maximum Building Height. i� —V DATE:......... .......__..... ...... ... ...... . ��'Coywrl_� ,. APPEAL CASE NO.... ... .....__ .. s o '�Jffp4,Me d'Y�♦ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that they U are the Owners of a certain parcel of land located at No. 164 0o$tgn,Strget Re@r, sg>fi�asls>s zoning pp strt�C i and R-2, , , , , . . ; and said Parcel is affected by Section(s). V� ana Vf jabie; I I and vI j , , , . ; of the Salem Zoning Ordinance 1�EbYx7bHHh)t)4�Ya( g . Baxxls�xl�llxt;nt[�u B1Si4�xg�x�xxxisl;�bl�ngx>S�ifgx x Plans describing the work proposed, DtxYltxltugpxgMf(OtYXxa[dxxdxKh6txkascp[a[KKotxxdfxHo(YYBScttgscxSca x3d'dHcdc3fid41c�QH4i�xpglCCrdgcxpH�OmHHS�4i�c� are attached hereto. -t ,y r-- -�:r; O � CO The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following P g g reasons: Not Applicable: application for Comprehensive Permit. The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals K0(xVXVYxXk0(xKitmxxa1xxka(x2xjaa aH(iS�4i��04i�d�fi4341�d�Xa(iBUk>��tNdOOQlf�'dSQfigtxYd'd�(xd11H(YdmHAtr7txGfl�X0tttlptlavxf0xxf�(�i1NNtlQtfyt�NXx ��9lti'�X�d4�t2�d45 x@�'dc�dtrl4KQ(@t xddOdiXQCP'dc x�c x6t�iyc X�,Omt t(3c�tmc xxBc�aGnk x 3�d41f Qti�C�K Wl:'ilJ�(X3fcYd(�S1SQ@�dV 41'�(RJrd'd�dc xJ'dil@ dOtQtia)d(Qal�dt�f mfYdmCfl'et�c xi0X�sYna1(aa7gA(x#7c X)IK7ElOtl99H� tK�d�d91b�1(W�%xBtfd<�Q]4f'dhal<dS4�4id�dc xt4id(�c Md�dgrc:duc Y$m�t3m�dc wlolmt kxxuc x�a KasaxanmtlracDcbgac:deo�ntic l �X95xifdcR2QMd(Xt�410Y6t1aX XdtYdUpalmpQf61a3(Xf�Xbale(xauatmegc�cxamk xlotlec:�xux k>tDP( StXhaowckWxveasoesc To issue a Comprehensive Permit in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40B, Section 21 , to construct a 64-unit mixed-income rental housing development in accordance with the attached plans. See Attachment "A" for the list of requested exceptions to the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Owner. Michael J. Harrington et al Address. 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970 Teleph--ne. (508) 744-0350. _ . , _ . . . Petitioner Same Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . . . . . Telep one. By Michael J. Harrington Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Evening News. ----------- 07- Z,2 _ CITY OF SALEM e BOARD OF APPEAL 3 One Salem Green 'L .9 SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Michael J. Harrington, Esq. 59 Federal St. Salem, MA 01970 CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 1 a One Salem Green i 'L SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 George Atkins, Esq. 59 Federal St. Salem, MA 01970 ' a ev cnni4b qq Ti#u of '�$ttlent, 'fflttssuchuse##s May 22, 1989 Notice is hereby given that as of May 18, 1989 the decision of the Board of Appeal has been filed in the office of the City Clerk to grant the petition of Michael J. Harrington for a Com- prehensive Permit to allow the construction of forty eight (48) residential units at 164R Boston St. BOARD OF APPEAL Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSURANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE Mass. general laws, chapter 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSUANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE CR 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 AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS- MISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAVE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL a (flit of 1a855i ;') 169 ttlPm, � ttsstttl�usPf LFILE �OMra U{ � P211 S,. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT AT 164R BOSTON STREET A public hearing on this petition was held on April 6, 1989 and continued to and closed on April 26, 1989 with the following Board members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal , Strout, Dore and Nutting. 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Additional public board meetings were held on April 20, 1989 and May 9, 1989. The petitioner, represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, III , is requesting a Comprehensive Permit to allow construction of sixty-four (64) units of mixed income rental housing under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20 to 23 inclusive. The locus of the property is on both an I and an R-2 District. The petitioner plans to construct a new building containing 64 units of mixed income rental housing on the site. The Comprehensive Permit which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that the proposed development is consistent with local needs in view of the regional need for low and moderate income housing considered with the number of low income persons in the City of Salem, as balanced against the need to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or the residents of the City of Salem, the need to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, and the need to preserve open spaces. The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition to the petition was presented by the Salem Planning Board , the Salem Historical Commission, the Salem Board of Health, the Fire Marshal or the Chief of Police. 2. There was neighborhood opposition expressed to the petition. Concerns expressed were public safety demands, the addition of traffic to adjacent streets, rodent control , and the impact on City services. These factors were considered by the Board and adequately addressed by the petitioner and by the imposition of conditions provided in this decision, as well as existing City ordinances. 3. The petitioner has complied with all requests made by the Board pursuant to the requirements of 760 CMR31.02(2) by direct submissions of requested materials to the Board and agreement to approval conditioned upon receipt of a site approval letter. Page 2. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. There is a need for low and moderate income housing in the City of Salem; 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without derogating from the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or the residents of the City of Salem; 3. The proposed development is consistent with local needs. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 to 2 to grant the Comprehensive Permit subject to the following terms and conditions: I. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to this project, including the following conditions: a. The proposed building be provided with a residential fire sprinkler system, installed in accordance with the provisions of NFiPA Standard 13R, and Article 12 of the Massachusetts State Building Code. b. Access to the building for fire fighting purposes be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department, and shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of 527 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 25.00. c. A right of way from Boston Street, on the Salem side, be maintained as a second means of access to the property for use in emergency response. Dimensions of said right of way shall be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department. d. Connection of the fire alarm system within the proposed building shall be by means of a master fire alarm box connected to city fire alarm circuits. Such fire alarm box shall be capable of serving as a "street box" for use from outside of the building. e. The primary response to fire related emergencies shall be made by the Salem Fire Department as per current departmental policy. Mutual or outside aid response to the site shall be in accordance with present or future agreements between heads of fire departments in the Cities of Salem and Peabody. f. Fire supply to the site, including type and location of fire hydrants, shall be acceptable to both the Salem Fire Department and the Director of Public Services for the City of Salem. 2. All construction comply with existing city and state building codes. ,r Page 3. 3. Dimensions of the building shall be as per plans dated December 12, 1988 (L-1) and April 20, 1989 (A-1 through A-3) submitted to the Board of Appeal May 2, 1989 subject to the following amendments: a. Provisions of these conditions b. Provisions of the Salem Conservation Commission c. Boundaries of the parcel relative to abutter Jeffers d. Location of the footprint of the building provided said footprint shall be relocated no more than 15 feet. 4. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessors. 5. Minimum of ninety-six (96) legal size parking spaces be maintained on site for the exclusive use of the residents, guests and service vehicles of the building only. 6. Height of the building shall not exceed 45 feet. 7. Plan to be submitted and approved by Board of Health, City of Salem, for rodent control during and after construction. 8. Plan for drainage shall be submitted to the Salem Board of Appeal as approved by the Engineering Department, City of Salem. 9. Public safety response (police, fire, civil defense) shall be provided in accordance with mutual aid agreements determined by public safety officials of Salem and Peabody. 10. All services for water, sewer and storm drains, electricity shall not be the responsibility of the City of Salem. 11. The City of Salem shall not be responsible for solid waste disposal or snow removal for this project. 12. Plan review and an Order of Conditions be done by the Salem Conservation Commission. 13. Petitioner provide South Essex Sewerage District with mitigation relative inflow and infiltration. 14. The proponent participate with traffic mitigation by cooperation with UMPTA study of traffic, including the transfer of any necessary real property to affectuate that study and improvement. 15. Enclosure of the parking area under the building shall be reviewed and approved by the Salem Planning Department, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. 16. That the site contain no more than forty-eight (48.) units in Salem. Page 4. 17. Any accessory structures placed on the roof shall be properly screened and noise contained. 18. There shall be no parking east of the Salem building. 19. The area east of the Salem building shall be cleaned and landscaped. 20. Plans for lighting and landscaping shall be submitted to the Board of Appeal and approved by the Salem Planning Department which shall also review and approve construction of same. 21. The main entrance corridor within the parcel shall be curbed with granite. 22. Prior to issuance of permits hereunder, petitioner Michael J. Harrington must obtain a site approval letter from Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development in accordance with 760 CMR31.O2(2)(g) . COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT GRANTED 4 Ja42sJM. Fleming, Esq., Chairmarf Board of Appeal APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. IF ANY. SMALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE 1V1 GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. SECTION ll. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION. BEARING THE CERT- FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN F'"9. OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIEL� RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OFTHEOWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL A copy of this decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk. ;�J cif T of 5nirra 'fflttssachuseffitr . .- � z ; s Pwrb Df '�Ppv l March 20, 1989 Office of the City Assessors City Hall Salem, 11assachusetts 01970 Gentlemen: I would appreciate having a list of abutters for the following properties for a public hearing scheduled for April 6, 1989 Please forward said list to Brenda Sumrall, c/o Public Property Department, One Salem Green. ADDRESS OWER 164R Boston St. Michael Harrington Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk, Board of Appeals Ctu of �$ttfeiu, �ffittssar4usetts �Saurb of 3; f QFfC.Tti.� AGENDA APRIL 6, 1989 - 7:00 P.M. 2nd Floor - One Salem Green 1 . Petition of Michael J. Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit to allow construction of sixty-four (64) residential units at 164R Boston Street (R-2/I) 2. Old Business 3. New Business a,nssnrr{M I' T . @litg of Salem, 'Mttssar4usetts .3. �Rotcra of '�"etti NOTICE OF MEETING CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745-9595 Ext. 381 You are hereby notified that the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal will hold a meeting on Thursday, April 20, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green, relative to the petition of Michael Harrington for a comprehensive permit to allow construction of multi-family dwellings at 164R Boston St. (I/R-2) For the BOARD OF APPEAL Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board .anu¢ b^ (1 jtg of J$ajem, C4 HaggUr4U5ettS %�:,a:`�V� �nttra of �ppeul NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal will hold a public hearing on the petition of Michael J. Harrington relative to a Comprehensive Permit to allow the construction of multi-family residential units at 164R Boston ST. (I/R-2) Said hearing to be held Tuesday, May 9, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor, One Salem Green. Petition has been continued from the April 26, 1989 hearing. For the BOARD OF APPEAL / Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board .canni�b' oftt1em, 1Httssttcf�use##s Poxra of �p}tettl March 22, 1989 Board of Appeal Members Richard A. Bencal John R. Nutting Peter Strout Arthur LaBrecque Gentlemen: A special meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal has been scheduled for Thursday, April 6, 1989 to hear the petition of Michael J. Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit relative to R164 Boston St. The Chairman, Mr. Fleming, feels it would be optimum to have the same five (5) members sit on this hearing as sat on the previous hearing. If you have any problem with this date, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks Sincerely, IV Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk of the Board bms cc: James Fleming Edward Luzinski Peter Dore r „ oani4b Ctv of �$ttfem, massac4usette o J Pourb Uf ,�kppPu( LmT.� March 27, 1989 Planning Board Conservation Commission Historical Commission Board of Health Ladies & Gentlemen: In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Section 21 , you are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal has scheduled a hearing to be held April 6, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green relative to the petition of Michael J. Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit to allow the construction sixty four (64) residential units at R164 Boston St. Enclosed for your perusal and input is a copy of Mr. Harrington's application, street map and MGL 40B §21 . Respectfully, James M. Fleming Chairman, Board of Appeal JMF:bms Enclosures cc: Members of the Board of Appeal City Planner Fire Prevention Inspector of Buildings Councillor O'Leary w LXECUTIVE OFFICE OF COMMUNITIES & DEVELOPMENT Michael S. Dukakis, Govemor ` Amy S. Anthony, Secreury IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CHAPTER 774 December 9, 1987 Dear Local Official: The purpose of this notice is to clarify an important aspect of Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 (also known as sections 20-23 of Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws or as the "Anti-Snob Zoning Act") . Chapter 774 is a local process for granting "comprehensive permits" for the development of subsidized low or moderate income housing. These permits, granted on a case-by-case basis by local Zoning Boards of Appeals (ZBAs) following a public hearing, may allow housing construction at greater density than allowed by local zoning. A local denial of a comprehensive permit, or the imposition of "uneconomic" permit conditions, may be appealed to the state Housing Appeals Committee. The regulations of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee (760 CMR 31.02) specify eight submissions that the ZBA may require from the proposed developer before the public hearing on an application for a comprehensive permit. These items include: (1) preliminary site development plans; (2) a report on existing site conditions; (3) preliminary architectural drawings; (4) a tabulation of proposed buildings; (5) a preliminary subdivision plan (if necessary); (6) a preliminary utilities plan; (7) a list of all requested exemptions from zoning and other local regulations; and, (8) evidence of the developer's interest in the site and eligibility under Chapter 774, including a so-called "site approval letter" from a state or federal housing agency. Office of the Secretary 100 Cambridge Street, Room 1404 Boston, Massachusetts 02202 (617) 727-7765 a The last item is one of the most important. Site approval letters for most state-subsidized private housing development programs are issued by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (HRFA). Site letters for other programs are occasionally issued by other state and federal housing agencies. These letters indicate: (a) whether a site is generally acceptable for housing development; (b) whether the proposal and the developer are eligible for state housing funds; and, (c) what specific planning concerns must be addressed before the proposal will be considered for state funding. Site approval letters are presently issued by MHFA only after a site visit by its technical staff, review by the funding program to _\ which a developer intends to apply, and an opportunity for comment by ocal officials. Some housing programs may impose other requirements before a site letter is granted. The Homeownership Opportunity Program (HOP) , for example, requires that a developer demonstrate a \\ good faith effort to secure the support of local officials and the T local housing partnership (if any) before submitting an application for a comprehensive permit. If your local zoning board of appeals has begun the public hearing process on a comprehensive permit application that does not include a site approval letter, this agency strongly recommends that the ZBA attempt to reach a written agreement with the applicant to suspend the hearing process until the application is made complete. If such an agreement cannot be reached, the ZBA may deny the application "without prejudice" and state in writing that the application is incomplete pursuant to the regulations of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee. The developer may then reapply for a comprehensive permit if and when an application becomes complete. If the ZBA receives a new comprehensive permit application that does not include a site approval letter, or is otherwise incomplete, this agency recommends that the application also be denied without prejudice, in writing, as described above. In all cases where your community is reviewing an application for a+comprehensive permit, we recommend that the ZBA consult with the town counsel, city solicitor or other competent legal counsel. This is particularly important to ensure that all procedural requirements of Chapter 774 are met and that all written decisions adequately protect the interests of the community. Written materials are available to help your community better understand Chapter 774 and grants are available to obtain professional legal and consulting services to help you respond more effectively to comprehensive permit applications. If you have general questions about Chapter 774, please contact Christine Pappas at (617)727-7824. If you have legal questions about Chapter 774 with respect to •a specific permit application, please contact John Carney, counsel to the Housing Appeals Committee, at (617)727-7078. Sincerely, �� Joe�e L. Flatley ,�istant Secretary x 4C'B § 20 CITIES. TOWNS AND DISTRICTS REGIONAL PLANNING 403 § 21 Net•a Note 1 M'.the board of Commit,"a not prac When, trot aougbt to be deraluped lake into consideration the recommendations of the local boards and rented fah. rigallia the applicant In in, 1". and rrroderne Inmate notation shall have the authority to use the testimony of consultants. The i dI.I ..rally any property Imere.r par,. eveR•d«I Is area Rod .bete Rmad,s provisions o[section eleven of chapter forty A shell apply fu all tutb tally held In the alta or plaw to aril"Ire Aitl..l. Ctime"Itler,to STAnting lanpre- D one ath Intern•. Board of Appeal•of belief,.n.naN, remand that the da.el- hearings. The board of appeals shall render a decision,based upon a i Honm'er V. I10rm1.9 Appe.I•Commlttoe oprmnt W cowtnnaed on only elg "nag W majority vote of said board, within forty days after the termination In Dept. of Commnnity Minna IUIT31 .Ith remaining .16 mere. being par- { n N. mt.n 3.311. .erred rot ill..rp.re,ad. it mr .trial. of the public hearing and, If favorable to the applicant, shall forth. ESd 363,3621 1 ben to toed ned. wlm argent to tend with Issue a comprehensive permit or approval It said hearing Is 6. Limited tleld..d•rp.tulaa and mwl,mt. I.eme blind., prolene not convened or a decision Is not rendered within the time allowed, M,dol.r .high .a. eligible to rr- ^"in......Ilrabl.. Id,f liat time thatt it applied tto unless the time has been extended by mutual agreement between the org�nd rete a lid. t or. ,t umrlde n d En ...I d.m.l. board and the applicant,the application shall he deemed to have been t o M�nrJ lior apd.•elr for emparhen.l re-pay^ 'Reonlremenu„ata trgaMu.i .lib- , allowed end the comprehensive permit or approval shall forthwith IS- ma ra, roudrurton of IQ, it mWe,. In porem , ronf,ct upon board of .o sue. Any person aggrieved by the Issuance of a comprehensive per- otr Income bnn•Ine. aaanl of ADpe.la rent.nail bus.u,. qn."I.ec mmlll e.ou of IlnpurJ v. Ilou.la[Appe.le commit. rpPllrnd"n b, nnnnned apnOc.m rot Jt mit or approval may appeal to the court as provided In section seven. t, la Dept. of Community Affaln ,.it to cay.tmn lo. sad moderate been of chapter forty A. i 110761 It-,N.E.2d394.3T0 vac..M. h¢.me ha,.ing. to nr.ind, local rydrtmnnu ad Indudln( Added by St.1969, a 77/, f 7. Amended by t]LtBT6, e. 609, 11d, dA, all. . rtNl.tlon.;' T. •-C...M. t rtin local rr•adi' Ma Ing bylaw., If not r"wdateot.Iib lo- H1d0te•1 Note _ I If appmrnl of e,tcn.lov In enatlng "I an."do at locludr • r.kl.g made B.IMe.t a0a,11,.u,48.- 1..... lot wraeed try the neral". of chapter t w.<r Could tent I. obtained at town to goal A lin ion for • public mupow: tat.,Nl.,eating and 61 41 l0 221 of lata �'- "twelve" for 'Yeunreu", 'clam' for tong ♦ o: Ina General Lw• a affect ¢ meetln, siceu.e p bo.Com it the prof- + -•e•entreo god `eeecotreo" for eighth Delon b cad Nta sed tete sat ti m ehgrter JIJ not PrvAlblt town from ub- _ yet .ftp, and eighth septal b e• 1 Kt. nw with AOpen p Committee meld t K', 1" tate flog ( t each relater t n or awn. ala n.'e of n the tool t shames. Ing rater n eminent g wall for ro.er- .eotevm, ret a app M � pectlrel). prodded tont no awe than June due. am one vol romblent with lace need•. ,lic.1 ata ma.. dura, pevdency of •p- tlelh almteep hundred and wrancy- hoard of Api..a of 3lolmed ,. Roan nanU"n for n rnmprthe.ae permit to SLIMS.C.606.1 T,praelded: eight ata willing oedla.mer,and by-I." Iva Appeal.Committee In Dept of Com- ba110 low anJ moderate income boas, '?M1.n•bad alae erten an January .boll be brought Ina wnornity with minn ARdn 110761 345 NX2d 382.370 an tett Towa of Cbeln.ford r. DI- 1. flat. oloreeo hundred and aneaq+a the pedalo.of Wt chapter and Ab.a 1 It... M. alm,e 11116) MS N.ETb 31.1. 3To Il.nw A u to ronin,oedla.vres and by-laws sad be ro,erned hereby, sad thereahe, an HI. !;' amendmeam other than will., map I +- nmeadmegte. adapted afar .1, data.- pe•ato. of chapter forty ♦ a anyone �;- Poo,to Joao." fine.nanraa hundred i A paragraph which appeared Ia the ead aereoty-dr$hall govern•"nl.g oedl- § 21. Low or moderate Income housing; applications for approval #.called but of BUF16,a Mo.u pan of ...and by-],.&' of proposed construction; hearing; appeal Ilse .meodoem of Iib e.440.1 14.E by SUMS.it.806.. appeared Dee,a 1 5 of the ac. but wit apparently In- ISR Emergency declaration by the Any public agency or limited dividend or nonprofit org"I ation traded to be alluded In 1 T epeompam- Coreeor ..• filed an the a.me dam Ing the effenaeoev of the •R read: i proposing to build low or moderate Income homing may submit to -Zoning ordloanuw nad by-12w. In at. the board of appeals, established under section twelve of chapter for. fen on said data *hall continue m be ty A.a single application to build such housing in lieu of separate ap. N•t•. of Dmlrl••. Plications to the applicable local boards. The board of appeals shall I....... s Income bmadg bit right ae appeal to forthwith notifyeach such local board, as applicable, of the film of Dec1.1a.•r boars n Hoa.og A0, [ Committee .bee one B Emlm.l.1 b... a- nRdaed ey 11.u.ea of mea permit such application by sending a copy thereof to such local hoards for E..u•.maaf Imo"d r.r•rl I bar an right of Appeal to•aid renominate their recommendations and shall, within thirty days of the receipt of N.erdaA• 10 does not deny.anrle,ed part count pts such application, hold e g Limited Orld.ad•r,eaa•Ia•• T action In that.gneeed party bit right p public hearing on the same. The board of 0rdara 1I of retrieve to Bacillar Court Manager appeals shell request tireu appearance at said hearing of such repre• Permits , r. Board of Appeals pt w1oNe.ter sentalives of said local boards as are deemed necessary or helpful In rr....1,aace.1 rg,lr....1. s 19141 510 N.Esd cud.see Hoon.228.ape making its decision upon such application and shall have the same R�o���tlpl�• ran...Ily 3 �adi.mallga 836. 9.134 B22. oxo C.S. power to Issue permits or epprovaL;as any [me] board or official who vauult 1 This section And 11 to, e.3 and 23 Of would otherwise act with respect to such application, Including but x•.o,trgd.ue"• a into chapter .. at uaco.tlatlo.ay not limited to the power to attach to said permit or approval condi- til- Uoo.l delegation of consulatee. do one upower, and doses flops and requirements with respect to height,site plan•size or shape, L v.nnly permit uac"n.tiwtloo.I spot woos. Id. ' I or building materials m are consistent with the terms of this section. - Thin aenlon prodding that applicant Staodaeda to be applied by board.of The board of appeals. In malting ib:decision on said application,shall to,M,adt to romuun ar or mW...te append soil 11.u•In,A,p#•te Eommlare t 3 305 14 cul K :Y:;e•t� P1 s CgYsG w. S. 2 r Sal' kf� • a _ : �'t .it:b>tY .t..Ait'r t4it <:., .'aura n• i - t e .:n 760 CHR: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 31.02: Local Action Prerequisite (1) In order to appeal to the Committee, an applicant shall have applied to the Board for a comprehensive permit in accordance with M. G. L. , c. 40B s. 21 and shall have been denied such permit or shall have been granted such pernut with conditions which it alleges are uneconomic and not consistent with local needs. (2) In order to appeal to the Committee, the applicant shall have submitted to the Board with its application for a comprehensive permit the items listed below. No other documentary evidence at the local level. shall be necessary to fulfill the requirements of this section. �(a)j preliminary site development plans showing the locations and outlines of proposed buildings; the proposed locations, general dimensions and materials for streets, drives, parking areas, walks and paved areas; and proposed landscaping improvements and open areas within the site. An applicant proposing to construct or rehabilitate four or fewer units may submit a sketch of the matters in 760 CMR 31.02(2)(a) and 31.02(2)(c) which need not have an architect's signature. All structures of five or more units must have site development plans signed by a registered architect; ((b)j a report on existing site conditions and a summary of condi- tions in the surrounding areas, showing the location and nature of existing buildings, existing street elevations, traffic patterns and character of open areas, if any, in the neighborhood. This sub- mission may be combined with that required in 760 CMR 31.02(2)(a); [(c)jpreliminary architectural, scaled drawings for building plans inclu ing typical floor plans, typical elevations and sections, and identifying construction type and exterior finish, signed by a regis- tered architect; r(d)j a tabulation of proposed buildings by type, size (number of bedrooms, floor area] and ground coverage, and a summary showing the percentage of the tract to be occupied by buildings, by parking and other paved vehicular areas, and by open areas; le)) where a subdivision of land is involved, a preliminary subdivi- ion plan; ((f)) a preliminary utilities plan showing the proposed location and ,types of sewage water and drainage facilities including hydrants: ((g)j documents specified in 760 CMR 31.01 to show the status of the applicant and the acceptability of the site: I(h)� a list of requested exceptions to local codes, ordinances, by=laws or regulations, including the zoning by-laws or ordinances. The applicant shall submit copies of these items to the Committee together with its initial pleadings, as provided in 760 CMR 30.06(1). (3) If the Board does not object at the local hearing to the failure of an applicant to submit any item of the above, or has allowed an appli- cant to submit information on an item at a later time, the Committee shall consider the requirements of this section to have been fulfilled as to that item. However, the Committee shall require that any such document be submitted to it during the course of the hearing before the Committee. If the Board does object at the local hearing to the applicant's failure to submit any item of the above, but due to exceptional circum- stances there is good cause for such failure by the applicant, the Committee may consider the requirements of this section to have been fulfilled as to that item and shall require such item to be submitted to it. (4) An applicant may submit additional documents or amendments to documents to the Board or the Committee during the course of the hearing. 