135 LAFAYETTE STREET - ZBA (3) M 4
N �
�l
in
m-
Le al Notice
led 1
)is- City a',,Salem
38, Zoning Board of Appeals
by Will hold a public hearing under Seo-
d a tion 9-5 of the City of Salem Zoning
aid Ordinance,Variances,at the request of
!by Salem Lafayette Development, LLC for
Of the property located at 135 Lafayette ,
!OfStreet, the former St.Joseph's Church
site.The applicant is requesting a vari- {
Oct ance for height. t�
ou The hearing will be held on Wednes-
en day,August 23,2006 at 6:30 PM at 120lid
j
Ith Washington Street, third floor confer-
ay ence room, Salem, Massachusetts in t
,at accordance with Massachusetts Gen- 1
id eral Laws, Chapter 40A.A copy of the h
E application is on file and available for d
of review during normal business hours at
)f the Building Department, third floor,
t 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massa-
P chusetts.
Nina Cohen,Chair' t,
�1 SN—6/9,8/16/06
APPEALS; fl# "''""v eu.
+,f 'r P AL5 3/28/07
"rps
( COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
is
Y�
`j ESSEX, SS.
! SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: 6`7.. G 17
f
WILLIAM DZIERZEK, JOHN GOFF, DOCTOR )
MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI, LINDA LOCKE, )
SOLANGE MARCHAND, JEAN MARTIN ANA )
PANIAGUA, DIONICIA FLORIAN, ANTOINETTE C. )
SANCHEZ, JANE E. GAMMON, BRIAN TASHJIAN, )
ROBERT BOZARJIAN, ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN, )
DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, SCOTT )
GALBER, DOMENICA INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI, )
ROBERSON D. TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO, )
PATRICIA O'BRIEN, SHAWN M. O'BRIEN, JOHN J. )
PHELAN, and CONSTANCE SANFORD )
PLAINTIFFS )
V. V�
SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and )
BONNIE BELAIR, ELIZABETH DEBSKI, ANNIE )
HARRIS, STEVEN PINTO, RICHARD DIONNE, ROBIN )
STEIN and NINA COHEN, CHAIRPERSON, BEING )
REGULAR and/or ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE )
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF )
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS )
DEFENDANTS )
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT FROM MARCH 8,2007
COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT DECISION OF SALEM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CONCERNING 135 LAFAYETTE STREET SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
John H. Carr, Jr., attorney for the above-named Plaintiffs, hereby gives notice to the City Clerk
of the City of Salem, Massachusetts that said Plaintiffs have appealed the March ty 2007
Decision of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals granting a Comprehensive Permit to Salem
Lafayette Development, LLC concerning the former (so-called) St. Joseph's property at 135
Lafayette Street, Salem, MA, allowing for the construction of up to 79 residential units at said
site, which Decision was filed with the office of the Salem City Clerk at 5:51 p.m. on March 81
2007.
I
1.
A copy of the Complaint filed as Essex Superior Court civil action no.
March 28, 2007 is attached hereto. on
William Dzierzek et al,
By their attorney,
March 28, 2007
John H. ;sq-
"j9 or Str
Salem, MA 0197
978-825-0060
BBO# 075
- 2 -
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS.
SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: /
WILLIAM DZIERZEK, JOHN GOFF, DOCTOR N C�
2 MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI, LINDA LOCKS,
SOLANGE MARCHAND, JEAN MARTIN, ANA ) �
PANIAGUA, DIONICIA FLORIAN, ANTOINETTE C.
SANCHEZ,JANE E. GAMMON, BRIAN TASHJIAN, ) FILED
ill ROBERT BOZARJIAN, ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, SCOTT ) FOR THE COUNTY OF ESSEX
GALBER, DOMENICA INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI, ) MAR 2 8 2007
ROBERSON D. TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO, )
PATRICIA O'BRIEN, SHAWN M. O'BRIEN,JOHN J. ) ,o
PHELAN, and CONSTANCE SANFORD ) G6€ice
PLAINTIFFS )
V.
SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and )
BONNIE BELAIR, ELIZABETH DEPSKI, ANNIE )
HARRIS, STEVEN PINTO, RICHARD DIONNE, ROBIN )
STEIN and NINA COHEN, CHAIRPERSON,BEING )
REGULAR and/or ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE )
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF )
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS )
DEFENDANTS )
;J
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 4SECTION 17
0 — '
APPEALING MARCH 8 20117 DECISION OF THE SALEM
ZONING BOARD OF PEALS GRANTING A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT FOR
THE PROPERTY AT 135 LAFAYE E STREET SALE MASSACHUSETTS
This is an appeal from a Decision o
Massachusetts (hereinafter"the ZBA"or` eBoard"),gdatea March Appeals of 007 and filed with the
Salem City Clerk on March 8, 2007,grz g a Comprehensive Permit for the property at 135
Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts(hereinafter"the subject property", "the St. Joseph's
complex,"or"the St. Joseph's site")on the grounds that said ZBA Decision was arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable, violated due process, exceeded the Board's authority, was based on
legally and factually untenable grounds, and was wrong as a matter of law.
A certified copy of said March 8, 2007 ZBA Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
1. Plaintiff, William Dzierzek, who resides at 146 Summer Street, Danvers, Massachusetts
01923,owns the real estate located at 157 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 10
Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and 12 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts, all of
which abut the subject property, and 176 Lafayette Street, 182 Lafayette Street, and 7
Cedar Street, all in Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are all located in the
immediate neighborhood.
2. Plaintiff,John Goff, is a preservation architect and former Executive Director of Historic
Salem Inc., who, together with his wife, owns and resides at 194 Lafayette Street, Salem
Massachusetts 01970, which property is also located in the immediate neighborhood.
3. Plaintiff, Dr. Miroslaw Kantorosinski, who resides at 8 Almeda Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, is the owner of 5-5A Ropes Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which
abuts the subject property, and 8-10 Porter Street Court, Salem,Massachusetts, which is
located one block from the subject property, and is located within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem ZBA.
4. Plaintiff, Linda Locke, who resides at I Pickering Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,
owns 44-46 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 7 Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts,
and 13-15 Palmer Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are all within the 300
foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
5. Plaintiff, Solange Marchand,owns and resides at 159 Lafayette Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property is an abutter to an abutter of the subject property,
and is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
6. Plaintiff,Jean Martin, who resides at 24 Leavitt Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,
owns (together with her husband)24 Leavitt Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which is
located in the immediate neighborhood, and solely owns 34 Park Street, Salem
Massachusetts, which is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
7. Plaintiffs, Ana Paniagua and Dionicia Florian, own 16 Dow Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property abuts the subject property. Ana Paniagua resides at
1000 Loring Avenue, apt. B91, Salem, Massachusetts 01970 and Dionicia Florian resides
at said 16 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970.
8. Plaintiff, Antoinette C. Sanchez, owns and resides at 20 Dow Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property abuts the subject property.
9. Plaintiff,Jane E. Gammon, owns and resides at unit 1, 160 Lafayette Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the
Salem ZBA.
2
8
t
10. Plaintiff, Brian Tashjian, owns and resides at 30 Park Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
11. Plaintiffs, Robert and Elizabeth Bozarjian, reside at 20 Clark Avenue, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, and own 9 Park Street, Salem, Massachusetts and 10-12 Park
Street, Salem Massachusetts, which properties are located within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem ZBA.
12. Plaintiffs, David T. Ramsey and Jean E. Ramsey, who reside at 58 Gregory Island
Road, South Hamilton, Massachusetts 01982, own 12 Palmer Street, Salem,
Massachusetts and 15-17 Leavitt Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are
located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
13. Plaintiff, Scott Galber, who resides at unit 5, 22 Winter Street, Salem, Massachusetts,
01970, owns 65 Harbor Street, 69-71 Harbor Street, 22-24 Prince Street, and 27 Salem
Street, all in Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are located within the 300 foot
notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
14. Plaintiffs, Stephen C. Ingemi and Domenica Ingemi, own and reside at 7 Fairfield
Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, which property is located in the immediate
neighborhood.
15. Plaintiffs, Roberson D. Troncoso and Clariza J. Troncoso, own and reside at unit 4, 10
Porter Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property is located in the immediate
neighborhood.
16. Plaintiffs; Shawn M. O'Brien and Patricia D. O'Brien, own and reside at 21 Cedar
Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, and also own 23-25 Cedar Street, Salem,
Massachusetts,which properties are located in the immediate neighborhood.
17. Plaintiff, John J. Phelan, owns and resides at 3 Fairfield Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood.
18. Plaintiff, Constance Sanford, owns and resides at 19 Park Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem
ZBA.
Defendants
19. Defendant, Salem Lafayette Development,LLC(hereinafter"SLD"), is a non-profit
development corporation with headquarters at 185 Devonshire Street, Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, is the owner of the former St. Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette
Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970; and is the recipient of the March 8,2007
Comprehensive Permit Decision from the Salem ZBA herewith being appealed.
- 3 -
}
f
20• Defendant, Bonnie Belair(hereinafter"Ms. Belair"), whose mailing address is P.O. Box
685, Salem,:Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to
grant said Comprehensive Permit at the February 21,2007 ZBA hearing. (This was the
only address available from the ZBA.)
21. Defendant, Elizabeth Debski (hereinafter"Ms. Depski) who resides at 43 Calumet
Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA, who voted
to grant said Comprehensive Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing.
22. Defendant, Richard Dionne, who resides at.23 Gardner Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970,is.a regular member of the Salem ZBA, who voted to grant said Comprehensive
Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing.
23. Defendant, Annie Harris (hereinafter"Ms. Harris"), who resides at 43 Calumet Street,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA, who voted to grant
said Comprehensive Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing.
24. Defendant, Steven Pinto (hereinafter"Mr. Pinto"), who resides at 55 Columbus Avenue,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA, who voted to
grant said Comprehensive Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing.
25. Defendant, Nina Cohen, who resides at 22 Chestnut Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,
is Chairperson of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals, who voted to grant said
Comprehensive Permit at the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing.
26. Defendant, Robin Stein (hereinafter"Ms. Stein"), who resides at 141 Fort Avenue,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA. She did not
participate in either the February 12, 2007 or February 21,2007 ZBA hearings, or the
March 8, 2007 ZBA Decision.
27. All of the foregoing Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action, as all are substantially
aggrieved by the March 8, 2007 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting said
Comprehensive Permit.
JURISDICTION
28. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the
Massachusetts General Laws.
29. This case is timely, as it has been filed within twenty(20)days from March 8, 2007,
which is when the ZBA's March 8, 2007 Decision granting said Comprehensive Permit
was filed with the Salem City Clerk.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
-4 -
The Locus
30. The St. Joseph's property consists of a parking lot and 4 buildings on approximately 2.6
acres of land at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts. The four buildings consist
of the former St. Joseph's church, the 3-story former rectory, the 3-story former St.
Joseph's school, and the 3-story former convent.
31. Said property is a basically rectangular parcel bounded by Lafayette Street to the west,
Harbor Street to the north, Salem Street to the east, and Dow Street to the south, and is
located at the interface of the so-called Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods.
32• Except for three 2 %: - story residential buildings fronting on the northerly side of Dow
Street at the southeast comer of the site, the St. Joseph's property comprises the entire
rectangular block formed by said streets.
33. At the southwest comer of said site is the confluence of Lafayette, Washington, and Dow
Streets, which 3-way intersection constitutes one of the most congested and dangerous
intersections in Salem.
34. One block from the 3-way intersection of Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Streets,
approximately 100 yards to the South from the St. Joseph's site (ie. towards Marblehead),
is the intersection of Palmer and Lafayette Streets, which is another of the busiest and
most dangerous intersections in Salem, being a major egress from the Point
neighborhood.
35. The 2-way intersection at Lafayette and Harbor Streets, and the 2-way intersection at
Washington and Harbor Streets, are also two of the most congested and dangerous
intersections in Salem.
36. All of the four structures at the St. Joseph's site were constructed prior to the enactment
of the current Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965, and thus,all four buildings represent
prior non-conforming structures.
37. By far, the most architecturally significant building at the site is the former St. Joseph's
Church, which is an important example of the so-called International Style, a style of
modem architecture which is unique in Salem. As such, it makes an important
contribution to Salem's world-renowned stock of 17th, 10, and 19th century architecture.
1
38. There is no question that the former St. Joseph's Church is eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places maintained by the United States Department of the
Interior.
39. The church, rectory, and convent have been vacant since the parish closed on or about
August 15, 2004. The school has been vacant since it relocated to the St. James parish on
Federal Street beginning in August or September of 2004.
- 5 -
a
40. The entire St. Joseph's p s property is located in an R-3 zoning district.
41. Pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning, a maximum of 33 residential units can be
constructed at the St. Joseph's site as a matter of right, with new construction not to
exceed 45 feet in height and 3 % stories.
i
42. The overwhelming majority of the buildings on the surrounding Lafayette, Dow, Salem,
and Harbor Streets, as well as those on Washington Street opposite the Lafayette Street
side of the property(ie. across from the pocket park), are either 2 % or 3-story residential
dwellings 45 feet in height or less. As such, the overwhelming majority of the buildings
on said surrounding streets conform to the 3 % story and 45-foot maximums pursuant to .
the existing R-3 zoning in both respects.
43. epee abograde the the parking lot at the southern third of the site is already approximately 4
grade of the 2 /z story residential buildings fronting on Dow Street at the
southeast corner of the site.
Purchase Of St. Joseph's Site By SLD
44. In the Spring of 2005 the Archdiocese of Boston sold the entire St. Joseph's property to
the Planning Office of Urban Affairs of the Archdiocese of Boston (hereinafter
"POUA"), a private non-profit corporation, for$2,000,000.00, which thereupon created
Salem Lafayette Development Corporation, LLC (hereinafter"SLD")to develop the site.
45. It is unknown whether said$2,000,000.00 purchase price actually changed hands.
46. The head of the Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, serves in his individual
capacity as the chief executive officer of POUA.
Prior Salem Plannine Board Decision And Appeal
47. On Thursday, July 27, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened the first of
three lengthy public hearings on SLD's application for a Planned Unit Development
(hereinafter"PUD")to develop the St. Joseph's site into 97 residential units, which
represented 64 units above the 33-unit maximum allowed by the current R-3 zoning, plus
an 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center.
48. The proposed PUD basically called for the razing of the former convent and landmark
Church, the development of the former rectory into 8 residential units, the conversion of
the former school into 14 residential units, and the construction of a new, 6-story, 65-foot
tall building on the site of the former St. Joseph's Church structure, immediately to the
right(ie. south)of the rectory, to contain 75 residential units,plus the 18,400 square foot
Senior/Community Life Center on the first floor.
49. Unlike the existing cruciform church, which was built with its narrow(i.e. 40-foot wide)
nave perpendicular to Lafayette Street, SLD proposed building the new, 65-foot tall, 6-
- 6 -
1
r
story structure paralleFto Lafayette Street, and within a few feet of the existing Lafayette
Street sidewalk.
50. The footprint of the proposed new structure was/is to be approximately 180 by 120 feet,
which is approximately the same length as the former St. Joseph's Church structure, but
three times the width of the nave.
51• Unlike the existing'cruciform church, all six floors of the new 65-foot structure would be
occupied 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 52 weeks a year, as compared with the
former St.Joseph's Church, whose single-std interior space (albeit 63 feet tall) was
used for relatively brief Church services primarily on late Saturday-afternoons, Sunday
mornings, and on Holy Days.
52. Of the 97 residential units, SLD proposed renting "approximately"30 units and selling 67
units as condominiums.
53. There were two major components of the proposed development which SLD argued
entitled it to a PUD, namely the inclusion of affordable housing,and the proposed
Senior/Community Life Center.
54: With respect to the former, SLD initially proposed dedicating 45%of the 97 residential
units, or 44 units, for"affordable housing", which was later scaled back to 35%, or
approximately 34 units, at the final Planning Board hearing on September 7, 2006.
55. The 34 units of affordable housing, whether rented or sold as condominiums, would
involve a discount of approximately 30% below prevailing market rates, for which
eligibility would be based on certain income limitations of the buyer or tenants.
56. Thus, in essence, SLD's PUD application sought an approximate 194%increase in
density of 64 residential units over the 33-maximum permitted by the existing R-3 zoning
for the entire site, in return for which 33 of the extra 64 units were to be sold or rented as
affordable housing at a discount(in either event)of approximately 30% below prevailing
market rates.
57. The 31-unit balance of the 64 units which exceeded the current R-3 zoning were to be
sold at market rates, in addition to the 33 residential units already permitted by the
existing R-3 zoning, or altogether 64 units at market rates.
58. Said 194%increase in residential density above the 33-unit maximum permitted under
the existing R-3 zoning did not include the proposed 18,400 square foot
Senior/Community Life Center.
59. Although the purchase price for the 18,400 square foot condominium had not yet been
finalized, the figure discussed at the three Planning Board hearings was approximately
$5,000,000.00.
- 7 -
t
60. The other quid pro quo of SLD's PUD application was the proposed 18,400e foot squar
r condominium on the first floor of the proposed new 6-story structure, which was to be
sold to the City of Salem for the Senior/Community Life Center.
f61. Complicating said issue was the fact that the overwhelming majority of Salem's senior
citizens who currently use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street were vehement in
their opposition to relocating the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to the St.
Joseph's site.
62• A multi-page petition signed by approximately 300 Salem senior citizens opposing e
th
proposed new Senior Center at the St. Joseph's site was submitted at the third Planning
Board hearing on September 7, 2006, which opposition was re-affirmed in a heavily
publicized meeting conducted by Mayor Driscoll at the existing Broad Street Senior
Center a few weeks later.
63. On September 7, 2006 the Salem Planning Board voted to approve SLD's PUD
application.
64. In so doing,the Planning Board ignored several explicit requirements of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance before a PUD can be granted, including Section 7-15 (c)(4)which
reads in relevant part:
Height limitations shall be in accordance with the
zoning district in which the planned unit
development is located.
Emphasis added
65. With respect to traffic, even the Planning Board Chairman, Mr. Power, lamented the lack
of a traffic study at the third Planning Board hearing on September 7, 2006, which he
noted is unprecedented for projects of this size, further stating that even much lesser
Projects virtually always involve a traffic study.
66. On October 2, 2006 forty individuals, consisting of owners of property directly abutting
the former St. Joseph's complex, owners of property within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and owners of property within the
immediate neighborhood, filed suit in the Essex Superior Court timely appealing said
September 14, 2006 Site Planned Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the
Salem Planning Board, which action is entitled William Dzierzek et al t% Salem
Lafayette Development, LLC et al, Civil Action No. 2006-1881 D.
Prior Salem ZBA Decision And Auueal
67. In order to build its proposed new, 6-story structure, SLD needed two variances from the
Salem ZBA, one to increase the 45 foot maximum height restriction pursuant to the
existing R-3 zoning by 20 feet, to 65 feet, which represented a 44.44% increase, and the
- 8 -
f
I
other to increase the current maximum of 3 %z stories to 6 stories, which represented a
58.33% increase.
E
68• On August.23, 2006 the Salem ZBA conducted a single public hearing on SLD's
application for said variances, even though projects of far less complexity than SLD's
$23 Million project frequently involve several meetings.
69. The Mayor,the Salem City Planner, several representatives of SLD, and SLD's Counsel,
attorney Joseph Correnti of Salem, all spoke at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing.
70. At the conclusion of said hearing on August 23, 2006, the Salem ZBA voted to grant said
variances.