1/1/78 Vol. 17 - 422 760 CMA: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS wF 31.03: continued with local needs. If the Committee so determines by majority vote the Committee shall hold a hearing as provided by c. 40B s. 22 and 760 CMA 30.00 ad 31.00, after notifying all interested parties. If it is not so determined, the Committee shall notify all interested parties, and the applicant's comprehensive permit as amended shall be valid. The decision of the Committee on whether to hold an adjudicatory hearing In such cases shall be final. 31,04: Computation of Statutory Minima cit Housing Unit Minimum. For purposes of calculating whether the city or towns ow and moderate income housing units exceed ten PPercent of its total housing units, pursuant to M. G. L., c. 40B s. 20: (a) The number of low and moderate income housing units shall be the number of units, as defined in 760 CMR 30.02(1). most recently inventoried by the Department as occupied or available for occu- pancy or under permit in the city or town prior to the applicant's initial submission to the local Board; provided that evidence that net additonal units have been occupied or have become available for occupancy between the date of the most recent inventory and the date of initial application, shall be considered. The Departmental inventory shall be conclusive of the number of units up to the time of the most recent inventory prior to initial application. (b) The total number of Rousing units shall be that total number of units enumerated for the city or town in the latest available United States Census; provided that evidence that net additional units have been occupied or have become available for occupancy or are under permit or that total units have decreased between the latest Census and the date of initial application shall be considered. (2) General Land Area Minimum. For the purposes of calculating whether low and moaerite income housing exists in the city or town on sites comprising more than one and one half percent of the total land area zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use, pursuant to M. G. L., c. 40 B, s. 20: (a) Total land area shall include all districts in which any residen- tial, commercial, or industrial use is permitted, regardless of how such district is designated by name in the city or town's zoning by-law; (b) Total land area shall include ail unzoned land in which any residential, commercial, or industrial use is permitted: (c) Total land area shall exclude land owned by the United States, the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, the Metro- politan District Commission or any state public authority; (d) Total land area shall exclude any land area where all residen- tial, commercial, and industrial development has been prohibited by restrictive order of the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to M. G. L. c. 131, s. 40A or s. 105. No other swamps, marshes, or other wetlands shall be excluded; (e) Total land area shall exclude any water bodies; (f) Total land area shall exclude any flood plain, conservation or open space zone if said zone completely prohibits residential, com- mercial and industrial use, or any similar zone where residential, commercial or industrial use are completely prohibited. Only site of low and moderate income housing units inventoried by theDepartment or established according to 760 CMR 31.04(1)(a) as occupied or available for occupancy as of the date of the applicant's Initial submission to the Board, shall be included toward the one and one half percent minimum. Where a housing development for project is receiving a state or federal subsidy but less than 100$ of its units are provided at below 1/1/78 Vol. 17 - 424 44 �r 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, D e� tor PEABODY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DD-.mf City Hall • 24 Lowell Street • Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 • (508) 532-3000 TEL P1o .617-745-1223 Feb 16 ,89 11 : 55 P1o . 001 P .02 02/18/89 10:37 V617 451 0962 (OAST. PROP. MCMI. ®002 r e F 11Jc m OSCE aF COMMUNITIES & DEvEwpmw I MI"S. Dukakis,Gomnor Ami S.Anihmrv,Secretary 12/1/88 PR LINTNARY KM 60CD TNVEMRY OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING Attached. per your request, is a preliminary now list of the number of low and moderate income housing units and the percentage of housing units that are subsidized within each Massachusetts community. This preliminary data is based upon detailed project lists that are being sent to local officials in each city and town for verification. Once this review is complete, the revised data will be released In early 1989 as an official housing inventory by the Executive Office of Communities and Development (BOLD) . In general, this data includes all housing units developed through state and federal low and moderate-income housing programs. The list specifically excludes units that are subsidized only by rental assistance vouchers. [lousing developed with federal subsidies since January 1985 is not reflected in this preliwinary list but will be included in E,OCD's final report. Please nate. This preliminary data does not constitute an official FOOD Housing Inventory for purposes nP M.O.L.Ch. 40D. 100 Cambridge Street, Room 1404 TEL Nn .617-745-1223 Feb 16 ,89 11 : 55 Nn .001 P .03 02/16/89 10!38 52617 451 0962 COAST, PROP. MOMT. 0003 .. EgCUTIVE OFFICE OF COH4INITIES AND DEVELOPMENT PERCENT SUBSIOIIW Prel12�ry List TOTAL 80 Cg1AMlly Mmm SUBSIDY FAMILY EIDETO Y CNAP774 PERCENT (Y4erdtound Housing Units) UNITS UMITS... UNITS UNITS UNITS $01010 CONCORD ( 5,339) 144 144 5 OR 144 2.10 CMY 5 1.04 CUMIRCTON ( 11265) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 WIN ( 2,331) 160 179 48 132 160 7.72 DANVFRS ( 6.234) 294 294 87 207 294 3.57 D*TNOUIN ( 8.073) 648 646 200 447 646 6.03 MD" ( 6,40 ) 335 335 130 205 335 3.98 OWIELD ( 1.706) 24 24 20 1B0 224 3.14 DDIM15 ( 61919_) z72 8 64 12 4.07 Now ( 1,7366881 6 6 6 0 6 0.44 DWR (� 1,6510 �) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 MW 204 204 32 in 204 2.95 OWLEY 3,072 118 118 13 105 118 3.84 0 0 0.00 OUXBIRY( (3,82 ) 170 170 70 too 170 4AS E.8t001�IELD ( 653) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 E.LON(i£Amw l 4 333) 294 294 6 206 294 6.19 F/15T'19t100ENRTFR t 8,124) 144 144 16 128 144 4.61 ( 1 5 US"11A11 28) D 0 0 0 D 0.00 EASiFWv1ON t 5.941) 159 159 39 120 1S9 2.56 EASION (( 5,135) 207 207 22 185 207 4.03 EGREM(NIT ( t$456) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 DIME6RE4ElNi ( 545) 0 0 0 0.00 EW ( 1,16/))52 52 12 40 S2 4.46 14,662) 897 897 $62 33S 897 6.12 iNR1wVEN ( 6,925) 454 454 20 434 454 7.56 FALL RIVER ( )7.004) 5.326 5.023 2,867 21121 6,04 14.39 FALMOUTH ( 10.97)) 60S 499 130 206 $72 5.72 Fftwoo ( is 333) I.OD6 1,002 391 513 1,ODs 6.66 FIARmA ( 291 0 0 0 0 0 I 0.00 FOIAiDa011(LI ( 4821) 26 otlo 255 52 204 256 ti" 5.31 FRANINGIIW4 { 24 603) 1,700 1,551 773 926 1,700 6.91 FRM0.1N ( 5.5R 540 503 260 253 503 9.66 /BEE m ( 2,uoi 0 0 0 0 0 O.00 GARD��NAppp((( 7,444 ) 1.050 7116 662 3% 11058 14.21 G�EOTRFETgIN ( )/4921) 136 136 10 126 136 7.00 6116 4 911. ) 8910 890 390 . Sol o0 0.0 " ( 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 ISN 1 4,003; 216 21166 Q 175 26188 i 96 CW11Y( 1.745) 1 NyI(LE ( 4371 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 {moi gppglKTQN ( 2.864) 124 124 SS 69 124 4.33 S1 iFlE1D ( 1 $10) 1,014 698 406 369 1.005 13.54 � 26 26 5 25 1.91 ,061LS) 60 60 2 0 60 3.83 Hum ( 11644) 52 62 12 62 3137 KIM ( 1,901) 33 33 15 26 33 86 3.75 11 t74 WILTON ( 12g0�p1)) SS66 56 0 % 56 3.73 IUNCOCK (( 2343 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 NA1E)IIER 3,211 216 215 6 7O9 216 6.71 WIILSQI (( 2,605) 88 88 12 76 88 3.38 NAPpItlCI( ( 851) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 ='NNIVARD ( 2705 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 I COW ( 4,,066 72 72 12 63 72 1.77 NMYIEiD ( I,N ) 44 44 0 44 44 3.85 NAVEAMIII ( 18,618) 1,260 1,7%6 263 962 1.2 O 0 .00 HEA 178)) 0 0 0 0 0 UA HIML( ( 6.505) 168 160 0 149 0 168 2 .00 HINS84LE ( 511) NDTEt This data is for review and CCIIPCat and does rot oonttitute M Off 1661 EOCD HOUF Ing Imentary far the Payotet Of HLW .T TEL Ho . 617-745-1223 Feb 16 ,89 11 : 55 No .001 P .04 02/16/69 10:89 '8617 451 0962 COAST• PROP• MGMT. 1x1064 EXECUTIVE OFFICEPOCEIT SUB Or ITIES AND DMLOPIENT SIDIZr PmIIminaList l2-OZ� TOTAL COMITY PROGRAM SUBSIDY FAHILY. EWKY CW?74 PIRCENT (Year-Round [busing Units) UNITS UNITS... UNITS UNITS UNITS SUBSIDIZED REM" ( 9,486) 302 362 139 223 302 4.03 NEN ASIFORD ( 75 0 oo NUN BEOFORp ( p,1'1 5,373 4,819 3,603 1,410 5.351 13.61 NEM BRAINTREE ( 221) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 NEW RIWLBOROUON ( 487) NEIL SALEM ( 0100 272) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 NEMBUIY ( 1,608) 70 70 0 70 70 4.20 NE1�15t T ( 6,251) 432 431 83 349 432 6.91 aENTa+ ( 29,0811 9B1 078 208 728 981 3.37 N11RM (( 1.674) 76 76 12 54 76 4.63 NORTH MNfS ( 7.068) 885 790 294 303 885 12.49 RORTH ANDOVER-( 7,041) 537 537 304 1 161 $37 1.63 NORTH ATREBOROM ( 7,577) 201 261 47 234 281 3.71 NDRTH BBOONFTIED ( 1.900) 102 102 14 a8 102 6.80 NORTH REApINC ( 3,674) 44 44 4 40 44 1.20 NO1nmTON ( IO,SB3) 1,278 1,135 640 534 1.22811.60 4.60 NOtTNBOt0UP1 ( 3,949) 297 150 1648 129 114 2907 6.81 NmTWIDOE ( 4,351) �� 1(EW3(�1936) 292 292 16x./ 130 292 7.57 NORNELL ( .BY ) 116 118 28 88 116 4.I1 NORNOOO E 10.604) 843 $70 249 406 863 7.95 OAK BL11' S 4 4 0 4 0.98 0 ( 70 D 0 0 0 0 0.00 0[GNGE ( 2,851 367 367 139 228 367 12.86 ?00 Z30 9.11 OKEJNIS ( AlR. ) 230 2 0 0 0 0.00 OTIS ( 368) Odp ( y 90 330 338 220 118 118 8.57 PALRER ( 4.4761 704 204 68 136 204 4.55 PAXTOa ( 1.131 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 KABYPmW (( 16,2444 1,209 11� 1,102 210 On 1.149 4"; 7.44 PUNDIT ( 4, 5) 170 170 13 153 176 4.30 PEPPEREII 2.646) 67 67 6 61 61 2.53 Ppt002) 0 0 0 O 0 000.01)PEIERAYNI�!_( ( 3104) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 PTTTSFVIsETLaOII( 20.381) 1,786 1.512 so 87Z 1,760 8.76 PLAINFtEW ( 182) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 PWNVtLLE l 2,1341 40 40 0 40 40 1.87 PLYIm ( 13,116 506 450 2119 191 506 3.86 PLY7FIpi ( 617 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 PROVINCETORN KETDN 82,150) 37 37 13 24 37 1.71 `4,2) ) 2,� 2.469 768 1171Z 2,755 6.03 RNWYN 668022 356 12 37842 W 3.3.993 MYMW1 ( 2,b66 95 74 74 REAOtN6 ( 7485 297 297 24 273 297 3.97 i1FJI03DTN ( 7t A7 ) 35 36 12 24 36 1.46 REVERE ( 17,110 1,377 1,316 497 673 11377 8.05 RIC ( 2 0 ROCHE0 0 0 0 0.00 ROCKLAND ( 5,bp5)) 336 336 210 126 335 6.71 ROCKPOIT ( 2983) 116 116 36 80 118 3.88 RONE ( 1865 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 RONLEY 1,369 64 54 12 42 54 3.97 Itum (( ( 36B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RVI AND ( 1,460 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 �SRLEN ( 15,865) 1,521 11293 768 525 1,621 9.59 SALImIlty ( 21191) 00 BD 0 80 80 3'66 SA DISFIELO253) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 SANDWIC" ( 3.672) SAIRAIS ( 8.301) 592 $92 1075 3877 592 7.13 SAVOY ( 226) SCITUAVE ( 61755) 294 294 52 242 294 5.11 NMI This data is for review and cm mnt and doW mt constitute an official EOCO Housing Imm"tOry for tAt purposes of MGL408. �. 4 - TEL No .617-745-1223 Feb 16 ,89 11 : 55 No .001 P . 05 02/16/88 10!39 0617 451 0962 COAST• PROP. MGMT. X005 ` EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF CUP"ITIES AND DEMOPIENT PERCENT SUBSIDIZED 1 Pmlimingry List 124240 TOTAL COMITY FROGRAH SUBSIDY FAMILY CLPMY C11AP774 PERCEMT (Year•AoiaW Housing Units) UNITS UNITS... UNITS UNITS UNITS SUBSIDIZED WESTKWTON ( 369 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 NESIHIRM 1.8343 9 9 9 0 9 0.49 WE= ( 3,3261 132 132 90 42 132 3.91 NESTPORT A.603} 93 93 t6 78 99 1.99 NESTNOQD 4.221) 330 257 69 276 336 7.96 NEY14Ym 10,67011) 1.472 1.164 826 511 1.472 7.41 WNATELY 484 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 WNITNAN 4,346 182 162 18 154 102 4.19 W1 ( 3,941), 221 221 44 177 221 5.61 WILLIA WRO ( 828) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 NILLIARMNN ( 2,6461 111 111 18 93 111 3.90 NILMIMPIK 6,494 208 200 00 1" 208 4.08 WINCH 2,468 230 230 08 142 230 4.16 WINCHESTER 81921 136 136 7 129 136 1.97 WIMS08 ( 214 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 W1NTINUP ( ), ) 584 510 230 346 684 7.70 1NM10pp0Aq1,�ftFy1 E((xAl2.712) 781 643 404 297 781 6.14 fpTfN1N� ( (1,613)4) e•M6 I'M 4.12112 12 0 s,w 8.8 12 26 14.32 3.23 APER" ( 2.22Z) 169 159 15 154 169 7.61 YARMOUTH 10:107 10.107) 304 272 134 138 212 3.01 191,411 173.933 92,466 79,095 190,952 351 racoids llstw. NOTEi This data Is fer miew and Lament and does tot constitute an official EOCD Housing itrAftory for the Purpows of "61.40B. 6 5 P CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ANTHONY V. SALVO MAYOR April 6, 1989 Mr. James Fleming Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: I am writing regarding the petition of Michael Harrington requesting a Comprehensive Special Permit to allow the construction of 64 units of residential apartments at 164R Boston Street. It has been brought to my attention that the Comprehensive Special Permit process, as outlined in Chapter 40B of Massachusetts General Law, is not being followed due to an incomplete submission to the Board of Appeal. It is essential that the submittal contain all of the required information to allow informed and responsible public review and input regarding this project. Such review and input is impossible without benefit of a complete submission. In addition, I am aware of several of the concerns of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood, and I am writing to request that the Board consider carefully all of their concerns. Of particular concern are the following issues: - the density of the proposed development; - the responsibility for the provision of emergency services; - the impact of the proposed development on the Salem School system; - the impact which the development will have on traffic in the area; - the financing source and prospective ownership of the project; - the aesthetics of the elevations of the building; and - the impact which the construction of the proposed development will have on the potential of constructing a connector road to Route 128. As a result of the incomplete submittal, as well as the inability of the developer to address the concerns of the neighbors, I recommend that the process be suspended until all neighborhood concerns are addressed and until the submittal is complete. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Anthony V. Salvo Mayor Z Ctv oftzlent, Itt��ttr �zsetts r -+ Planning �3nttrb one 'Salient Green April 5, 1989 Mr. James Fleming Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: I am writing to you with regard to the petition of Michael Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit to allow the construction of sixty—four (64) residential units at 164R Boston Street. It is my understanding that over the past several months, meetings have been held with the surrounding neighborhood to review the proposed development. During such meetings several concerns have been raised by the neighbors including: neighborhood and City—wide traffic impacts, utilities, impact on schools, clean—up of the Harmony Grove Road area from Howley Street to Salem Oil & Grease, the aesthetic impact of the building elevations on the surrounding areas, and overall site design issues. The Comprehensive Special Permit process allows for the review and comment of the project by the Planning Board. However, the Planning Board feels that Mr. Harrington' s submittal to the Board of Appeal is vague and does not allow the Planning Board an opportunity to responsibly review the project and address the site design concerns which have been identified. In order to review the plans in a proper fashion, the Planning Board would like to request that the Board of Appeal require Mr. Harrington to submit detailed site plans so that a responsible Site Plan Review process can be conducted by the Planning Board prior to any action by the Board of Appeal. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, tJaths 6QaL Walter B. Power, III Chairman J3023 &2cl 03 X110604 o'v' 45 D c GrJ��r �r�ve.i'- e,/Se P`/r 7L --- 7Le //7 -)6�r'Mq 11-n J17 0 l U/�i� / o u 7'et- fec r� 120 a f�� s J17 f L gy �/�cf Citp of 6alem, A[aaacbugettg Office of the citp Council a 1 /p s P/INB WARD COUNCILLORS VINCENT J. FURFARO CO-INCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT 1989 1989 GEORGE A.NOWAK DONALD T.BATES JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN HARVEY ' FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO NEIL J.HARRINGTON LEONARD F.O'LEARY GEORGE P.McCABE JEAN-GUYJ MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR March 30, 1989 ci CO � � D CD O T m O Attorney Leonard Femino "m c� -" Assistant City Solicitor �- <--:) v T 0, O Salem City Hall CD �, m 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 C= ca w G= Dear Attorney Femino: I am writing to request that you review, for completeness, the Comprehensive Special Permit application submitted to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal by Michael J. Harrington which requests variances from the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of sixty-four (64) units of housing at R164 Boston Street. I would appreciate your response to this request in a timely fashion as a public hearing is scheduled for April 6, 1989. In addition, if the submittal is proven to be incomplete, I would expect that the process will be suspended until an application is submitted which respects all the requirements outlined by the Comprehensive Special Permit Process. Thank you for your expeditious response to this request. Sincerely, C�°7 ✓ 1, '. < Leonard F. O'Leary L City Councillor Ward N cc: James Fleming, ZBA William Luster, Acting City Planner I � 'r!l KEVIN T. DALY 4I M w y w�_�/J/p LEONARD F. FEMINO ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR Tr �-. �:� ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET �ruRmc Pe• 93 WASHINGTON STREET AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND ONE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM, MA 01970 MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN 745-4311 CITY SOLICITOR BEVERLY, MA 01915 74$•0500 93 WASHINGTON STREET 745-4311 ---- AND 921-1990 PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM, MA 01970 745-4311 DO 744-3363 o PLEASE REPLY TO BI WASHINGTON STREET C]� C77 C7 CJ V C> A T =•m - April 5, 1989 m ry M -o m = n y CD y Leonard F. O'Leary �o City Councillor City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 in re: Legal Opinion - Comprehensive Special Permit Application R164 Boston Street, Salem, MA Dear Councillor O'Leary: I have been asked by you to determine whether the Comprehensive Special Permit Application submitted to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael J. Harrington for the construction of sixty-four (64) units at R164 Boston Street, Salem, is complete. I am of the opinion that the application is not complete. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23 inclusive is the. statute covering comprehensive. speci'al, permits. The application for a comprehensive special permit may be filed by three types of organizations: a public agency; a limited dividend organization; or a nonprofit organization. Mr. Harrington's application should include proof that he qualifies as one of these organizations. See Chapter 40B, Section 20. Leonard O'Leary City Councillor Page 2 April 5, 1989 The application shall include but is not limited to the following: preliminary site development plans; a report on existing site conditions; preliminary architectural drawings; a tabulation of proposed buildings; a preliminary subdivision plan if necessary; a preliminary utilities plan; and most importantly a "site approval letter" from the Office of Communities and Development. See 760 CMR 31. 02 . To date, the applicant has not filed a site conditions report, preliminary architectural drawings, a preliminary utilities plan and a site approval letter from the state agency. If Mr. Harrington does not file the above-mentioned materials prior to the scheduled April 6, 1989 Board of Appeals meeting, the Board should either suspend the process by agreement with Mr. Harrington until the application is completed, or deny the application without prejudice and state in writing that the application is incomplete at the time of the hearing. The Board of Appeals must follow the following procedure: 1. Upon receipt of an application such as this, the Board shall notify each local board, including the Planning Board, Board of Survey, Board of Health, Building Inspector and the City Council by sending a copy of the application to such boards for their recommendation. 2 . The Board of Appeals shall hold 'a public hearing within thirty (30) days of- the filing: of the application. 3 . The Board of Appeals shall request the appearance at the hearing of representatives of the local boards as they deem necessary and helpful in making a decision. 4. The Board of Appeals has the power to issue permits or approvals as any local board or official acting with respect to the application. Leonard F. O'Leary City Councillor Page 3 .),April 5, 1989 5. The Board of Appeals may attach to the permit conditions and requirements with respect to height, site plan, size or shape, or building materials. 6. The Board of Appeals may also use the testimony of consultants. 7. The Board of Appeals shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 40A, Section 11. 8 . The Board of Appeals shall render a decision, based on a majority vote, within forty (40) days after termination of the public hearing. 9. If the Board does not convene a hearing within thirty (30) days of the application or not render a decision within forty (40) days after the termination of the hearing, the application shall be deemed allowed. 10. If the Board renders a favorable decision on a comprehensive special permit, it shall forthwith issue a comprehensive permit or approval. See Chapter 40B Section 21. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at your convenience. Very truly yours, Leonard F. Femino LFF/sbh cc: City Clerk Board of Appeals i A.CO�tll.4�\ Citp of *alerts, Jfla!65acbtt!6atg rq y -lire Department �)eaDgnarter5 481afapette street Salem, Ba.01970 Joseph F. Sullivan Chief April 8, 1989 Mr. Michael J. Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, Ma 01970 Dear Mr. Harrington: I have reviewed your request for a Comprehensive Permit, which is in accordance with Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws, and in response to your willingness to work with both the Board of Appeal and other interested parties, and to demonstrate a good faith effort in securing the support of local officials, I wish to propose the incorporation of residential fire sprinklers in the building plans for this development. The primary benefit of residential fire sprinklers is the enhancement of life safety. Your request to vary density requirements of front, side, and rear yard depths, and maximum building height, thus reducing the separation between the buildings, diminishes the margin of safety which prevents fire from spreading from one building to another. It should be pointed out that this parcel is on the city line, isolated from the center of the city, and lacks an adequate looped system of water mains. According to research conducted by the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, the United States suffers from one of the world's highest death rates due to fire. As the result of such research, specially designed residential sprinkler systems were designed to answer the need for safer housing. Installation costs of residential fire sprinkler systems are lower than commercial systems, as water is supplied from the domestic water source. Insurance industry studies have concluded that residential sprinkler systems contribute substantially to the reduction of property loss due to fires. As a result, reductions in premiums for properties protected throughout by residential sprinklers and smoke detectors can be realized. The installation of residential fire sprinkler systems in multi-family housing with three or more units of three stories or less (commonly known as "cluster housing") may accomplish several timely objectives. The first, and most important of these, is to reduce deaths from residential fires. The second objective is to reduce the amount of property damage ti Page 2 resulting from such fires. Finally, since residential fire sprinkler systems provide a substantial degree of on site fire protection, Salem's resources required to fight fire in sprinkler protected dwellings may be stabilized. This may allow the Fire Department to hold the line on capital expenditures necessary to meet expanded growth if residential fire sprinklers were not installed. The City of Salem takes pride in the accomplishments of the Fire Department in it's effort to protect the lives and property of those who inhabit our city. Your efforts to further enhance the quality of life by the incorporation of the most far-reaching innovation in sprinkler technology, may well address some of the concerns of both the public and Salem city officials. Signed, ' Robert W. Turner, Fire Marshal ii RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, & HARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(19221987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER,MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON JACOB S.SEGAL (508)744-0350 (508)283-7432 (508)283-]435 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)744-7493 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III 73 WASHINGTON STREET J,MICHAEL SMITH SALEM,MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON (508)744-5230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)744-0372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. March 16, 1989 7n GO v James M. Fleming, Chairman Salem Board of Appeal " One Salem Green e �j, Salem, MA 01970 :< -- 43 — :* r"+ RE: 164 Boston Street Rear Dear Jim: In furtherance of our previous conversations, I am enclosing my request for a comprehensive permit in accordance with Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purpose of constructing 64 mixed income rental units on the land in question. Given the elapsed time (some two years this month) since the purchase of the "Flynn Parcel " and the vote of your Board on March 15, 1989, I am compelled, albeit reluctantly, forced to pursue a resolution of this matter by use of the means provided by state laws. The purpose of this letter is two fold: a) to move toward a timely resolution of the land use issue by use of the statute referred to; b) to once again reiterate my willingness to work with your Board and other interested parties in arranging at a mutually agreed upon approach which would ensure continued local participation in the furtherance of this project. I have, as you know, obtained the requisite zoning change for the land located in Peabody and intend in the immediate future to begin the permitting process as required by law and agreements entered into with that City as a consequence of the land use change approved in May, 1988 (copy enclosed). I would appreciate hearing from you or a repressentative of the Board at your earliest convenience with respect to scheduling a meeting date as required by the comprehensive permitting statute. K p _ Let me thank you and the members of the Board for the time and patience evidenced in your handling of this matter to date. Sincere y, Mic el J. Harrington MJH:ph Enclosure y w -e n. ra cs� �e 'tt7„ i3 Yla^: Q �,Yy •� n T CR 'itp of *a1Pm, J+1agga qugPtt!5 "� .. �rparhncut 11-)eaDquar[er5 4SIzifavette �+trert �ateut, 1+1-a. 01970 -). Joseph F. Sullivan " � Chief J O-,- L April 21, 1989 - n r r D - r City of SalemV' Board of Appeal n ca One Salem Green Salem, Ma 01970 Dear Sirs: In response to the discussion relative to the conditions of approval of the petition of Michael J. Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Section 21, the Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of relief subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed building be provided with a residential fire sprinkler system, installed in accordance with the provisions of NFiPA Standard 13R, and Article 12 of the Massachusetts State Building Code. i 2. Access to the building for fire fighting purposes be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department, and shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of 527 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 25.00. 3. A right of way from Boston Street, on the Salem side, be maintained as a second means of access to the property for use in emergency response. Dimensions of said right of way shall be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department. 4. Connection of the fire alarm system within the proposed building shall be by means of a master fire alarm box connected to city fire alarm circuits. Such fire alarm box shall be capable of serving as a "street box" for use from outside of the building. 5. The primary response to fire related emergencies shall be made by the Salem Fire Department as per current departmental policy. Mutual or outside aid response to the site shall be in accordance with present or future agreements between heads of fire • departments in the Cities of Salem and Peabody. _ 1 Page 2 6. Fire supply to the site, including type and location of fire hydrants, shall be acceptable to both the Salem Fire Department and the Director of Public Services for the City of Salem. I feel strongly that the above conditions are in the best interests of public safety, and represent a reasonable effort to secure support for this proposal. Signed, Robert W. Turner, Fire Marshal m -c r� 0 0 T r C^C7 T [^ D Q Y rl n a r N • �Y Memorandum of Understanding Between Michael J . Harrington '1 " s It IF, and Community Development Department Acting For; : 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 two ( 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 . ppR�519P��5 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 . isa aAarri`ng on City of Peabody Community Development Department RONAN, STROME, SEGAL& HARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ' FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER,MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON JACOB S.SEGAL (508)744-0350 (508)2837432 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)7"7493 (508)283 7435 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III 73 WASHINGTON STREET MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON SALEM,MA 01970 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)744-5230 JOHN H.RONAN (508)7"-0372PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY' ELLEN M.WINKLER FILE NO. J.MICHAEL SMITH OF COUNSEL (") � e April 24, 1989 Z; i N 7 _ Salem Board of Appeals in One Salem Green y>. Salem, MA 01970 N RE: Petition of Michael J. Harrington RE: R-164 Boston Street Gentlemen: As additional submittal material reference the above cited petition, enclosed please find the following: 1. Copies of deeds evidencing petitioner's interest in the site. 2. Additional preliminary site development plans signed by CSS Architects to include: a. Site/landscape Plan dated December 1, 1988. b. Typical Building Floor Plans dated April 20, 1989. c. Exterior Building Elevations dated April 20, 1989. d. Unit Plans and Wall Sections dated April 20, 1989. 3. Existing Site Plan dated April 6, 1989. 4. Salem Assessor' s Map with Abutter List. 5. Report of Existing Conditions. 6. Building Tabulation and Lot Coverage Summary. 7. Subsurface Hazardous Waste Report. Very truly yours, George W' Atkins, III GWA:ph Enclosures REPORT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The Salem site contains two dilapidated and unused storage sheds and has been subject to illegal dumping and lack of maintenance over many years as evidenced by the attached photographs. (See Existing Site Plan). The adjacent Peabody parcel on the west is the site of a small woodworking firm and buildings formerly used in the leather industry and recently subject to a fire of suspicious origins. The Salem site is abutted on the north by the B & M Railroad, and on the south and east by a lumber yard and residential property. The site is accessed by Howley Street in Peabody which has further access to Main Street, Peabody and Boston Street, Salem on the South and Walnut Street, Peabody and Harmony Grove Road, Salem on the north. The total Salem-Peabody site is bordered on the South by open area of the City of Peabody ("Olde South Buring Ground") consisting of approximately one (1) acre; and on the north by a B & M right of way, the North River Canal , and Harmony Grove Cemetary consisting of approximately 120 acres of open area. BUILDING TABULATION Salem Buildings - one (1) No. of Stories - five (5) No. Of units - 64 One bedroom Units - 33 Two bedroom Units - 31 Footprint - 15,500 SF Floor 1 - parking ( 15,500 SF) Floors 2-5 - residential (62,000 SF) LOT COVERAGE SUMMARY Salem Building Footprint - 15,500 SF Salem Parcel - 100,000 SF Building Coverage - 15% Paved Area - approximately 30% Open Area - approximately 55% a -C fv O a r rh 2+ r N c.L� :1 egaf 8843m11b QUITCLAIM 0E9D I, Dale G. Dick, Trustee of The Howley Street Trust, u/d/t February 23, 1987, recorded herewith, for consideration paid of $750,000.00, grant to Michael J. Harrington, c/o 59 Federal Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, with QUITCLAIM covenants, the land in Peabody, Essex County, Massachusetts, vizi Parcel 1 A certain parcel of land with the buildings thereon situate on Howley Street In said Peabody, being shown as Lot A on a plan rs entitled 'Land of Samuel R. Hingston, Peabody, Mase., Scale 1 in=40 ft., July. 1945. Thomas A. Appleton, C.E..' recorded with `n Essexy South District Registry of Deeds. Book 3418, Page 121, and N bounded and described as follows, Beginning at the northeasterly corner of the granted premises on Howley Street at the location of the Boston i Main Railroad and thence running southwesterly by Howley Street two hundred eight and 07/100 (208.07) feet to land of Jahn Flynn i Sons, Ines thence running southeasterly two hundred twenty-tow and 15/100 (222.15) feet to a point, thence turning and running northeasterly two hundredsfifteen (215) feet to she location of Boston i Maine Railroads thence turning and o running northwesterly by said location of Boston a Maine Railroad o two hundred sixteen (216) feet to Howley Street and point of beginning. Containing 45,030 square feet. Subject to a thirty (3'0) foot right of way over the premises to Howley Street as m shown on said plan and marked 'New Hay, to be used in common with Samuel R. Hingeton, his heirs and assigns, and all other perso9s who may have the like right to pass and 'repass with - vehicles and otherwise, at all times and for all purposes for which rights of ways may be used. Together with the right to construct and maintain a branch railroad track over the northwesterly corner of Lot C running from the location of the j' Boston 6 Mains, Railroad to the norEheasterly corner of Lot A. Y.'. Parcel II Q A certain parcel of land with the buildings thereon situate In / the rear of Howley Street in said Peabody, and shown ea Lot B on 1 . the above mentioned plan, and bounded and described as follows. Beginning at a point which is two hundred nine and 32/100 (209.32) feet southwesterly by land of John Flynn a Sons. Inc., i".e. thirty-nine and 55/100 139.55) feet to a poiner than running southwesterly but more westerly by said land of said Flynn seventy-two 172) feet to Cemetery land, thence running southeasterly nineteen and 62/100 (19.62) feet to a points thence continuing in the same direction by said Cemetery land eighty-six and 37/100 (86.37) feet to Lot C as shown an said plans thence running northeasterly by said Lot C 170) feet to a way shown on said plant thence running northwesterly by said way thirty (30) ` feet to a pointy thence running northwesterly sixty-two and 37/100 (62.37) feet to a Nay as shown on said plant thence running northwesterly by said way and a portion of Lot A. twenty-four U61 fest to the point begun at. Containing 6513 !r: square feet. Together with the right to use in common with others, both rights of way sham on said plan leading from said Lot B to the location of the Boston A )mine Railroad. i 01 Uj y to .rl - s- i — n. d q=3C I <.� r. U tL CJ O U eC :i ) PARCEL III The land with the buildings and improvements eVOW here8n845Pfpeabody, Essex County, Massachusetts, situated on Main Street and Horley, formerly Grove Street, bounded and described as follows, Beginning at the corner of Main and Horley Streets thence !' northeasterly by Horley Street on two courses about eighty-four Irl (84) feet to the second parcel hereirnfter described, thence southeasterly by said second parcel forty-eight and 25/100 (68.25) feet to a stone wall, thence northerly by said stone all j four and 8/10 (4.8) feet to the corner of said wall, thence easterly by said wall ten (10) feet to a bolt in the wall, [hence northeasterly by land hereinafter described twenty-seven and 7/10 127.71 feet to a bolt In the ground, thence southeasterly sixty-two and 5/10 (62.5) feet to the cemetery, thence i. southwesterly as the fence stands bounded southeasterly by the cemetery fifty-eight and 1/30 (58.1) feet, thence southwesterly a little more southerly as the fence no stands bounded southeasterly by the cemetery fifty-nine and 68/100 (59.68) feet J;f to Main Street, thence northwesterly by Main Street thirty-six and 75/100 (76.75) feet to an angle, thence northwesterly, but more westerly, by Main Street, seventy-three 3/10 (77.3) feet to a point of beginning. Containing about 10.736 square feet of land. l Meaning to convey Lot A shown on plan of 'Land of Estate of Thomas J. O'Shea. Peabody, Mass., Scale'I inch equals 20 feet, February 1923, Thomas A. Appleton, C.R.' PARCEL IV 2. A parcel of land with the buildings thereon situated In said Peabody and adjoining the parcel above decribed. Beginning at a Point on the southeasterly line of Hawley Street at the northwesterly corner of the lot above described thence northeasterly by Howley Street one hundred fifty-seven and 5/10 j (157.5) feet to the third parcel hereinafter described, thence southeasterly by said third parcel of about one hundred i sixty-five (165) feet to the cemetery, thence southwesterly by 4; the cemetery about one hundred fourteen and 6/10 (116.6) feet to the Above described parcel, thence northwesterly, nearly .. , westerly, by the above described parcel,ilxty-tw and 5/10 162.51 feet to a bolt in the grounds thence southwesterly twenty-seven and 7/10 (27.7) feet to a bolt in the stone wallf thence westerly by said stone all ten 110) feet W the corner of said wall, thence southwesterly by said stone wall four and 8/10 (4.8) feet to a point, the last four courses being by the parcel above described, thence northwesterly by said parcel above described forty-eight and 25/100 (48.45) feet to Howley Street and the point of beginning containing about 17,400 square feet. DF COMMON M OF MASSA I9B LOM Of MASAcHustin Q a. 'L•i O- ER in O W C =C1 � � N OC] ,i I� i ;; I' eabf 884aFL117 •Aning to corny Lot a as shown on said plan. Said Lot B in conveyed subject to the right of drainage granted In dead from Willi" Sutton, Jr. to James Buxton, dated December 21, 1881 and !'= recorded in Essex South District Registry of Deeds. Book 1072, Page 257. PARCEL V A Mpel of land with the buildings thereon adjoining the above described Parcel IV. Beginning an the easterly side of Hawley Street at the northerly corner of the granted premises thence southeasterly by a private way about two hundred eleven (211) feet to land now or formerly of the heirs of Clark, thence soutilweeterly by said Clark land about one hundred eight and 9/12 (108-9/12) feet to the second parcel above describedi thence northwesterly by said second parcel one hundred sixty-seven and 6/12 (167-6/12) feet to Howley Street, thence northerly by said Howley Street ninety-nine and 7/12 (99-T/12) feet to the point of beginning. Subject to any rights of way that may now lawfully exist over the same. Meaning and intending to convey the premises conveyed to me this day by deed of John Flynn c Sone, Inc., recorded previously this day. , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal this day of March, 1987. - . �k6 OA LE C. DICR, Trustee COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, as. ' March �, 1987 Then personally appeared the above-named, Dale G. Dick, Trustee of The Howley Street Trust, and acknowledged the foregoing to be her free act and deed, before me, Notary Pubic My commisslon expires, QTJ' y. N m �. _J w Q W c p tis =J LL O V� C7 2 a—, i i _ 7(h B1ir 003WA71 GEORGE R. HINGSTON of R19 Bwlay Street, Peabody, Cssea Lounty, Mmma°hueetta in mnridentba of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($350,000.00) Brants to MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON °f 59 Federal Street rith guitlaha ramreents Salem, Massachusetts immi AARX An undivided one-half Interest In the land with the buildings thereon situated in Peabody and Salem, Esse: County, Massachu- setts, as shown on 'Plan of Land In Peabody and Salem, property Of Estate of Samuel R. Hingston, Scale, 1' 40' September 26, - 1979,' Said plan recorded with the Esse: South District Registry of Deeds in Book 157, Plan 3, and more particularly bounded and described as follower . . m Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly corner thereof at land of the Boston a Maine Railroad and thence running N MW SOUTHERLY by land now or formerly of John Flynn, Inc., as shownsaid plan, 203.14 feet, thence turning a and runnon ing y� EASTERLY as shown on said plan, 38.07 feet, thence turning r and running _ SOUTHERLY as shorn on said plan, 132.75 feet, thence turning and running a m SOUTHEASTERLY by land of Peabody Cemetery, as on said 4 w plan, 102.50 feet, thence turningha and running NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of Federal Machine Co., P w Inc, as shown on said plan, 95.1 feet, thence „y turning and running r NORTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Federal Machine Co., sd o m Inc. 68.21 feet, thence turning and running NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers, 116.01 feet, thence turning and running x¢ EASTERLY by land now or formerly oP Jeffers Brothers, 11.18 Peet) thence turning and running SOUTHEASTERLY by land noror formerly of Jeffers Brothers and a way, ee shown on said plan, 52.0 feet, thence turning and running 4 � SOUTHERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers, 379.0 feet, thence to rning and running " EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Je[tars Brothers, Yg, SctKR Thomas Brennan, Marlon Dannahy, and Barbara Drebit, as short, on said plan, 125.5 feet, 51.0 p gag+ Leat, and 76.0 feet, thence turning and running ti. r 47 69y �d 8d r f ;. S173ddl 30 OilC09 _.JS. „v`r Wtt6rtRFilQIMlP,L.^l:'\:Y'SHAY:iYrfAT'ITi?LTtl.9CS$.S;'fi�Mq�_V”. . L, 4 + 11 NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of George, and land now or formerlyof Robinson, 117. turning and running O1 feed thence 3 NORTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Reddy, as shorn on sold plan, 59.2 feet/ le'4 ,_i- by land now or formerly of Redd ', •^y EASTERLY + :. Y y, as shown on �'� said plan, 64.1 feet and 60.5 feet[ thence ( (&-!: •: turning and running NORTHEASTERLY by land now or fnrmerly of Reddy, as shown on ?1 . said plan, 7.7 feet, thence turning and running EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Reddy and land now or formerly of Galarie, ae shown on said plan, 86.0 feet and 57.3 feet; thence turning and run- ning °.r NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of Xarras, as shown on said plan, 54.0 feet; thence turning and running WESTERLY by land of the Boston 6 Maine Railroad, 230.0 feet; thence turning and running SOUTHWESTERLY by land now or formerly of the Boston b Maine Corporation, as shown on said plan, 76.0 feet and 149.0 feet, thence turning and running NORTHWESTERLY by land now or formerly of the Boston b Maine 4., Corporation, as shown on said plan, 110.0 fee[ and 01.0 feet, thence turning and running WESTERLY by land of the Boston b Maine Corporation, ae 1.sJ I ! shown on said plan, to the point of� beginning 222.05 feet. 2v 'i ! i Containing according to said plan, 3.6 acres more or less. Subject to and with the benefit of all rights of way as shown f� 1+i . on said plan. � ( For my title Bee Deed dated December 31, 1979 and recorded with &¢>t E the Esser South District Registry of Deeds to Book 6671, Page :j•. 110. k, R �, 1 J0 CCYOEi f 9096'[470 i " 1 f -f' Executed as n sealed instrument this 24th. J�LJJ day of July/ x/19 87 {I hltiPyl.L ey• zyH 5r/ry George R. Hinc44ton I i •:::-Stiff _.. �helQm®roEme9dthdi&saaehn9etts ESSEX a. July 24, 19 87 'I Then pereonnllyeppeered theahuvenemed George R. Hingston end ectnowlal the(ore e � ( C�� xed 1{oio uutvmmt to he h (r !{ ��'� � 'dam t <i�;: ennetih E. Landauer w.rds;�`sro�wflye�tMKi9� th eammisien expire SepAember.2, I9YB X - VL 4T�i$� 1 t }; 'S Vii" 31V3 30 k110 i 03,0303 LI o� hl lld� ST73ddV 30 0"0 ii:. . 22 Silver Street Salem MA 01970 April 12, 1989 Board Of Appeals City Of Salem Salem, MA 01970 Dear: I am still opposed to this project for the following reasons: A question was asked of the developer - "Is this a possible site if an arc11 ae-ological dig?" The answer was no" - but it is. Another question was - "Is this (The North River) a tidal river?" The answer was "no" - but it is. There was also a question on services - "Who will service this area for Police and Fire?" - the answer was "Peabody". Peabody City councillor Twomey said "no way was Peabody going to do this". There has been no mention of the railroad freight cars running alongside the property carrying Mociatic Acid and Hydrochloric acid in this permit process, or any mention of the vibrations to buildings caused by freight cars. Environmental impact for contaminates in adjacent areas, the river bank nearest the property (circa 30 feet) and the areas across Howley Street. has been totally ignored - children will explore there. This is a natural evolve- merit and cancer risk. Mr. Nutting still has no answers as to "how far down for you have to go to reach bedrock?" (This is where the Mill Pond was filled.) The residents from Boston Street have recieved no answer as to the actual height of the building with 0pect to the banking along this property - how high will this building rise above banking? The residents of Aborn, Bow, Rawlins, Safford, Watson Street's (the lat- tors are exiters and enterers for Beaver and Silver Streets) have shown concern for the present heavy traffic in that area of Boston Street at peak hours. The children must cross there to attend school. We are duly con- cerned about the impact that another 200-300 cars could have on an al- ready serious commuter problem. A traffic study in Peabody does not necessarily address Salem needs. The areasgeven to be flooded at times, are minimized. Cars will be parked in that area under the stilted building to accomodate the anticipated water. A tenant might find this displeasing. The area in it's present state is aesthetically unappealing. With federal, state, and municipal funds in crisis stages, it is unrealistic that the Salem river, road and railbeds can be improved for the developer's intent nor maintained. The developer's actual property lines in Salem should be clearly defined on his plan - a correction should be made for rear 72 Beaver Street and a parcel on Silver Street adjacent to 30 Silver Street where parking has been eliminated in his revised plan (of 4-19-89). What is to Peabody an aesthetic benefit may reasonably turn out to be a Salem liability. Sincerely , t wA�-i�. m, Joan M. Sweeney 22 Silver Street Salem, MA 01970 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ANTHONY V. SALVO MAYOR April 25, 1989 Mr. Robert L. Pyne Director of Development Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency 50 Milk Street Boston, MA 02109 Re: Howley Street Housing MHFA #89-04 Dear Mr. Pyne: I am writing in response to your letter requesting that I inform your office of any concerns regarding the proposed development of a sixty-four (64) units affordable housing development at 164R Boston Street. On March 15, 1989, the developer of the Howley Street project was denied requests for variances for a forty-eight (48) unit market rate housing development at 164R Boston Street. Such denial was as a result of a multitude of legitimate planning concerns which were raised by the neighbors of the proposed development. Of particular concern were the following issues: - the overall density of the proposed development; - the responsibility for the provision of emergency public services; - the impact which the proposed development will have on the traffic in the area, and the subsequent non-committal of the developer to prepare a traffic study regarding the development of the site; - the existing and proposed ownership of the property; - the aesthetics of the building elevations; and - the impact which the siting of the proposed development would have on the potential construction of a connector road to Route 128. Following the denial of the requested variances, the developer immediately submitted an application for a Comprehensive Special Permit under Chapter 40-B of the Massachusetts General Laws. As you know, the Comprehensive Special Permit process requires that the developer submit an application which includes several specific items, one of which is a Site Approval letter from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). To date, the developer has not provided the minimum required information with Mr. Robert L. Pyne April 24, 1989 Page 2 his submittal and as a result, it is impossible for local boards and commissions to responsibly review this proposed development. Each of the neighborhood concerns outlined above were raised prior to the Howley Street development becoming an affordable housing development, therefore it is clear that the neighbors are not against this development because it contains affordable housing, but rather because of the impact which this development will have on the surrounding area. I hope and expect that MHFA's design review department will require the information from the developer which is necessary to responsibly review the building and site design, prior to making a decision on whether this site is appropriate for the proposed development. In addition, the neighbors concerns should be addressed prior to any approval being granted for this development. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ia6�wv�" Anthony V. Salvo Mayor M48 W P h YDS A`I..f f ACL T4 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ANTHONY V. SALVO MAYOR April 26, 1989 Mr. James Fleming Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: I am writing regarding the Comprehensive Special Permit application of Michael Harrington for the development of a sixty-four (64) unit affordable housing development at 164R Boston Street. On March 15, 1989, the Board of Appeal denied requests for variances for a forty-eight (48) unit market rate housing development at 164R Boston Street. Such denial was as a result of a multitude of legitimate planning concerns which were raised by the neighbors of the proposed development. Of particular concern were the following issues: - the overall density of the proposed development; - the responsibility for the provision of emergency public services; - the impact which the proposed development will have on the traffic in the area, and the subsequent non-committal of the developer to prepare a traffic study regarding the development of the site; - the existing and proposed ownership of the property; - the aesthetics of the building elevations; and - the impact which the siting of the proposed development would have on the potential construction of a connector road to Route 128. Following the denial of the requested variances, the developer immediately submitted an application for a Comprehensive Special Permit under Chapter 40-B of the Massachusetts General Laws. As you know, the Comprehensive Special Permit process requires that the developer submit an application which includes several specific items, one of which is a Site Approval letter from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). It is my understanding that the developer has not provided the minimum required information with his submittal and as a result, it would appear to be impossible for local boards, commissions, and residents to responsibly review this proposed development. i Mr. James Fleming April 26, 1989 Page 2 In addition, new information has been submitted which indicates that the percentage of affordable housing in Salem is above 10%. Therefore, the developer does not have an opportunity to appeal this process to the State Housing Appeals Committee. I hope and expect that the Board of Appeal will responsibly address all of the neighbors concerns prior to any decision being made on this petition. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, C177 Anthony V. Salvo Mayor M48WP r 18 8 SS ;14 '69 Ct of Ufem, ,�p�asstt '! C� t lI8Pt8 � Ftp€= 3 oara of hupPttl :,sn DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT AT 164R BOSTON STREET A public hearing on this petition was held on April 6, 1989 and continued to and closed on April 26, 1989 with the following Board members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Messrs. Bencal , Strout, Dore and Nutting. 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 Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Additional public board meetings were held on April 20, 1989 and May 9, 1989. The petitioner, represented by Attorney George W. Atkins, III , is requesting a Comprehensive Permit to allow construction of sixty-four (64) units of mixed income rental housing under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20 to 23 inclusive. The locus of the property is on both an I and an R-2 District. The petitioner plans to construct a new building containing 64 units of mixed income rental housing on the site. The Comprehensive Permit which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that the proposed development is consistent with local needs in view of the regional need for low and moderate income housing considered with the number of low income persons in the City of Salem, as balanced against the need to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or the residents of the City of Salem, the need to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, and the need to preserve open spaces. The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, and after reviewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. No opposition to the petition was presented by the Salem Planning Board , the Salem Historical Commission, the Salem Board of Health, the Fire Marshal or the Chief of Police. 2. There was neighborhood opposition expressed to the petition. Concerns expressed were public safety demands, the addition of traffic to adjacent streets, rodent control , and the impact on City services. These factors were considered by the Board and adequately addressed by the petitioner and by the imposition of conditions provided in this decision, as well as existing City ordinances. 3. The petitioner has complied with all requests made by the Board pursuant to the requirements of 760 CMR31.02(2) by direct submissions of requested materials to the Board and agreement to approval conditioned upon receipt of a site approval letter. f Page 2. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1. There is a need for low and moderate income housing in the City of Salem; 2. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without derogating from the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or the residents of the City,of Salem; 3. The proposed development is consistent with local needs. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3 to 2 to grant the Comprehensive Permit subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to this project, including the following conditions: a. The proposed building be provided with a residential fire sprinkler system, installed in accordance with the provisions of NFiPA Standard 13R, and Article 12 of the Massachusetts State Building Code. b. Access to the building for fire fighting purposes be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department, and shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of 527 Code of _Massachusetts Regulations 25.00. c. A right of way from Boston Street, on the Salem side, be maintained as a second means of access to the property for use in emergency response. Dimensions of said right of way shall be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department. d. Connection of the fire alarm system within the proposed building shall be by means of a master fire alarm box connected to city fire alarm circuits. Such fire alarm box shall be capable of serving as a "street box" for use from outside of the building. e. The primary response to fire related emergencies shall be made by the Salem Fire Department as per current departmental policy. Mutual or outside aid response to the site shall be in accordance with present or future agreements between heads of fire departments in the Cities of Salem and Peabody. f. Fire supply to the site, including type and location of fire hydrants, shall be acceptable to both the Salem Fire Department and the Director of Public Services for the City of Salem. 2. All construction comply with existing city and state building codes. Page 3. 3. Dimensions of the building shall be as per plans dated December 12, 1988 (L-1) and April 20, 1989 (A-1 through A-3) submitted to the Board of Appeal May 2, 1989 subject to the following amendments: a. Provisions of these conditions b. Provisions of the Salem Conservation Commission c. Boundaries of the parcel relative to abutter Jeffers d. Location of the footprint of the building provided said footprint shall be relocated no more than 15 feet. 4. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessors. 5. Minimum of ninety-six (96) legal size parking spaces be maintained on site for the exclusive use of the residents, guests and service vehicles of the building only. 6. Height of the building shall not exceed 45 feet. 7. Plan to be submitted and approved by Board of Health, City of Salem, for rodent control during and after construction. 8. Plan for drainage shall be submitted to the Salem Board of Appeal as approved by the Engineering Department, City of Salem. 9. Public safety response (police, fire, civil defense) shall be provided in accordance with mutual aid agreements determined by public safety officials of Salem and Peabody. 10. All services for water, sewer and storm drains, electricity shall not be the responsibility of the City of Salem. 11. The City of Salem shall not be responsible for solid waste disposal or snow removal for this project. 12. Plan review and an Order of Conditions be done by the Salem Conservation Commission. 13. Petitioner provide South Essex Sewerage District with mitigation relative inflow and infiltration. 14. The proponent participate with traffic mitigation by cooperation with UMPTA study of traffic, including the transfer of any necessary real property to affectuate that study and improvement. 15. Enclosure of the parking area under the building shall be reviewed and approved by the Salem Planning Department, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld. 16. That the site contain no more than forty-eight (48-) units in Salem. Page 4. 17. Any accessory structures placed on the roof shall be properly screened and noise contained. 18. There shall be no parking east of the Salem building. 19. The area east of the Salem building shall be cleaned and landscaped. 20. Plans for lighting and landscaping shall be submitted to the Board of Appeal and approved by the Salem Planning Department which shall also review and approve construction of same. 21. The main entrance corridor within the parcel shall be curbed with granite. 22. Prior to issuance of permits hereunder, petitioner Michael J. Harrington must obtain a site approval letter from Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development in accordance with 760 CMR31.02(2)(g). COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT GRANTED Jabs M. Flaming, Esq., Chairman Board of Appeal APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SMALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE iVIIII& GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUP.SANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEARING THE CERT- . FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN F'T9. OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIEL r RECORDED IN THE SDUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNEq OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. -. - BOARD OF APPEAL A copy of this decision has been filed with the Planning Board and the City Clerk. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ONE SALEM GREEN 01970 (508) (508)745-9595, EXT.311 April 26, 1989 Mr. James Fleming, Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: On April 6, 1989, the Board of Appeal held a public hearing regarding the petition of Michael J. Harrington requesting approval of a Comprehensive Special Permit application to construct a sixty-four (64) unit residential development at 164R Boston Street. During such public hearing, the Planning Department was requested to prepare a housing inventory to determine the percentage of Salem's housing stock which was affordable to low and moderate income people. Such inventory was to be completed within the guidelines established by the Comprehensive Special Permit Process. In the time which has ensued, the Planning Department has requested and received information from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development (EOCD) and the Salem Housing Authority to complete such a study. Chapter 774 Section 20, of Mass. General Laws requires that cities and towns utilize the latest decennial census to determine the number of total housing units within its city or town. To determine the number of affordable housing units, the Executive Office of Communities and Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory was requested and updated to include any affordable housing projects which were previously overlooked by the State, or constructed since the last inventory was completed. Following the compilation of each, the percentage of affordable housing was determined. In addition to utilizing the decennial census, the Planning Department also produced a percentage based on the 1987 local census which is the most current count available. The attached inventory indicates that the percentage of affordable housing units in Salem is as follows: Low-Mod Units utilizing 1980 Federal Census: 10.89% Low-Mod Units utilizing 1987 Local Census: 10.63% Thank you for your consideration of this information. SincerelyfN William Luster Acting City Planner M49WP CITY OF SALEM SUBSIDIZED HOUSING INVENTORY PROJECT INDENTIFICATION ADDRESS/NAME FUNDING AGENCY TOTAL UNITS Chapter 200-1 Garden Terrace EOCD 32 Chapter 200-2 Rainbow Terrace EOCD 136 Chapter 667-1 Leefort Terrace EOCD 50 Chapter 667-1 Summitt/Willow, EOCD 20 Chapter 667-2 Colonial Terrace EOCD 40 Chapter 667-3 Bates/Norton EOCD 36 Chapter 667-4 Pioneer Terrace EOCD 104 Chapter 667-5 27 Charter St. EOCD 110 Chapter 667-6 Morency Manor EOCD 54 Chapter 667-7 Ruane/Dalton EOCD 51 Chapter 689-1 Phillips School EOCD 17 Chapter 705-2 Park/Prince/Congress EOCD 14 Chapter 705-3 First St. EOCD 12 Loring Towers Loring Ave. MHFA 250 Pequot Highlands 12 First St. MHFA 250 Salem Heights Pope/Proctor St. HUD 285 Stephen Zisson Essex St. HUD 30 Fairweather Apts. 40 Highland Ave. EOCD 127 Lincoln Hotel Lafayette St. EOCD 63 Salem Point UDAG Salem Point HUD 49 Total Low-Mod Units 1,730 Total Housing Units 1987 Local Census 16,265 Total Housing Units 1980 Federal Census 15,879 Low-Moderate Percentage (1987 Census) 10.63% M49WP Low-Moderate Percentage (1980 Census) 10.89% RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, HARRINGTON & HARRISON 744-3-11 ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(19221987) SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970 03 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON _ (508))44.0350 (508)283-7432 JACOB S.SEGAL (508)283-7435 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)7447493 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III 73 WASHINGTON STREET J.MICHAEL SMITH SALEM,MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON (508)7445230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)744-0372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. December 9, 1988 Joan Sweeney 22 Silver Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Joan: Thank you very much for your presence and candor with respect to my proposed development as evidenced by your appearance and statement on Wednesday evening. In retrospect, I should have been more sensitive in sharing with you in somewhat timelier a fashion my thoughts with respect to this initiative. I assumed, perhaps inappropriately, having discussed this with your Ward Councillor Leonard. O' Leary and members of the Planning Departments of Salem and Peabody that for the purposes of the Board of Appeals function in this process the issue had been addressed sufficiently. Accordingly, I would like the chance to meet with you prior to the next meeting of the Board should you desire to do so. I intend to discuss the appropriate time and location for such a meeting with Mr. O' Leary, and will be back in touch with you either directly or through him in the near future. Si cere , Mi hael J. Har ngton MJH:ph I I I I' li RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, HARRINGTON & HARRISON ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922 1987) SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER,MA 01930 MICHAEL J,HARRINGTON (508)74d--0350 (SOB)28&7432 JACOB S.SEGAL MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)744-7497 15081283 7435 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III 73 WASHINGTON STREET J.MICHAEL SMITH SALEM,MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON (508)7445230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (500)7440372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. December 9, 1988 Guy Discipio 158 Boston Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Guy: Thank you very much for your presence and candor with respect to my proposed development as. evidenced by your appearance and statement on Wednesday evening. In retrospect, I should have been more sensitive in sharing with you in somewhat timelier a fashion my thoughts with respect to this initiative. I assumed, perhaps inappropriately, having discussed this with your Ward Councillor Leonard O' Leary and members of the Planning Departments of Salem and Peabody that for the purposes of the Board of Appeals function in this process the issue had been addressed sufficiently. Accordingly, I would like the chance to meet with you prior to the next meeting of the Board -should you desire to do so. I intend to discuss the appropriate time and location for such a meeting with Mr. O' Leary, and will be back in touch with you either directly or through him in the near. future. Sin cerel , Michae J. arrington MJH:ph RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, HARRINGTON & HARRISON ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(19221987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON GLOUCESTER,MA 01930 JACOB S.SEGAL (508)744-0350 (508)2837432 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX 1508)744-7493 (508)283-7435 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III J.MICHAEL SMITH 73 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM. MICHELE HOIOVAK HARRISON (500)74444 5230230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)7440372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. December 9, 1988 i Thomas Brennan 160 Boston Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Tom: Thank you very much for your presence and candor with respect to my proposed development as evidenced by, your appearance and statement on Wednesday evening. In retrospect, I should have been. more sensitive in sharing with you in somewhat timelier a fashion my thoughts with respect to this initiative. I assumed, perhaps inappropriately, - having discussed this with your Ward Councillor Leonard O'Leary and. members of the Planning Departments of Salem and Peabody that for the purposes of the Board of Appeals . function in this process the issue had been addressed sufficiently. Accordingly, I would like the chance to meet with you prior to the next meeting of the Board should you desire to do so. I intend to discuss the .appropriate time and location for such a meeting with Mr. O' Leary, and will be back in touch with you either directly or through him in the near future. Sincerel , Michael J. Harrington MJH:ph RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, HARRINGTON & HARRISON ATTORNEYS AT LAW , FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER,MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON JACOB S.SEGAL (508)7440350 (508)2837432 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FA%(508)744-7493 (508)2837435 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III J.MICHAEL SMITH 73 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM,MA 01970 445230 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON (5001 7445230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)7440372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. December 9, 1988 Susan Reiss 30 Silver Street - Unit 30A Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Reiss: Thank you very much for your presence and candor with respect to my proposed development as evidenced by your appearance and statement on Wednesday evening. + In retrospect, I should have been more sensitive in sharing with you in somewhat timelier a fashion my thoughts with respect to this initiative. I assumed, perhaps inappropriately, having discussed this with your Ward Councillor Leonard O' Leary and members of the Planning Departments of Salem and Peabody that for the purposes of the Board of Appeals function in this process the issue had been addressed sufficiently. Accordingly, I would like the chance to meet with you prior to the next meeting of the Board should you desire to do so. I intend to discuss the appropriate time and location for such a meeting with Mr. O' Leary, and will be back in touch with you either directly or through him in the near future. Sincerely, Michael J. Ffarrington MJH:ph RONAN, STROME,SEGAL, HARRINGTON & HARRISON ATTORNEYSATLAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922 1987) SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER.MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON - (508)7440350 (508)2837432 JACOB S.SEGAL (508)283-7435 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)7447493 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III 73 WASHINGTON STREET J.MICHAEL SMITH - SALEM,MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON (508)7445230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)7440372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE _ BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO, December 9, 1988 Edward Krogulski 74 Beaver Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Krogulski : Thank you very much for your presence and candor with respect to my proposed development as evidenced by your appearance and statement on Wednesday evening. In retrospect, I should have been more sensitive in sharing with you in somewhat timelier a fashion my thoughts with respect to this initiative. I assumed, perhaps inappropriately, having discussed this with your Ward Councillor Leonard O' Leary and members of the Planning Departments of Salem and Peabody that for the purposes of the Board of Appeals function in this process the issue had been addressed sufficiently. Accordingly, I would like the chance to meet with you prior to the next meeting of the Board should you desire to do so. I intend to discuss the appropriate time and location for such a meeting with Mr. O' Leary, and will be back in touch with you either directly or through him in the near future. ' Sincere y, � C Michael J. arringfon MJH:ph I v RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, & HARRINGTON . ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922.1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 E3 MIDDLE STREET ail PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER.MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON (508)283-7432 JACOB S.SEGAL (508)7440J50 (508)283-7435 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)7447493 '., GEORGE W.ATKINS.III 73 WASHINGTON STREET J.MICHAEL SMITH SALEM,MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON (508)744-5230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)744-0372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO, January 31, 1989 Leonard F. O'Leary 31 Barcelona Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Dear Leonard: Confirming our conversation this morning, the meeting to discuss the Howley Street project and, in particular, its Salem component is to be held on February 8 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. I will be present with George Atkins and a representative of the architectural firm (CSS Architects Inc. ) which has been responsible for implementation of this proposal . It is also my understanding that you intend to assume responsibility for providing appropriate notice to interested parties of the date, time and place of the meeting and that the City Planner or a representative from his department will be invited to attend. If there is anything else expected of us, please let me know so that we can cooperate in ensuring the fullest possible discussion of the proposed initiative at that time. Sincere y, Michae J. Harrington MJH:ph RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, & HARRINGTON r� ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922 19871 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GI OUCESI FR,MA 01930 MICIIAEI.J.HARRINGTON 1508)283 7432 JACOB S.SEGAL (500)74403'30 [508)283 7435 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)7447493 _ GEORGE W.ATXINS.III 73 WASHINGTON STREET 1 MICHAEL SMITH SALEM.MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON - (508)744-5230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)744-0372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. January 19, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. Edward Krogulski 74 Beaver Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Krogulski : I Would you give me a call at your earliest convenience so that. we might discuss some thoughts we have had since our meeting on Tuesday which, hopefully, would go toward addressing your concerns. I can be reached in my office at 744-0350 or at home at 922-8113. Sincer ly/ LI—, MTcha 1 J. arri ton MJH:ph D L E) E5S I i ) RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, & HARRINGTON .# ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922 1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER,MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON (508)7.83 7132 JACOB S.SEGAL (5081]440350 TAX 508 7447493 (508)283)A;L'i MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON. l 1 -- GEORGE W.ATKINS,III - 73 WASHINGION STREET J.MICHAEL SMITH SALEM,MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAN HARRISON (508)744.5230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)744 0372 5 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. January 19, 1989 ( I : I Mr. Thomas Brennan ' I 160 Boston Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Tom: Would you give me a call at your earliest convenience so that we might discuss some thoughts we have had since our meeting on Tuesday which, hopefully, would go toward addressing your concerns. I can be reached in my office at 744-0350 or at home at 922-8113. Sincerely, Michael J. Harrington MJH:ph D EXPR SS , RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, & HARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW FIFTY NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES i.RONAN T1922 1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIPSTROME GIOLICESTER,MA01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON (508)744 0750 (5081285-7432 JACOB S.SEGAL 15D81283 7435 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(5081744 7493 _ GEORGE W.ATKINS,III 73 WASHINGTON STREET J.MICHAEL SMITH SALEM.MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON - (508)7445230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)744 0372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G CROCHIERE - BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. January 19, 1989 Ms. Susan Riess 30 Silver Street, Unit 30A Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Riess: Would you give me a call at your earliest convenience so that we might discuss some thoughts we have had since our meeting on Tuesday which, hopefully, would go toward addressing your concerns. r I can be reached in my office at 744-0350 or at home at 922-8113. I Sincerel?/H is aelarrigton MJH:ph FE L eRESS j i I i I 'l RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, E( HARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW I r FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES I.RONAN(1922 198]) SALEM,MIASSACHUSE RS 01970 63 MIDDLE SIREFT PHILIP".IROME GI OUCESI ER,MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON 15091 7AA 035() (508)28.3 74.72 JACOB S.SEGAL (!;(18)283/4:15 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)744 7493 _ GEORGE W.ATKINS,IT ]J WASHINGTON STREET J.MICHAEL SMITH SALEM,MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON (508)744.5230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (5081744 0372 _ JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. January 19, 1989 I Mr. & Mrs. Guy Discipio 9 Bass Road Lynn, MA 01905 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Discipio: , I Would you give me a call at your earliest convenience so that we might discuss some thoughts we have had since our meeting on Tuesday which, 1 hopefully, would go toward addressing your concerns. I can be reached in my office at 744-0350 or at home at 922-8113. Sincerely VJ • Michael J. (/rring n MJH:ph / LEDE EXP ESS/ RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, HARRINGTON & HARRISON ATTORNEYS AT LAW � FlFfVNINE EFDFWLL SIRFFi JAMES 7.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM.MASSACHUSE77S 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER.MA 01930 DAVID E.HARRISON (617)283-7432 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON (617)7440350 ..(617)283-7435 JACOB S.SEGAL FAX(617)7447493 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON 73 WASHINGTON STREET GEORGE W.ATKINS,III SALEM,MA 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON (617)7445230 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (617)7440372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE JOSEPH J.WELCH FILE NO. April 12 , 1988 Mr . Leonard F . O ' Leary Councillor , Ward Four 31 Barcelona Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Dear Lenny : After botching our scheduled meeting last Monday , I made a couple of attempts to reschedule the meeting to take you through what Ken Feeney and I propose to do with the Salem-Peabody site . As you perhaps know , the rezoning initiative has commenced in Peabody , and with the expectation of that being resolved over the next month to six weeks , it is my intention to move on the land use issue with respect to Salem . Prior to any final submittal to the City of Salem, I would like the opportunity to discuss this initiative with you as it affects your interests as Ward Four Councillor . I think the prospect of using private investment as a catalyst for cleaning up the "dumping ground " off of Harmony Grove Street is perhaps the most significant aspect of this entire venture . Would you give me a call at your convenience . Sincerely ,, Michael J . Harrington MJH/eam L ; RONAN, STROME, SEGAL, HARRINGTON & HARRISON ATTORNEYS AT LAW HF IV-NINE FEDERAL SUITE JAMES T.RONAN(19221987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET PHILIP STROME GLOUCESTER.MA 01930 MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON (508)7dd-0750 (508)2837432 JACOB S.SEGAL (508)2834435 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)744 7A93 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III - 73 WASHINGTON STREET J.MICHAEL SMITH SALEM, 44 5230 01970 MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON ' - (508)744 DEBRA RAHMIN SILBERSTEIN (508)7440372 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL G.CROCHIERE BRIAN P.CASSIDY FILE NO. November 18, 1988 Leonard F. O' Leary Salem City Council 31 Barcelona Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Dear Lennie: I have tried to reach you relative to both Howley Street and the local rooms tax on hotel space. Please give me a call at your convenience so that we can arrange to discuss both issues. Since ly, Michael J. Harrington MJH:ph I INT, -.',71,01;1�i i ,rf;2x,,! licky, tg, F; fro i OWN ;T',P Y 'WIN 04 -,T"NI-4 T' SIX 1�4 kt BOARD OF APPEALS, APR 24 (0 17 aH '69 RECEIVED ,CITY DF SALEMMASS, i two M (Am <, q �R a /a r: , \. fit'" ✓ �'` v (/ �'r Wh�� v-�{�1' �" '• 1 r �,j x�qq t��p �� � �`' "1i .. ..�—.- �ri r ! �q �r� r \- �77�`�� .F7J F .}�''f)t sM Ai t .W' �I ,(('�/'i tl. i �`„'�.. �! i - 7 9'`� • .� /atly'y R� (".__c a-srl^ea�,< 4.�J/'+ Off. y.. t'r,»-�/t�N `,'CI L�•�Fr�' ,MG � �n'/� � ./ Y f `�/}& ,� _ � � _ t. /,, � � ��'F �•�x S�—"xs.-i jf .� r a`r5 �^"` � .r � i'�T' _R - i 'b •t���.bb,�l4ev.iJN�� r �� .� �< r ,� a 1. p.�. e� '.' ,µx al' `t^'C.��y 'rr.p r F� �•� �"�/.� tyr_ �''��.r•`� � '.v:5-. 1� �•' �"r v'�`'� .fi �";,a \K�/ 'N y ` 'J �� ^rr. h � 'y -..J s.--1 '� A F +�L`^�i@�...f .r C�••c: �(..-}�� Y�,�` \nF x/K_� ��^m�tr �X . '�'r"r �K. }�i � ✓�� � � e{/ � C•aw � ` _ t h\i�� '�.� �\c����aP�'({�j'���r'f.��y�yylt t. rl �` /.n-.. �a.� I r0 ' y �, + • T = � :. � x �a ill �w �,j• 1,;,�,,.y ;,a G 4nx,>�S-� 5' '' •Q" `+. y i ��:." � rY . f . .°y "r"g �6"�t�.,.!��`NP � fi��`'�'' S 'F' � S •e�/�/i r {y23'' S 9 � �^' r> � [t ,.><• Cr r C r \ •1 !L�j �X.f ♦' .� I �. { i v +\.4'�t a•ad^} i 'Zs-�' ,,+y +i ^y.. �.F•3�"N Y r/t `*1 N:S � >'kt IL 4 S•y C�y% �J'Y • _ � _. 1 a,C '+yry{'rli+�` �' /''k •qaY A , S d `1 • '-a r�'tx::'• a� �� � �f'��4' r,a1�4y. S' <�f'�`�`•r�`��5%ra- .. ,.� ''�h,_ �t�,�y .; � -\' ..� '��} � _ }.. �r t xt�/ Ih �`�,Y� r �1s t>i � � kt�t._ Y N1Lx A. I°`� ' >. T �.a. ��`��� � y f,`":4•� ���ir. �' Y' �4 �,vr. ..j FJxi/ ' ..:,r � ✓�' � ��"."� i ._ ��, Fr.��l� �� � \� ��� �� D1�1�, r r,1•i BOARD OF-APPEALS 'APR Z0 1017 aH '89 RECEIVED ..CITY OF SALEM,MASS. Maj i \ T.iIIY �,�! �?�'' \y we r 1 I 73 p r�'�,yys,`'��yk�`[�F- �_,(�^,��/• �'y,"�'yA4""; .r .1/F�'�,. ,�^,1•?"`„ . 2 �L`• art `.�� � � ! � 1• I,./ ,.Ff'•i .`�Wi qt�.�f •._ f,Jw. 4. I.k 's' m' ""fVM ` _ �;. 'f, •4. ' ti 9 , e�'��` �:� J k1.• . aria 'qx] a � E.t�;ki-. y'�'r n ',Z„•.,zt• ;,L� ,n f4'" ��_t+." gy��Pr"'•Y 4 ry', .� � ��� a`4 ,t .riY� 1 e \ e9 �rttt �y si'•' Jq / . 4 " 1,R I' fi `Y : .'.j►"+�r+',�'. mt=#�„�' �i?�'� -i - r =-i�'1i ,,P',`�,'!i/r.-s ..•.;/,J "'* 'y,} � �, '':*�.3 t �� _.� �s71>.��is '�\� •,��. �'1 ' 2 � •, `¢�y,� �" � '°�' � `I� /I�,i ��+ ^ t' ��ta�..�[S^' Y'L'���� �1 � ��d�roy� y 4 ± y�� -.�.Y�'�� � � �• ii((1��`t\+.}'� ,, �'aA', _t f l�(r�ti.�7•'�f{r t K•`. \ r t6 ��,�::t..a M .-s.��r _:� b � `t��. ��`rw1.',-.�„• }� .�/ 4�. U�. 1, �y � 1f `�F+��ja [ # itie�.'' e'�.g3"bt ¢kS.RjC'C\� 1 "t.I 1K`,,l 1 \`l'L \ i!3 `,' '� .,. ;. .*(;•S1la� 'y� NU Wit/, .d r ♦ e'J• •.. .IE` .` ty '�' � ,K�t • � y ` � tvp, I ♦ + -.tZr,. T w t.5.: tI ey .w��,,Sy rµ' , �Y•,'V C` ,� ,! ..•777���••• _ lY f � �" r' 4-NSF di '4 ♦ .b'�` . ,a ' ytisia � K r \ ' , , BOARD OF APPEALS y: APR 17 AM '09 RECEIVED CITY OF SALEM.MASS. y nears s Internal Revenue Ser- : }D �� bigger or busier, has its T one month before the tax returns. ; —� cy expects to receive a i tis year and insists it is m and issue refunds on is going smoothly,,, Mf- IRS commissioner told oversight subcommittee n acting in the top job � � .