71. On September 22, 2006 forty-two individuals, consisting of owners of property directly
abutting the former St. Joseph's complex, owners of property within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and owners of property within the
immediate neighborhood, filed suit in the Essex Superior Court timely appealing said
August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision, which action is entitled William Dzkrzek et al vs. Salem
Lafayette Development,LLC et al, Civil Action No. 2006-1820C.
72. Said Complaint basically avers that there was and is no hardship sufficient to entitle SLD
to either or both of said variances; that there were and are no legally-recognized special
conditions or circumstances which justify the granting of said variances; that said
variances constitute a substantial detriment to the public good; and that said variances
nullify and substantial derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning
Ordinance.
Prior Salem Historical Commission Decision
73. In the summer of 2006 SLD filed an application with the Salem Historical Commission
(hereinafter"the Commission') seeking to waive Salem's Demolition Delay Ordinance
so that it could demolish the former St. Joseph's Church structure as soon as possible.
74. Salem's Demolition Delay Ordinance basically provides for a 6-month delay before a
building permit can be issued in connection with the demolition of any structures that are
deemed to be historic or architecturally significant.
75. A hearing on said application was held by the Salem Historical Commission on
September 6, 2006.
76. At said hearing SLD requested a continuance of the vote on its application when it
became clear that the Commission regarded the St. Joseph's Church structure to be a
significant building and would not waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance if a vote were
then taken.
- 9 -
i
.j
!
77. Mr. Correnti promised to use the intervening three months to work closely with the
Commission in a good faith attempt to resolve the Commission's concerns prior to the
i December 6, 2006 continued hearing on SLD's application for the waiver.
78. Notwithstanding said promise, neither SLD nor Mr. Correnti made any effort to
communicate with the Salem Historical Commission during said three months.
79. At its regular bi-monthly meeting on December 6, 2006, the Commission acted on a letter
it had recently received from attorney Joseph Correnti requesting a withdrawal of SLD's
prior application for a waiver of Salem's 6-month Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr.
Correnti did not attend said meeting.
80. However, the Commission refused said withdrawal request, and instead, unanimously
denied said application.
March 8, 2007 ZBA Decision on SLD's Chapter 40B Application and Related Vote
Of The Salem Citv Council Concerning Proposed Senior/Communiri Life Center
81. At a meeting of the Salem ZBA on January 17, 2007, assistant City Solicitor Jerold
Parisella"briefed"members of the Salem ZBA at the Mayor's direction regarding
Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws(hereinafter"Chapter 40B") in
connection with a new application that SLD would be filing pursuant to said statute
relative to the St. Joseph's site.
82. There was absolutely no prior public notice given with respect to said"briefing."
83. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of the January 17,2007 Salem ZBA Agenda,
item no. 1 of which recites the following:
"Discussion of Chapter 40B (Comprehensive Permit Law)-Jerry Parisella"
84. Except for the last Agenda item no. 10 ("Old/New Business"), all of the other 8 items on
said Agenda(ie. numbers 2-9 inclusive) not only included addresses for each matter
before the ZBA that evening, but also, each of those addresses were printed in bold
lettering.
85. There can be no question that said"briefing" before the Salem ZBA on January 17, 2007
was specifically related to SLD's St. Joseph's development, since Mayor Driscoll sent an
e-mail to each member of the City Council a few minutes before midnight on January 17,
2007, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, wherein she stated the following
in relevant part:
I am writing to you today because members of the
ZBA were informed of a potential Comprehensive
Permit Application and were briefed on the 40B
process by the Assistant City Solicitor at
- 10 -
i
tonight's ZBA meeting. [Emphasis added with
respect to bold typeface above, but not the italics]
86. The Mayor's January 17, 2007 e-mail continued in relevant part:
Unfortunately, the permits were appealed and the
litigation has dragged on for a number of months,
causing not only delays to construction but
increases in cost related to legal fees and debt
service for P.O.U.A. As a result, P.O.U.A. is
considering alternative options to develop this site.
One of these alternatives may consist of a
Comprehensive Permit Application to the ZBA,
commonly referred to as a"40B approval".
[Emphasis added]
87. On or about January 24, 2007, as anticipated by the Mayor in her January 17,2007 e-
mail, SLD submitted an application to the Salem ZBA for a Comprehensive Permit
pursuant to Chapter 40B relative to the St. Joseph's site.
88. There is no question that Salem exceeds the 10%threshold provided in Chapter 40B,
otherwise known as the"Anti-Snob Zoning statute,"which is designed to circumvent
local zoning requirements in those communities where less than 10%of the total housing
stock is devoted to affordable housing.
89. In said Chapter 40B application, SLD proposed a development for its St. Joseph's site
which is virtually identical to that approved by the Salem ZBA in its August 24, 2006
Decision (granting height and number-of-story variances), and by the Salem Planning
Board in its September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision,
namely a total of 97 residential units,consisting of 8 condominiums units in the former
St. Joseph's rectory, 14 condominium units in the former St. Joseph's school, and 75
units in the new 6-story, 65-foot tall building (replacing the former St. Joseph's Church
structure),of which 30 units were proposed to be rented, and 45 units were proposed to
be sold as condominiums,plq�an 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center on
the first floor of the proposed new building.
90. Also pursuant to said application, approximately 45 units (and in no event less than 25%,
or 24 units), were proposed to be dedicated to affordable housing.
91. 24 of the 97 units represent 10 fewer units of affordable housing than the 34 units of
affordable housing approved by the Salem Planning Board last summer in its September
14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision, which statutory basis
had nothing to do with Chapter 40B.
- 11 -
t
n
92. On Thursday, February 1, 2007, the Salem City Planner appeared before the Salem
Planning Board and obtained the Planning Board's endorsement of SLD's January 24,
2007 Chapter 40B application that was scheduled to be heard by the Salem ZBA I 1 days
later on February 12, 2007.
93. As with the January 17, 2007 ZBA Agenda, there was absolutely no public notice one
February 1, 2007 Planning Board Agenda that said meeting would have anything to do
. A copy of said February 1,2007 Planning Board
with SLD's St. Joseph's project
Agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
94. The February,1, 2007 Planning Board meeting began with the presentation of the Salem
City Planner regarding SLD's new Chapter 40B application, and thus, said Planning
Board meeting did not follow the order of the Agenda items, which is another reason for
construing that the presentation and vote were not noticed under the last Agenda item,
namely"Old/New Business."
95• Also attending the February 1, 2007 Planning Board meeting was Co-Counsel for SLD,
attorney Joseph Correnti of Salem, who (on information and belief) also participated in
said discussion.
96. The foregoing are typical of any number of aggressive tactics indulged in by the Mayor
and/or SLD to ram this project through. One particularly flagrant example was her/SLD's
proposal that SLD "donate"the 18,400 square foot condominium for the
Senior/Community Life Center to the City, and that the City simultaneously"donate"
$4.75 Million to SLD, in an attempt to circumvent the necessity of a 2/3's vote of the
City Council to purchase real estate or incur debt, after it became apparent that a simple
majority of the City Council might not approve the Mayor's proposed purchase and
borrowing.
97. A public hearing on SLD's January 24, 2007 Chapter 40B application was opened by the
ZBA on February 12, 2007, and later continued to February 21, 2007.
98. On Wednesday, February 7, 2007, 5 days before the February 12, 2007 ZBA hearing,a
committee-of-the-whole of the Salem City Council met at the Bentley School in Salem to
consider the Mayor's request for a$4.75 Million HUD loan in connection with her
Proposed purchase of the 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center on the first
floor of the proposed new structure at the St. Joseph's site.
99. At said meeting of the committee-of-the-whole on February 7, 2007, which lasted
approximately 4 hours, the Mayor and the General Director of SLD, Lisa Alberghini,
testified before the Salem City Council that SLD was reducing said proposed new
structure from 6 stories to 4 stories; that SLD was also reducing the overall residential
density for the project from 97 units to 67 units; and that all of said reduction in
residential density would occur in the proposed new(now)4-story structure.
- 12 -
100. In terms of the elevation of the proposed new 4-story structure, all SLD apparently did
was delete the former top 2 stories.
101. In contrast to its presentation to the Salem City Council at the latter's February 7, 2007
public hearing 5 days earlier, SLD reiterated its originally-proposed development of 97
residential units and a new 6-story, 65-foot tall structure at the first of the two public
hearings conducted by the Salem ZBA on its Chapter 40B applicationon Febmary 12,
2007, even though SLD maintained (outside said public hearing) that it continued to be
committed to reducing the overall residential density to 67 units, and the height of the
proposed new structure to 4 stories.
102. Notwithstanding that said revisions were the worst kept secret in the City of Salem, SLD
finally revised its formal presentation to the Salem ZBA at the second of the ZBA's two
public hearings on February 21, 2007 to conform with its presentation to the Salem City
Council at the latter's February 7, 2007 public hearing on the Mayor's$4.75 Million
proposed HUD loan.
103. Much of the discussion by both the Mayor, SLD, the Salem City Planner, and members
of the Salem ZBA at either or both the February 12, 2007 and February 21, 2007 ZBA
hearings on SLD's Chapter 40B application revolved around the proposed
" Senior/Community Life Center; even though Chapter 40B deals exclusively with
"affordable housing,"and has nothing to do with Senior and/or Community Life Centers,
or similar civic amenities.
104. The second of the two ZBA hearings on SLD's 40B application commenced at
approximately 6:30 p.m. on February 21, 2007 and lasted until approximately 11:15 p.m.
As with the earlier February 12,2007 public hearing, the continued February 21, 2007
ZBA hearing was well attended by the public who spoke predominantly in opposition to
said application.
105. A multi-page proposed draft Comprehensive Permit Decision, ostensibly prepared by the
office of the Salem City Planner, but(on information and belief) which was really
prepared by Co-Counsel for SLD, namely DLA Piper, LLC of Boston, Massachusetts,
was circulated to the ZBA(for the first time)at approximately 10:30 p.m. on February
21, 2007.
106. The ZBA began to discuss various revisions to said draft Decision, but had not completed
same by the time it adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:15 p.m. on February 21,
2007.
107. Prior to its adjournment of the February 21, 2007 meeting, the ZBA left it that the Salem
City Planner would circulate a proposed final draft Decision by e-mail to each member of
the ZBA, who would then send his or her comments to the City Planner by e-mail (or
otherwise)prior to the preparation of a proposed final Comprehensive Permit Decision.
- 13 -
f
t
i
108. On information and belief, the final ZBA Decision did not contain elements that had been
discussed by the ZBA at its February 21, 2007 public hearing, but were the result of
communications sent by members of the ZBA to the City Planner after February 21,
2007, and as such, violated the Open Meeting Law of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
109. At the conclusion of the February 21, 2007 ZBA hearing, there was no way of knowing
whether the Salem City Council would approve the Mayor's request for the $4.75 Million
HUD loan to purchase the 18,000 square foot Senior/Community Life Center on the first
floor of the proposed new(now) 4-story structure.
110. Anticipating the possibility of an alternative result, the ZBA voted to approve 12
additional residential units in the event the Senior/Community Life Center did not pass.
Ill. On February 28, 2007 the committee-of-the-whole of the Salem City Council voted by 6
to 5 to refer without a recommendation the Mayor's requested $4.75 Million HUD loan
to purchase the 18,000-square foot Senior/Community Life Center to a regular meeting of
the Salem City Council on Thursday, March 8, 2007. However, it was clear that the same
6 City Councilors would vote against said request on March 8, 2007.
112. - - On Thursday, March 8, 2007, in response to her inability to persuade a majority of the
Salem City Council to approve her requested $4.75 million HUD loan, and also in
response to the opposition of the vast majority of Salem's senior citizens who actually
use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to relocating said facility to the St.
Joseph's site, Mayor Driscoll appeared before the Salem City Council and presented a
revised request to approve a$2.9 Million HUD loan to purchase a 15,000 square foot
condominium on the first floor of the proposed new 4-story structure at the St. Joseph's
site, which would be used for a Community Life Center only.
113. Said condominium would be 3,400 square feet less than the 18,400 square foot combined
Senior/Community Life Center originally proposed by the Mayor and SLD.
114. Said revised request was referred to a meeting of the committee-of-the-whole on
Tuesday, March 20,2007, at which it was defeated by a 6 to 5.vote at approximately 8:30
P.M., or approximately 2 Yz hours after the March 8, 2007 Decision of the Salem ZBA
granting SLD a Comprehensive Permit pursuant to Chapter 40B was filed in the Salem
City Clerk's office at 5:51 p.m. on said date.
115. Said March 20, 2007 vote of the committee-of-the-whole of the Salem City Council was
effectively ratified at a regular meeting of the Council two days later on Thursday, March
22, 2007.
116. The ZBA's March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision provides for the construction
of up to 67 residential units at the St. Joseph's site, of which 8 residential condominium
units are to be located in the rehabilitated former St. Joseph's rectory, 14 residential
condominium units are to be located in the rehabilitated former St. Joseph's school, and
- 14 -
i
45 residential units are to be located in the new 4-story structure, of which 15 units are to
be sold as condominiums and 30 units are to be rented as apartments.
117. Said March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision also recited that the new 4-story
building is expected "to contain approximately 18,400 square feet of community space,"
subject to Condition 32 (entitled "Community Life Center").
118. Condition 32 provides that in the event SLD (a/k/a"the Applicant")and the City of
Salem "do not execute a mutually acceptable agreement regarding the use and operation
of the Community Life Center..., the Applicant may use the first floor of the new
building for residential units and community space (provided that in no event shall the
total number of residential units exceed 79 units)."
119. Thus, the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision of the Salem ZBA provides for
a total of 79 residential units at the St. Joseph's site, of which 20 units(or 25%)need be
"affordable,"and 59 units may be rented or sold at market rates.
120. Said total residential density amounts to 46 units above the 33-unit maximum pursuant
to the existing R-3 zoning, or a 13939% increase.
L21. Of the 79 units, only 25%, or 20 units, need to be affordable.
122. Thus, of the 18-unit total reduction in density, 14 of those 18 deleted units involved
affordable housing units, as opposed to market-rate units.
123. No traffic study was performed by either SLD or the City prior to the March 8, 2007
Comprehensive Permit Decision, although Condition 10 (entitled"Traffic Mitigation")
requires SLD after the fact to contribute $20,000.00"toward a study/design of
intersection and traffic improvements at Lafayette Street."
124. As to each of the following Counts,the Plaintiffs reaffirm, re-allege, and incorporate all
of the prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-123 inclusive above.
ARGUMENT
COUNTI
The Salem ZBA acted illegally in basing its March 8,2007
Decision on Chapter 40B, and not the standards of a variance
125. There is absolutely no question that Salem already exceeds the 10%threshold of Chapter
4013, since more than 10% of its housing stock is already dedicated to affordable housing.
126. There is also no question that the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision of the
Salem ZBA does in fact substantially vary the provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance
as regards the St. Joseph's site.
- 15 -
l
a
f
i
127. As such, the Plaintiffs aver that the standards the ZBA should have applied to SLD's
January 24, 2007 application were not the standards of Chapter 40B, but the standards for
i a variance, which were certainly not met here.
128. SLD's January 24, 2007 Chapter 40B application proposed a development that was
virtually identical to the development for which it had already obtained approval pursuant
to the August 24, 2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA and the September 14, 2006 Site Plan
Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board.
129. Indeed, at the first of the two ZBA hearings on February 12, 2007, SLD steadfastly . .
reiterated its original proposal in its entirety, which(again)basically provided for 97
residential units, a new 6-story, 65-foot tall structure replacing the former St. Joseph's
Church, and an 18,400 square foot Senior/Community Life Center on the first floor of the
proposed new structure, even though it had already indicated to the Salem City Council
(and the public at large)at the public hearing at the Bentley School on February 7, 2007
that it would scale back the new structure from 6 to 4 stories, and that it would also scale
back the overall residential density from 97 to 67 units.
130. It is also important to keep in mind that the subsequent reductions in height and density
were not the result of conditions of approval impose on SLD by the ZBA, but were
volun decisions made by SLD in advance of the ZBA's March 8,2007 Decision,
presumably to curry favor with the Salem City Council prior to the latter's vote on the
Mayor's requested$4.75 Million HUD loan to fund the purchase of the proposed
Senior/Community Life Center.
131. As is exnlicitl clear from the Mayor's e-mail which she sent to each member of the
Salem City Council a few minutes before midnight on Wednesday, January 17, 2007
(Exhibit C), SLD filed said January 24, 2007 Chapter 40B application for the sole
purpose of circumventing the pending appeals from the August 24, 2006 Decision of the
Salem ZBA and the September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development
Decision of the Salem Planning Board.
132. As such, however laudable the goal of affordable housing may be, including to the within
Plaintiffs, it does not justify setting aside the zoning laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts,and adopting a legal, moral, and philosophical basis for the ZBA's March
8, 2007 Decision that basically amounts to "the ends justifying the means."
133. Pursuant to the ZBA's March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision, the total
residential density for the project amounts to 79 units, or 46 units above the 33-unit
maximum pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning, which represents a139.4% increase.
134. And while said 139.4% increase is less than the 194%increase the Planning Board
granted SLD in its September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development
Decision last summer, it still amounts to more than double the maximum permitted under
the existing R-3 zoning for the district.
- 16 -
P
a
i
135. Given the extraordinary speed and legal recklessness with which the Salem ZBA
E approved SLD's two variances last summer, thereby ignoring the very strict standards
legally required for a variance, it is not surprising that the Salem ZBA would approve
SLD's Chapter 40B application, even in its original state, especially considering that the
ZBA had been"briefed"on Chapter 40B by a member of the Mayor's administration on
January 17, 2007, for which no effective public notice had been given.
136. After all, the"friendly"use of Chapter 40B by the Salem ZBA represents a total reversal
of the usual dynamic whereby local municipal Boards resent the loss of local control, and
the lower appellate standard of review, inherent in Chapter 40B.
137. Given its similar utter disregard of the explicit requirements for PUDs in the Salem
Zoning Ordinance in its September 14, 2007 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development
Decision, and the"briefing" it received from another member of the Mayor's
administration on February 1,2007, for which absolutely no public notice was given, it is
likewise not surprising that the Salem Planning Board voted to endorse SLD's Chapter
40B application on February 1, 2007.
138• The Plaintiffs aver that the approval procedure followed by SLD last summer before the
Salem ZBA and Planning Board was at least the correct procedure but not the correct .
result.
139. Allowing such transparent"end runs"around traditional zoning law when a community
has met the 10%threshold of Chapter 40B would effectively permit a parallel statutory
scheme for land use planning(for which there are no clear standards), and would also
effectively invite the kind of political manipulation that has obviously occurred here.
140. Chapter 40B was obviously intended to facilitate the creation of affordable housing in
those communities where affordable housing represents less than 10 %of the total
housing stock; it was never intended to circumvent local zoning requirements in those
communities where affordable housing already exceeds said 10%.
141. The Plaintiffs also respectfully aver that the Chapter 40B was not intended to concentrate
affordable housing in one particular area, whether in a single community or region, but
was intended to spread out affordable housing.
COUNT II
The Salem ZBA violated Chapter 40B by not adequately considering the impact
of the proposed project on the existing surrounding neighborhood.
142. Washington and Lafayette Streets are already two of the busiest and most congested
streets in Salem,particularly at morning and afternoon rush hour periods,and when the
Saltonstall School lets out at mid-aftemoon.