�. senior IRS officials are ' with some major Prob- 0 employees who are telephoned questions it least 30 Percent of the Spectators gather to watch this morning's tannery building fire from a sa uracy rate is barely 50 yards away. x advice is a real crap :kle,D-Texas,chairman • Fire ,vptable,"Murphy said. atil we see substantial ; tax-return examiners destroys a 'd keep quiet when they ubtract taxes withheld ; `F hnns. do wereactual- tannery s, said one employee,INNI y cases, the taxpayers- $100 and $1,000 each. Continued from page 1 M_ e the subcommittee, It took firefighters several I policy existed and was hours tiered an investigation. to beat down the 50-foot flames out$1 trillion a year,is that hid the collapsing frame of The Washington Post" the tannery. The huge cloud of because of budget cuts thick smoke that billowed from f ive been rationed and the inferno was illuminated in duced.The IRS budget oranges, yellows and reds I the i Is million and the agency flames beneath it. s to finance a mandated When the fire was brought un- Rescue vehicles and personel crowd thi; der control at about 3:30 a.m.,the scene. )roblem trying to con. wood-frame building had been re- d. We are looking for duceednto a 10-foot-high pile of North Salem and the Harmony to determine B operating ting at present g and steaming rubbleGrove Cemetery putting out in Beverly ar with a lone smokestack rising small brush fires which were was being ca he tightening will not from is midst. started by flying embers. services, Processing of Deputy Fire Chief Joseph Rus. from Peabody. sell said fire P Hundreds of the football-sized The group p fighters encountered chunks of debris darted from the Sre until a 1. 'getting tax forms and Problems from the time they ar_ fire and several ignited buildings turned into a e General Accounting rived at the scene. adjacent to the tannery. 10 states to check on 79 "Our big concern was getting several roof fires werputt out erSeveral of fire e, )posed stock. No office the electric light down here," he quickly, one of several buildings era men at the sing 10 or more forms, said."We had three transformers' in the area owned by the Larrab- were yelled at I orders for forms and that blew up. You know water bee and Kingston Co.was heavily tors fearing an led correctly. and electricity don't mix."Power damaged by fire and water. As dawn nE iS is 2.2 percent ahead was shut off for a portion of the The fire drew waves of specta- continued to hi lig tax returns, two of downtown area near the Salem tors, ranging from couples with ble from ladder aokhaven, Mass., and line for much of the night, small children to a skateboarder. feet into the aii ent and 10.2 percent, Soon after they began pump About a dozen people crossed a Russell said h \ Brookhaven Processes thg, he said, firefighters began small Main Street cemetery to that the fire di C J ; encountering problems with observe the fire from a vantage major disaster. \ ngland; Kansas City' their water supply. "We called in the Water De Point above where most of the I have to sal porary conditions that Department to kick in fire crews were working, did a hell of a jc s, additional pumps.Fora while we One man said he heard the mutual aid... agoing the IRS lately, were running on nothing. ' commotion from his home near AO says aid we'd be in taxpayers and Another firefighter said once Bishop Fenwick High School on these surround rrors completing and initial Problems were ironed out, Margin Street and another said that came in: Errors were made on the water supply was excellent, he heard the sirens from his them ed with 18 Percent last He estimated that the 10 deck- house near the Carroll School on Joining Peat 10 were made by the guns mounted on engines and the Northend Street. men carrying hoses pumped In Beverly, residents living as Swampscott,We taxpayers are making 12,000 gallons of water a minute far away as Ryal Side and emer- Beverly, Middl 'ors as last year, even onto the fire during its peak, enev room r)ercnnnnl r no,, .. We the undersigned residents of ward four are opposed to the construction of multi-family residential units at R164 Boston Street for the following reasons: 1 . The impact on traffic in the area of Boston and Main Streets which are already over-taxed . 2 . The burden it will place on our schools . 3 . The need it could create for added police and fire potection. 4 . An influx of tenants renting rather than owning property could cause a problem for homeowners and businesses in the area especially when children will have very little space in which to play . pdssigLIE 5,22 Lack of supervision in a building which will house hundreds A people. 6 . A one access and egress road for hundreds of people to enter and exit the area. �\ 7 . This area could be used for light industry (for which it is zoned ) that would mean jobs and more taxes for the city of Salem. 8 . Salem, being an historic city known around not only our country but in many parts of the world has and should continue to strive to attract the tourist trade and we do not feel that constructing this type of apartment building is going to enhance the image of our city. Signe ir -u q--- Cly ► �� - -._ci 9 " — — ---FLS - i __ } , r n � t Y ^_ A t � �� t t r '� e . A . ' 4 P, !. �. A Y ---------------- b � T , l W.and 6 �/ �1 x i R Ward d rj. R { zabeth ® Edmund is f Barnet Kote A. F go Mc0/r7/5 phlIllp L �r�s duehby w C4R w * S L V f?O/Jf✓S/rP� 0 Thou. ' 5u/fn Markarian ✓ea. FSi g/efon Larkin Nrb� y � ' � !'�N' C s ' � ✓ urFb Pr�sci Nry �4 �5 � r nle✓ '#t�3 O f! Iu, - ea---- a BUTLER a ILZ h � z r— _ z a �- I i � it °�': ---a �, � I � � • i:,p — °� s4'-_ _ —--_..y �.—.tel_ T; •n;.- - ,., .. BOSTON •r r �cL-ice.`t owl F. o c - - - — 1 � ` eIFII li BEAVER •,• ,z �✓ I JI aly � f'1 • SILVER _ Pry - _ ZL_ i(_ -2d rw ..._,..--_ i I i �= R i v e '- AGR / LA IVF ENCS 6 AN�CH r E, G��I a I I �� II ,_-.. - --. I G aha. a{ P � ❑ h � �'� - � �/� 'n �EsrEy �"��i 0 C� O F I o W c, I N 4 < - oI � 8, 2 c �Jaal L4 �- - ( EMETER 1 M oz I. ,16= �QN ! t ' •',� �9GxT x f �` UI'�. 1' EW'1- 11i�.\I II // •Ikjl/' 1�EfE ---I J < I I I �- p ' >I ,i bpd I _. � 0 � ' W > � ! `>✓'�I e - —7-�F—�- � � 2 � tJE I I �f'°il'uNcev� 7 a �:teav \•. v'� 3 ��'E ✓ oemwsE�� �o T I _ PR I rr✓ I — _ S � , IYT-•J �y _ � `• l �� Z aNEr1 5� y e 44 ° - -- PURCH ASE ST. n' EW E'IT _— .. � � '� �� � \ \ +oN a u c,. �.✓ I --- I �P tr� 5 E I F_.-11'-.-- :�{ I I F� , I� �� w ✓ . rt � Ctv of '*ttfem, Anssar4usetts ;s r Poara of �Vpeal i Rear 164 Boston Street 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to this project, including sprinkling of the building and provision of emergency vehicle access via Jeffers right of way, and hydrant plan. 2. All construction comply with existing city and state building codes. 3. Dimensions of the building shall be as per plans submitted subject to the following amendments: a. Provisions of these conditions b. Provisions of the Salem Conservation Commission c. Boundaries of the parcel relative to abutter Jeffers d. Location of the footprint of the building provided said footprint shall be relocated no more than feet. 4. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessors. 5. Minimum of ninety six (96) legal size parking spaces be maintained on site for the exclusive use of the residents, guests and service vehicles of the building only. 6. Height of the building shall not exceed 45 feet. 7. Plan to be submitted and approved by Board of Health, City of Salem, for rodent control during and after construction. 8. Plan for drainage shall be submitted to the Salem Board of Appeal as approved by the Engineering Department, City of Salem. 9. Public safety response (police, fire, civil defense) shall be provided in accordance with mutual aid agreements determined by public safety officials of Salem and Peabody. 10. All services for, but not limited to, water, sewer and storm drains, electricity shall be the responsibility of the City of Peabody. 11. The City of Salem shall not be responsible for solid waste disposal or snow removal for this project. 12. Plan review and an Order of Conditions be done by the Salem Conservation Commission. 13. Petitioner provide South Essex Sewerage District with mitigation relative inflow and infiltration. Rear 164 Boston Street Page 2. 14. The proponent participate with traffic mitigation by cooperation with Umpta study of traffic, including the transfer of any necessary real property to affectuate that study and improvement. 15. Enclosure of the parking area under the building shall be reviewed by the Salem Planning Department. 16. That the site contain no more than forty eight (48) units in Salem. 17. Any accessory structures placed on the roof shall be properly screened and noise contained. 18. There shall be no parking east of the Salem building. 19. The area east of the Salem building shall be cleaned and landscaped. 20. Plans for lighting and landscaping shall be submitted to the Board of Appeal and approved by the Salem Planning Department which shall also review and approve construction of same. 21. The main entrance corridor within the parcel shall be curbed with granite. ` IPA IJ 3 0� Cii '69 `y T. Ttv QL F1L � ttlem, ttssttc usetts ;1TY C �attra a{ hwttl 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. litera,l 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 Appea 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 GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 1.01`]o OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSANT TO MASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 8138, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OP LRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NOT rl:;E EFI'ECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE=E111S1dN, LEA^.a' FICATION OF THE LMY CLERK THAI 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED A%3 N.: APPEAL HAS SFS: r ... UR I"HAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN PILE, THAT IT H,13 BEEN DISMISSED CR RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE %A,,-.E i,F TI{E ...,it. OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL L j rIt 14.1 � 'fir c';• . . l' S SZ I,t 3 ./ j !!• .�E1 '(ft•.�i t- a`/, e- figr .PYL 8 +5. 1 / r a :. ��Iy e1R�a`� I� ,�A`rW. S a f i p 2 c;, a •h 1 ttl cl. >`�C ''& ` 'a sf u^...�t fir, .,a -'+.i� .� at� _!'''1. "l� �� :.! �. {. .. x45'.nJ•, _ Rto--"�i•�t�'D r'K, V1. �yy : a a a !, ♦y _ f s 5 \'� i 7 ,, �( <'^j y �. ri "'^ (.. ° '-J1�'r` �. ems'•. ,•��(���N'flt, 10. 5 i•:'.�� ��[' �L ���� '.. �/ v.4..rte a� •rt r•. 3+'f r s.i .as"r fir✓�u ar�,,��R:�%• 4f 7'Woo s ) r � s CJ�A\ �•.!r /, � 1 r -'yJ 7a �t L�7r � i � • °Sr�h' - rr � ,t - , l ., f fir-+ � �,♦ i. 'f• � l ti��..}` �/ `\ � '.. .�. �i � +•fix . �� •- 1 °i ' ' ,:' t IJ►, \ At •�. .f ', .r�� r. .- ° > \rl°•jws `.1\fI\ r-. J•�S �. Ev .Yy� +. , it `� .YI J� �p • ,w 1 � •l R�'�'�''• JS• Ir .�', nM"4 ' ,... , r'1 � Pr_- lY' 1 ! ' l Jx •. r � S . ., 4: 4 / • t t ���. �, • tt•5."4tv � r� r�.1` 7 r' � •jam t• �/•.�l y+L>\' �' •�..� � Y.�..,• `' �,�• meq• j!''�1[ ../,�,\ •�� , '/, �� r � �t \ / � _ �.. w . 4 �i,rl �'k.1,�5 � �sr ,+1 � +/ w•: 1)�'t'!/rf ...{ ',y / ..•\ ''` A Z� ' ! w �. Poll' / a. r.� w..1�..'ytr`w' •�••,,,`• S.� ♦ Il i 5 1. C �• -�--x9 qmw- �i� �� � i jar•,. a. ,, t �•� y, f� � .t, � '�� �- � .. � 1 .a�• ,� ��� J a7 ` t ' !i �j` �' � ' !l L �wI't 1. �.VL��ii+.N .1,71 �r �, � ��.. �.-'.y. w./ •` ! ..- � ���a���'. it •S• r •-' • r >' �.• i 1 ./ �i � .�i� `r� Oyu,• , _ � i 1` r i.d'Mr all i � r 1 ra tS lr r 11 lt! �i ; i ./i /- .. ✓ . t s lr ' , i .. f • ' lam. � y,,'{-"-'7. � _ w :., Y l- / / � .: wz.. L° � I A i� ., >i�.. r���`1.��r/?� �I,;� Il'r '.t•'�./^���E�" It �' ' i�r.F" . cl' -u ;: 4 �` .. j4 wriw. _ i '�.'•.a`�'��.,�{ /�Iu � 1-..r /_ �T`c'..v�/ R�(�"//..: . or, � .t"`I J �w- `� • �F �K \ �� k,. ,, s.: 1'„� ham' \` ! -rc'�\ , , re I4 f � �c,j .l', � 'r/ I� �� - �f��ill �� ./✓ -_ �� �i �\'�•e�?�I Ile 'y.>s � " / 1 y�i 4 �, 4f� Gf1�� 1•!h w'°�.+. p��� ally r�Y,�J t ,. . t< ;...h.C"-�`-�,Y ' l_Ja� 7 .µ\ \L-a 1 .(/ ��'� 1_: �"rR' .fa 44 +s r..jl 1,,.I'I / •V :, r�,t (/n �sL' /f r yh�t�� £ a � ��L'^�'t �i.��rrs✓ �a ��t. r_. .. �� 1is�'b''t .` x�1 �3• 1� \�5S 1.g �.4��Y- .. at�'�f`JK <".' � -� ►�°�� ,` y �. • y I•f fib- ���'�' /'r{f� � r\ �n� . / `,� }7l . ay "K� d,..��F.' .d-- NXI' ♦�� I � .,4J� i I.d 05/08/89 17:05 DOLPEN _ 002 ELBE N May 8, 1989 Atty. George W. Atkins, III Ronan, Strome, Segal & Harrington Attorneys at Law 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear George: In response to your letter dated April 28, 1989, below is a description of the property management practices that we would follow as the firm responsible for the management of a property. 1. On-site Management. DOLSEN has a team of management professionals who handle all aspects of the operation of the property that it oversees. We will assign a property manager from our staff who will work with the Owners and community to maintain the highest quality of living. A property manager will provide the owners the expertise on the physical maintenance of the property. The property manager will also handle the negotiations of all contracts, the bidding of property insurance and all routine management functions on site. In addition, the property manager will visit the property at least once per week for a complete site inspection. The property manager from DOLBEN will hire, train, and supervise a site manager for the property. The site manager will be responsible for the day to day operations of the property. This will include the hiring, training, and supervision of the on-site staff, site inspections, tenant relations, community relations, and the rental of units. 2 . Security. We will recommend that all of the common areas, interior and exterior are well lit. By having areas that are well lit at night, this deters crimes. In addition, on a regular basis, we check to make sure that all exterior doors are secure and that all intercoms are working. This insures that the only individuals who can get into the building are tenants, or guests who have been allowed into the building by the tenant that they are going to see. On various occasions, we have had the local police department give a seminar on steps that tenants can take to protect themselves, as well as to make the property more secure. William H. Dolben&Sons, Im. Exchange Place Telephone Realm" $mtan, Massachusetts 02109 617 367-0400 05.'08%89 17:06 DOLBEH 003 M Atty. George W. Atkins, III May 8, 1989 Page 2 3 . Maintenance. A property manager from DOLBEN and the site manager will hire, train and supervise maintenance personnel for the property. The maintenance staff will be responsible for maintaining the common areas and interior units of the property. we require that at least one member of the maintenance staff live on site so that they can oversee any problems that may occur during the night hours or on weekends. We will have a maintenance employee, site manager, and property manager from DOLBEN be on-call 24 hours a day to handle any emergency that may occur. 4 . Parking Control . Each unit is only allowed a certain number of parking spaces. The number of spaces is determined by the size of the unit. Stickers are then given to the tenants so that we know that only tenants' cars are parking in the lot. Any cars that do not have stickers or that are inoperable vehicles will be towed at the owners expense. In addition, no automobiles will be allowed to park on the grass areas. We do not allow mechanical repairing of cars in the parking lots. Nor do we allow the parking of recreational vehicles or commercial trucks parked on the property without the written consent of the management company. S. community and Neighborhood Relations. We feel that it is important for the management to be involved in neighborhood and community activities. Therefore, we usually become involved in the local Chamber of Commerce, as well as any functions that do occur in the community. As mentioned previously, we work closely with the local police department to educate our residents on crime prevention as well as to make our property as secure as possible. Also, if space provides, we usually hold small functions during the Christmas holiday season. This is a brief explanation of the services we provide as well as the way in which we manage our properties. I hope that this will be helpful to you, Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, WILLIAM H. DOLBEN & SONS, INC. Thomas D. Beaton, CPM vice President Property Management William H. Dolben&Sons, Inc. Exchange Placc Tolephonc Realtor Boston, Massachusetts 02109 617367-0400 DOLBEN is pleased at this time to submit a management proposal for the residential apartments owned by in , Massachusetts. It is our understanding that the property consists of residential units in # buildings. We think that DOLBEN can provide the expert service and personal attention that this management assignment needs. What follows is a general outline of the management agreement that DOLBEN would propose as part of a comprehensive plan for the above properties. We will tailor this plan to meet the specifics needs of the owner. I PROPERTY OPERATIONS DOLBEN has a team of management professionals who will handle all aspects of the operations of this residential property. We will assign a property manager from our staff who will work with the owner to establish guidelines for maintaining, renting and upgrading the property. Our property manager will provide you with expertise on physical maintenance of the property. As part of our fee we will handle the negotiation of contracts, the bidding of property insurance and r all routine management functions on site. The property manager from DOLBEN will hire, train and supervise all necessary employees to maintain, operate and repair the property. We propose to have an on-site manager at the expense of the owner, plus additional maintenance and office staff. As we get to know the property we will evaluate the current personnel and recommend a staffing level that will give you the most cost-effective service. Any employees who are currently working on the site will be retained by DOLBEN and will become DOLBEN employees. The combination of management and maintenance people will provide coverage for all types of physical and fiscal problems which might occur at your property. DOLBEN staff are on call 24 hours a day to handle any emergency. II ANNUAL BUDGETS DOLBEN will submit to the owner a proposed income and expense statement for each fiscal year. Included will be our recommendations for capital improvements and preventative maintenance expenditures that are appropriate for the property. The budget will be submitted to the owner for approval and our staff will meet to discuss any changes requested. DOLBEN's management staff will work to stay within the annual budget and will advise the owner of any substantial variation. The annual budget will be used for budget-to-actual comparisons in the monthly financial reports. William H. Dolbcn & Sims, lnc. lisrhanugc 19arr li4cphonc Realtors linstou, Alasso rhmsitts 02109 617367-0400 III ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL REPORTING DOLBEN will handle all receivables of the property including billing and collection of rents, damage and late charges and other incomes. Receivables will be processed daily with tenants mailing their payments either directly to the site office, or to a lock-box at our bank. Their payments are credited directly into the owner's account. DOLBEN will handle all payables including utilities and maintenance billings, insurance premiums and payroll expenses. The owner will receive a financial report 20 days after the close of each month. This report includes the following information: a. A month-by-month spreadsheet of income and expenses. b. A budget-to-actual comparison report. C. A detailed general ledger for receivables and payables. d. A tenant status report which lists all tenant monthly charges and their current account balance. e. A copy of all invoices paid during the month. This report will allow the owner to account for all money spent by DOLBEN in its capacity as agent and also to track how the property is performing as compared to budget. A sample copy of this report is enclosed. IV BANKING & CASH MANAGEMENT DOLBEN will establish a commercial deposit account for these properties at a Boston-based commercial bank. All incomes will be deposited into this account. With the owner's approval, excess checkbook balances will be included in DOLBEN's cash management program. Checking account balances are rolled into a redeposit purchase account for interest rates 1% - 2% below the current T-bill rate. Revenues generated from the cash management program will be credited to the owner's account monthly. At the end of each month, revenues that are in excess of disbursements will be remitted to the owner. V COLLECTIONS DOLBEN has an in-house collections manager who monitors the receipt of all rents and charges. Delinquent rental accounts are sent a 14-day notice to quit by the 10th of the month. Further collection procedures are taken as the need arises. The presence of a DOLBEN employee at housing, district or small claims court, for the purpose of collection, is included within the management fee. Only those outside fees associated with the collection, such as filing, or attorney's fees will be paid for by the owner. William H. Dolhcn & Sons, Inc. 1's r6n n,�r I'Lu, 'Ii Irlihunc Realtors B,�sinn. Nassn(Ims, ns 02100 617 367-01110 VI CONTRACT TERMS DOLBEN proposes a Management Agreement of one year. The contract would renew for one year periods and would enable the owner to cancel at anytime, without penalty. For the services outlined in this proposal we would charge a management fee of % of gross receipts. We look forward to the opportunity of managing this residential apartment property and designing a management agreement which encompasses the owner's specific needs. After you have had an opportunity to review this proposal, we would like to meet with you to fine tune the management agreement to meet your needs. Again, we look forward to the opportunity to managing this property. We hope to hear from you in the very near future. Very truly yours, WILLIAM H. DOLBEN & SONS, INC. Thomas D. Beaton, CPM Vice President Property Management William H. Dolben &Suns, Inc. ISschan4r 1'Inccldcphnoc Realtors linstnn. �lassnchu sc its O210'1 617367-0,100 WILLIAM H. DOLBEN & SONS INC. Banking References United States Trust Co. Alan R. Morse, Jr. 40 Court Street Chairman of the Board Boston, MA 02108 617/726-7000 Bank of New Engla,id Michael L. Prakken 28 State Street Asst. Vice President Boston, MA 02109 617/973-1930 First Mutual of Boston Oscar Wasserman 800 Boylston Street Senior Vice President Boston, MA 02199 617/247-6500 BayBank/Middlesex William Wiggins 7 New England Executive Park Senior Vice President Burlington, MA 01803 617/273-1700 Mortgage Investors Corporation Mark Goldweitz 200 Clarendon Street President Boston, MA 02116 617/267-8000 B. F. Saul Mortgage Co. , Inc. Richard L. Bernardi 8401 Connecticut Ave. Vice President Chevy Chase, MD 20815 301/986-7151 Home Federal Savings & Loan William McLennan 625 Broadway Major Loan Officer San Diego, CA 92185 800/821-9992 Massbank for Savings John Wood 123 Haven Street Chairman of the Board Reading, MA 01867 617/662-0110 WILLIAM H. DOLBEN & SONS INC. Client List United States Trust Company Alan R. Morse Jr. 40 Court Street Chairman of the Board Boston, MA 02108 617/726-7000 Farmers & Traders Life Insurance Frank D'Onofrio 960 James Street Vice President Syracuse, NY 315/471-5656 Longfellow Properties James Moriarty 11 Red Roof Lane Vice President of Finance Salem, NH 03079 603/894-5300 Atlantic Financial Associates Robert Jesson 480 Adams Street 617/698-3950 Milton, MA 02185 Retals Trust Alvin Slater 220 Boylston Street, Suite 210 617/338-2265 Boston, MA 02110 First Winthrop Carol Mills International Place Assist. Vice President Boston, MA 02110 617/330-8600 John Hancock Mutual William G. Galanes Life Insurance Company Sr. Real Estate John Hancock Place Investment Officer Boston, MA 02116 617/421-6000 Ferraro & Walsh Dennis Cargill 954 Cambridge Street 617/354-3366 Cambridge, MA 02141 Goldweitz & Company Mark Goldweitz 200 Clarendon Street Chairman Boston, MA 02116 617/267-8000 EXHIBIT A . REAL ESTATE PURCHASED BY PRIOR DOLBEN PARTNERSHIPS . is .. I „ Number of Number Units Square Feet Multi-Family Residential Housing Camelot Village Apts., Amesbury, MA 126 Crofton Village Apts., Crofton, MD 258 Fairlawn Cameo Apts., Mattapan, MA 347 Great Road Apts., Acton, MA 168 Honeytree Apts., Canton, MI 744 Oxford Green Apts., Laurel, MD 245 Parker Hill Apts., Boston, MA 92 Riverpark Apts., Columbus, OH 216 Summit Towers Apts., Reading, MA 156 The Sycamores Apts., Reston, VA 185 Whitehall Village Apts., Amesbury, MA 120 Condominium Units Harborside Lane, Beverly, MA" 15 T Condominium Developments The Gables on Tuckerman, Rockville, MD 408 Webster Green, Merrimack, NH 145 Office Buildings 181 Wells Avenue, Newton, MA 30,000 Warehouse & Distribution Facility 1400 Imperial Way, Thorofare, NJ 128,000 _.. Total 3,225 158,000 Total Currently Owned (at 12/31/87) 2,382 -0- i;. d " Includes 3 units purchased by Southstone Limited Partners TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AND COHHERCLIL DEVELOPMENT PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS i i PREPARED FOR CITY OF PEABODY SEPTEIMER , 1937 i BY SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES 12 FAR14SIlORTH STREET BOSTON , MASSACHUSETTS 02210 ( 017 ) 423-5541 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION SUP9h9ARY PROPOSED DEVELOP'iEHT q EXISTING CONDITIONS A . Geometries < I B . Traffic Volumes C. Accident Experience 12 D. Public Transportation 1 � E . Background Traffic Growtlhi Ill SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 17 ANALYSIS - RESULTS 212 A . Traffic Increases 22 B . Capacity Analysis 23 � J C. Safety Analysis 27 SUNMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ?? APPENDIX i i INTRODUCTIO14 This report provides an analysis of the traffic impacts , area circulation and the access-egress characteristics associated .with a proposed residential and retail/office development to be located on the southerly side of train Street between Caller Street and Howley Street in the City of Peabody , Massachusetts. This study includes analysis and evaluation of traffic volumes , roadway/driveway interface , traffic circulation and safety considerations . It is assumed that the proposed improvements to Main Street under the Urban Systems Program of the State uill take place in 1988 . I i I 1 1 .f 1 5 SUMMARY This study has been conducted to determine the impacts and evaluate the access requirements of a proposed residential and retail/office development , located on the southerly side of Rain Street between Caller Street and Howley Street in the City of Peabody, i4assachusetts. The site is bordered by ilaiu Street to the north , Caller Street to the west and Howley Street to the east. This report analyzes the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed development and evaluates it with regard to capacity and safety. Analysis revealed that no appreciable capacity, safety or access impacts will result with the development of this project . Existing traffic volumes on Blain Street are approximately 29000 vehicles on an average weekday . Peak hour volumes at the site approximate 1974 and 19115 during the A .11. and P . poal, hours , respectively . At full development , the proposed project will generate approximately 1118 daily vehicle trips, split evenly between entering and exiting vehicles . During the peal< hours, the development will generate 69 vehicle trips during the morning and 114 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. Safety aspects of the proposed development have been determined to be acceptable . Stopping site distance is adequate along Caller Street and Howley Street in the vicinity of the site . In summary , it has been determined that no significant impact upon the surrounding roadway network will be encountered from the development . 1 1 -3- PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A joint use development is proposed for a parcel of land on the southerly side of ;Iain Street between Caller Street and Howley 1 Street in the City of Peabody , Hassachusetts . The site is bordered by Stain Street to the north , Caller Street to the west and Howley Street to the east . The proposed development will contain 136 condominium units and approximately 8 ,000 square feet of commercial space . At this time , the commercial space is baing referred to as retail space , however it is equally likely that it will serve as office .space . For this reason , it is referred to as either commercial space or retail/office space in this report . In later chapters when the site ' s future trip Generation ation caracter- istics are discussed , the higher potential trip generation figures are used so as to be conservative in the analysis and impact assessment . The retail/office space will be located on the ground floor of building "C" with residential units above . Uhether retail or office use is realized , the hours of operation will probably be fairly normal business hours between 3 :00 A .M. and 6 :00 P .M. on the weekdays, with the retail use having extended hours to include saturday operations. Given that most of the retail establishments in the area of Main Street are closed on Sundays , it is assumed that there will be no Sunday activity for the retail space in the proposed building. Land use in the vicinity i� -4- of the site is varied. On the adjacent parcels to the northeast and northwest , there are commercial uses . To the southeast and southwest directions there is a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The site is located in a business district of Peabody , !1assachu- sates . Public transportation in the vicinity was not evident . t EXISTING CONDITIONS A . GEOMETRICS 1 . HAIN STREET [lain Street in the vicinity of the site is a two lane two way arterial roadway , approximately 55 feet wide with an east/west alignment , presently being utilized as two travel lanes and two parallel parking lanes . Main Street serves as an arterial providing connection from collector roadways to other major arterials as well as access to land parcels along its length. The roadway consists of bituminous concrete pavement in good condition. Vertical granite curbing and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. Lateral obstructions in the form of signs and utility poles arc set back sufficiently from the roadway and , consequently , do not impede traffic flow. Horizontal and vertical alignments are acceptable with Iain street passing the site on a relatively flat straight section in the vicinity of the site. Limited regulatory signing is posted to control parking and travel speeds. -6- Iv (Iain Street is scheduled for major reconstruction under the Urban Systems Program of the State . This reconstruction is anticipated to take place in 1908 . The proposed improvements include widening jl of Main Street to provide four travel lanes, two in each direct- ion. These improvements will substantially increase the capacity of the roadway and have significant impacts on decreasing congestion. 2 . Caller Street Caller street in the vicinity of the site is a two lane two way collector roadway approximately 28 feet wide with a north-south alignment . Caller Street has two travel lanes and two parallel parking lanes except between the site drive and Hain Street where only one parallel parking lane is provided on the site drive side . The roadway consists of bituminous concrete pavement in good condition . Vertical granite curbing and sidewalks are provided on the side opposite the proposed site drive. Lateral obstructions in the form of signs and utility poles are set back sufficiently from the roadway and , consequently , do not impede traffic flow. Horizontal and vertical alignments are acceptable with Caller Street passing the site on a slightly positive grade towards :Iain -7- Street . Limited regulatory signing is posted to control parking . 3 . Howley Street Howley Street in the vicinity of the site is a two lane two !ray collector roadway, approximately 30 feet wide with a north-south alignment . Howley Street has two travel lanes and one parallel parkin„ lane . The roadway consists of bituminous concrete pavement in good condition . Vertical granite curbing and side- walks are provided on both sides of the roadway. I Lateral obstructions in the form of signs and utility poles are set back sufficiently from the roadway and, consequently, do not impede traffic flow. Horizontal and vertical alignments are acceptable with Howley Street passing the site on a small Positive grade towards ,lain Street . Limited regulatory signing is posted . B . TRAFFIC VOLUMES The existing traffic volumes were manually counted at the major intersections which might potentially be effected by the site „enerated traffic , the intersection of Plain Street at Powley Street and the intersection of Main Street at Caller Street . The existing traffic volumes at the intersection of ;fain Street at Washington Street was obtained from the City of Peabody Traffic Study which was provided for the Community Development Department i of the City of Peabody and prepared by Fay , Spofford & Thorndike, Inc. The observed traffic was adjusted to reflect average weekday i conditions for 1937 . The average weekday traffic flows within the study area are presented in ':able 1 . TABLE 1 1987 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ,average [leek Day Total i '.lain Street West of Park Street 29 ,900 East of Washington Street 28 , 000 At Salem-Peabody Line 29 , 500 I The average 1987 weekday morning and evening traffic flow � I networks are shown on Figures 1 and 2 respectively . -9- i �I SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. JOB MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers 12 Farnsworth St. SHEET NO. OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED By DATE (617) 423-5541 CHECKED By DATE_ SCALE None 47 966 �— 71 /G— 12 CALLER m STREET 890 22 E W W a E PIERPONT Right of Way STREET 105 849 z �— 123 �—61 HOWLEY T 17 STREET i 722 38 TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY , MA - FIGURE 1 1987 AVERAGE AM PEAK HOUR -10- SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. ,DB MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers SHEET NO, DE 12 Farnsworth St. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 423-5541 DATE_ CHECKED BY SCALE None I 96 882 1 I � �— 112 { , -42 CALLER m STREET 855 30 F W i a E ' Ri ht of Way PIERPONT STREET 9 1 741 z 1 ---12 6 �— 67 HOWLEY STREET 693 Q 99 li TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY , MA. FIGURE 2 1987 AVERAGE PM PEAK HOUR -11- i C . ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE The historical accident incidence in the Study Area has been researched to determine if there are any accident trends which can be identified. Computerized Accident records complied by the Commonwealth of Hassachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and The Department of Public Works were evaluated for the major inter- sections in the study areas and were addressed in the January , 1987 City of Peabody Traffic Study Report for the Community Development Department of the City of Peabody and prepared by Fay, Spofford & Thorndike , Inc . . This accident, research is presented in Table 2 of this report and indicates the two nearby intersections with more than 20 reported accidents during a study period of 1979 , 1980 L 1983 . TABLE 2 ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE Intersection Location Property Damage Injury or Fatal Total Hain Street P Washington Street 54 3 57 Bain Street 2 Howley Street 211 4 20 `Based on statewide data for 1930 , fatal accidents account for about 1 in every 20 injury accidents along minor arterials . - 12- With the proposed improvements to Main Street under the Urban Systems Program of the State, it is expected that the number of accidents at these tiro locations would decrease . The intersection of Main Street and Washington Street will be reconstructed with i new traffic signals . Although the intersection of Plain Street at Howley Street is not expected to be reconstructed with any new �. traffic signals , improvements should help decrease the number of accidents . With or without the he proposed development the City should continue to monitor the accident data at Howley Street , after the Urban Systems improvements are made , for possible traffic signal installation if the accident experience at this location continues its present trend. D. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Main Street is a major arterial within the regional public transportation network . There are no regularly scheduled bus routes travelling along Plain Street . - 13- E . BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH The study area has been experiencing steady traffic growth for many years and this trend is expected to continue well into the future . Traffic growth is the result of the combination of all Iland developments in the region . The Commonwealth of hassa- chusetts Department of Public Works, Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development maintains traffic volume counting stations throughout the State to identify seasonal variations and historical traffic growth rates . Based upon the data observed at local counting stations and information obtained from the January , 1937 City of Peabody Traffic Study , a background traffic growth rate of approximately ; percent per year has been cal- culated and is being used in this study. The 1989 morning and afternoon No-Build traffic flow networks are shown on Figures and 4 respectively . - 14- SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. ,DB MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers SHEET No. OF 12 Farnsworth St. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 423-5541 DATE_ CHECKED BY SCALE None I i _ 50 1029 k- 75 CALLER ^ STREET I 943 23 H W W a F PIERPONT Ri ht of Way STREET 111 939 z �---13 0 �; —65 HOWLEY STREET 7 5 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT. AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY, MA. 1989 AVERAGE AM PEAK HOUR NO BUILD FIGURE 3 -15- SCHOENfELD ASSOCIATES INC. JOB MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers SHEET NO. OF 12 Farnsworth St. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 423-5541 DATE CHECKED BY None SCALE 102 _.. 935 119 k-�5 CALLER STREET 906 32 F W a H � I PIERPONT Ri ht of Way STREET 101 786 z 134 t -71 HOWLEY STREET 735 105 TRAFFIC IMPACT. AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY, MA. FIGURE 4 1989 AVERAGE P11 PEAK HOUR NO BUILD -16- l SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic generated by residential and comnercial activities normally follo;a well established patterns with respect to magnitude , duration and temporal distribution . Ileasurements of numerous such developments conducted by the institute of Trans- portation Engineers ( I . T .E . ) have established trip generation rates which have been standardized for analysis purposes At this time, it is unknown whether the ultimate tenants of the commercial space will be retail or office users . Tha trip generation characteristics for both land uses have been in- vestigated to determine which of the the should be used in the analysis. In order to have' a conservative analysis , the higher trip generator has been assumed for analysis purposes only. For the approximately 3 , 000 square feet of commercial space avail- able , the retail use would generate nearly three times more trips than the office space . Although lower during the morning peak hour, the trip production would be twice as large witil the retail use than the office use during the afternoon peak hour. Given the significantly more intense trip generation of the retail land use , the retail use has been used in all further analysis . Accordingly, it is estimated that the proposed condominium and commercial development will generate, on an average day at iu11 1 development , approximately 1113 vehicle trips daily . This vale-2 -1 ?- i does not represent 1113 vehicles because each driver .will make several trips in the same automobile over the course of a 24 hour I day . This 1113 vehicle trip figure Mould be evenly split between entering and exiting vehicles each . The peak hour distribution of I I i these vehicle trips results in approximately 69 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 114 vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour. The remaining 9i5 vehicle trips will occur during the off peak periods . A summary of the trip generation characteristics of the proposed development is provided on Table 3 . TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Residential Commercial Total Trips Trips Trips Daily Total 703 410 1113 Entering 3511 205 559 Exiting 30 205 559 AL" Peak Hour Total 60 9 69 Entering 10 5 15 Exiting 50 11 511 PM Peal: Hour Total 75 39 114 Entering 50 17 67 Exiting 25 22 47 - 13- 1 Directional distribution of generated trips to and from L:7 e site is expected to follow exiting, traffic patterns ,which , in turn , are a function of population densities , shopping opportunities , areas of employment and recreational activities . TLo trip generation reflects the new trips anticipated for the site in estimating the true effects of the proposed development . In order to take a conservative approach to the impacth we have assumed that all vehicles entering or exiting the site will proceed to or from Caller Strut or Bowley Street to or from Main Street since the site is expected to generate little impacts to Walnut Street . The new site generated traffic has been added to the 1939 morning i and afternoon peak hour traffic flora networks to produce the morning and evening BUILD Traffic Flow Networks which are shown on Figures 5 and u , respectively. I SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. JOB MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers 12 Farnsworth St. SHEET NO. OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 423-5541 CHECKED BY DATE_ SCALE None i i 53 1031 k-8 9 �— 16 CALLER m STREET 968 25 E W rn W a E S I T E PIERPONT Ri ht of Way STREET IN 15 OUT 54 TOTAL 69 118 9 1 z I H 155 �— 77 HOWLEY STREET i 767 43 TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY, MA. 1989 AVERAGE AM PEAK HOUR BUILD FIGURE 5 -20- i SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. ,CB MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers 12 Farnsworth St. SHEET NO. of BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS. 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 423-5541 CHECKED BY DATE_ SCALE Non 122 954 134 1 CALLER STREET 923 9 E W W a F S I T E U) I . PIERPONT R1 ht of Way IN 67 OUT 47 STREET TOTAL 114 120 792 z —80 HOWLEY i STREET 742 126 TRAFFIC IMPACT. AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY, MA. FIGURE 6 1989 AVERAGE PM PEAK HOUR BUILD —21— nni:i A.�iK oas,.ss mm ANALYSIS - RESULTS Previous sections of this report have summarized existing traffic patterns, expected traffic generation and expected trip dist- ribution/assignments for the proposed project . The next step in the process is to determine the impact of the proposed develop- ment . This assumes the roadway improvements in the study area along Bain Street will be accomplished . A . TRAFFIC INCREASES The expected generated traffic will result in only minor in- creases to peak hour and daily totals of the traffic volumes on the study area roadways. The largest effect of the site generated traffic will be on the unsignalized intersections of blain Street and Caller Street and the intorsection of Main Street and Howley Street . Peal: hour trarfic increases on Bain Stroet due to vehicles travelling to and from the site using Caller Street and Howley Street will be 69 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 114 vehicles during the evening peak hour. These traffic volume increases represent less than six percent increase during each of the peak hours . i -22- B . CAPACITY ANALYSIS i The study area has been examined with regard to capacity , delays and safety characteristics to determine the Level of Service (LOS) provided under existing, and anticipated future loadings. "Level of Service" is an indicator of the operating conditions which occur on a given roadway when accommodating various traffic volumes . It is a qualitative measure which accounts for a number of operational factors including roadway geometries , speed , travel delay , freedom to maneuver and safety . When the criteria are assessed and a Level of Service is assigned to a roadway or intersection , it is equivalent to presenting an "index" to the operational qualities of the section under study . In practice , any given roadway may operate at a wide Level of Service range depending upon time of day , day of week or period of year . Level of Service "C" , a condition of stable flow, is considered desirable for peak or design flow in rural arias . LOS i "D" (more significant delays than "C" ) is considered acceptable i in urban areas . LOS "A" is the optimum condition of free flow. Level of Service "G" represents unstable flow conditions , but indicates maximum utilization of a roadway facility under less than ideal conditions . In suburban and urbanized areas and more particularly in hig':i density districts like the study arca, the critical locations for 23 I 1 capacity considerations are the intersections . The intersections nearest to the traffic generator are the key locations since , in this area , the site traffic will disperse rapidly onto the many available corridors. Using the physical street inventory and the traffic flow net- works , the Level of Service has been determined at the key study area intersections. The signalized intersections have boon evaluated using the methods outlined in the 1935 Highway Capacity Hanual, distributed by the Transportation Research 3oard . The unsignalized intersections were evaluated using a math- ematical model which calculates the number of gaps in the traffic stream which will be available for each minor movement at the intersection. The minor movements consist of all side street movements plus the left turns from the major street . A basic assumption of this technique is that the major street movements are not hindered by the minor street movements . This assumption is valid unless severe congestion is experienced on the side streets . This procedure is published in the 1935 Highway Capacity Manual, distributed by the Transportation Research Board . The study area intersections have been evaluated and a Level of Service determined for both the Ho-Build and Build conditions . In addition, the volume-to-capacity ratios , a numerical indicator of operational quality has been calculated . The results of the -24- capacity analysis are presented on Table 6 . The information provided on Table 6 indicates that , generally , the study area ' s intersections are operating at unacceptable levels at this time and with the proposed improvements will be operating at more effectively however the delays being e:<peri - enced on the minor approaches at the unsignalized intersections mill continue to exist . This situation is common with side streets intersecting a major arterial. The intersection of blain Street and Nashington Street is also operating at unacceptable levels of service at this time but with the proposed improvements will be operating at acceptable levels i of service . It is notable that the effect of the site generated traffic is limited to increasing the volume-to-capacity ratio at the intersection however the levels of service will remain unchanged. The introduction of the site generated traffic is not expected to exacerbate the situation. In general, the traffic which is anticipated to result from this development is not expected to :,ave a significant effect on the traffic flow within the study area ; ho;ievcr, it should be noted that the existing problems will be rectified with the proposed improvement project for ;lain Street under the Urban Systems Program of the State. -25- TABLE 6 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUIIMARY LEVELS OF SERVICE LocationMOVEHEMT Existing A .M. E:cisting iIain Street at Caller Street I1ain Street Left Turns B B Caller Street Turns E E Main Street at Horley Street !lain Street Left Turns B B Howley Street Turns E A.H. P .11. 1939 Ho Build 1939 No Build Ilain Street at Caller Street Main Street Left Turns C C Caller Street Turns E E I I°lain Street at Howley Street Main Street Left Turns C C Howley Street Turns E E 1939 BUILD A:9 19,2,9 BUILD PL i;ain Street at Caller Street !lain Street Left Turns C Caller Street Turns E E (lain Street at Howley Street !lain Street Left Turns C C Howley Street Turns E E -26- C. SAFETY ANALYSIS To substantiate the capacity analysis , safety considerations ucrr investigated . Most important argon safety considerations is stopping sight distance. i In the vicinity of the site drives , on Caller Street and on Howley Street , the horizontal and vertical alignments are good. Nevertheless , a detailed stopping sight distance was conducted to insure that traffic .fill be able to enter and exit the site safely. Stopping sight distance considerations are basically dividad into two categories ; Approach SSD and Exiting SSD. Approaci J.^,^ is the distance required for an approaching driver to parccive and react accordingly to an exiting vehicle . The values are based on a perception and reaction time of 2 i a . � seconds �::u breaking distance for wet , Tavel pavements. When the road:rc:y is either on upgrade or downgrade , grade correction factors are applied . ExitingSSD a S is based upon the time required for �r�� tion P P , reaction and completion of the desired exiting maneuver once the driver decides to execute the maneuver. Values for the exiting SSD represent the time to ( 1 ) turn left or right , to accelerate -27- I to the operating speed without causing approaching vehicles to reduce speed by more than 10 Milos per hour, and ( 2) upon turning left , to clear the near half of the intersection without con- flicting with the vehicles approaching from the left . When grade exists on a roadway or when larger speed reduction values are acceptable , correction factors are applied . Exiting SSD is very applicable to rural roadways or suburban arterials with limited curbcuts but not so for busy arterials with unlimited access such as Main Street . ,'approach SSD is more important as it represents the minimum �i distance required for safe stopping, while Exiting SSD is basad only upon acceptable speed reductions to the approaching traffic stream. In the study area which is a higher density business district I with short blocks and slow operating speeds, stopping sight i distance requirements are low at approximately 200 feet . Even with the on street parking present , sufficient sight distance is available on Caller Street and Rowley Street to allow safe entering and exiting of the side streets. -23- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Review of the proposed development with regard to safety , capacity and traffic upon the surrounding roadway network with the proposed Urban System Programmed improvements revealed no appreciable problems or difficulties will be encountered . TRAFFIC AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development is estimated at 1118 vehicle trips daily. Weekday peak hour traffic volumes are estimated at 69 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 114 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. This traffic will be easily absorbed by the existing I traffic stream and will have minimal •effect of the surrounding i roadway network . The traffic which will be generated fall well I within the range of normal Iain Street daily fluctuations . The i traffic carrying capacity of the study area intersections gill not be adversely effected after the improvements are made . SAFETY A detailed safety analysis revealed that the stopping sight distance considerations at the site driveways are satisfactory. -29- IN SUMMARY It is assumed that the proposed improvements scheduled for 1930 under the Urban Systems Program of the State will take place . The proposed development will have minimal impact and will not create any new safety or capacity problems on the abutting roadway network . The traffic generated by the residential/ commercial development is not expected to exacerbate the current or future capacity restrictions . Safe ingress and egress can be provided to the site- with the development constructed as planned. -;o- APPENDIX V i T R I P G E 17 E R A T I 0 N I it TRAFFIC GENERATION WORKSHEET AVERAGE TRIP GENERATION RESIDENTIAL AND COiiMERCIAL COHBINED i Job: Millyard Green Condominium Units : 136 Location: Main Street between Commercial Space : 8KSF Caller St. & Hawley St. Peabody , MA. AVERAGE TRIP GENERATION - TOTAL TOTAL ENTER EXIT DAILY 1112 559 559 A .M. PEAK 69 15 54 f P .ri. PEAK 114 67 47 REMAINDER OF DAY 935 477 452 �I Z a e ' I I TRAFFIC GENERATION WORKSHEET LAND USE : Residential Condominium LAND USE CODE : 230 Independant Variable Trips per: Dwelling Unit Job : Hillyard Green Number of Units : 136 Location : Main St. between Caller St. & Hagley St . Peabody, IIA . I .T .E . TRIP GENERATION MANUAL - AVERAGE TRIP RATE TOTAL ENTER EXIT DAILY 5 .2 2 . 6 2 . 6 A .M. PEAK. 0 .41 0 . 07 0 . 37 P .M. PEAK 0 .51 0 .37 0 . 18 BALANCED AVERAGE TRIP RATE DAILY 5 .2 2 . 6 2 . 6 A .M. PEAL: 0 . 44 0 . 07 0 . 37 P .M. PEAK 0 .55 0 . 37 0 . 18 Job : Aillyard Green Number of Units : 136 AVERAGE TRIP GENERATION TOTAL ENTER EXIT DAILY 708 354 3511 A .M. PEAK 60 10 50 P .M. PEAK 75 50 25 REMAINDER OF DAY 573 294 279 TRAFFIC GENERATION WORKSHEET LAND USE : Retail - Hardware/Paint Store LAND USE CODE : 316 Indo pendant Variable Trips per : KSF - Gross Job : Millyard Green Store Area KSF : 2 .0 Location : :Iain St . between Caller St. u Hawley St . Peabody , NA . �I I .T .E . 'DRIP GENERATION MANUAL - AVERAGE TRIP RATE TOTAL ENTER EXIT DAILY 51 . 3 25 .65 25 .65 • A .M. PEAK. 1 . 1 0 .91 0 .8 P .M. PEAK. 4 .9 1 .4 1 .9 3ALAHCED AVERAGE TRIP RATE DAILY 51 . 3 25 .65 25 .65 A .M. PEAK 1 . 1 0 .585 0 .515 P .M. PEAL: 4 .9 2 .079 2 .821 Job : Nillyard Green Store Area in KSF : 3 .0 AVERAGE TRIP GENERATION TOTAL ENTER EXIT DAILY 410 205 205 A .N. PEAK 9 5 11 P .N. PEAK 39 17 22 REPAINDER OF DAY 362 183 179 N Horning entering/exiting split from code 320 . Evening entering/exiting split from code 815 . II I T R A F F I C C O U N T S INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY � ��'�� '4 DATE y 22-/DAY OF WEEK '/'` INTERSECTION Ar-,i S3 69 � U L N V 7/ x 2 �j ZZ x o/3 q6 b 978 x STREET ENTERING PERCENT LENGTH OF COUNT VOLUME OF FLOW TIME PERIOD: VEHICLES COUNTED ALL XXX TRUCKS (XX) TOTAL PERCENT TRUCKS = x INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY DATE -DAY OF WEEK INTERSECTION v 4� 3 a� N 76 X y5y Q<<s STREET ENTERING PERCENT LENGTH OF COUNT VOLUME OF FLOW TIME PERIOD: VEHICLES COUNTED ALL XXX TRUCKS (XX) TOTAL PERCENT TRUCKS = INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY "=r `fir DATE 92yVDAY OF WEEK INTERSECTION Ma" LN � 30 19 X 9(d LIE � 2 N x STREET ENTERING PERCENT LENGTH OF COUNT VOLUME OF FLOW TIME PERIOD: P/`/ VEHICLES COUNTED ALL XXX TRUCKS (XX) TOTAL PERCENT TRUCKS = X INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT PP<.rso<h% Ph, _DATE �`f�DAY OF WEEK •��, CITY - _ INTERSECTION ld }r 3 N a � � 99 �0�3 X 9 3 792 71 x STREET ENTERING PERCENT LENGTH OF COUNT VOLUME OF FLOW TIME PERIOD: PM, VEHICLES COUNTED ALL XXX i TRUCKS (XX) T07AL PERCENT TRUCKS = C A P A C I T Y N A L Y S I S I I j i 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) DATEs09-26-1987 TIMEs11s07s25 (Main at Caller existing A .M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED (VOLUME=M&CEAM GEOMETRICS=M&CEAM ,KEY : A- -B C 'GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 2 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIjGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR : NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LEFTS . 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 I APPROACH A: Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 890 22 47 966 0 12 0 71 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 989 24 52 1073 0 13 0 79 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 57 17 0 99 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 1001 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 349 ACTUAL CAPACITY 349 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 1013 CRITICAL GAPS 5 . 0 1 CAPACITY 421 CAPACITY USED 14% IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .91 ACTUAL CAPACITY 421 { �I �h 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 :07 :25 Main at Caller existing A .M. STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2127 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 51 ACTUAL CAPACITY 47 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 57 421 364 B 9 .90 o . 