- 17 -
I
t
E
143. The surrounding 3-way intersection are Washington, Dow, and Lafayette Streets, and the
surrounding 2-way intersections at Washington and Harbor Streets, Lafayette and Harbor
Streets,and Lafayette and Palmer Streets, are already among the most dangerous and
+ most congested intersections in Salem.
144. Indeed a left-hand turn from Lafayette Street onto Dow(ie. heading south toward
Marblehead) is not even permitted.
145. Parking is also grossly inadequate throughout the so-called Point Neighborhood, which is
already one of the densest, if not the densest, neighborhoods in Salem.
146. The ZBA's March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision provides for inadequate off-
street parking to meet the needs of the residents, their family members, their guests, and
those who deliver goods and services to them.
147. Even in its reduced state, the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision represents a
139.4% increase over the 33-unit maximum permitted pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning
for the district.
148. As such, it grossly exacerbates all of the unacceptably high present parking and traffic
problems of the neighborhood:
149. The ZBA's solution for the impact of the project on traffic is (simplistically)to require
SLD to contribute $20,000.00 toward a traffic study.
150. In so doing, the ZBA blindly assumes that a real solution is possible, and that such a
modest sum would be adequate to accomplish same, but leaves open the question of
how the solution would be implemented,and by whom.
151. Creating such additional burdens on both the neighborhood, and on one of the principle
entrance corridors to the City of Salem, does a disservice to both the residents and the
neighborhood the project is intended to benefit.
152. Such burdens are not worth the purported advantages of creating a required minimum of
only 24 units of affordable housing, especially at a discount of only 301/6, or the 55 units
of market rate units that are also being created.
COUNT III
The Salem ZBA failed to take into account the existing vacancy
rates already in the neighborhood for units of similar size and rent.
153. The Salem ZBA failed to take into account the vacancy rate that already exists in the
immediate neighborhood for comparably priced residential units of similar size.
- 18 -
i
E
154. As such, SLD failed to demonstrate an adequate need for the ZBA's March 8, 2007
Comprehensive Permit Decision.
i
COUNT IV
,
The March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision of the Salem ZBA violated the
Massachusetts Open meeting Law.
155. The ZBA's discussion of the 1 I-page draft Decision prepared (on information and belief)
by SLD had not concluded by the time the ZBA adjourned its February 21, 2007 meeting
at approximately 11:15 p.m.
156. On information and belief, the written comments exchanged by members of the ZBA
after the February 21, 2007 meeting did not include items discussed at said meeting, or
reasonably implied by what was discussed.
157. To the extent that occurred, and is included in the March 8, 2007 ZBA Decision,the
Plaintiffs aver that said Decision violates the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.
COUNT V
The amount of time spent by SLD and the Salem ZBA exposes the fact that the project was
never primarily motivated by "affordable housing."
158. Most of the discussion by the ZBA, SLD, and the public at both the February 12, 2007
and February 21,2007 ZBA public hearings on SLD's 40B application focused on the
highly controversial issue of the proposed Senior/Community Life Center.
159. However, said discussion was and is irrelevant to Chapter 40B, which has nothing to do
with such civic amenities, but instead, deals exclusively with the issue of affordable
housing.
160. That the Mayor and SLD spent such an extraordinary(even predominate)amount of time
and effort in trying to get the Senior/Community Life Center passed, and the fact that the
minimum number of residential units dedicated to affordable housing is only 20 units(ie.
79 units x 25%), as compared with 34 units approved pursuant to the September 14, 2006
Planning Board Decision, exposes the fact that Chapter 40B is not the proper statutory
basis for SLD's St. Joseph's project.
161. For all of the above reasons in Counts IN inclusive, among others, the Plaintiffs aver that
the Salem ZBA acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority, in approving
said March 8, 2007 Comprehensive Permit Decision.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
- 19-
i
s
! a. enter a Judgment in their favor annulling in full the March 8, 2007 Comprehensive
Permit Decision of the Salem ZBA:
` b. award the Plaintiffs cost and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with their
prosecution of this appeal;
i c. grant such other relief as is just and expedient.
Respectfully submitted_,
William Dzierzek et al
By their attorney,
March 28, 2007
Jo H. r., sq.
9 North Stree
Salem, MA 970
978-825-0 0
BBO# 281
- 20 -
¢osutrr.�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
1 BOARD OF APPEAL
x
F Z
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
FFF ��P TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595
FAX, 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL
MAYOR
r-+
March 8, 2007
Decision J
Petition of Salem Lafayette Development , LLC requesting <.9
Comprehensive Permit for the property Cn y
at 135 Lafayette Street —
City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on February 12, 2007 and continued to
February,21, 2007 pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 40B. The following Zoning
Board members were present: Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne, Steven Pinto, Elizabeth Debski,
Bonnie Belair and Annie Harris.
The petitioner, Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, sought a Comprehensive Permit under MGL
Chapter 40B to allow the renovation of the former rectory and school buildings, and the
construction of a new six-story building for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,
in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zoning district.
The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence and testimony presented at the
public hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following findings
of fact:
1. Salem Lafayette Development LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company with an office
c/o Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc., 84 State Street, Suite 600, Boston, Massachusetts
02109 (together with its successors and assigns, the "Applicant")has requested that the
Board issue pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40B ("Chapter 40B")a
comprehensive permit for the construction of a three-building, multi-family apartment/
condominium complex with approximately 18,400 square feet of commwrity space(the
Development")on 2.6 acres of land located at the intersection of Lafayette Street and
Harbor Street in Salem, Massachusetts consisting of a parcel shown on Assessor's Map 34 as
Parcel 0307(the "Property"). The Applicant submitted to the Board a formal application on
January 24, 2007 accompanied by preliminary civil engineering and architectural plans for
the Development(the "Application"). As to environmental matters, the Applicant
submitted to the Board an Environmental Site Assessment prepared by DeRosa
Environmental Consulting, Inc. dated October 26, 2004.
A TRUE dkCOPY ATTEST
OSTI1460477.7 finqcegWL4; "�
BOSTIW62730.1 SALEM
MASS.
i
's 2. The Applicant has complied with the procedural requirements of Chapter 40B, Section 21 for
submission of an application for a comprehensive permit. The Applicant requested a
comprehensive permit pursuant to Chapter 40B because the Development qualifies as low-
and/or moderate-income housing as defined in Sections 20-23 of Chapter 40B. The Property
is located in an R-3 zoning district under the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning
Ordinance"). The Applicant has submitted a list of provisions under the Zoning Ordinance
with which the Development will not comply, including, without limitation, exceptions
related to permitted uses, height, density, off-street parking, site plan review and
development permits.
3. The Board conducted public hearings on the Application on February 12, 2007, and February
21, 2007.
4. As part of its deliberations, the Board found that there exists a need for the production of new
affordable housing, given certain facts including but not limited to the following: The City
of Salem FY 07 One—Year Action Plan describes the tremendous local need for additional
affordable housing and makes funding the production of new affordable rental housing units
a priority. The following are among the factors contributing to this need, as identified in the
aforementioned document:
a. The waiting period for a standard applicant for Salem Housing Authority/State
housing for families is 4-5+ years or more;
b. A family waiting for Section 8 will wait 3+ years;
c. 24.6% of Salem homeowners are paying thirty percent or more of their income in
monthly housing costs (and, as such, are housing cost burdened);
d. 35.5% of Salem renters are paying thirty percent or more of their income in
monthly housing costs (and, as such, are housing cost burdened);
e. The housing homeowner vacancy rate is .9% and the rental vacancy rate is 2.5%,
indicating that the supply of available housing in Salem is dramatically low; and
f. The demand for subsidized housing far exceeds the supply. People on waiting
lists for units or vouchers must wait several years before an opening is available.
In addition to the above, 43.7% of homeowners in the Point Neighborhood experience
housing cost burdens (as compared to the 24.6% Citywide noted above) and, according to the
2000 Census, 49% of housing units in Salem are owner occupied as compared to 15.5%
owner occupied housing units in the Point Neighborhood. Regarding income information as
an indicator of need, the median household income in Salem, based upon the 2000 Census,
was $44,033, and a household at this income could afford to spend approximately$1,100 per
month on housing expenses. The median income for the Point Neighborhood was $26,691,
and a household at this income could afford to spend $677 per month on housing expenses.
5. This comprehensive permit requires that the Development be constructed in compliance with
the standards of the Massachusetts Building Code. Furthermore, the conditions of this
comprehensive permit require the design of the Development to incorporate features to
mitigate potential impacts on the health and safety of the occupants of the Development and
occupants of the neighborhood.
-2-
BOSTI\460477.7
BOSTI\462730.1
r -
l
6. The Applicant will own the Development through a single purpose entity that will be a
limited dividend or, eligible to receive a subsidy under the federal low income
housing tax credit program (the "LIHTC Program") and the federal HOME Investment
Partnerships Program (the "HOME Program"), both administered by the Massachusetts
Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD"); therefore, the Applicant is
an eligible recipient of a comprehensive permit. The Applicant has shown evidence of its
interest in the Property sufficient to qualify it as a recipient for a comprehensive permit.
7. During the course of the hearing on the Application, the Board took testimony from
interested citizens and received correspondence from various boards including the Planning
Board, the Board of Health, the City Engineer, the Inspector of Buildings, the Conservation
Commission, and the Fire Department. The correspondence incorporated by reference the
results of several months of review and study of the Development by City boards and
departments in connection with related applications for the Development.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence and testimony presented at the
public hearing, including, but not limited to the Petition, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The Applicant has met the various requirements of Chapter 40B and the regulations
Promulgated thereunder regarding the status of the Applicant.
•
2. In permitting said Comprehensive Permit, the Board of Appeals requires certain
appropriate conditions to best ameliorate the issues raised by the construction of the
Development, as well as responding to other potential concerns regarding health and
safety of the occupants of the Development and of occupants of the neighborhood. The
Board finds that the conditions as noted below will serve to best protect the community
and the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed Development.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five(5) in favor(Cohen,
Dionne, Debski, Belair, Harris) and none (0) opposed, to grant the Comprehensive Permit to the
Applicant under the provisions of G.L. c. 40B, §§20-23 for the construction of up to 67 units of
multi-family apartment and condominium housing
at the Property
ncreases allowed
by Condition #32 below), currently estimated to include 30 apartment tunits annd 15 condominium
units in a new four-story building, 8 condominium units in the rehabilitated former rectory
space. The Board approves all exceptions to the Zoning Ordibuilding, and 14 condominium units in the rehabilitated former school building. The new
18,400 square feet of community
four-story building is also expected to contain approximately
and required to construct the Development substantially in acnance requested in the Application
cordance with the Plans,
and conditioned upon the following requirements captioned " subject to
Conditions ofApproval
Conditions of Approval
1• Conformance with Plans; General. The Development shall conform to the plans
listed on Exhibit A attached hereto, copies of which are on file with the Board
(the "Plans"), as they may be modified in the process of preparing construction
drawings in conformance with the conditions set forth below. Any approvals
BOSTn460477.7 -3-
BOSTI\462730.1
t
1
required under the conditions listed below shall be made in a timely manner and
in the event of any conflict among any of the boards or officers required to give
approvals under the conditions listed below or between the Applicant and any
such board or officer, the Board will have authority to resolve any such conflict.
t
2. Number of Units. Except as provided in Condition #32 below, no more than
67 total dwelling units shall be constructed in a multi-family complex consisting
of three (3) residential buildings as identified in the Plans. The unit types and
bedroom mix will be substantially in accordance with the Plans, provided that the
Applicant shall be permitted to reduce the size of the Development by eliminating
units of one or more different types and bedroom sizes.
3. Affordability. As required by Chapter 40B, no less than twenty-five percent of
the units approved for the Development shall be affordable in perpetuity to
individuals and/or families earning not more than eighty percent (80%) of the area
median income for the Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by HUD
on an annual basis ("Qualified Households"). In addition to the foregoing, the
Applicant has agreed that at least an additional 10% of the units approved for the
Development shall be affordable in perpetuity to Qualified Households, for a total
level of affordability of at least thirty-five percent(35%). The affordable units
shall be located in the new four-story building to be constructed on the Property.
4. Salem Resident Preference. During the initial lease-up/sale period, Salem
residents who properly apply for lease/purchase of an affordable unit and who
meet all qualification requirements for acceptance as determined by the Applicant
shall receive a preference for 70% of the affordable units at the Development, to
the extent permitted under state and federal fair housing laws and applicable
subsidy programs. After such initial lease-up period, qualified Salem residents
shall have a preference as stated above for 70% of the affordable apartment units
as they become available for re-leasing, provided no one is ahead of such Salem
resident on an established waiting list. For purposes of this Condition #4, the
term"Salem residents"shall mean:
(a) Current City Resident: at least one member of the applicant's household is
currently a resident of the City of Salem; or
(b) Family Connection to the City:
• At least one member of the applicant's household is a parent or child of a
Current City Resident or
• At least one member of the applicant's household is a parent of a child
enrolled in a Salem public school system (K-12) at the time of the application;
or
(c) Current or Retired City Employee:
• At least one member of the applicant's household is a current employee of the
City, or
• at least one member of the applicant's household is a former employee of the
City who (a) had been employed by the City and (b) at the time of the
-4-
BOSTI\460477.7
BOSTI\462730.1
I
a
d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that
they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave
the site.
e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all
rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Salem.
f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located
completely on the site. .
g. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be
submitted by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Included in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding
how the construction equipment will be stored, a description of the
construction staging area and its location in relation to the site, and where
the construction employees will park their vehicles. The plan and
schedule shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the
issuance of a building permit. All storage of materials and equipment will
be on site.
h. Special attention shall be paid by the Applicant to locate the statue of
St. Joseph reported to be buried on the site. If said statue is located, the
Applicant shall work with the Archdiocese of Boston to resolve its status,
and if feasible, as determined by the City Planner based on documentation
from the Applicant to preserve it in accordance with the requirements of
the Archdiocese.
9. Clerk of the Works. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the
expense of the Applicant, its successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the
City Planner.
10. Traffic Mitigation. The Applicant agrees to contribute $20,000 toward a
study/design of intersection and traffic improvements at Lafayette Street. Such
payment shall be made to the City upon the Applicant's receipt of a building
permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site.
11. Fire Department. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire
Department prior to the issuance of any building permits.
12. Building Inspector. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem
Building Inspector.
13. Board of Health
a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the
Health Agent of the name, address, and telephone number of the project
-6-
BOSTI\460477.7
BOSTI\462730.1
(site) manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the
construction of the project.
b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for the site under the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site
Professional responsible for the site certifies that soil and ground water for
the entire site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use.
C. The Applicant shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the City
Engineer.
d. The Applicant shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate
the area prior to construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a
copy of the exterminator's invoice to the Health Agent.
e. The Applicant shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout
construction.
f. The Applicant shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust
control and street sweeping which will occur during construction.
g. The Applicant shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for
containment and removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable
excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction.
h. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire
fighting.
i. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations,
including but not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the
broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels
measured at the property line.
j. The Applicant shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of
any fill material needed for the project.
k. If a rock crusher is on site, a plan for placement of the crusher must be
approved by the Health Agent prior to placement and use.
1. Plans for food a establishment must be presented to the Health Agent and
approved prior to construction.
M. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting
from its operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to
the Board of Health.
n. The Applicant shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete
for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
BOSTI\460477.7 _7
BOSTI\462730.1
i
2
t
14. Utilities
a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All on site electrical utilities
shall be located underground.
b. The Applicant shall clean the drain line on Dow Street downstream from
the work site to Salem St. preventing any debris from entering the
downstream pipes.
15. Department of Public Services. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements
of the Department of Public Services.
16. Signage. Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner
and the Sign Review Committee.
17. Lighting
a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way.
b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
C. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
18. HVAC. If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually
screened. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City
Planner for review and approval prior to installation.
19. Lafayette Park. The Applicant and its successors and assigns agree to contribute
$1,500.00 per year to the City of Salem for the purpose of creating a fund for the
ongoing maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park. Such payment shall be made
to the Department of Planning and Community Development t comm
encin upon
the receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed
for the site and on June 1 of each year thereafter.
20. Landscaping.
a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of
plans, with the following revision: the Applicant shall locate columnar
trees along the perimeter of the site where they believe they are most
appropriate and shall submit a revised landscaping plan reflecting this
placement to the City Planner for review and approval, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
b. Trees shall be a minimum diameter of 3 %2"dbh (diameter breast height).
-8-
BOSTI\460477.7
BOSTI\462730.1 - -
b
f
C. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the
Applicant, his successors or assigns.
d. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The
location of any replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner
prior to replanting.
e. Final completed landscaping, done in accordance with the approved set of
plans, shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for
consistency with such plans, to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
f Fencing shall be installed along the property line on Salem Street and
directly abutting the residences on Dow Street. The section of fencing
along Salem Street shall be a four-foot black industrial grade aluminum.
The section of fencing along the residences along Dow Street shall be
wooden. Details and specifications for the fencing shall be submitted to
the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
21. Maintenance.
a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the
responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns.
b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed
off site.
C. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the
Applicant. The Applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all
trees and shrubs for a two- (2) year period, from issuance of the Certificate
of Occupancy and completion of planting.
22. As-built Plans. As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer,
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development
and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file
format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
A completed tie card, a blank copy(available at the Engineering Department) and
a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work
was completed in substantial compliance with the design ng drawimust be
submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy;
as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer.
-9-
BOSTI\460477.7
BOSTI W62730.1
i
I
{
Community Life Center operation. When the Community Life Center is
closed those spaces shall first be available for overnight parking by
residents of the Development and then, as and if available, as additional
off-street parking for residents of the neighborhood.
33. Reuse of Rectory and School Buildings. The former rectory and school buildings
existing on the site shall be reused in the Development in accordance with the
Plans, and best efforts shall be made to maintain the existing historic character of
these buildings.
Nina Cohen, Chair
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter
40B and Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of
this decision in the office of the City Clerk. The Comprehensive Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a
copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds.
A TRUE COPY ATTEST ,
SALEM, MASS.
-11-
BOSTt\460477.7
BOSTI W62730.1
4
1
s
t
1
1
23. Building Materials. Illustrations and/or samples of exterior building materials,
{ which shall be predominantly red brick, shall be submitted to the City Planner for
'_. approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
24. Violations. Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation
of this permit by the Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a
majority vote of the Board.
25. Compliance With Laws. Applicant shall comply with all city and state statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
26. Smoke and Fire Safety. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative
to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to.
27. Building Permit. Applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any
construction.
28. Certificates of Occupancy. Certificates of Occupancy are to be obtained.
29. Certificates of Inspection. Certificates of Inspection, as required, shall be
obtained.
30. Street Numbering. Applicant shall obtain street numbering from the City of
Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the
street.
31. Height. The proposed new construction shall not exceed four stories or 50 feet in
height, not including mechanical systems equipment.