16 ALL MOVES FROM C: 115 180 65 E 55 .76 1 .79 i 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) W E :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 :41 :04 Main at Caller existing P .M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&CEPM GEOMETRICS=M&CEPM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 2 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A: Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 855 30 96 882 0 42 0 112 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 950 33 107 980 0 47 0 124 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 117 58 0 156 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 967 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 363 ACTUAL CAPACITY 363 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 983 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 435 CAPACITY USED 27% IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .80 ACTUAL CAPACITY 435 j DATE :09M26-1987TER 10 : UNSITIMEI10D41 :04APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2) Main at Caller existing P .M. STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C : Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2053 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 56 ACTUAL CAPACITY 45 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT R MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE 'p LT FROM B : 117 435 317 B 11 . 35 0 . 37 ALL MOVES FROM C: 214 124 -90 E* INFINITE INFINITE I 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 :42 :43 Main Street at Howley Street existing A .M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&REAM GEOMETRICS=M&REAM KEY: A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C : STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 2 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B: Main Street C: Howley Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 722 38 105 849 0 61 0 123 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 802 42 117 943 0 68 0 137 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 128 105 0 212 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 823 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 429 ACTUAL CAPACITY 429 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 844 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 -CAPACITY 503 CAPACITY USED 26% IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .81 ACTUAL CAPACITY 503 � E i i 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 :42 :43 Main Street at Howley Street existing A .M. f STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 1883 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 71 ACTUAL CAPACITY 58 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 128 503 375 B 9 .61 0 .34 ALL MOVES FROM C: 317 137 -180 E* INFINITE INFINITE I I 11985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 :55 :48 Main Street at Howley Street existing P .M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&HEPM GEOMETRICS=M&HEPM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 2 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N I MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURNTTURN RADIUS OR ACCELERATTION LLANEHONLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO MAJOR: NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre 0 .00 0 .00 LEFTS THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME o 693 99 95 741 0 670 90 0 126 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 770 110 106 823 0 74 0 140 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 116 115 0 217 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 5 .5 CRITICAL GAPS 428 CAPACITY 428 ACTUAL CAPACITY STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main StreetEa CONFLICTING FLOWS 5 .0 CRITICAL GAPS 485 CAPACITY 24% CAPACITY USED 0 .83 IMPEDANCE FACTOR 485 ACTUAL CAPACITY 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 :55 :48 Main Street at Howley Street existing P .M. STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 1754 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 85 ACTUAL CAPACITY 70 . SU1114ARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 116 485 368 B 9 .77 0 .32 ALL MOVES FROM C: 332 155 -178 E* INFINITE INFINITE I 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 1 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 : 12 :01 Main at Caller 1989 with improvements A•M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&CNBAM GEOMETRICS=M&CNBAM KEY : A- -B i C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR : NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C:OCa0lller Stre 0 .00 0 .00 LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 943 23 50 1024 0 130 90 0 75 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 1048 26 56 1138 0 11 .00 0 83 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 PASS CAR/HR O 61 18 0 104 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 5 . 5 CRITICAL GAPS 598 CAPACITY 598 ACTUAL CAPACITY STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea _ CONFLICTING FLOWS 1073 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 321 CAPACITY USED 19% IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .87 ACTUAL CAPACITY 321 19.85 NCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 : 12 :01 Main at Caller 1989 with improvements A, M, STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2254 CRITICAL GAPS 7 .0 CAPACITY 31 ACTUAL CAPACITY 27 SUM14ARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 61 321 260 C 13 .86 0 .24 ALL MOVES FROM C: 122 146 24 E 151 .79 5 . 15 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 :47 : 43 Main at Caller P .M. 1989 after improvements LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&CNBPM GEOMETRICS-M&CNBPM KEY : A- -B i C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre .LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 906 32 102 935 0 45 0 119 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 1007 36 113 1039 0 50 0 132 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 125 63 0 165 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 521 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 609 ACTUAL CAPACITY 609 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 1042 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 -CAPACITY 333 CAPACITY USED 37% IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .70 `ACTUAL CAPACITY 333 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 :47 :43 Main at Caller P .M. 1989 after improvements STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2177 CRITICAL GAPS 7 .0 CAPACITY 35 ACTUAL CAPACITY 25 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 125 333 208 C 17 .32 0 .60 ALL MOVES FROM C: 228 81 -147 E* INFINITE INFINITE I - I i I 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 1 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 : 17 : 45 Main Street at Howley Street 1989 A.M. with improvements LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&HNBAM GEOMETRICS=M&HNBAM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C : STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET 11 OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C : Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley SRTe LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH VOLUME 0 765 40 111 900 0 65 0 130 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 850 44 123 1000 0 72 0 144 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 136 112 0 224 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 447 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 663 ACTUAL CAPACITY 663 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 894 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 . CAPACITY 395 CAPACITY USED 34% IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .73 ACTUAL CAPACITY 395 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 : 17 :45 Main Street at Howley Street 1989 A.M. with improvements s STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 7 .0 CRITICAL GAPS 46 CAPACITY 34 ACTUAL CAPACITY SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 136 395 259 C 13 .89 0 .52 ALL MOVES FROM C: 336 91 -244 E* INFINITE INFINITE 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) OATE :09-26-198'1 TIME : 11 :01 : 40 Main Street at Howley Street 1989 P .M. after improvements LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&HNBPM GEOMETRICS=M&HNBPM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C : Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B: Main Street C: Howley Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 735 105 101 786 0 71 0 134 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 817 117 112 873 0 79 0 149 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 123 122 0 231 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C :Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 467 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 649 ACTUAL CAPACITY 649 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea , CONFLICTING FLOWS 933 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 377 6CAPACITY USED 33% IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .75 ACTUAL CAPACITY 377 i 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 :01 :40 Main Street at Howley Street 1989 P .M. after improvements I STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street 1861 CONFLICTING FLOWS CRITICAL GAPS 7 .0 CAPACITY 56 ACTUAL CAPACITY 42 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 123 377 254 C 14 . 18 0 .49 ALL MOVES FROM C: 353 108 -245 E* INFINITE INFINITE I II I 0 4 i I i r I I 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 1 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 14 :53 :47 Main St. at Caller St. 1989 with improvements and development A•M• LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED , VOLUME=M&CBAM GEOMETRICS=M&CBAM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 , 000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO I SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A: Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 968 25 53 1031 0 16 0 89 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 1076 28 59 1146 0 18 0 99 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 65 22 0 124 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 552 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 588 ACTUAL CAPACITY 588 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea 'CONFLICTING FLOWS 1103 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 ,CAPACITY 310 CAPACITY USED 21% IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 . 85 ACTUAL CAPACITY 310 OPP— a � ' 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 14 :53 :47 ss Main St . at Caller St . 1989 with improvements and development A.M. STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C : Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2294 7 .0 CRITICAL GAPS 30 CAPACITY 25 ACTUAL CAPACITY SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 65 310 245 C 14 .69 0 .26 BALL MOVES FROM C: 146 134 -12 E* INFINITE INFINITE • r, 1 i 19 5 I1 Ci; — CHAPTER 10 U1ISIGNALIZED — 3 APPROACHES (PACE 1 of 2) 1 DATE :09-26-1937 TIME : 15 : 11 :01 ilain and Caller P .M. witli improvements and development ' L."IST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUIIE=i°1&CBPP1 GEOMETRICS=14&CBPIi KEY : A- -B i C = GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : 140 CONTROLS : FROH C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET a OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N g MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Straet SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURP] ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: 110 SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B : Plain Street C: Caller Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Plain Street B : ?lain Street C: Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 923 39 122 954 0 51 0 134 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 1026 43 136 1060 0 57 0 149 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 149 71 0 186 a j STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 534 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 698 ACTUAL CAPACITY 698 I STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROPI 3 :llain Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOUS 1069 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 397 CAPACITY USED 38 IMPEDAPICE FACTOR 0 .70 ACTUAL CAPACITY 397 1905 HC15 - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGIIALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-2r)-1987 TIIIE : 15 : 11 :01 ,lain and Caller P .H. with improvements and development STEP _I LEFT TURES FROM C : Caller Street COiIFLICTIHG FLOWS 2243 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACIT`I 44 ACTUAL CAPACITY 30 SU1414ARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 149 397 248 C 14 .52 0 .60 ALL MVES FROM C: 257 99 -158 E* INFINITE INFINITE 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 1 of 2) CATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 15 :02 :44 in Street at Howley Street A .M. with improvements and development. J,AST DATASETS LOADE ) OF SAVED VOLUME=M&HBAM GEOMETRICS=M&HBAM Y : A- -B Cjj.fj'jj:n I Tt7n I S'T`TCS '! ,-F, . - pOPULAT T ON GREPTER THAN 250 , 000 : 140 COI IITROLS : F.9011 C : STOP PREWILING SPEED : 30 MPH I-JAIN ST13EET I',' OF LANES : 4 LANES HAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N HINOR STREET LANES APPRO'�Crl : C : Howley Street SH A RED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LA'Jr : YES 11 1 CARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LA14E ON MAJOR: 110 SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : flain Street B . Hain Street C: Howley Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH Main Street B : Main Street C- Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH FIT LT TH RT VOLU14E 0 767 431 110, 0141 0 77 0 155 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 j 0 172 ADJ VOLUHE 0 352 43 101 1046 0 86 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 1114 133 0 267 STEP 1 RIGHT TURINS FRO ! C :Howlcy Street CONFLICTING FLOWSS 1150 CRITICAL CAPS 5 .0 a CAPACITY 763 ACTUAL CAPACITY 763 ITEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROIA B : 11ain Street Ea OJT FLICTING FLOWS 900 I 9RITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 474 CAPACITY USED 305 111PEDANCE FACTOR 0 .77 ACTUAL C1 A�PACITY 474 d ' 1985 HCil - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1937 TIME : 15 :02 :411 Main Street at Howley Street A .M. with improvements and development. STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROH C: Howley Street CONFLICTING FL041S 2053 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 56 ACTUAL CAPACITY 43 dSUi•11fARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY HOVEMENT MOVEi9E11T DE1AND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROi4 B : 144 474 330 B 10 .90 o .44 ALL 1;OVES FROM C: 400 117 -282 E* INFINITE INFINITE 1985 HCH - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - e APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) DATE :09-26- 1937 TIME : 15 : 16 :02 blain Street at Hotridy Street P .M. with improvements and development . y LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED I� VOLUHE=iM"HBPII GEOMETRICS=H&HBP11 KEY : A- -B IIGENERAL CCHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : 110 CONTROLS : FROII C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 14PH MAIN STREET Ir ` OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N [MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C : Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURP! LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURD] ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON 1-IAJOR : 110 SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : .Main Street B : Plain Street C: Howley Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 u THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Hain Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUIME 0 7112 126 120 792 0 3o 0 151 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 824 140 133 380 0 39 0 168 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 147 138 0 260 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 432 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 737 ACTUAL CAPACITY 737 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROH B :Hain Street Ea j CONFLICTING FLOWS 9611 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 443 ? 6APACITY USED 33a IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .74 ACTUAL CAPACITY 443 4 i, i 19£35 ilCll - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) BATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 15 : 16 :02 ;gain Street at Howley Street P .M. with improvements and development . STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROiI C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 1908 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 69 ACTUAL CAPACITY 51 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEI1ENT DE11AND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 147 443 297 C 12 . 14 0 .49 ALL MOVES FROM C: 393 131 -267 E* INFINITE I14FINITE i .y 1 a Chi of 4alem, �Hx�s�irl��tset#s 3�W w � ��lltnmiut� �1�uarl p PRrg�Md9 d'�� 011e ;HIClll Orwell April 5, 1989 Mr. James Fleming Chairman Salem Board of Appeal i One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: 1 am writing to you with regard to the petition of Michael. Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit to allow the construction of sixty—four (64) residential units at 1648 Boston Street . It is my understanding that over the past several months, meetings have been held with the surrounding neighborhood to review the proposed development. During such meetings several concerns have been raised by the neighbors including: neighborhood and City—wide traffi.c impacts, utilities, impact on schools, clean—up of the Harmony Grove Road area from Howley Street to Salem Oil & Grease, the aesthetic impact of the building elevations on the surrounding areas, and overall site design issues. The Comprehensive Special Permit process allows for the review and comment of: the project by the Planning Board. However, the Planning Board [eels that Mr. Harri.ngton' s submittal to the Board of Appeal. is vague and does not allow the Planning Board an opportunity to responsibly review. the project and address the site design concerns which have been identified. In order to review the plans in a proper fashion, the Planning Board would like to request that the Board of Appeal requi.re Mr. Harrington to submit detailed site plans so that a responsible Site Plan Review process can be conducted by the Planning Board prior to any action by the Board of Appeal . Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Walter B. Power, Ill Chairman J )o2i CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS AIV 1111 4 l V 'SALVO Mn. •If April 6, 1989 Mr. James Fleming Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: I am writing regarding the petition of Michael Harrington requesting a Comprehensive Special Permit to allow the construction of 64 units of residential apartments at 164R Boston Street. It has been brought to my attention that the Comprehensive Special Permit process, as outlined in Chapter 40B of Massachusetts General Law, is not being followed due to an incomplete submission to the Board of Appeal. It is essential that the submittal contain all of the required information to allow informed and responsible public review and input regarding this project. Such review and input is impossible without benefit of a complete submission. In addition, I am aware of several of the concerns of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood, and I am writing to request that the Board consider carefully all of their concerns. Of particular concern are the following issues: - the density of the proposed development; - the responsibility for the provision of emergency services; - the impact of the proposed development on the Salem School system; - the impact which the development will have on traffic in the area; - the financing source and prospective ownership of the project; - the aesthetics of the elevations of the building; and - the impact which the construction of the proposed development will have on the potential of constructing a connector road to Route IZ8. As a result of the incomplete submittal, as well as the inability of the developer to address the concerns of the neighbors, I recommend that the process be suspended until all neighborhood concerns are addressed and until the submittal is complete. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, y Anthony V. Salvo Mayor i �b KEVIN T. DALYI LEONARD F. FEMINO ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 'i '� ? s �v` ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET ��uln�..d- 93 WASHINGTON STREET AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND ONE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM. MA 01970 MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN 745-4311 CITY SOLICITOR BEVERLY. MA 01915 745-4311 745.0500 93 WASHINGTON STREET 921-1990 AND PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM. MA 01970 745-4311 DO 744-3363 1 a o PLEASE REPLY TO BI WASHINGTON STREET p� CTJ CJ l O n n A 'T1 m April 5 1989 m ry P � y p v y � N Leonard F. O'Leary �o City Councillor City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 in re: Legal Opinion - Comprehensive Special Permit Application R164 Boston Street, Salem, MA Dear Councillor O'Leary: I have been asked by you to determine whether the Comprehensive Special Permit Application submitted to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael J. Harrington for the construction of sixty-four (64) units at R164 Boston Street, Salem, is complete. I am of the opinion that the application is not complete. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23 inclusive is the statute covering comprehensive special permits. The application for a comprehensive special permit may be filed by three types of organizations: a public agency; a limited dividend organization; or a nonprofit organization. Mr. Harrington's application should include proof that he qualifies as one of these organizations. See Chapter 40B, Section 20. C Leonard O'Leary City Councillor Page 2 April 5, 1989 The application shall include but is not limited to the following: preliminary site development plans; a report on existing site conditions; preliminary architectural drawings; a tabulation of proposed buildings; a preliminary subdivision plan if necessary; a preliminary utilities plan; and most importantly a "site approval letter" from the office of Communities and Development. See 760 CMR 31. 02. To date, the applicant has not filed a s to cond t ons report, preliminary architectural drawings, a preliminary utilities plan and a site approval letter from the state agency. If Mr. Harrington does not file the above-mentioned materials prior to the scheduled April 6, 1989 Board of Appeals meeting, the Board should either suspend the process by agreement with Mr. Harrington until the application is completed, or deny the application without prejudice and state in writing that the application is incomplete at the time of the hearing. The Board of Appeals must follow the following procedure: 1. Upon receipt of an application such as this, the Board shall notify each local board, including the Planning Board, Board of Survey, Board of Health, Building Inspector and the City Council by sending a copy of the application to such boards for their recommendation. 2. The Board of Appeals shall hold 'a public hearing within thirty (30) days of the filing of the application. 3 . The Board of Appeals shall request the appearance at the hearing of representatives of the local boards as they deem necessary and helpful in making a decision. 4. The Board of Appeals has the power to issue permits or approvals as any local board or official acting with respect to the application. f .. Leonard F. O'Leary City Councillor Page 3 April 5, 1989 5. The Board of Appeals may attach to the permit conditions and requirements with respect to height, site plan, size or shape, or building materials. 6. The Board of Appeals may also use the testimony of consultants. 7. The Board of Appeals shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 40A Section 11. 8. The Board of Appeals shall render a decision, based on a majority vote, within forty (40) days after termination of the public hearing. 9. If the Board does not convene a hearing within thirty (30) days of the application pp n or not render a decision within forty (40) days after the termination of the hearing, the application shall be deemed allowed. 10. If the Board renders a favorable decision on a comprehensive special permit, it shall forthwith issue a comprehensive permit or approval. See Chapter 40B Section 21. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at your convenience. Very truly yours, Leonard F. Femino LFF/sbh cc: City Clerk Board of Appeals d ` CtU of $alrm, Aassar4usetts 3r, '< F Pourb of �Fveal March 27, 1989 Planning Board Conservation Commission Historical Commission Board of Health Ladies & Gentlemen: In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Section 21 , you are hereby notified that the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal has scheduled a hearing to be held April 6, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. , second floor of One Salem Green relative to the petition of Michael J. Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit to allow the construction sixty four (64) residential units at R164 Boston St. Enclosed for your perusal and input is a copy of Mr. Harrington's application, street map and MGL 40B §21 . Respectfully, ��r2i/ James M. Fleming Chairman, Board of Appeal JMF:bms Enclosures cc: Members of the Board of Appeal City Planner Fire Prevention Inspector of Buildings Councillor O'Leary y , KEVIN T. DALY LEONARD F. FEMINO ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR Y�� ,-..'� `:? ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR R¢ruinv.af`r 93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND ONE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM, MA 01970 MICHAEL E. O'B RIEN CITY SOLICITOR BEVERLY, 01915 745-4311 93 WASHINGTON STREET 745-4343 11 745-0500 921-1990 _— AND PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM, MA 01970 745-4311 744-3363 PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET C1 q 0 < © G7 April 5, 1989 T Q r�T1 N 'O Tn Leonard F. O'Leary City Councillor w City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 in re: Legal Opinion - Comprehensive Special Permit Application R164 Boston Street, Salem, MA �I Dear Councillor O'Leary: I have been asked by you to determine whether the Comprehensive Special Permit Application submitted to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael J. Harrington for the construction of sixty-four (64) units at R164 Boston Street, Salem, is complete. I am of the opinion that the application is not complete. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23 inclusive is the statute covering comprehensive special permits. The application for a comprehensive special permit may be filed by three types of organizations: a public agency; a limited dividend organization; or a nonprofit organization. Mr. Harrington's application should include proof that he qualifies as one of these organizations. See Chapter 40B, Section 20. Leonard O'Leary City Councillor Page 2 April 5, 1989 The application shall include but is not limited to the following: preliminary site development plans; a report on existing site conditions; preliminary architectural drawings; a tabulation of proposed buildings; a preliminary subdivision plan if necessary; a preliminary utilities plan; and most importantly a "site approval letter" from the office of Communities and Development. See 760 CMR 31. 