32. Community Life Center.
a. The principal use of the first floor of the new building shall be a municipal
use to include a Community Life Center. In the event that(1) all
permitting and financing requirements necessary for the Community Life
Center to be built in a timely manner cannot be met; and/or(2) the
Applicant and the City do not execute a mutually acceptable agreement
regarding the use and operation of the Community Life Center(including
but not limited to the use and operation of the dedicated parking spaces
described in subparagraph (b) below), the Applicant shall not be required
to include the Community Life Center in the Development and the
Applicant may use the first floor of the new building for residential units
and community space (provided that in no event shall the total number of
residential units in the Development exceed 79 units). The Applicant may
not use the first floor of the new building for any other purpose without
obtaining prior Board review.
b. Forty-five(45) dedicated parking spaces shall be made available to the
City for use by the Community Life Center during any and all hours of
-10-
BOSTI\460477.7
BOSTI\462730.1 - --
z
f
1
EXHIBIT A
LIST OF ATTACHED DRAWINGS
February 21, 2007
Preliminary Site Development Plans
Civil Engineering
• Title Sheet, February 21, 2007
• ALTA Survey, June 14, 2005
• Layout and Materials Plan (C-1.1), February 21, 2007
• Utility and Grading Plan (C-2.1), February 21, 2007
• Planting Plan (C-3.1), February 21, 2007
• Site Details (C-4.1), February 21, 2007
• Site Details (C-4.2), February 21, 2007
• Site Details (C-4.3), February 21, 2007
• Turning Movement Plan, (C-5.1), February 21, 2007
Preliminary Architectural Plans
Architectural Design
New Construction Building (Four Story)
• Rendering, February 21, 2007
• Title Sheet, (Tt.00), February 21, 2007
• Basement Plan (A1.01), February 21, 2007
• First Floor Plan (A1.02), February 21, 2007
• Second Floor Plan (Al.03), February 21, 2007
• Third Floor Plan (A 1.04), February 21, 2007
• Fourth Floor Plan (A 1.05), February 21, 2007
• Exterior Elevations (A 4.01), February 21, 2007
• Exterior Elevations (A 4.02), February 21, 2007
School Building Rehabilitation
• Ground Floor Plan, August 10, 2005
• First Floor Plan, August 10, 2005
• Second Floor Plan, August 10, 2005
• Exterior Elevation Photographs
Rectory Building Rehabilitation
• Basement Floor Plan, August 10, 2005
• First Floor Plan, August 10, 2005
-12-
- BOSTI\460477.7
BOSTI\462730.1
t
i
• Second Floor Plan, August 10, 2005
• Third Floor Plan August 10, 2005
f • Exterior Elevation Photographs
-13-
BOSTI\460477.7
BOSTIW62730.1
f
M
ST. JOSEPH'S REDEVELOPMENT
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT
February 21, 2007
EXHIBIT B
• Salem Council on Aging
• North Shore Elder Services
• American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Salem Chapter
Polish League of American Veterans (PLAY)
• Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 1524
• Veteran's Affairs, City of Salem
• Explorers Lifelong Leaming Institute of Salem State College, Inc.
• Masonic Temple Association
• Houses of Worship of all denominations throughout Salem
i
i
f
RECTORY BUILDING
• REHABILITATION
• 8 UNITS
� L
a
f
c
� j i
w ] a
a
v
N
z . F
y a N
J M
1
T
C �1
� P�
p , w
i
� y �
1
i
h � 8
P�-� y � P
Q � x
N
a' , P
�+
c D �
N
P R
o ; �
N Y Y
y;IHJJ
0 ��v
z� °� `.z s a
� ;V m � �
3
9 i'
�9P i f � \fin
y�fE - ,,jy
3
n
4 a
P
7 � 1
q N p a d
OJ yl h G2
coowO
y d , a
_ O o
D
y a
•j N
MC P
vn
y i
CDmo
u y
00
u a
3
�--
z o•
Rd
Rd
rx
� " 9
r
r :
add '
z omo.�
2 V g F
8 rap
E
t
{
�'tECt _ s shy
s
o r av { f
2 �
0
/COIAMON
;43
iIm � W r
3 � ❑ e# n1��yry���"y
e'
y
V 4 �
A m
4
Y
K4 S
G �
1 ;
m
� LL
; s
a
J d FO
y
d�
t
0
p y ® h
*it ' r tr!
CoMtAo
IL
r7
w G Y
Y 0
Y
_M
I O
O
d
P e,
J` J
re
: m
h y�
Al f 8
UL y o
r. a „ V
k
1
r
"
♦f o fi�� �I f a� a µt'
,�c+�i•ooa -,� ri �" ::`yam d�';
t a. -
MIR
OR r _S� 2 9. a t f +y. r,y '.• 4�i-a /'
� � �� a ��9 a� r-, � � :ate .h `.e 7 F�� c•, a+
a '
] ^L
" �^�3A r .-�Ty i ���„•'^•-q �e x'+tr N,�.y�+..ah�l�a tL^A' ��:_:
•:z���z b. tvsfM,. N '�.�3r1� .� �.+.��f � _� , +;p.
SCHOOL BUILDING
• REHABILITATION
• 14 UNITS
e
t
t
F
t Z�SEC` �4
v r1<
COMMON
r A y Syr
1
K
X M
O � y
r ,p
J =_
0' v
u r
h u
r
a f
R X
d
o.
•4
Y r X
J 4 i
m O n
1
is
eo Y o
A 9
fL—
U
{9
1. •. J m � a
V
'lt :.2Tag-dwh,,
LR LZ
ER i 1430 SP
Mot-,L sR-1 IgpC se
®R-1
�p
CL
/� a• K Dn
9p
STeiq O p
MEwt 4E�pTOR --1 t���
C-.0.0.100(t
1
so , K oD t
o , a
UD
E R 76a sF uc S¢
S90 w E/o
Tdo sF ee
'ss.ZaeiF'lT"9RQ snt_[r:..mx .
\S�ERED ARC
Qom^ i� M f
2a:.\�
.. _
t�.
O /N�
J
G
�H OF MPSS�r
MSEC` Iy
i w o S
>a o f
0
d m tir.
8y�t s+or
com
f u
•.
/ cd
N
j 8 QI Y
V� I
4 L
A
J l
V
O 1�
0 y
O j Q G
m Y• � W _
2
N
R c n
K O
A � m
i
a
0
LL. r f• � -
ti
LL
Q
Q 1
l
p r •
N
1
1
1 a
i
� r
1
x
- �'� - � 1+ lir-Ci5G9 lam..� �'Lc�$tCaeYVb ��r�a.•��, Y'�
_ yd3
-
- -
iL
its
3
IleFZFT
TM _
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD O►-AP►EAL
120 WAsH*d 0H SrnEET. 3wo FLooR .. a Jfi I1,
SALEM. MAasAcmusETTS 01970
TELIPMONE: 978.745.9595
FAX: 978.740.9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL = }�
MAYOR
AGENDA
BOARD OF APPEAL MEEMG
JaMNU 717,2007.6:30 PAL
3RD FLOOR,ROOM 3.13 - 120 WASHINamN STREET
L Discussion of Chapter 40B(Comprehensive Per Law)–Jerry Patiaella
2. Condonation of Petition,of Lewis Legon requesting a gpedd Permit to allow existing
man-c dooming o83cea to be caBvaRed to six(6)residential utter for the peopett7
located at 48 BRIDGE SPBSRP–R-2 DWIMCL
3. Continuation of Petition of Peter and Cheryl Bagau&nequesdag a Varimm from
maxiouam height of hum and boundary walls to allow it six(6)font doolradn fmx to rs
be constructed on top of a newly constructed scene wall for the property located at 28
MARLBOROUGHROAD–R-1 DISfRIg.
4. Continuation of Petition of W=had Viola requesting a SpnCW Poor&to ebnp the use
of the existing non-confox>mrg atrwwn from a two(2)stay comme:dal sanctace to a
three(3) story residential structrae with five(5)dwelling units,and Vadamw from the
maxi®density and pati requirements for the propetty located at 17-1.9 BALEN
STREET–R-3 DIS7WCT.
5. Petition of Richard Ness requesting a Special Permit to construct an addition 1.a on.
conforming structure for the property located at 27-29 ALBION STREET–R.1
DISTRICT,
6. Petition of Joseph Reithm requesting Variances from lot sire and lot width to alba a
structure to be relocated to the lot Lot width is 45.5 feels instead of the required 100 feet
and lot size is 7,383 sq.fR instead of the requited 15,000 sq-1 The property L located at
14 BUTLER STREET–R•2 DISTRICT.
7. Petition of Na io9al Orifi Wodesa mpesting Vsdaoces from dde and rear asbatrjr to
construct a free-standing structure for the property at 131 CANAL STREICT–II
DISTRICT.
8. Oldvew Business
a. Adoption of 2007 Yearly schedule of anedngs
9. Adjournment
his notice poai'!:ci ..n "0lficin! Waktin Board` Nma Cohen.Chak —
)ty Hall Ave., Sea. it. Aen'1 Zoning Board ofAppeaL
2A 3 2-0 Gi
CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
Kimberley Driscoll
Mayor
January 17,2007
Honorable Salem City Council
93 Washington Street
Salem,Massachusetts 01970
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:
I am writing to update you with regard to correspondence recently received f rom the State
Division of Housing and Community Developmetit,in connection with a par enffai'
Comprehensive Permit Application at the former St. Joseph's Church site.
As you know, last)ear the Planning Office of Urban Affairs(POUA)received local appoval
from both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board for a six story, 97 unit,nixed-
use development at the St. Joe's site. Unfortuneftly,the permits were appeared and the litigation
has dragged on for a number of months, causing not only delays to construct on,but increases in
costs related to legal fees and debt service for POUA. As a result,POUA is •:onsidering
alternative options to develop this site. One of these alternatives may consis of a
Comprehensive Permit Application to the ZBA, commonly referred to as a"40B approval".
Essentially, a Comprehensive Permit allows a developer to obtain QW permi:from the ZBA for a
development project that includes a percentage of affordable housing. The c dteria for review of
such projects is essentially the same as the site plan review poxesis recently lmdertaken by our
local boards, however the appeal process for such projects is streamlined at the state level.
I have had some very preliminary discussions with POUA regarding this process and the
proposed project I anticipate that further dialogue with Wives fi;orr POUA will take
place over the course of the next week, following which I would expect to submit formal
correspondence regarding the status of this project to the City Council prior lo your next
mating. I am writing to you today because members of the MA wee informed of a pofenfial
Comprehensive Permit Application and were briefed on the 40Bprocess by tye Assistant City
Solicitor at tonight's ZBA meeting. I know that this project is of interest to a number of you and
wanted you to be aware of the most recent goings-on,as well as the fimct that I expect to have
additional details to share with you shortly. I am scheduled for jury duty tormomow,but hope to
be in the office at some point during the day. Please feel free to contact me with any further
questions of concerns related to this topic. Thank you.
Very try Yom,
Kimberley Driscoll
mayor
CITY OF SALEM
cI l 'r OF s„QEF!. MA
PLANNING BOARD CLERK*S OFFICE
Notice of Meeting nn JAN 25 P * 22
You am hereby notified that the Sakur
February 1.2007. at 7:00 PM in Room 31P 3�� FlooBoszdr
will bold its x8u�t�jr eeticg on 2huoday,
>Third Floor u t20 Washes S�
W Pove; II
Chairmen
L Approval of Mina tee
• janua.ty 4 2007 msec;,$
2. Condouarion of Public Hearing-Site Plan R”, v and Wetlands acd Flood
Joseph omen al atipm=-North River CanA LLC -28 Goodlum Stora(MV 16, _
-r 3. Continuation of fuW Hearing-Drive Through Fadfidea Spm pPun is
�p 8. Lots99, � 104 snd 1 Tj:5)_J y Saks and d 7'-262.272 and site
�-joaeph Caaeaei Highland Ave
0. Old/New Buaitaea8
This q!tlic
o hosted cn 'Chicial Bulletin Board•
City Avo., "' Wam. Mass. on ;::W olS boa/
21A 938 of M IQ.it'aEut >w ''4!h Chop 39 er
$TOMCr, SALE34. MABaAC"us"rs 0'970 • TM,: 978.745.9595 FAIL 978.740.0404 wWW aALa14.COa1
John H. Carr,Jr., Esq.
9 North Street
Salem, MA 01970
Phone: 978-825-0060
Fax: 978-825-0068
October 2, 2006
By Hand _<j
Salem City Clerk co
City Hall _� rrn
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970 rr--<
30 0 rn
Re: William Dzierzek et al vs. w
Salem Lafayette Development, LLC et al 1' —
r
Dear Mrs. LaPointe: f
Enclosed please find Notice of Appeal To Essex Superior Court From September 14,
2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision Of The Salem Planning
Board Concerning 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Would you or someone from your office kindly date-stamp and file same, and also
acknowledge receipt of the foregoing by date-stamping the enclosed copy of this letter
and return same with our messenger.
Thank you in advance for your attention to the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
Enc. John H. Carr, Jr.
cc Plaintiffs
Thomas St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector—By Hand
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community D velopment—By Hand
Clerk, Salem Planning Board—By Hand
Clerk, Salem Zoning Board of Appeal—By Hand
Joseph C. Correnti, Esq.—By Hand
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO:
WILLIAM DZIERZEK, ERIC EASLEY,JOHN GOFF, )
DOCTOR MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI, LINDA )
LOCKE,ANTHONY MIRABITO,LINDA MIRABITO, )
SOLANGE MARCHAND, JEAN MARTIN,NANCY A.
MOORE, THOMAS STRUCKMAN, MARIA ) « o
TRINDADE, RODRIGO TRINDADE,LAURENT
OUELLETTE,ANA PANIAGUA,DIONICIA FLORIAN, ) T
ANTOINETTE C. SANCHEZ,JANE E. GAMMON, ) cn C-3 w
BRIAN TASHJIAN, CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, ROBERT) >M
BOZARJIAN, ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN,JULIAN ) o p rn
NENSHATI, DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY,
SCOTT GALBER, T. ERIC BERUBE,DOMENICA ) > _
INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI,ROBERSON D. )
TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO,MARY C. )
LESCH, GARY R. JENKINS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, )
SHAWN M. O'BRIEN,RALPH BERRY,DOROTHY A. )
FORTIN, ROSARIO BELTRE, CONSTANCE SANFORD,)
and JORDAN CASTRO, PLAINTIFFS )
V. )
SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT,LLC,and )
EUGENE COLLINS, PAUL DURAND, TIMOTHY E. )
KAVANAGH, PAMELA LOMBARDINI, JOHN )
MOUSTAKIS, CHARLES PULED,TIMOTHY REIDY, )
CHRISTINE SULLIVAN,and WALTER B. POWER,III, )
CHAIRMAN, BEING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING )
BOARD OF THE CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS,)
DEFENDANTS )
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT FROM
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 SITE PLAN REVIEW/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DECISION OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD
CONCERNING 135 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
John H. Carr, Jr., attorney for the above-named Plaintiffs, hereby gives notice to the City Clerk
of the City of Salem, Massachusetts, and to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeal
respectively of the City of Salem, Massachusetts, that said Plaintiffs have appealed the
September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem
Planning Board granting Salem Lafayette Development, LLC a planned unit development
("PUD")with respect to the former St.Joseph's church complex at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,
Massachusetts, which Decision was filed with the office of the Salem City Clerk on September
14, 2006.
A copy of the Complaint filed as Essex Superior Court Civil action no. on
October 2,2006 is attached hereto.
William Dzierzek et al,
By their attorney,
October 2, 2006
John H. Carr, Jr.,Esq.
9 North Street
Salem, MA 01970
978-825-0060
B"075281
- 2 -
CIVIL ACTION
COVER SKEET Superior court ®e�latttt�e�t
County:
Countyy:
PLAINTIFF(S) - DEFENDANT(S) . tea, D,-Q { I
�JAE(la 2 I I�Z� f� ui I /v1e,+ aea C �0.�.
ATTORNEY FIRM NAME,ADDRESSANDTELEJI}ONE ATTORNEY (if known)
uhf, t
q� A)o� ��$by tom- 011'7 6
Board of-Bar Overseers number: 6 <C2 Z ? I - -
Origin code and tract designation
Pla e an x in one box only: ❑ 4. F04 District Court Appeal c.231, s. 97 &104 (After
1. F01 Original Complaint trial) (X)
❑ 2. F02 Removal to Sup.Ct. C.231,s.104 ❑ 5. F05 Reactivated after rescript relief from
(Before trial) (F) judgment/Order (Mass.R.Civ.P. 60) (X)
❑ 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup.Ct. C.231,s.102C (X) ❑ 6. E10 Summary Process Appeal (X)
TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See reverse,side)
CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE?
Yes ( ) No
The following is a full, itemi ed and detailed statement of the facts on which plaintiff relies to determine
money damages. For this form, disregard double or treble damage claims; indicate single damages only.
TORT CLAIMS
(Attach additional sheets as necessary)
A. Documented medical expenses to date:
1. Total hospital expenses . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$
2. Total Doctor expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o —
3. Total chiropractic expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . $ . , , ;:..
4. Total physical therapy expensesT -'C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Total other expenses (describe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,N . . $ , , . u;c,,. . . . .
Subwtal $. . . '.
.. . . . . .
-�
B. Documented lost wages and compensation to date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .
T.�
C. Documented property damages to date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $. . _.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Reasonably anticipated future medical and hospital expenses 4
E. Reasonably anticipated lost wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F. Other documented items of damages (describe)
$ . . . . . . . . . . . .
G. Brief description of plaintiff's injury, including nature and extent of injury (describe)
$ . . . . . . . . . . . .
TOTAL $. . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTRACT CLAI
(Attach additional sheets amp
Provide a detailed description of claim(s): IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF ESSEX
SEP 2 2 2006
TOTAL $. . . . . . . . . . .
PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER, NAME AND _7101-14 I RE016 I `l `WENDING IN THE SUPERIOR
COURT DEPARTMENT CLERK
"I hereby certify that I have complied with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules t
Dispute Resolution (SJC Rule 1:18 re uirin t t I provide my clients with information about court-connected dispu
resolution services and discuss vyath-t e 3 va tage and disadvantages of the various methods."
Signature of Attorney of Reord i DATE;
AOTC-6 mi005-11/99
2
A.O.S.C.1000 -
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: '2 bO G - ( �Z
WILLIAM DZIERZEK, ERIC EASLEY, JOHN GOFF, )
DOCTOR MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI, LINDA )
LOCKE, ANTHONY MIRABITO, LINDA MIRAB:ITO, )
SOLANGE MARCHAND, JEAN MARTIN, NANCY A. )
MOORE, THOMAS STRUCKMAN, MARIA ) o
TRINDADE, RODRIGO TRINDADE, LAURENT
OUELLETTE, ANA PANIAGUA, DIONICIA FLORIAN, )
ANTOINETTE C. SANCHEZ, JANE E. GAMMON,
BRIAN TASHJIAN, CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, ROBERT) ^? }
BOZARJIAN, ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN, JULIAN ) D
NENSHATI, DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, )
SCOTT GALBER, T. ERIC BERUBE, DOMENICA ) _
INGEMI, STEPHEN C. fNGEMI, ROBERSON D. ) ca Y
TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO,MARY C. )
LESCH, GARY R. JENKINS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, )
SHAWN M. O'BRIEN, RALPH BERRY, DOROTHY A. ) P 0
FORTIN, JOHN J. PHELAN, ROSARIO BELTRE, ) IN THF ='U"'�-HI R COURT
ORILLE L'HEUREUX, CONSTANCE SANFORD, and ) FOR THE: UOUNIY OF ESSEX
JORDAN CASTRO, PLAINTIFFS 22006
V.
SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and ) GLERK
BONNIE BELAIR, BETH DEBSKI, ANNIE HARRIS, )
STEPHEN PINTO, ROBIN STEIN, RICHARD DIONNE, )
and NINA COHEN, CHAIRPERSON, BEING REGULAR)
and ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD)
OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, )
MASSACHUSETTS, )
DEFENDANTS )
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT FROM AUGUST 24, 2006 DECISION
OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL GRANTING TWO VARIANCES
CONCERNING 135 LAFAYETTE STREET SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
John H. Carr, Jr., attorney for the above-named Plaintiffs, hereby gives notice to the City Clerk
of the City of Salem, MA and to the Planning Board of the City of Salem, MA that said Plaintiffs
have appealed the August 24, 2006 Decision of the Salem Board of Appeal granting two
variances to Salem Lafayette Development, LLC concerning the former (so-called) St. Joseph's
property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA, one increasing the 45 foot maximum height
restriction to 65 feet, and the other increasing the 3 '/z maximum number of stories to 6 stories,
which Decision was filed with the office of the Salem City Clerk on September 5, 2006.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION NO: 7O 66-- l g
WILLIAM DZIERZEK, ERIC EASLEY, JOHN GOFF, )
DOCTOR MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI, LINDA )
LOCKE, ANTHONY MIRABITO, LINDA MIRABITO, )
SOLANGE MARCHAND, JEAN MARTIN, NANCY A. )
MOORE, THOMAS STRUCKMAN, MARIA )
TRINDADE, RODRIGO TRINDADE, LAURENT )
OUELLETTE,ANA PANIAGUA, DIONICIA FLORIAN, )
ANTOINETTE C. SANCHEZ, JANE E. GAMMON, )
BRIAN TASHJIAN, CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT, ROBERT)
BOZARJIAN, ELIZABETH BOZARJIAN, JULIAN )
NENSHATI, DAVID T. RAMSEY, JEAN E. RAMSEY, )
SCOTT GALBER, T. ERIC BERUBE, DOMENICA )
INGEMI, STEPHEN C. INGEMI, ROBERSON D. )
TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO, MARY C. ) IN 111E SULIOR COURT
LESCH, GARY R. JENKINS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ) FOR THE COUNTY OF ESSEX
SHAWN M. O'BRIEN, RALPH BERRY, DOROTHY A. )
FORTIN, JOHN J. PHELAN, ROSARIO BELTRE, ) SEP 2 2 2006
ORILLE L'HEUREUX, CONSTANCE SANFORD, and )
JORDAN CASTRO, PLAINTIFFS
V. ) CLERK
SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and )
BONNIE BELAIR, BETH DEBSKI, ANNIE HARRIS, )
STEPHEN PINTO, ROBIN STEIN, RICHARD DIONNE, )
and NINA COHEN, CHAIRPERSON, BEING REGULAR )
and ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD)
OF APPEAL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, )
MASSACHUSETTS, )
DEFENDANTS )
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40A SECTION 17
APPEALING AUGUST 24,2006 DECISION OF THE SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL GRANTING TWO VARIANCES CONCERNING 135
LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
This is an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal of Salem, Massachusetts
(hereinafter"the ZBA" or"the Board"), dated August 24, 2006 and filed with the Salem City
Clerk on September 5, 2006, granting variances from the maximum height and maximum
number of story restrictions provided in the Salem Zoning Ordinance as they relate to the so-
called St. Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter"the
subject property" or "the St. Joseph's property") on the grounds that the ZBA's decision was
arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, violated due process, exceeded the Board's authority, was
based on legally and factually untenable grounds, and was wrong as a matter of law.
A certified copy of said August 24, 2006 Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, William Dzierzek, who resides at 146 Summer Street, Danvers, Massachusetts
01923, owns the real estate located at 157 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 10
Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and 12 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts, all of
which abut the subject property, and 176 Lafayette Street, 182 Lafayette Street, and 7
Cedar Street, all in Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are all located in the
immediate neighborhood.
2. Plaintiff, Eric Easley, who resides at 145 Spoffard Road,Boxford, Massachusetts 01921,
owns the real estate located at 266 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 65 Harbor
Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 73 Harbor Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and 38 Salem
Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are located within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem ZBA.
3. Plaintiff,John Goff, is a preservation architect and former Executive Director of Historic
Salem Inc.,who,together with his wife, owns and resides at 194 Lafayette Street, Salem
Massachusetts 01970, which property is also located in the immediate neighborhood.
4. Plaintiff, Dr. Miroslaw Kantorosinski, who resides at 8 Almeda Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, is the owner of 5-5A Ropes Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which
abuts the subject property, and 8-10 Porter Street Court, Salem, Massachusetts, which is
located one block from the subject property, and is located within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem ZBA.
5. Plaintiff, Linda Locke, who resides at I Pickering Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,
owns 44-46 Dow Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 7 Palmer Street, Salem, Massachusetts,
and 13-15 Palmer Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are all within the 300
foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
6. Plaintiffs, Anthony Mirabito and Linda Mirabito, who reside at 8 Nichols Lane,
Middleton, Massachusetts 01949, own 16 Porter Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which
property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
7. Plaintiff, Solange Marchand, owns and resides at 159 Lafayette Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property is an abutter to an abutter of the subject property,
and is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
- 2 -
8. Plaintiff, Jean Martin, who resides at 24 Leavitt Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,
owns(together with her husband) 24 Leavitt Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which is
located in the immediate neighborhood, and solely owns 34 Park Street, Salem
Massachusetts, which is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
9. Plaintiffs, Nancy A. Moore and Thomas Struckman, who reside at 59 Lexington Street,
Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, own the real estate located at 39 Prince Street, Salem,
Massachusetts, which is also located in the immediate neighborhood.
10. Plaintiffs, Maria Trindade and Rodrigo Trindade, own and reside at 40-42 Dow Street,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of
the Salem ZBA.
11. Plaintiff, Laurent Ouellette, who resides at 18 Hershey Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, owns 1 Harbor Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which property is within the 300
foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
12. Plaintiffs, Ana Paniagua and Dionicia Florian, own and reside at 16 Dow Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property abuts the subject property.
13. Plaintiff, Antoinette C. Sanchez, owns and resides at 20 Dow Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property abuts the subject property.
14. Plaintiff,Jane E. Gammon, owns and resides at unit 1, 160 Lafayette Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the
Salem ZBA.
15. Plaintiff, Brian Tashjian, owns and resides at 30 Park Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
16. Plaintiff, Christopher Knight, owns and resides at unit 2a, 56 Ward Street Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, which property is within the 300 foot notice requirement of the
Salem ZBA.
17. Plaintiffs, Robert and Elizabeth Bozarjian, reside at 20 Clark Avenue, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970, and own 9 Park Street, Salem, Massachusetts and 10-12 Park
Street, Salem Massachusetts, which properties are located within the 300 foot notice
requirement of the Salem ZBA.
18. Plaintiff, Julian Nenshati, who resides at 34 Pitman Road, Swampscott, Massachusetts
01907, owns 3 Rope Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property is located
within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
19. Plaintiffs, David T. Ramsey and Jean E. Ramsey, who reside at 58 Gregory Island Road,
South Hamilton, Massachusetts 01982, own 12 Palmer Street, Salem, Massachusetts and
- 3 -
15-17 Leavitt Street, Salem,Massachusetts, which properties are located within the 300
foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
20. Plaintiff, Scott Galber, who resides at unit 5, 22 Winter Street, Salem, Massachusetts,
01970, owns 65 Harbor Street, 69-71 Harbor Street, 22-24 Prince Street, and 27 Salem
Street, all in Salem, Massachusetts, which properties are located within the 300 foot
notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
21. Plaintiff, T. Eric Berube, owns and resides at 191 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts
01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood.
22. Plaintiffs, Stephen C. higemi and Domenica Ingemi, own and reside at 7 Fairfield Street,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood.
23. Plaintiffs, Roberson D. Troncoso and Clariza J. Troncoso, own and reside at unit 4, 10
Porter Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,which property is located in the immediate
neighborhood.
24. Plaintiff, Mary C. Lesch, owns and resides at 15 Cedar Street, Salem,Massachusetts
01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood.
25. Plaintiff, Gary R. Jenkins, owns and resides at 5 Pond Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood.
26. Plaintiffs, Shawn M. O'Brien and Patricia D. O'Brien, own and reside at 21 Cedar Street,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970, and also own 23-25 Cedar Street, Salem, Massachusetts,
which properties are located in the immediate neighborhood.
27. Plaintiff,Ralph Berry, owns and resides at 3 Chase Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,
which property is located in the immediate neighborhood.
28. Plaintiff, Dorothy A. Fortin, owns and resides at 2 Cherry Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood.
29. Plaintiff,John J. Phelan, owns and resides at 3 Fairfield Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood.
30. Plaintiff, Rosario Beltre, owns and resides at 15 Harrison Ave, Salem, Massachusetts,
01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood.
31. Plaintiff, Orille L'Heureux, who resides at 22 Francis Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, owns 87 Congress Street, Salem, Massachusetts,which property is located in the
immediate neighborhood.
-4 -
32. Plaintiff, Constance Sanford, owns and resides at 19 Park Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem
ZBA.
33. Plaintiff, Jordan Castro, who resides at 2 Station Road, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,
owns 15 %2 Palmer Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which property is located within the 300
foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA.
34. Defendant, Salem Lafayette Development, LLC (hereinafter"SLD"), is a non-profit
development corporation with headquarters at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970; is the owner of the former St. Joseph's property at 135 Lafayette
Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970; and is the recipient of the two August 24, 2006
variances from the Salem ZBA herewith being appealed.
35. Defendant, Bonnie Belair(hereinafter "Ms. Belair"), whose mailing address is P.O. Box
685, Sa?em, Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA who voted to
grant said variances at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing. (This was the only address
available from the Salem ZBA.)
36. Defendant, Beth Debski (hereinafter"Ms. Debski"), who resides at 43 Calumet Street,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA, who voted to
grant said variances at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing.
37. Defendant, Annie Hams(hereinafter"Ms. Harris"), who resides at 28 Chestnut Street,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA, who voted to grant
said variances at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing.
38. Defendant, Stephen Pinto (hereinafter"Mr. Pinto"), who resides at 55 Columbus Avenue,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA,who voted to grant
said variances at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing.
39. Defendant, Robin Stein (hereinafter"Ms. Stein"), who resides at 141 Fort Avenue,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is an alternate member of the Salem ZBA, who voted to
grant said variances at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing, and is the author of the August
24, 2006 Decision
40. Defendant, Nina Cohen, who resides at 22 Chestnut Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,
is the Chairperson of the Salem Board of Appeal. She did not participate in the August
23, 2006 ZBA hearing, or the August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision.
41. Defendant, Richard Dionne, who resides at 23 Gardner Street, Salem, Massachusetts
01970, is a regular member of the Salem ZBA. He did not participate in the August 23,
2006 ZBA hearing, or the August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision.
42. All of the foregoing Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action, as all are substantially
aggrieved by the August 24, 2006 Decision of the Salem ZBA granting said variances.
- 5 -
JURISDICTION
43. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the
Massachusetts General Laws.
44. This case is timely, as it has been filed within twenty (20) days from September 5, 2006,
which is when the ZBA's August 24, 2006 Decision granting said variances was filed
with the Salem City Clerk.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
45. The St. Joseph's property consists of a parking lot and 4 buildings on approximately 2.6
acres of land at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts. The four buildings consist
of the former St. Joseph's church, the 3-story former rmory, the 3-story former St.
Joseph's school, and the 3-story former convent.
46. Said property is a basically rectangular parcel bounded by Lafayette Street to the west,
Harbor Street to the north, Salem Street to the east, and Dow Street to the south, and is
located in both the so-called Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods.
47. Except for three 2 '/2 - story residential buildings fronting on the northerly side of Dow
Street at the southeast comer of the site, the St. Joseph's property comprises the entire
rectangular block formed by said streets.
48. At the southwest corner of said site is the confluence of Lafayette, Washington, and Dow
Streets, which 3-way intersection constitutes one of the most congested and dangerous
intersections in Salem.
49. All of the former St. Joseph's structures at the site were constructed prior to the
enactment of the current Salem Zoning Ordinance in 1965, and thus, all four buildings
represent prior non-conforming structures.
50. By far, the most architecturally significant building at the site is the former St. Joseph's
Church, which is an important example of the so-called International Style, a style of
modern architecture which is unique in Salem. As such, it makes an important
contribution to Salem's world-renowned stock of 171h, 18`h, and 19`h century architecture.
51. There is no question that the former St. Joseph's Church is eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places maintained by the United States Department of the
Interior.
52. The former St. Joseph's school building and convent have no particular architectural
significance.
- 6 -
53. The church, rectory, and convent have been vacant since the parish closed on or about
August 15, 2004. The school has been vacant since it relocated to the St. James parish on
Federal Street beginning in August or September of 2004.
54. The entire St. Joseph's property is located in am R-3 Zoning District.
55. Pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning, a maximum of 33 residential units can be
constructed at the site as a matter of right, with new construction not to exceed 45 feet in
height and 3 '/2 stories.
56. The overwhelming majority of the buildings on the surrounding Lafayette, Dow, Salem,
and Harbor Streets, as well as those on Washington Street opposite the Lafayette Street
side of the property (ie. across from the pocket park) are either 2 %2 or 3-story residential
dwellings.
57. The grade of the parking lot at the southern third of the site is already approximately 4
feet above the grade of the 3 %2-story residential buiidings fronting on Dow Street at the
southeast corner of the site.
58. In the Spring of 2005 the Archdiocese of Boston sold the entire St. Joseph's property to
the Planning Office of Urban Affairs (hereinafter "POUA"), a private non-profit
corporation, for$2,000,000.00, which thereupon created Salem Lafayette Development
Corporation, LLC (hereinafter"SLD")to develop the site.
59. The head of the Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, serves in his individual
capacity as the chief executive officer of POUA.
60. On Thursday, July 27, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened the first of
three public hearings on SLD's application for a Planned Unit Development (hereinafter
"PUD")to develop the St. Joseph's site primarily into 97 residential units, which
represents 64 units more than the 33 maximum number of units allowed by the current R-
3 zoning for that district.
61. The proposed project basically calls for the razing of the former convent and landmark
church,the development of the former rectory into 8 residential units, the conversion of
the former school into 14 residential units, and the construction of a new, 6-story, 65-foot
tall building immediately to the right (ie, south) of the rectory to contain 64 residential
units and an 18,000 square foot Community Life Center on the first floor, which would
also double as a Senior Center.
62. Unlike the existing cruciform church, which was built with its narrow (i.e. 40-foot wide)
wall perpendicular to Lafayette Street, the proposed new,65-foot, 6-story structure is to
be built parallel to Lafayette Street, 160 feet in length, within a few feet of the existing
sidewalk.
- 7 -
63. Also unlike the existing cruciform church, all six floors of the new 65-foot structure will
be occupied 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, which is a substantial
increase in use compared to the former St. Joseph's Church, whose single-story interior
space(albeit 63 feet tall) was primarily used only on Sunday mornings and holy days.
64. Of the 97 residential units, SLD indicated that "approximately" 30 units will be rented,
and the balance of 67 units will be sold as condominiums.
65. A major component of SLD's PUD application was its promise to dedicate 45% of the 97
residential units, or 44 units, for"affordable housing", which was later scaled back to
35%, or approximately 34 units, at the final Planning Board hearing on September 7,
2006.
66. On information and belief, said 34 units of affordable housing, whether rented or sold as
condominiums, will involve a discount of approximately 30%below prevailing market
rates, for which eligibility will be based on income limitations of the buyer of tenants.
67. Thus, in essence, SLD's PUD application seeks an approximate 194% increase in density
of 64 residential units over the 33 maximum number of residential units permitted by the
existing R-3 zoning for the entire site, in return for which 33 of the extra 64 units would
be sold or rented as affordable housing at a discount (in either event) of approximately
30%below prevailing market rates.
68. The balance of 31 units of the 64 units exceeding the current R-3 zoning would be sold at
market rates, in addition to the 33 residential units already permitted by the existing R-3
zoning, or altogether 64 units at market rates-
69. Said 194%increase in residential density above the 33 maximum number of residential
units does not even include the proposed 18,000 square foot Community Life Center,
which includes the so-called Senior Center.
70. The other major component of SLD's PUD application is the proposed 18,000 square
foot Community Life Center to be sold to the City of Salem. Although the purchase price
has yet to be finalized, the figure discussed at the three Planning Board hearings was
approximately $5,000,000.00.
71. None of the several Salem City Councilors who attended the three Planning Board
hearings seemed to be aware of the details of said purchase; no one seemed to know how
the City (which is, and has been, under severe financial constraints) is going to afford the
purchase price; and no one could explain what would happen to the project if the City
couldn't afford to buy said 18,000 square feet of first floor space.
72. Also complicating this issue is the fact that a substantial majority of Salem's senior
citizens who currently use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street are vehement in
their opposition to relocating the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to the St.
Joseph's site.
- 8 -
73. A multi-page petition signed by approximately 300 Salem senior citizens opposing the
proposed new Senior Center at the St. Joseph's site was submitted at the third Planning
Board hearing on September 7, 2006, which opposition was re-affirmed in a heavily
publicized meeting conducted by Mayor Driscoll at the existing Broad Street Senior
Center a few weeks later.
74. Notwithstanding that approval of its PUD application will circumvent much of the
existing R-3 zoning for the district, SLD still needed two variances from the Salem ZBA,
one to increase the 45 foot maximum height restriction by 20 feet, to 65 feet, which
represents a 44.44% increase, and the other to increase the current maximum of 3 '/2
stories to 6 stories, which represents a 58.330/6 increase.
75. On August 23, 2006 the Salem ZBA voted to grant said variances, which is the subject of
this appeal. Alternate member, Robin Stein, who authored the August 24, 2006 ZBA
Dec;sion, and alternative member, Beth Debski, voted in place of Chairperson Nina
Cohen and regular member, Richard Dionne, who did not participate in the August 23,
2006 ZBA hearing or August 24, 2006 ZBA Decision.
76. On September 6, 2006 SLD requested a continuance of a vote of the Salem Historical
Commission on its petition for a waiver of the 6-month demolition delay ordinance when
it became clear that the Commission regarded St. Joseph's Church to be an extremely
significant building and would not waive the demolition delay ordinance if a vote were
then taken on its application.
77. On September 7, 2006 the Salem Planning Board approved SLD's PUD application,
which was entered in the office of the Salem City Clerk at 5:27 p.m. on September 14,
2006. A copy of said decision is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
78. As to each of the following Counts, the Plaintiffs reaffirm, re-allege, and incorporate all
of the prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-77 inclusive above.
ARGUMENT
COUNT I
The ZBA findings are generally insufficient to support said
August 24,2006 Decision granting said variances.
79. The August 24, 2006 Decision lists 15 explicit findings of fact in [purported] support of
the two variances.
80. None of said findings are legally germane to the issues at hand, which relate to the basis
for the Board's decision to grant variances increasing the 45 foot maximum height
- 9 -
restriction to 60 feet, which represents a 44.44% increase over the ex_
and for increasing the 3 % maximum number of stories to 6-stories, v-
58.33% increase.
81. Most of the findings represent either self-serving conclusions withou
whatsoever, or attest to the project's popularity with either the Mayo'
officials, or certain groups within the local Salem population, all of.—
legal
legal basis for granting said relief. Whatsoever its merits,popularity
not a proper basis for granting variances.
82. The reason that no such specificity was cited is because, in point of f=
relevant evidence was introduced at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearirm
variances.
83. Findings 1, 2, and 3 offer absolutely no guidance whatsoever as to th.
variances.
84. Finding 12 recites that"Evidence was presented by the Petitioner reg--
resulting from the uniquely large size of the lot, 2.6 acres, compared -
district...," without specifying what said evidence was, how it relatee
number of stories issues, or why other solutions that might have beers
with the existing R-3 zoning were not possible.
85. "The uniquely large size of the lot"alone is not a sufficient basis for
Indeed, one might reasonably conclude that such a large-sized lot off.-
opportunities
ff=opportunities for development compatible with the existing R-3 zonis
86. Finding I 1 recites that"The Petitioner presented all evidence pertain=
institutional use on the site and the history of the building_§ on the site
years, two of which buildings were taller than the proposed structure_
information, even if true, is completely irrelevant to the issue of when
should be granted.
87. The proper issue before the ZBA was not what the area may have low
particular point in its history, especially if that occurred before the in-
but what the current conditions are, as well as the current zoning.
88. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of a colored lithograph of Lal
looking north toward the downtown of Salem that was drawn in 185
point of Lafayette and Harbor Streets. Surely it is just as irrelevant fe
argue that it should be entitled to a 6-story building because at some -
was a taller building on the site as it would be for the opponents to at-
neighborhood should be replicated.
89. Findings 4,5,6,7, and 8 all deal exclusively with the purported popula
with some groups within the Salem community, which certainly doe=_
- 10 -
within appellants, who are all stakeholders in the neighborhood, and as such, are entitled
to rely on the protections afforded by the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
90. Finding 9 recites that"Community members speaking against the project were mainly
concerned with density and relocation of the existing senior center."
91. In point of fact,the within appellants and many more members of the Salem Community
are just as concerned about the issues of scale and height, as they are about density, if not
more so, since all three elements of the proposed new construction completely
overwhelm the surrounding immediate neighborhood.
92. The appellants are not alone in their concern over such issues. Historic Salem, Inc., a
non-profit local preservation group (hereinafter"HSI"), and many others, have gone on
record citing the scale and height, as well as the density, of the project as major problems.
Indeed, HSI has added the issues of scale and density throughout the downtown, and
surrounding areas, to its "10 Most Endangered List." Attached hereto as Exhibits D and
E are letters from HSI and Margaret Twohey to the Planning Board concerning said
issues,dated July 22, 2006 and August 18, 2006 respectively, copies of which were also
furnished to the ZBA prior to its August 23, 2006 hearing.
93. Finding 14 recites simply that the project's mixed income housing and"the possibility of
a Community Life Center owned and operated by the City of Salem"create "special
circumstances which are not found on other lots in the district,"without(again)
specifically indicating what said special circumstances are, or how that relates to the
zoning issues before the Board, which involve increasing the relevant R-3 height and
3 1/2 story restrictions by 44.44%and 58.33%respectively.
94. Finding 15 simply recites the self-serving conclusionary statement, without explanation,
that"A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to provide the high level
of public benefit being proposed...,"citing the lone unsupported testimony of"a local
developer"that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the project work."
[Emphasis added]
95. Even apart from the issue that the alleged"high level of public benefits"are very much in
dispute, including by an overwhelming majority of Salem's senior citizens who use the
existing Senior Center on Broad Street, this is clearly an inadequate basis to support said
extreme increases of the existing R-3 zoning.
96. It is clear that there are no competent findings of fact in said August 24, 2006 Decision
regarding hardship, special circumstances, or why such variances will not nullify the
public good, or derogate from the intent and purpose of Salem's R-3 zoning for that
district.
97. Apart from all other considerations, it is clear from the lack of competent, relevant
findings that the Board acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority, in
granting said variances.
- 11 -
98. For these reasons alone, said variances should be nullified and overtu
COUNT II
There is no legally-recognized hardship at all, let alone hardshil
to entitle SLD to either or both of said variances.
99. The only purported findings of fact with respect to hardship are the se
conclusionary statements found in Findings 13 and 15.
100. Finding 13 recites simply that the hardship is "from the uniquely larg
acres, compared to others in the district...," and Finding 15 simply re
hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to provide tl
public benefit being proposed."
101. Note that in the first instance there is absolutely no explanation as to
uniquely large" lot constitutes hardship. Indeed, the more compellin€
drawn from that single fact, even if true, is that such a lot affords far i
for development compatible with the existing R-3 zoning,than less.
102. In essence, what the developer is arguing is that the existing R-3 zoni
for the hardship.
103. With respect to Finding 15, it should also be noted that the alleged ha
unexplained. The hardship"which [supposedly] requires a height vas
as a given. [Emphasis added] Even though this is the findings sectioii
said finding is, in fact, an unsupported conclusion.
104. It is clear that SLD had the burden of proving each of the primary ele
justify the granting of said variances, especially variances which incrq
height and number of stories restrictions by as much as 44.44% and 5
105. It is axiomatic under Massachusetts law that hardship cannot be self-,
106. In point of fact there was no evidence with respect to legally- recogni
submitted at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing, or to be found in the
Decision.
107. SLD is presumed to know the R-3 zoning for the property, and presw
into account in negotiating its purchase price for the property.
108. If there were zoning issues that needed to be resolved, those should h
prior to consummating the purchase.
- 12 -
109. By having proceeded with the purchase, SLD's claimed hardship is entirely self-created
and does not constitute a basis for granting said variances.
110. By having granted said variances in part on said spurious claims of hardship, the ZBA
acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority.
111. For this reason alone said variances should be nullified and overturned.
COUNT III
There are no special conditions or circumstances which justify the
granting of said variances.
112. The only findings of fact with respect to "special conditions and circumstances" is found
in Finding 13, which recited the following in its entirety:
Evidence presented by the Petitioner
demonstrated special conditions and
circumstances exist surrounding the
history of use on this lot, including
the fact that four structures presently
exist on the lot, the oldest two of
which will remain in the proposed
plan.
Emphasis added
113. It is patently clear on the face of said finding that the above does not constitute a special
condition and/or circumstance sufficient to grant a variance pursuant to Massachusetts
zoning law, and that if SLD's above definition were adopted, it would debase the
meaning of that term out of all practical legal significance.
114. In point of fact, the site in question is flat, has no topographical anomalies, and has been
previously built upon, as is explicitly recognized in the finding.
115. It is also important to note that the alleged specific "special conditions and
circumstances"have nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the site, but with
the alleged prior history of use of the site.
116. There is nothing about the prior use of the site that constitutes a special condition or
circumstance within the meaning of Massachusetts zoning law. The site contains four
buildings on 2.6 acres, much of it already clear. If there are costs to demolish the
buildings in order to make the development more compatible with the R-3 zoning, that
should have been reflected in the purchase price.
- 13 -
117. In point of fact there was no legally competent evidence introduced a-.
2006 ZBA hearing on the issue of special conditions and circumstance
implicitly and explicitly makes clear, nor do such special conditions
exist.
118. As such,the ZBA acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its V
said variances.
119. For this reason alone, said variance should be nullified and overtume.
COUNT IV
Said variances constitute a substantial detriment to the pubs['
120. There are absolutely no findings of fact in the August 24, 2006 ZBA
cf its formal Conclusion No. 1, found on the third page of said Decisi
Petitioner's request for variances to allow for a maximum height of a-
five (65)feet and six (6) stories does not constitute a substantial detri
good."
121. As above,this essential finding necessary for the granting of said var
the other necessary elements) is simply accepted as a given.
122. How the 6 stories totaling 65 feet will relate to the surrounding neigli-
shadows that will be cast,the impact on traffic and city infrastructures
on the water and sewer system, the density of said stories, and other E
simply assumed not to be a detriment to the public good.
123. Enabling 33 owners or tenants out of a city of approximately 40,000 3
33% discount on their rent, or the purchase price of their condominiuU
laudable goal, but it does not justify the obvious significant adverse (--
caused
caused to both the Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods if such M
allowed to be built, especially if specific provisions of the Salem Zor=
which are intended to prevent said adverse effects are ignored.
124. Clearly the scale of a neighborhood is a critical aspect of the integrit}.-
neighborhood, and any variances granting increases in the height and_
of stories by as much as 44.44% and 58.33% over the existing R-3 Tri-
be granted without clear and convincing evidence that such action wi-
substantial detriment to the public good, which evidence simply does
125. In light of same, it is clear that the ZBA has acted willfully and capri®
its formal Conclusion No.I that there will be no substantial detrimen
good, and thereby, has exceeded its authority in granting said variance
- 14 -
126. For this reason alone, said variances should be nullified and overturned.
COUNT V
Said variances nullify and substantially derogate from the intent
and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance.
127. As with the preceding Count N,there are absolutely no findings of fact in the August 24,
2006 ZBA Decision in support of its formal Conclusion No. 2, found on the third page of
said Decision, that"The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from
the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance."
128. The current maximum height restriction for new construction pursuant to the current R-3
zoning for the St. Joseph's property is 45 feet. SLD proposes constructing a new
building of 65 feet, 20 feet over the R-3 maximum, which represents a 44.44% increase.
129. The current maximum number of stories for new construction pursuant to the current R-3
zoning is 3 '/2 stories. SLD's proposed new building is 6 stories, 2 % stories over the
existing maximum, representing a 58.33% increase.
130. If such substantial percentage increases are of no consequence, what is the point of
having such restrictions in the first place, or for that matter, what is the point of having a
zoning ordinance at all?
131. Exceptions (in this case called variances)are just that: exceptions, and then are only
supposed to be granted under tightly controlled circumstances,which do not exist here.
They are certainly not intended to be the rule.
132. The current rectory, school, and convent are all three stories, well within the 3 '/i story
maximums pursuant to the current R-3 zoning. On information and belief, they also do
not exceed the R-3 height maximum of 45 feet.
133. And while it is true that St. Joseph's Church is approximately 63 feet tall, 2 feet shorter
than SDL's proposed new 6-story building, there are the following important distinctions
which should be noted:
a. St. Joseph's Church is grandfathered as a prior non-conforming structure, since it
was erected in 1949, well before the enactment of Salem's Zoning Ordinance in
1965;
b. While there is 63 feet of exterior space, the interior space consists of a sinele-
st of the same height, which is entirely ceremonial in nature;
- 15 -
C. The former use of that space primarily occurred at limited hom
on late Saturday afternoons, Sunday mornings, and Church he
d. The church is a cruciform church, with its narrow(i.e. 40 feet-
Lafayette
eetLafayette Street, which thereby minimizes the impact of its hi--
e.
ee. As a symbolic and ceremonial building, the very epicenter(oma
surrounding French Canadian Community that built the comp:
height of the church have an obvious visual logic;
f. None of the foregoing apply to SDL's proposed new 6-story =
g. Clearly there is no such visual logic for height or massing in EE
condominium building;
h. Instead of a single-story interior space that was primarily usee
ceremonial purposes during a limited number of hours each ve
the proposed 65 foot tall building will consist of 6 floors, eac31
constant use 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.
i. And instead of the thin side of the building being on Lafayettm
intends to construct the long (i.e. 160 feet) side of the new, 6—
structure directly on the sidewalk.
134. For all of the above reasons, any comparison between the former St. _
building, and the proposed new 60-story building, is glib, disingenuo.
dishonest at best.
135. For all of the above reasons, and more, it is clear that the ZBA acted
capriciously, and exceeded its authority, in granting said variances, v`
amount to political decisions.
136. Because the proposed new 6-story structure does in fact nullify and s
from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, said var—
nullified and overturned for this reason alone.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
a. enter a Judgment in their favor annulling in full the August 24, 2006
Salem ZBA granting said variances;
- 16 -
b. award the Plaintiffs cost and reasonable attorneys fees in connection with their
prosecution of this appeal;
c. grant such other relief as is just and expedient.
Respectfully submitted,
William Dzierzek et al
By their attorney,
September 22, 2006
Jo ICar , r.,
9 North eet
Salem, MA 01 70
978-825-0
BBO 5281
17 -
wnVecNoraA.ga! CITY OF SALEMMASSACHUSETTS
ny 6`'m BOARD OF APPEAL
'
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR C-1
a SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS OI 970 0 Cn _�
TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 -n
FAX; 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL 1
MAYOR U-1 CD
T y
C")
August 24, 2006 v
0
Decision
Petition of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC requesting Variances from
Height and Number of Stories for the property located at 135 Lafayette
Street, R-3 District City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 23, 2006 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members present: Robin
Stein, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Stephen Pinto, Bonnie Belair.
The petitioner Salem Lafayette Development, LLC is requesting variances pursuant to
section 9-5 to allow for construction of a six-story residential building as part of,a
Planned Unit Development located at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, in the Multi-Pamily
Residential (R-3) zoning district.
The petitioner is requesting variances from the forty-five (45) foot maximum height
requirement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (Sec 6-4, Table I) to approximately
sixty-five (65) feet, and from the three and one-half(3 '/z) stories maximum height
requirement to six (6) stories for the new construction of a multi-use building with
seventy-five (75) residential units and an approximately 18,000 sq.ft. Community Life
Center on the first floor.
The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The property at 135 Lafayette Street is within the R-3 zoning district.
2. The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal
Street, Salem, MA.
3. A set of proposed plans were presented along with a rendering of the building.
The applicant stressed that the plans and rendering were preliminary and will
change. The site is the former home of St. Joseph's Catholic Church and
school, and includes a rectory and convent buildings.
4. Evidence was presented at the hearing that the Petitioner has met with the
abutting neighborhood associations, the Ward Councilors, City agencies, and
Historic Salem, Inc. on numerous occasions throughout the past year to
discuss the site and proposed plans. Meetings were also held over a period of
time with City officials, as well as the Planning Department.
n
5. Mayor Kimberly Driscoll addressed the Board and spoke in favor oMhe
project, citing the City's detailed involvement with the development due tq the
proposed construction of a Community Life Center within thero'ect arritMe N'
P J --
great need for mixed income housing and the community benefit, as wellJps a
City benefit that the Life Center provided.
F1
o „ D
6. A number of abutters and Salem residents, along with several members oPthe
City Council, were present to speak in favor of the project, including Ward 1
Councilor Lucy Corchado, Council President Jean Pelletier, and Councilor at
Large Joan Lovely. Councilor Mike Sosnowski cited the density of the site as
a concern, but generally spoke in favor of the affordable housing component
of the project. Councilor Matt Veno was unable to attend the meeting, but
submitted a letter supporting the project.
7. Councilor Corchado presented a petition with 140 signatures of neighbors that
support the proposed development. Michael Whelan and Claudia Chuber,
former Councilor of the Ward, spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the
Salem Harbor CDC. `
8. A representative of the Point Neighborhood Association stated that the
Petitioner has met with them several times regarding the plans and that the
Association supports the project. The Association is involved in the
immediate neighborhood affected by the project.
9. Community members speaking against the project were mainly concerned
with density and the relocation of the existing senior center.
10. The Petitioner is presently before the Planning Board seeking a Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review.
11. The Petitioner presented evidence pertaining to the history of institutional use
on the site and the history of height of the buildings on the site over the past
100 years, two of which were taller than the proposed structure.
12. Evidence was presented by the Petitioner regarding the hardship resulting
from the uniquely large size of the lot, 2.6 acres, compared to others in this
district.
13. Evidence presented by the Petitioner demonstrated special conditions and
circumstances exist surrounding the history of use on this lot, including the
fact that four structures presently exist on the lot, the oldest two of which will
remain in the proposed plan.
14. Testimony of the Mayor and various elected officials clew
that the proposed plan and building will offer community b
mixed income housing, and a Community Life Center ownec
the City of Salem, creating special circumstances which
other lots in the district.
15. Evidence was presented in support of the requested variances
certain minimum number of market rate units are necessary it
the 45 below market units proposed for the new structure, anc
stories; the lot could not be developed for residential use. A 1.
testified that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to rr
profitable. A hardship exists which requires a height variance
provide the high level of public benefit being proposed. The
affordable housing was stressed by the Mayor, City officials
citizens.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence present.
hearing, including, but not limited to, the Petition the Zoning Board of A
as follows:
1. The petitioner's request for variances to allow for a maximun
approximately sixty-five (65) feet and six (6) stories does not
substantial detriment to the public good.
2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate--
or
erogateor purpose of the zoning ordinance.
3. The petitioner's lot size and coverage do not generally occur -
are specific to their land.
4. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a
hardship to the petitioner.
5. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires cere
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5
Pinto, Harris, Debski, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request .
subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinan
regulations.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to sn7
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
4. Certificates of Occupancy are to be obtained.
5. Certificates of Inspection, as required, shall be obtained.
6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's
Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
8. The proposed new construction shall not exceed six stories or 65 feet in
height.
9. At least thirty-five percent (35%) of the dwelling units on the site shall be
marketed as affordable or below market rates.
10. That the principal use of the first floor of the new building be a municipal use
to include a Community Life Center.
11. That the former rectory and school buildings existing on the site shall be
reused in the proposed project. // •• D
;Cp
Robin Stein
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that
20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been
dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of
the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
o -
Cn
r� r—
9 �
o v
.D
Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision
135 Lafayette Street.
September 14, 2006
D
Salem Lafayette Development, LLC o c-,
C/o Joseph Correnti, Esq. mG
63 Federal Street o �
Salem, MA O1970
CDr
T
RE: 135 Lafayette Street/Former St. Joseph's Church site Ty
Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development rte* 3
IV y
On Thursday, July 27, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing
under Sections 7-15 and 7-18 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review, at the request of Salem Lafayette
Development, LLC, for the property located at 135 Lafayette Street. The proposed project
includes the razing of the former church and convent building, the renovation of the former
rectory and school buildings, and the construction of a new six-story building on the site. The
mixed-use development will include 97 units of housing and a Community Life Center.
Approximately thirty (30) units shall be rental units, and the approximately sixty-seven (67)
remaining units shall be condominiums. At least thirty-five (35) percent of the dwelling units on
the site shall be designated as affordable units. Hereinafter the term "Applicant" shall refer to the
Applicant, its successors or assigns.
The Public Hearing was continued to August 3, 2006, September 7, 2006 and closed on
September 7, 2006. The Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed project meets the
provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, sec. 7-15 (g), as follows:
1) The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of
this section.
2) The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently
advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the
district. Specifically, the project incorporates a Community Life Center, as requested by
the City, and mixed income affordable housing providing substantial public benefit.
3) The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact.
Based on the information from the Environmental Impact Statement and plans, the
project will result in an increase in public recreational space, a decrease in peak
stormwater discharge rates and will improve the vacant site significantly from its current
condition.
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on September 7, 2006, the Planning
Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor (Power, Moustakis, Collins, Kavanagh, Durand, Puleo,
Lombardini, Sullivan, Reidy), and none (0) opposed to approve the Site Plan Review and
Planned Unit Development application subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the plans entitled, "St. Joseph's Redevelopment, Salem,
Massachusetts" Sheets C-1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 and, prepared by Samiotes
Consultants, Inc., 10 Central Street, Framingham, MA 01701, dated June 14, 2005 with
revisions on July 17, 2006 and elevations submitted to the Planning Board at the September
7, 2006 meeting ("the site plans"). Revised Plans reflecting all conditions and incorporating
by reference this decision must be submitted to and approved by the City Planner for
consistency with this decision prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. Amendments
Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed
necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board for review and
approval. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the
Planning Board.