02 . To date, the applicant has not filed a site conditions report, preliminary architectural drawings, a preliminary utilities plan and a site approval letter from the state agency. If Mr. Harrington does not file the above-mentioned materials prior to the scheduled April 6, 1989 Board of Appeals meeting, the Board should either suspend the process by agreement with Mr. Harrington until the application is completed, or deny the application without prejudice and state in writing that the application is incomplete at the time of the hearing. The Board of Appeals must follow the following procedure: 1. Upon receipt of an application such as this, the Board shall notify each local board, including the Planning Board, Board of Survey, Board of Health, Building Inspector and the City Council by sending a copy of the application to such boards for their recommendation. 2. The Board of Appeals shall hold a public hearing within thirty (30) days of the filing of the application. 3 . The Board of Appeals shall request the appearance at the hearing of representatives of the local boards as they deem necessary and helpful in making a decision. 4 . The Board of Appeals has the power to issue permits or approvals as any local board or official acting with respect to the application. r Leonard F. O'Leary City Councillor Page 3 April 5, 1989 5. The Board of Appeals may attach to the permit conditions and requirements with respect to height, site plan, size or shape, or building materials. 6. The Board of Appeals may also use the testimony of consultants. 7. The Board of Appeals shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 40A, Section 11. 8. The Board of Appeals shall render a decision, based on a majority vote, within forty (40) days after termination of the public hearing. 9. If the Board does not convene a hearing within thirty (30) days of the application or not render a decision within forty (40) days after the termination of the hearing, the application shall be deemed allowed. 10. If the Board renders a favorable decision on. a comprehensive special permit, it shall forthwith issue a comprehensive permit or approval. See Chapter 40B Section 21. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at your convenience. Very truly yours, Leonard F. Femino LFF/sbh cc: City Clerk Board of Appeals CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ONE SALEM GREEN 01970 (508) 745-9595, EXT.311 April 26, 1989 Mr. James Fleming, Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: On April 6, 1989, the Board of Appeal held a public hearing regarding the petition of Michael J. Harrington requesting approval of a Comprehensive Special Permit application to construct a sixty-four (64) unit residential development at 164R Boston Street. During such public hearing, the Planning Department was requested to prepare a housing inventory to determine the percentage of Salem's housing stock which was affordable to low and moderate income people. Such inventory was to be completed within the guidelines established by the Comprehensive Special Permit Process. In the time which has ensued, the Planning Department has requested and received information from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development (EOCD) and the Salem Housing Authority to complete such a study. Chapter 774 Section 20, of Mass. General Laws requires that cities and towns utilize the latest decennial census to determine the number of total housing units within its city or town. To determine the number of affordable housing units, the Executive Office of Communities and Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory was requested and updated to include any affordable housing projects which were previously overlooked by the State, or constructed since the last inventory was completed. Following the compilation of each, the percentage of affordable housing was determined. In addition to utilizing the decennial census, the Planning Department also produced a percentage based on the 1987 local census which is the most current count available. The attached inventory indicates that the percentage of affordable housing units in Salem is as follows: Low-Mod Units utilizing 1980 Federal Census: 10.89% �0) ,u Low-Mod Units utilizing 1987 Local Census: 10.63% 16 aca Thank you for your consideration of this information. Sincerely William Luster Acting City Planner M49 WP CITY OF SALEM SUBSIDIZED HOUSING INVENTORY PROJECT INDENTIFICATION ADDRESS/NAME FUNDING AGENCY TOTAL UNITS Chapter 200-1 Garden Terrace EOCD 32 Chapter 200-2 Rair_bow Terrace EOCD 136 Chapter 667-1 Leefort Terrace EOCD 50 Chapter 667-1 Summitt/Willow EOCD 20 Chapter 667-2 Colonial Terrace EOCD 40 Chapter 667-3 Bates/Norton EOCD 36 Chapter 667-4 Pioneer Terrace EOCD 104 Chapter 667-5 27 Charter St. EOCD 110 Chapter 667-6 Morency Manor EOCD 54 Chapter 667-7 Ruane/Dalton EOCD 51 Chapter 689-1 Phillips School EOCD 17 Chapter 705-2 Park/Prince/Congress EOCD 14 Chapter 705-3 First St. EOCD 12 Loring Towers Loring Ave. MHFA 250 Pequot Highlands 12 First St. MHFA 250 Salem Heights Pope/Proctor St. HUD 285 Stephen Zisson Essex St. HUD 30 Fairweather Apts. 40 Highland Ave. EOCD 127 Lincoln Hotel Lafayette St. EOCD 63 Salem Point UDAG Salem Point HUD 49 Total Low-Mod Units 1,730 Total Housing Units 1987 Local Census 16,265 Total Housing Units 1980 Federal Census 15,879 Low-Moderate Percentage (1987 Census) 10.63% M49WP Low-Moderate Percentage (1980 Census) 10.89% CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ANTHONY V. SALVO MAYOR April 26, 1989 Mr. James Fleming Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: I am writing regarding the Comprehensive Special Permit application of Michael Harrington for the development of a sixty-four (64) unit affordable housing development at 1648 Boston Street. On March 15, 1989, the Board of Appeal denied requests for variances for a forty-eight (48) unit market rate housing development at 164R Boston Street. Such denial was as a result of a multitude of legitimate planning concerns which were raised by the neighbors of the proposed development. Of particular concern were the following issues: - the overall density of the proposed development; - the responsibility for the provision of emergency public services; - the impact which the proposed development will have on the traffic in the area, and the subsequent non-committal of the developer to prepare a traffic study regarding the development of the site; - the existing and proposed ownership of the property; - the aesthetics of the building elevations; and - the impact which the siting of the proposed development would have on the potential construction of a connector road to Route 128. Following the denial of the requested variances, the developer immediately submitted an application for a Comprehensive Special Permit under Chapter 40-B of the Massachusetts General Laws. As you know, the Comprehensive Special Permit process requires that the developer submit an application which includes several specific items, one of which is a Site Approval letter from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). It is my understanding that the developer has not provided the minimum required information with his submittal and as a result, it would appear to be impossible for local boards, commissions, and residents to responsibly review this proposed development. Mr. James Fleming April 26, 1989 Page 2 In addition, new information has been submitted which indicates that the percentage of affordable housing in Salem is above 10%. Therefore, the developer does not have an opportunity to appeal this process to the State Housing Appeals Committee. I hope and expect that the Board of Appeal will responsibly address all of the neighbors concerns prior to any decision being made on this petition. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Anthony V. Salvo Mayor M48WP I KEVIN T. DALY .,b. rl £ LEONARD F. FEMINO ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR TAi �r? ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET �q>^`Y.rrr 93 WASHINGTON STREET AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND ; ONE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET MICHAEL E, O'B RIEN SALEM, BEVERLY, MA 01915 745--443111 1970 CITY SOLICITOR 745-0500 93 WASHINGTON STREET 745-4311 AND 921-1990 PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM, MA 01970 745-4311 n CO 744.3363 j n PLEASE REPLY TO BI WASHINGTON STREET O= C71 p T fR C7 to M T1 - r'm D April 5, 1989 -m 1�v o -o m g � a a � N CI cn co Leonard F. O'Leary City Councillor City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 in re: Legal Opinion - Comprehensive Special Permit Application R164 Boston Street, Salem, MA Dear Councillor O'Leary: I have been asked by you to determine whether the Comprehensive Special Permit Application submitted to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals by Michael J. Harrington for the construction of sixty-four (64) units at R164 Boston Street, Salem, is complete. I am of the opinion that the application is not complete. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23 inclusive is the statute covering comprehensive special permits. The application for a comprehensive special permit may be filed by three types of organizations: a public agency; a limited dividend organization; or a nonprofit organization. Mr. Harrington's application should include proof that he qualifies as one of these organizations. See Chapter 40B, Section 20. j Leonard F. O'Leary City Councillor Page 3 April 5, 1989 5. The Board of Appeals may attach to the permit conditions and requirements with respect to height, site plan, size or shape, or building materials. 6. The Board of Appeals may also use the testimony of consultants. 7 . The Board of Appeals shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 40A, Section 11. 8 . The Board of Appeals shall render a decision, based on a majority vote, within forty (40) days after termination of the public hearing. 9. If the Board does not convene a hearing within thirty (30) days of the application or not render a decision within forty (40) days after the termination of the hearing, the application shall be deemed allowed. 10. If the Board renders a favorable decision on a comprehensive special permit, it shall forthwith issue a comprehensive permit or approval. See Chapter 40B Section 21. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at your convenience. Very truly yours, Leonard F. Femino LFF/sbh cc: City Clerk Board of Appeals � Leonard O'Leary City Councillor Page 2 April 5, 1989 The application shall include but is not limited to the following: preliminary site development plans; a report on existing site conditions; preliminary architectural drawings; a tabulation of proposed buildings; a preliminary subdivision plan if necessary; a preliminary utilities plan; and most importantly a "site approval letter" from the office of Communities and Development. See 760 CMR 31. 02 . To date, the applicant has not filed a site conditions report, preliminary architectural drawings, a preliminary utilities plan and a site approval letter from the state agency. If Mr. Harrington does not file the above-mentioned materials prior to the scheduled April 6, 1989 Board of Appeals meeting, the Board should either suspend the process by agreement with Mr. Harrington until the application is completed, or deny the application without prejudice and state in writing that the application is incomplete at the time of the hearing. The Board of Appeals must follow the following procedure: 1. Upon receipt of an application such as this, the Board shall notify each local board, including the Planning Board, Board of Survey, Board of Health, Building Inspector and the City Council by sending a copy of the application to such boards for their recommendation. 2 . The Board of Appeals shall hold 'a public hearing within thirty (30) days of the filing of the application. 3 . The Board of Appeals shall request the appearance at the hearing of representatives of the local boards as they deem necessary and helpful in making a decision. 4. The Board of Appeals has the power to issue permits or approvals as any local board or official acting with respect to the application. Qcitp of &alem, AaaacbUgetto Office of the Citp Council Z , j0s it , ,W ' tD itp y$all MING WARD COUNCILLORS VINCENT J. FURFARO COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE 1989 PRESIDENT 1989 GEORGE A.NOWAK JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO DONALD T.BATES KEVIN R.HARVEY FRANCES J.GRACE CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO NEIL J.HARRINGTON LEONARD F.O'LEARY GEORGE P.McCABE JEAN-GUYJ MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR March 30, 1989 ! c? �' n w n 513 p 37 L O "Y1m °- Attorney Leonard Femino Cn mm o n- Assistant City Solicitor Salem City Hall ?t o m 93 Washington Street a n Salem, MA 01970 r. to cn ca Dear Attorney Femino: I am writing to request that you review, for completeness, the Comprehensive Special Permit application submitted to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal by Michael J. Harrington which requests variances from the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of sixty-four (64) units of housing at R164 Boston Street. I would appreciate your response to this request in a timely fashion as a public hearing is scheduled for April 6, 1989. In addition, if the submittal is proven to be incomplete, I would expect that the process will be suspended until an application is submitted which respects all the requirements outlined by the Comprehensive Special Permit Process. Thank you for your expeditious response to this request. Sincerely, _ Leonardar��F. O'Leary City Councillor Ward N cc: James Fleming, ZBA William Luster, Acting City Planner a LUCUTIVE OFFICE OF COMMUNITIES & DEVELOPMENT Michael S. Dukakis. Governor Amv S. Anthony, Secretary IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CHAPTER 774 December 9, 1987 Dear Local Official: The purpose of this notice is to clarify an important aspect of Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 (also known as sections 20-23 of Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws or as the "Anti-Snob Zoning Act") . Chapter 774 is a local process for granting "comprehensive permits" for the development of subsidized low or moderate income housing. These permits, granted on a case-by-case basis by local Zoning Boards of Appeals (ZBAs) following a public hearing, may allow housing construction at greater density than allowed by local zoning. A local denial of a comprehensive permit, or the imposition of "uneconomic" permit conditions, may be appealed to the state Housing Appeals Committee. The regulations of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee (760 CMR 31.02) specify eight submissions that the ZBA may require from the proposed developer before the public hearing on an application for a comprehensive permit. These items include: (1) preliminary site development plans; (2) a report on existing site conditions; (3) preliminary architectural drawings; (4) a tabulation of proposed buildings; (5) a preliminary subdivision plan (if necessary); (6) a preliminary utilities plan; (7) a list of all requested exemptions from zoning and other local regulations; and, (8) evidence of the developer's interest in the site and eligibility under Chapter 774, including a so-called "site approval letter" from a state or federal housing agency. Office of the Secretary 100 Cambridge Street, Room 1404 Boston, Massachusetts 02202 (617) 727.7765 The last item is one of the most important. Site approval letters for most state-subsidized private housing development programs are issued by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). Site letters for other programs are occasionally issued by other state and federal housing agencies. These letters indicate: (a) whether a site is generally acceptable for housing development; (b) whether the proposal and the developer are eligible for state housing funds; and, (c) what specific planning concerns must be addressed before the proposal will be considered for state funding. Site approval letters are presently issued by MHFA only after a site visit by its technical staff, review by the funding program to _) which a developer intends to apply, and an opportunity for comment by oval officials. Some housing programs may impose other requirements before a site letter is granted. The Homeownership Opportunity Program (HOP) , for example, requires that a developer demonstrate a good faith effort to secure the support of local officials and the 7� local housing partnership (if any) before submitting an application for a comprehensive permit. If your local zoning board of appeals has begun the public hearing process on a comprehensive permit application that does not include a site approval letter, this agency strongly recommends that the ZBA attempt to reach a written agreement with the applicant to suspend the hearing process until the application is made complete. If such an agreement cannot be reached, the ZBA may deny the application "without prejudice" and state in writing that the application is incomplete pursuant to the regulations of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee. The developer may then reapply for a comprehensive permit if and when an application becomes complete. If the ZBA receives a new comprehensive permit application that does not include a site approval letter, or is otherwise incomplete, this agency recommends that the application also be denied without prejudice, in writing, as described above. In all cases where your community is reviewing an application for a,comprehensive permit, we recommend that the ZBA consult with the town counsel, city solicitor or other competent legal counsel. This is particularly important to ensure that all procedural requirements of Chapter 774 are met and that all written decisions adequately protect the interests of the community. Written materials are available to help your community better understand Chapter 774 and grants are available to obtain professional legal and consulting services to help you respond more effectively to comprehensive permit applications. If you have general questions about Chapter 774, please contact Christine Pappas at (617)727-7824. If you have legal questions about Chapter 774 with respect to •a specific permit application, please contact John Carney, counsel to the Housing Appeals Committee, at (617)727-7078. Sincerely, 4e I L. Flatley istant Secretary 4 4CB § 20 CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS REGIONAL PLANNING 4OB § 21 Net. B Nal, I beer,the board of Cosmic,"I•not plc when tract mou d t to be developed take into consideration the reemnmmldelloru of the local boards and wanted rems mourn{ the apparent to far tens amt modem, tarome inmates shall have the authority to use the testimony of consultants. The j dlwiose bell,any properer Interest pre.- eaeedel la ern! and .hen Howler entry held In the mite or Mow to•.lulu Aple.ls Committee.In user.{mmpee provisions of section eleven of chapter forty A shall apply to all such any wsoh Intense. Hoard of Appeals of Molars penalt, raeardold that the dere' hearings. The board of appeals shall render a declsfork based upon a Hamner r. Ilorulnr AMwate Committee World ber°Ywtrilded o0 only six Arres majority vole of said board. within forty days after the termination In prpt. of Co u.m'cnll, Affairs 410731 allh remain. .1. on bene pre- {. an x.E2d 3m,3Bl Hoses 330, arrival for men"pan.thin aeetra t relat. - of the public hearing and, It tevorable to the applicant, shall forth- 1 Ins to 1ora1 cerl. .Ith respect to N. �' with Issue a comprehensive permit or approval. If said hearing Is 4. Limned awld.aa mpnlullaa and m,alrrme locator Inmates prolecce S not convened or a decision 1s not rendered within the time allowed, lverA sob whim was cited d to re- ern"1^nppltraDle. i°. r unless the time has been extended by mutual agreement behveen the movalva lloo or tine n at Lied dividend 1 Eml...I dome(. - board and the applicant.thea plication shall be deemed to have been it board or ma tram that It ,.,imapplil [o PI P lard oar anm•.la car aompnhewt.•eMlr. 'nconlnmema nod regYlauopa-.nh- allowed and the comprehensive permit or approval shall forthwith Its, Oil, for movtromlou or lair and mode,- In poe,or conferrrm near. board or •m sue. Any person aggrieved by the issuance of a comprehensive per. car hmnalaR. Boatel of Appeal. leol•ulid hnnsinR 1pMnl"comtolllK.OY of Ilnpard-,. (lousing Appeals Commit. 'PDliaulon by rpnallfled .ppnc.nt for mit or apPtovel may appeal to the court fl3 provided N section oven- In In pep[. of CommnnlV Affairs Iermit to roo."ott how and row...le ` been of chapter forty A- (1018,31-1 110181311 S.E:W:412.370 NJ aa..6l. Income hon.Inm. to nr,,dde 1ora1 -ol, _ qulnment. "nal n.ul.a.as.' Including Added by 51.1969, c. 774. 1 1. Amended by SLIM, e. 808, 11 4, 4A, els. 7 "ooahleml with local cords' caul.• homes, If on,consistent slab lo- Historical Nal, It mpproinl of e.teuaton to ea.tlns nal pa,"do at lodude a taking made - rwer mold not I+ ohtalced al town 1. gaud fnllh mud to, . .bit,ausopoa: Bt.1075,e.80a,It 4,4A.4B,substituted gommled be iii. provisions of chapter thus.NV.eHlov mod tl 21 to TJ at tints -tvmlm" for 'Youneev', 'ei..ep" for fon) A o: tae General ".a In team .} meeting hecm ce of lanultr to the prol- ° -merenim.",dad 'se,caeep" to,-ticeo- pylar to old Nte until thin age 1. se, eel, Romlog Appeals Committee could chapter did on, prohibit town from Lib Ifonle", to line float. flits,, dna elahib eeDled b) each re.pmlte tl4 w town dhpenu with the approval repulmosen[ Ing [,met by e.Inm[domain for covert- - aemnsc". t mpe<tint, Muprovid that no tele, than June own. tea ow net cowlmlenl wlttr Incl meds, vntron 1^nnw"es durtaR pendenq or sp India, nineteen hundred and sene y- Roard of ApMaln of 31arm.rd T. Rout- pacaiop for n compreheoare percale to ScIVIS.a IlOa.17.prodded: eight aD moans oNlo.mn and by-lawn Inti Append Com and( ee In Dept.of CO.- build low .ted medmm! erale Ivhousing •: 'Thl.act.had take era.on January ca•bell be brought Incontarmlty meats, mlttee Affalre 110761 343\.E2d M.370 om tr•<t- Town of Chelmsford r. Dr. 1• H.t. proem. hundred mud sam npyll, WmrlalaW of this chapter and abaft )Ina.8/. Ranee 09761313 x.E2tr ..373. 3T0 Mass. „ ._ u to malting ordl....and b)-Imwa and bse io,eroed Oenhl. .vel thereaftera i at. ,+ amendments, other than moles map smendarews. adopted after old dam' Dnrl"loo. of chapter forty A W eft. Lprior m Jonoan tint,eroded hundred i A paragraph which •neared In the Lid an,..tpac shall[•reap color md4 § 21• Low or moderate Income housing; applications for approval enrolled bill of SLIeTa,e.Bos,u pin of uucea bad hrlawa' of proposed construction; hearing; appeal ` the amendment of 4).4 c.240,1 14A,by 31.1913.v M&some approved DW.2L iIll. am but sess Inc1u°d I. 1 T enconmDaw tly In. IM Elaborate." declaration by the Any public agency or limited dividend or nonprofit orgvended to anialion ro,...I .s. faro me the dame dam Ing the effenlve eol of the am read: proposing to build low or moderate Income homing may submit to -zoning ordlna...and b)-law•1.at. the board of appeals, established under section twelve of chapter for. rm on cam date .hal roart.” to be ty A,a single application to build such housing In lieu of separate ap- N.J., .f Declare.. plications to the applicable local boards. The board of appeals shall 1.a•....1 2 1.... buueioe hem right of appeal m forthwith notifyeach such local board, as applicable, of the titin of o.al.ta4 at board l2 Housing Appeals Committee while doe pP g Eml...t Boman T ."Hared By hansom of ,'cell "not such application by sending a copy thereof to such local !wards for real......td Inosite rand IF ba•up eight of appeal to.ald commlttea their recommendations end shall, within thirty days of the receipt of N•sHag. 10 don not deny aggrieved have,coed pro- such application, hold a public hearing on the same. The board of llmll•4°Irl°••°•rl••Irstl.a. 7 Wilma In chat aggrieved pan,baa runt nest the a oro a. II or nelew In Superior Conte 3"hoeq appeals shell req appearance at said hearing of such repte- permit. 4 .. Board of Appeals of Wtecheate, sentatives of said local boards as are deemed necessary or helpful In pnpary Inl.na ra•L.wnu. 3 [1014)31a N.E2d cos.3M Liu..228 alp• making its decision upon such application and shall have the same a.puml°"'• 0••..•If, I pe•I dismissed 05 9.Ct. 822, 420 C.S. Wer t0163Ge PP y Rsrl.. 13 Nu.42 LEd2d ago. .� power permits ore rovaL•:m an local !ward or official who veiuny 1 - This section and 11 20. 22 and 23 of would otherwise act with respect to such application. Including but 2b"Ing repnleu... a title chapter an not unconstitutionally not limited to the ower to attach to said vague. do ow contractor uneopsdta- p permit plan, approval condi- Clonal delegation of power, and do ant i I (Ions and requirements with respect to height,site plan,size or shape, 1. x0411, Woolf unconmwutlonal beat meant. Id. or building materials its are consistent with the terms of this section. This scr ton presiding that applicant Standards to be applied by board•of pqY; The board of appeals, In malting it;decision on said application,shall for ponces to..trues low or mainstream appeal.and Housing Appral.Concourse xy f 304 305 7 p:mese - fit' 1P Now. ?!t..,vt. air. A• i t . .e :a Attachment A List of Requested Exceptions to the Salem Zoning Ordinance 1. Variance to allow multi-family residential use in Industrial/R-2 District. 2. Variances from density requirements of Front, Side and Rear Yard Depths and Maximum Building Height. �ca.co�uP'bT � i A Citp of *aYem, ,lam5arbuato -fire Department Vrabquarterg Rf'r,Cn+E 481afapette 6treet 6alem, Aa.01970 CW, Joseph F. Sullivan ;;u v Chief < v ari o n �1 riiq S "O April 21, 1989 rn n a. r City of Salem Board of Appeal ca One Salem Green Salem, Ma 01970 Dear Sirs: In response to the discussion relative to the conditions of approval of the petition of Michael J. Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Section 21, the Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of relief subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed building be provided with a residential fire sprinkler system, installed in accordance with the provisions of NFiPA Standard 13R, and Article 12 of the Massachusetts State Building Code. 2. Access to the building for fire fighting purposes be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department, and shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of 527 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 25.00. 3. A right of way from Boston Street, on the Salem side, be maintained as a second means of access to the property for use in emergency response. Dimensions of said right of way shall be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department. 4. Connection of the fire alarm system within the proposed building shall be by means of a master fire alarm box connected to city fire alarm circuits. Such fire alarm box shall be capable of serving as a "street box" for use from outside of the building. 5. The primary response to fire related emergencies shall be made by the Salem Fire Department as per current departmental policy. Mutual or outside aid response to the site shall be in accordance with present or future agreements between heads of fire departments in the Cities of Salem and Peabody. Page 2 6. Fire supply to the site, including type and location of fire hydrants, shall be acceptable to both the Salem Fire Department and the Director of Public Services for the City of Salem. I feel strongly that the above conditions are in the best interests of public safety, and represent a reasonable effort to secure support for this proposal. Signed, Robert W. Turner, Fire Marshal 70 0 on c m i c cn ?YT1 Cn _ o � v cn 1 .A t '•y[ 164R Boston St. - page two l �( u It iS ��� 16. The proponent participate with mitigation inc�Cj lil ng cooperation with Umpta study of traffic, including the transfer of any necessary real property to affectuate that study and improvement. 17. Enclosure of parking area be reviewed by the Planning Board. 12 That the site contain no more than forty eight (48) units in Salem. 19. Any accessory structures placed on the roof shall be properly screened and noise contained. Mr. Strout seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Bencal - opposed Mr. Fleming - in favor Mr. Nutting - opposed Mr. Strout - opposed Mr. Labrecque - opposed The motion having failed to obtain the required four votes to pass is defeated 1 to 4. The variances are denied. Memorandum of Understanding Between Michael J . Harringtoni�uu Ar;"' " � and Community Development Department Acting F`orir 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 two ( 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 . 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 . Mic1� �FraeTJ . a rA r i n t o n 9 City of Peabody Community Development Department By :