3. Construction Practices
All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions:
a. Exterior construction work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 PM and
8:00 AM the following day on weekdays and Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or
Holidays. Any interior work conducted during these times will not involve heavy machinery
which could generate disturbing noises.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on
abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to
commencement of construction of the project.
c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays,or holidays. Blasting shall be
undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations.
d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not
leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site.
e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances of the
2
City of Salem.
f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site.
g. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the
Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Included in this plan, but not limited
to, shall be information regarding how the construction equipment will be stored, a
description of the construction staging area and its location in relation to the site, and
where the construction employees will park their vehicles. The plan and schedule shall be
submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
All storage of materials and equipment will be on site.
h. Special,attention shall be paid by the developer to locate the statue of St. Joseph reported
to be buried on the site. If said statue is located, the Applicant shall work with the
Archdiocese of Boston to resolve its status, and if feasible, as determined by the City
Planner based on documentation from the Applicant to preserve it in accordance with the
requirements of the Archdiocese.
4. Clerk of the Works
A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the Applicant, its
successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner.
5. Traffic Mitigation
The Applicant agrees to contribute $20,000 toward a study/design of intersection and traffic
improvements at Lafayette Street. Such payment shall be made to the City upon the
Applicant's receipt of a building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for
the site.
6. Fire Department
All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
7. Building Inspector
Ail work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector.
8. Zoning Board of Appeals
The terms of the Zoning Board of Appeals conditional approval for a height variance for the
site are incorporated into this decision, in their entirety.
9. Board of Health
a. "The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of
the name, address, and telephone number of the project (site) manager who will be on site
and directly responsible for the construction of the project.
b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for the site under the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for
3
the site certifies that soil and ground water for the entire site meets the
the proposed use.
c. The developer shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the Cit
d. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to extermir
to construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of th
invoice to the Health Agent
e. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout co
f. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust
sweeping which will occur during construction.
g. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for coni
removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable, excavation mat.
during demolition and/or construction.
It. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire f
i. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operatic
not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadba
more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the propert
J. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin
needed for the project.
k. If a rock crusher is on site, a plan for placement of the crusher must N
Health Agent prior to placement and use.
1. Plans for food a establishment must be presented to the Health Agent
to construction.
m. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resii
operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the 134C
n. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is comp
inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met.
10. Utilities
a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Enginec
issuance of a Building Permit. All on site electrical utilities shall be log
b. The Applicant shall clean the drain line on Dow Street downstream frc
Salem St. preventing any debris from entering the downstream pipes.
4
11. Department of Public Services
The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services
12. Signage
Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Sign Review
Committee.
13. Lighting
a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way.
b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Plannerfor review and approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
14. HVAC
If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for
screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to
installation.
15. Lafayette Park
The Applicant its successors and assigns (if not defined in paragraph one) agrees to
contribute $1,500.00 per year to the City of Salem for the purpose of creating a fund for the
ongoing maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park. Such payment shall be made to the
Department of Planning and Community Development commencing upon the receipt of a
building permit for the construction of the new building proposed for the site and on June 1
of each year thereafter.
16. Landscaping
a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans, with the
following revision: the Applicant shall locate columnar trees along the perimeter of the
site where they believe they are most appropriate and shall submit a revised landscaping
plan reflecting this placement to the City Planner for review and approval, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
b. Trees shall be a minimum diameter of 3 '/2" dbh (diameter breast height).
c. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his
successors or assigns.
d. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of any
replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting.
5
e. Final completed landscaping, done in accordance with the approved set of plans, shall be
subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plans, to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
f. Fencing shall be installed along the property line on Salem Street and directly abutting the
residences on Dow Street. The section of fencing along Salem Street shall be a four-foot
black industrial grade aluminum. The section of fencing along the residences along Dow
Street shall be wooden. Details and specifications for the fencing shall be submitted to the
City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.
17. Maintenance
a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the
Applicant, his successors or assigns.
b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas oii the site shall be removed off site.
c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant,
his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two- (2) year period, from
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and completion of planting.
18. As-built Plans
As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services
prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable
for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department) and a
certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed
in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements
by the City Engineer.
19. Building Materials
Illustrations of exterior building materials shall be submitted to the City Planer for approval
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
20. Violations
Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation of this permit by the
Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the
Planning Board.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and
copies are on file with the Planning Board, The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy
F
r
of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and
no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or
denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the
owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant, his
successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering.
Walter B Power, III
Chairman
7
Part
7 / The City Sea TRe BUR
r ti
c�
` la4w ` fv u o�'t E•T `_"z.. 'Li rt 2 s : u r1ti 1 -
.. 14-
1 y 11� 0 -l 1k9
r+ b "j _\, `.�- 'SpS I' hl y' T 4^c'"' tE i` �a� 'tlld�lrf• �r
ti° .a. .` s 1• �' ;`x hI I l 1I F t " "� s
NA
-3700-
Bits:'
K-:
Zk
., -r r
1b�
,....r
r �t
Go 000
o G13
tt .
P.O. Box 865
i �'®i ®r�d�iA Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 745-0799
July 26, 2006 BY HAND
Mr. Walter Power
Chairman, Planning Board
City of Salem
Salem, MA 01970
^Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Board:
This letter presents the issues that Historic Salem has identified to date with regard to the planned
development at the St.Joseph's Church site.
Historical Significance
The St Joseph's complex is important because of its association with Salem's cultural and religious
history. The church building is also the only Salem example of what is known as the"International Style"
and its interior is one of the few remaining monumental spaces in non-religious use in Salem. The report
cornrnissioned by the City of Salem's Planning Department states that the site is probably eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places because of the significance of the church and the -
Rectory. Subsequently, the Massachusetts Historic Commission comrnissioned a study by a qualified
professional preservation consultant who also asserts that the complex is eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. Thus, the statement in the submission to the Planning Board that"The
proposed development does not include any historic buildings, historic site or archeological site" is
incorrect.
In addition, others in the community have noted that the site may have has archeological artifacts of
historical interest and/or importance.
Economics of Re-Use
As an historic preservation organization, Historic Salem strongly prefers to see the church building reused.
The developer, the Archdiocese's Planning Office of Urban Affairs (POUA) has provided us with some of
their analysis about the feasibility of reuse, but it is not enough information for us to determine that it is
economically infeasible to incorporate elements of their planned program into the church building.
Opportunity to Significantly Improve Site Design and Building Fabric
We believe that in light of the site's location on a pivotal gateway to the City, the potential demolition of a
National Register eligible building, and the proximity to the Point neighborhood, currently the subject of an
historic buildings survey, that the community should require that any new construction to be of excellent
design and quality.
As to the issue of integrating new development into the existing historic urban fabric, and specifically as to
the current proposal, while we are pleased to see the rectory building being reused, we find that the
proposed design for the site could be substantially improved. What is proposed is essentially one large
Fax: (978) 744-4536 m Email: hsi@nii.net < Web: http://wvvw.historicsalem.org/
August 18, 2006
Mr. Walter Power Ms. Nina Cohen
Chair, Planning Board Chair, Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Salem City of Salem
Salem,MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
Re: Proposed Development at St. Joseph's Site
Dear Chairmen Power and Cohen:
I will not be able to attend the upcoming meetings on the proposal for the St. Joseph's s-
my thoughts to you and to your fellow board members. The proposal is complex enoug-
enough that I have taken the liberty of writing one letter, even though some issues or co
Board's jurisdiction.
Like others, I congratulate the developers and the City on the concepts that they have be
several buildings on the site that they propose for re-use. However, I believe there are =
and unresolved questions around the proposed development at this site that make your j
Like others, I also support the goals of more affordable housing for Salem and believe t
center idea is promising. However, I do not believe that the Planning Board has the info
to act on the community center proposal since users, uses, hours, and parking are not su
Similarly, site parking and area traffic problems have been identified with no clear solus
presentation of how the City will fund the community center. I believe that you are be-
decisions with too little information to be able to review, refine and approve a project tE
goals of the project and is an excellent project for Salem.'
I urge both the Planning Board and the ZBA to work with the Planning Department to t
ensure that the project is the best that we can do for Salem. Whatever decisions are man
years and will have a major impact on the Point, South Salem and on the downtown. F-
for demolition of a significant Salem landmark.
At 2.4-2.6 acres and with its prominent location at the intersection of Salem's downtovs
Salem, I believe this site deserves the same consideration that has been given to the Ma
Having a unified review of the project in the same fashion as the Market Place proposa-
helpful. Instead, the current piece meal approach brings separate but related issues bef-
in an effort to move the permitting process forward too quickly.
St.Joseph's Church
I believe that St. Joseph's Church should be re-used. I urge the Planning Board to take
this issue. Every time we have taken down a major landmark, like the Salem train stati
regretted it later. The church building proposed for destruction is National Register eli-
National Register eligible Point Neighborhood. It requires a 106 review. A waiver for—
the Historical Commission. I urge you to communicate with the Historical Commissio3
steps recommended by Historic Salem are taken before you take any action which will
church or that might nullify a 106 review process which will benefit the City and the pm
replacement proposed, while brick, looks like many another building found anywhere i
distinction or reflection of Salem's character while adding a mass which is out of scale
Density/Height
These are critical issues for both the Planning and the Zoning Boards to address.
In this R-3 neighborhood, under current zoning, only approximately 30 units are allowed. The proposal for this
site is 97 units, which is far too dense. The result is:
• A tall and massive new building that is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and will be highly
visible throughout downtown Salem, dominating Salem's sky line to our detriment;
• An enormous parking field which faces the Point neighborhood and appears to be quite inadequate for its
intended uses;
• No green space for the 60 children expected by the developer in the housing units;
• Design issues of appearance, character, material and looming , out of scale character on the street; and
• Significant traffic issues.
Both the building and the intended density are out of scale for the surrounding neighborhood:
• I recommend that, should the Planning Board decide to grant a PUD,you approve no more than 60 units.
• I also recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve a height of the proposed new building of no
more than 3 stories.
These decisions will allow the scale of the new building and its height to be more compatible with the
neighborhood - and will not create an unwanted precedent in the neighborhood of six story buildings. Such a
reduction in density and height should also allow for green space, more appropriate parking for the housing and
community center, less traffic impact and a building design more in keeping with Salem.
I hope the Planning Board will take HSI's recommendation that townhouses be placed around the perimeter of the
site on the neighborhood side to reduce the size of the new large building, to shield the neighborhood from the
parking field, and so that the scale of the development facing the Point is more in keeping with the houses around
it.
I believe that there is no basis for the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance for height at this site since
there is no hardship as defined by the ordinance. Further, granting a variance creates a dangerous precedent for
South Salem and the Point.
Site Plan and Design
In addition to the issues already mentioned above, the building design could be Anywhere USA. It looks like
Watertown, not Salem. I hope the Planning Board will seek the counsel of the Design Review Board (DRB) for
the site plan and particularly the design of the proposed new building, as well as for specification of building
materials.
The parking plan is unrealistic and will have a very negative effect on the Point and on traffic into Salem from
Lafayette Street. It will also have a negative impact on the desirability and usability of the community center for
all of Salem. No traffic studies have been presented to date.
Materials
It is important, if either or both of the Boards act in the affirmative, that each Board specify building materials of
high quality and in some detail so that no one is surprised by the resulting quality of the new building. This is
particularly important given the height and prominence of the site itself and of the new building at the
intersection of Salem's downtown, the Point and South Salem neighborhoods.
2
Questions regarding the PUD and Conditions for both the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals
Given the uncertainty regarding financing for the community center, I question whether it is appropriate to grant a
PUD at this time, since a PUD would not be allowed solely for the housing proposal.
Since the basis for allowing a PUD is mixed use, I urge the Planning Board to make the granting of a PUD
conditional on securing financing for both the developer's project and the City's community center, as well as
City Council approval, and to place whatever other restrictions might be appropriate so that the site is not
permitted and then "flipped" in the event the project or the community center are not funded.
I urge the Zoning Board to put similar conditions on any approval you may grant. I am especially concerned that
if a 6 story building is allowed on this site, it will establish an unwanted precedent which will be destructive of the
fabric of the area and neighborhoods that adjoin this site.
Summary
This is a very difficult project for the Planning and Zoning Boards to act on given the un*esolved issues. I hope
you will take your time and consider ways in which this project can be improved before any approvals are
granted. Unresolved issues identified to date include:
• Re-use of the St. Joseph's building in the new project
• Destruction of a Salem landmark; ensuring a timely 106 review for St. Joseph's Church
• Mitigation for loss of this historic property, should it be lost „
• Height and density
• Inadequate parking
• Traffic issues with no plan to resolve those concerns
• Green space on the site for the residents and their children
• Mass and quality of design and materials to ensure they are compatible with Salem and the surrounding area
and neighborhood.
• Impact of a project of this magnitude on Salem in such a prominent, geographically high and crucial location
in Salem
I hope that you can find a way to give the same kind of thought and review to this large project that has been
given to the Market Place project before it even has come before Salem's boards. Certainly I hope you will draw
on the principals established in the Market Place study for design. In addition to seeking DRB review, the
Planning Board may wish to consider hiring a consultant, as the City did for the Market Place proposal, to assist
you in your review process. There is a great opportunity here to do a project that will benefit Salem—and an
equal opportunity to allow one that will instead be damaging for years to come.
Sincerely,
Meg Twohey Cc:
122 Federal Street Mayor Kimberly Driscoll
Salem, MA 01970 City Planner Lynn Duncan
Salem City Councillors
Chair, Salem Historical Commission
President, Historic Salem, Inc.
3
' DN.�Dy,IT,ICITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR
' ( SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970
TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 n
FAX: 978-740-9846
KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL �
C'I
o r'4
MAYOR ��
�U7
r
August 24, 2006 ul m
-^3
Decision r` v
Petition of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC requesting Variances'frog%
Height and Number of Stories for the property located at 135 Lafayette
Street, R-3 District City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on August 23, 2006 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, the following Zoning Board members present: Robin
Stein, Annie Harris, Beth Debski, Stephen Pinto,Bonnie Belair.
The petitioner Salem Lafayette Development, LLC is requesting variances pursuant to
section 9-5 to allow for construction of a six-story residential building as part of a
Planned Unit Development located at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem, in the Multi-Family
Residential (R-3) zoning district.
The petitioner is requesting variances from the forty-five (45) foot maximum height
requirement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (Sec 6-4,Table I) to approximately
sixty-five (65) feet, and from the three and one-half(3 I/x) stories maximum height
requirement to six (6) stories for the new construction of a multi-use building with
seventy-five (75)residential units and an approximately 18,000 sq.ft. Community Life
Center on the first floor.
The Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the Petition submitted, makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The property at 135 Lafayette Street is within the R-3 zoning district.
2. The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal
Street, Salem, MA.
3. A set of proposed plans were presented along with a rendering of the building.
The applicant stressed that the plans and rendering were preliminary and will
change. The site is the former home of St. Joseph's Catholic Church and
school, and includes a rectory and convent buildings.
4. Evidence was presented at the hearing that the Petitioner has met with the
abutting neighborhood associations, the Ward Councilors, City agencies, and
Historic Salem, Inc. on numerous occasions throughout the past year to
discuss the site and proposed plans. Meetings were also held over a period of
time with City officials, as well as the Planning Department.
5. Mayor Kimberly Driscoll addressed the Board and spoke in favor of the
project, citing the City's detailed involvement with the development due to the
proposed construction of a Community Life Center within the project and the
great need for mixed income housing and the community benefit, as well as a
City benefit that the Life Center provided.
6. A number of abutters and Salem residents, along with several members of the
City Council, were present to speak in favor of the project, including Ward 1
Councilor Lucy Corchado, Council President Jean Pelletier, and Councilor at
Large Joan Lovely. Councilor Mike Sosnowski cited the density of the site as
a concern, but generally spoke in favor of the affordable housing component
of the project. Councilor Matt Veno was unable to attend the meeting, but
submitted a letter supporting the project.
7. Councilor Corchado presented a petition with 140 signatures of neighbors that
support the proposed development. Michael Whelan and Claudia Chuber,
former Councilor of the Ward, spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the
Salem Harbor CDC.
8. A representative of the Point Neighborhood Association stated that the
Petitioner has met with them several times regarding the plans and that the
Association supports the project. The Association is involved in the
immediate neighborhood affected by the project.
9. Community members speaking against the project were mainly concerned
with density and the relocation of the existing senior center.
10. The Petitioner is presently before the Planning Board seeking a Planned Unit
Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review.
11. The Petitioner presented evidence pertaining to the history of institutional use
on the site and the history of height of the buildings on the site over the past
100 years, two of which were taller than the proposed structure.
12. Evidence was presented by the Petitioner regarding the hardship resulting
from the uniquely large size of the lot, 2.6 acres, compared to others in this
district.
13. Evidence presented by the Petitioner demonstrated special conditions and
circumstances exist surrounding the history of use on this lot, including the
fact that four structures presently exist on the lot, the oldest two of which will
remain in the proposed plan.
14. Testimony of the Mayor and various elected officials clearly demonstrated
that the proposed plan and building will offer community benefits, including
mixed income housing, and a Community Life Center owned and operated by
the City of Salem, creating special circumstances which are not found on
other lots in the district.
15. Evidence was presented in support of the requested variances indicating that a
certain minimum number of market rate units are necessary in order to support
the 45 below market units proposed for the new structure, and that without six
stories; the lot could not be developed for residential use. A local developer
testified that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the project
profitable. A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to
provide the high level of public benefit being proposed. The need for
affordable housing was stressed by the Mayor, City officials and various
citizens.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, including all evidence presented at the public
hearing, including, but not limited to,the Petition the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes
as follows:
1. The petitioner's request for variances to allow for a maximum height of
approximately sixty-five (65) feet and six (6) stories does not constitute a
substantial detriment to the public good.
2. The requested relief does not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent
or purpose of the zoning ordinance.
3. The petitioner's lot size and coverage do not generally occur in the district and
are specific to their land.
4. A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would create a substantial
hardship to the petitioner.
5. In permitting such change,'the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate
conditions and safeguards as noted below.
In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, five (5) in favor(Stein,
Pinto, Harris, Debski, Belair) and none (0) opposed, to grant the request for a variance,
subject to the following terms,conditions, and safeguards:
1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and
regulations.
2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire
safety shall be strictly adhered to.
3. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction.
4. Certificates of Occupancy are to be obtained.
5. Certificates of Inspection, as required, shall be obtained.
6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's
Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street.
7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having
jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board.
8. The proposed new construction shall not exceed six stories or 65 feet in
height.
9. At least thirty-five percent (35%) of the dwelling units on the site shall be
marketed as affordable or below market rates.
10. That the principal use of the first floor of the new building be a municipal use
to include a Community Life Center.
11. That the former rectory and school buildings existing on the site shall be
reused in the proposed project. pp �
s J z, Abti
Robin Stein
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY
CLERK
Appeal from this decision,if any,shall_be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City clerk that
20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,or that, if such appeal has been filed,that it has been
dismissed or denied and is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of
the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
CfV of,,$a1rra, Aassarhusrtfs
Offirr of f4k Ofu @Iounril
9c � (Mg Pall
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE JEAN M. PELLETIER WARD COUNCILLORS
PRESIDENT
2006 2006
MARK E. BLAIR CHERYL A. LAPOINTE LUCY CORCHADO
THOMAS H. FUREY CITY CLERK MICHAEL SOSNOWSKI
JOAN B. LOVELY JEAN M. PELLETIER
ARTHUR C. SARGENT III LEONARD F.O'LEARY
MATTHEW A.VENO
PAUL C. PREVEY
JOSEPH A.O'KEEFE, SR.
August 17, 2006
Ms.Nina Cohen, Chair
Salem Zoning Board of Appeal
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Chairwoman Cohen:
I understand that the ZBA is meeting on August 23`d for a special meeting to consider the petition of the
Planning Office for Urban Affairs relative to the redevelopment of the St. Joseph's property on Lafayette Street.
I will be on vacation during that week,and cannot make it to the meeting.
For the record,please find the enclosed letter,which I submitted to the Planning Board for their recent meeting
on this topic. This letter addresses, in some respects,the issues presented to the ZBA, and I would like to
submit this letter for the record for the ZBA's deliberations.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Matthew A. Veno
City Councillor, Ward 5
SALEM CITY HALL 93 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MA 01970-3592 WWW.SALEM000NCIL.COM
The
August 18, 2006
Mr. Walter Power Ms. Nina Cohen
Chair, Planning Board Chair,Zoning Board of Appeals
City of Salem City of Salem
Salem, MA 01970 Salem,MA 01970
Re: Proposed Development at St.Joseph's Site
Dear Chairmen Power and Cohen:
I will not be able to attend the upcoming meetings on the proposal for the St.Joseph's site,but wanted to convey
my thoughts to you and to your fellow board members. The proposal is complex enough and the issues broad
enough that I have taken the liberty of writing one letter,even though some issues or concerns pertain only to one
Board's jurisdiction.
Like others, I congratulate the developers and the City on the concepts that they have brought forward, and on the
several buildings on the site that they propose for re-use. However,I believe there are significant issues of scale
and unresolved questions around the proposed development at this site that make your jobs very difficult.
Like others, I also support the goals of more affordable housing for Salem and believe that that the community
center idea is promising. However,I do not believe that the Planning Board has the information needed to be able
to act on the community center proposal since users, uses,hours, and parking are not sufficiently defined.
Similarly, site parking and area traffic problems have been identified with no clear solution, and there is no clear
presentation of how the City will fund the community center. I believe that you are being asked to make
decisions with too little information to be able to review, refine and approve a project that both meets the laudable
goals of the project and is an excellent project for Salem.
I urge both the Planning Board and the ZBA to work with the Planning Department to take the time you need to
ensure that the project is the best that we can do for Salem. Whatever decisions are made here will be here for 50
years and will have a major impact on the Point, South Salem and on the downtown. Further, the proposal calls
for demolition of a significant Salem landmark.
At 2.4-2.6 acres and with its prominent location at the intersection of Salem's downtown, the Point and South
Salem, I believe this site deserves the same consideration that has been given to the Market Place proposal.
Having a unified review of the project in the same fashion as the Market Place proposal would seem particularly
helpful. Instead, the current piece meal approach brings separate but related issues before each of Salem's boards
in an effort to move the permitting process forward too quickly.
St.Joseph's Church
I believe that St. Joseph's Church should be re-used. I urge the Planning Board to take a much stronger look at
this issue. Every time we have taken down a major landmark, like the Salem train station, we have deeply
regretted it later. The church building proposed for destruction is National Register eligible and adjoins the
National Register eligible Point Neighborhood. It requires a 106 review. A waiver for demolition delay is before
the Historical Commission. I urge you to communicate with the Historical Commission to ensure that all the
steps recommended by Historic Salem are taken before you take any action which will result in demolition of the
church or that might nullify a 106 review process which will benefit the City and the project. The proposed
replacement proposed, while brick, looks like many another building found anywhere in the US and provides no
distinction or reflection of Salem's character while adding a mass which is out of scale with the neighborhood.
1
Density/Height
These are critical issues for both the Planning and the Zoning Boards to address.
In this R-3 neighborhood,under current zoning, only approximately 30 units are allowed. The proposal for this
site is 97 units, which is far too dense. The result is:
• A tall and massive new building that is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and will be highly
visible throughout downtown Salem,dominating Salem's sky line to our detriment;
• An enormous parking field which faces the Point neighborhood and appears to be quite inadequate for its
intended uses;
• No green space for the 60 children expected by the developer in the housing units;
• Design issues of appearance,character, material and looming ,out of scale character on the street; and
• Significant traffic issues.
Both the building and the intended density are out of scale for the surrounding neighborhood:
• I recommend that, should the Planning Board decide to grant a PUD, you approve no more than 60 units.
• I also recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve a height of the proposed new building of no
more than 3 stories.
These decisions will allow the scale of the new building and its height to be more compatible with the
neighborhood -and will not create an unwanted precedent in the neighborhood of six story buildings. Such a
reduction in density and height should also allow for green space, more appropriate parking for the housing and
community center, less traffic impact and a building design more in keeping with Salem.
I hope the Planning Board will take HSI's recommendation that townhouses be placed around the perimeter of the
site on the neighborhood side to reduce the size of the new large building,to shield the neighborhood from the
parking field, and so that the scale of the development facing the Point is more in keeping with the houses around
it.
I believe that there is no basis for the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance for height at this site since
there is no hardship as defined by the ordinance. Further,granting a variance creates a dangerous precedent for
South Salem and the Point.
Site Plan and Design
In addition to the issues already mentioned above, the building design could be Anywhere USA. It looks like
Watertown, not Salem. I hope the Planning Board will seek the counsel of the Design Review Board(DRB) for
the site plan and particularly the design of the proposed new building, as well as for specification of building
materials.
The parking plan is unrealistic and will have a very negative effect on the Point and on traffic into Salem from
Lafayette Street. It will also have a negative impact on the desirability and usability of the community center for
all of Salem. No traffic studies have been presented to date.
Materials
It is important, if either or both of the Boards act in the affirmative, that each Board specify building materials of
high quality and in some detail so that no one is surprised by the resulting quality of the new building. This is
particularly important given the height and prominence of the site itself and of the new building at the
intersection of Salem's downtown, the Point and South Salem neighborhoods.
2
Questions regarding the PUD and Conditions for both the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals
Given the uncertainty regarding financing for the community center, I question whether it is appropriate to grant a
PUD at this time, since a PUD would not be allowed solely for the housing proposal.
Since the basis for allowing a PUD is mixed use,I urge the Planning Board to make the granting of a PUD
conditional on securing financing for both the developer's project and the City's community center, as well as
City Council approval, and to place whatever other restrictions might be appropriate so that the site is not
permitted and then"flipped" in the event the project or the community center are not funded.
I urge the Zoning Board to put similar conditions on any approval you may grant. I am especially concerned that
if a 6 story building is allowed on this site, it will establish an unwanted precedent which will be destructive of the
fabric of the area and neighborhoods that adjoin this site.
Summary
This is a very difficult project for the Planning and Zoning Boards to act on given the unresolved issues. I hope
you will take your time and consider ways in which this project can be improved before any approvals are
granted. Unresolved issues identified to date include:
• Re-use of the St. Joseph's building in the new project
• Destruction of a Salem landmark; ensuring a timely 106 review for St. Joseph's Church
• Mitigation for loss of this historic property, should it be lost
• Height and density
• Inadequate parking
• Traffic issues with no plan to resolve those concerns
• Green space on the site for the residents and their children
• Mass and quality of design and materials to ensure they are compatible with Salem and the surrounding area
and neighborhood.
• Impact of a project of this magnitude on Salem in such a prominent,geographically high and crucial location
in Salem
I hope that you can find a way to give the same kind of thought and review to this large project that has been
given to the Market Place project before it even has come before Salem's boards. Certainly I hope you will draw
on the principals established in the Market Place study for design. In addition to seeking DRB review,the
Planning Board may wish to consider hiring a consultant,as the City did for the Market Place proposal,to assist
you in your review process. There is a great opportunity here to do a project that will benefit Salem—and an
equal opportunity to allow one that will instead be damaging for years to come.
Sincerely,
Meg Twohey Cc:
122 Federal Street Mayor Kimberly Driscoll
Salem,MA 01970 City Planner Lynn Duncan
Salem City Councillors
Chair, Salem Historical Commission
President, Historic Salem, Inc.
3
,MSN Hotmail - Page 1 of 1
1 snVs 4@ Hotmail®
jacksoares@msn.com Printed: Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:21 PM
From : <jrmartinl3@excite.com>
Reply- jrmartinl3@excite.com DECEIVE®
To :
Sent : Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:50 PM AUG 2 4 2006
To : jacksoares@msn.com DEPT. OF PLANNING h
FQMMUNLTY-01YELOP_MENT—
TO:The members of the city of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE:The application for rezoning of St Joseph Church site
We are owners of properties in the Point neighborhood who are opposed to the granting of a variance for height for the Planned
Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St.that is being proposed by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette
Development,LLC.We feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as permitted by the existing R-3 zoning should
be maintained and the granting of a height variance for that site would negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood.We
believe that the proposed physical characteristics of the six stories building whose entrance would be at the comer of Lafayette
and Dow Sts.is not compatible with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods.A building of this
height and mass will create a greater population density in an already densely populated neighborhood and will significantly add
to the already existing traffic and parking problems in that area.The safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby
streets will be compromised because of increased congestion at the intersections of Lafayette,Washington,and Dow Sts.
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a community life enter,rental units,and condos all in one large,massive,tall,
building which is not complementary to the existing houses and buildings along Lafayette St.Also the developer has not
demonstrated that there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total development other than an area allotted for
parking.We are of the opinion that this building will not be aesthetically or architecturally connected to the Point or be a gateway
to the neighborhood,but instead will stand alone like a big wall on Lafayette St.separated from the neighborhood by a large
parking lot.Particularly since it has been recently recommended that the Point neighborhood(with some expanded boundaries)
become a federal historic district and obtain national register listing as the Point Historic District we feel that issues of design and
height be paid strict attention to so that any development will be a contribution to the neighborhood and to the city of Salem.
NAMES PROPERTIES OWNED IN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
Join Excite!-http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
http://byl07fd.bayIO7.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?r,urmbo... 8/20/2006
MSN Hotmail - Page 1 of 1
11 snV. o6 Hotmail®
jacksoares@msn.com Printed: Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:21 PM
From : <jrmartin13@excite.com>
Reply- jrmartinl3@excite.com
To :
RECEIVED Sent : Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:50 PM REE E I fy
To : jacksoares@msn.com AUG 2 4 7006
DEPT, OF PLANNING&
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO:The members of the city of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE:The application for rezoning of St Joseph Church site
We are owners of properties in the Point neighborhood who are opposed to the granting of a variance for height for the Planned
Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St.that is being proposed by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette
Development,LLC.We feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as permitted by the existing R3 zoning should
be maintained and the granting of a height variance for that site would negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood.We
believe that the proposed physical characteristics of the six stories building whose entrance would be at the comer of Lafayette
and Dow Sts.is not compatible with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods.A building of this
height and mass will create a greater population density in an already densely populated neighborhood and will significantly add
to the already existing traffic and parking problems in that area.The safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby
streets will be compromised because of increased congestion at the intersections of Lafayette,Washington,and Dow Sts.
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a community life enter,rental units,and condos all in one large,massive,tall,
building which is not complementary to the existing houses and buildings along Lafayette St.Also the developer has not
demonstrated that there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total development other than an area allotted for
parking.We are of the opinion that this building will not be aesthetically or architecturally connected to the Point or be a gateway
to the neighborhood,but instead will stand alone like a big wall on Lafayette St.separated from the neighborhood by a large
parking lot. Particularly since it has been recently recommended that the Point neighborhood(with some expanded boundaries)
become a federal historic district and obtain national register listing as the Point Historic District we feel that issues of design and
height be paid strict attention to so that any development will be a contribution to the neighborhood and to the city of Salem.
NAAIES` PR`OOPjERTIES OWNED IN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
-7 Oto
3oln Exdtel-http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
http://by l 07fd.bay I O7.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbo... 8/20/2006
6fV of Salm, Aassarhustf#s
1 , t Office of flle (gift Counril
Ulfg all
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE JEAN M. PELLETIER WARD COUNCILLORS
PRESIDENT
2006 2006
MARK E. BLAIR CHERYL A. LAPOINTE LUCY CORCHADO
THOMAS H. FUREY CITY CLERK MICHAEL SOSNOWSKI
JOAN B. LOVELY JEAN M. PELLETIER
ARTHUR C. SARGENT III LEONARD F.O'LEARY
MATTHEW A.VENO
August 21, 2006 JOSEPH A.O'KEEFE,SR..
City of Salem
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Atm.: Mr. Walter Power Ms. Nina Cohen
Chain Planning Board Chair, Zoning Board ofAppeals
Re.: St. Joseph's Redevelopment
135 Lafayette .Street
Salem, MA
Dear Chairpersons Power and Cohen:
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposal before you by the Planning Office for Urban
Affairs for the redevelopment of the St. Joseph's site.
As Ward 1 City Councilor, I am deeply aware of the needs not only of the Point Neighborhood
community but also of the issues confronting the City of Salem. While affordable and mixed-income
housing are much needed in the City at large and in the Point Neighborhood in particular, the City is
also in dire need of updated community service space, for both our seniors and youth. The proposal put
forth by the Planning Office meets both of these objectives. The St. Joseph's redevelopment initiative
will have a substantial positive impact and directly supports the city's and the neighborhood's efforts to
reaitalize our community.
The Planning Office for Urban Affairs has spent over fifteen months working with neighborhood
residents, representative community groups and agencies of the City of Salem to arrive at this
redevelopment plan. Together, they worked through several schemes in a thoughtful and inclusive
planning process. The proposal before you represents the result of that hard work. I urge you to
favorably consider the proposal so that this much needed and long awaited development may proceed
without delay.
If 1 can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (978)741-3653. Thank you.
Si tnc-rely(-�)'h,E
u;('Y hado
YI'ard 1 City Councillor
SALEM CITY HALL • 93 WASHINGTON STREET • SALEM, MA 01970-3592 • WWW.SALEM000NCIL.COM
rnilil4N by THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED 'TO- THECHANGE
FOR NONCONFORMING USE AT THE _ST. JOSEPH'S SITE
First: The St . Joseph ' s church is an architecturally
building significant
in the International style and a marker of the
French heritage and culture in the city of Salem. No
large effort of any consequence has been made to find a
good reuse of the church building to preserve this part
Of Salem 's -history. The proposed oversized building
would be `too tall and too close to the street and would
ruin the streetscape of Lafayette St. This is not what should
be put in place of the St . Joseph's church building which
has become a local LANDMARK with its minaret-like steeple that
can be seen for miles even out in the ocean .
Second: More apartment and condo units in the city of Salem will
increase the number of children enrolled in the city schools ,
and more police coverage as well as other city services will
be needed . _ The tax base for these units will not cover the
extra services that will be necessary. The city of Salem
has been forced to make cut backs , lay off people, and
institute trash fees for non-owner occupied buildings and
businesses to balance the budget . This proposed building has
more drawbacks than benefits to the city. There is already a
high vacancy rate in the city and this proposed construction
'fill create more traffic problems in an already congested area .
Third: The seniors in the city of Salem deserve to have their own
building as a senior center and should not be subjected to
multiuse facilities and sharing space with other groups .
Instead of being made into more condos, the St . Joseph 's school
building could be considered as a potential site.
NAME ADDRESS
SALEM CITIZENS OPPOSED TO REZONING OF ST. JOSEPH SITE
TO: The board of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: St. Joseph site rezoning
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a tall, building which is not complementary
to the existing houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not
demonstrated that there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total
development other than an area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this
building will not be aesthetically or architecturally gateway to our historic down town as
well as Lafayette St., but instead will stand alone like as a big eye sore on Lafayette St.
We the registers voters and residents of Salem are opposed to the granting of a variance
for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St. that is being proposed
by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette Development, LLC. We
feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as permitted by the existing R-
3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height variance for that site would
negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We believe that the proposed
physical characteristics of the six stories building whose entrance would be at the corner
of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the existing or potential development of
the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this height and mass will create a greater
population density in an already densely populated neighborhood and will significantly
add to the already existing traffic and parking problems in that area. The safety of people
traveling to abutting properties and nearby streets will be compromised because of
increased congestion on Lafayette, Washington, streets.
Compliance of the DPU should be maintained.
Please check one or two
Name Address voter/property owner in Salem
qV\- 3ofMCA �l C �huQe
dell t/to
4 SAvo y
A l� ���
SALEM CITIZENS OPPOSED TO REZONING OF ST. JOSEPH SITE
TO: The board of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: St. Joseph site rezoning
I am a former resident of Salem, MA who currently owns property in Salem. It has come
to my attention that St. Joseph's Church site will be reviewed by your Board for
rezoning. I do not believe this is an appropriate plan for the site. I was once a resident of
Palmer Street and I am a frequent visitor to the area.
I must agree with the residents of Salem who are opposed to the granting of a variance
for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St. that is being proposed
by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette Development, LLC. The
maximum height of three and one half stories as permitted by the existing R-3 zoning
should be maintained and the granting of a height variance for that site would negatively
impact our properties and the neighborhood. The proposed physical characteristics of the
six stories building whose entrance would be at the corner of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is
not compatible with the existing or potential development of the surrounding
neighborhoods. A building of this height and mass will create a greater population
density in an already densely populated neighborhood and will significantly add to the
already existing traffic and parking problems in that area. It will also isolate the residents
of Dow, Salem and Harbor Sts., resulting in a negative impact on the community. The
safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby streets will also be
compromised because of increased congestion on Lafayette and Washington Streets.
I urge you to consider the impact on an already stressed community and deny the zoning
variance. Thank you.
AAXO�
Charlene Gagnon
37 Sagamore Drive
Andover, MA 01810-5105
Property owner and Taxpayer in the city of Salem
I own property at 27 Hillside Avenue, Salem, MA
SALEM CITIZENS OPPOSED TO REZONING OF ST.JOSEPH SITE
TO: The board of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: St. Joseph site rezoning
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a tall, building which is not complementary
to the existing houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not
demonstrated that there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total
development other than an area allotted for parking. We are of theopinion that this
building will not be aesthetically or architecturally gateway to our historic down town as
well as Lafayette St., but instead will stand alone like as a big eye sore on Lafayette St.
We the registers voters and residents of Salem are opposed to the granting of a variance
for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St. that is being proposed
by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette Development, LLC. We
feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as permitted by the existing R-
3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height variance for that site would
negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We believe that the proposed
physical characteristics of the six stories building whose entrance would be at the corner
of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the existing or potential development of
the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this height and mass will create a greater
population density in an already densely populated neighborhood and will significantly
add to the already existing traffic and parking problems in that area. The safety of people
traveling to abutting properties and nearby streets will be compromised because of
increased congestion on Lafayette, Washington, streets.
Compliance of the DPU should be maintained.
Please check one or two
Name Address voter/property owner in Salem
i�44P
SALEM CITIZENS OPPOSED TO REZONING OF ST.JOSEPH SITE
TO: The board of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: St. Joseph site rezoning
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a tall, building which is not complementary
to the existing houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not
demonstrated that there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total
development other than an area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this
building will not be aesthetically or architecturally gateway to our historic down town as
well as Lafayette St., but instead will stand alone like as a big eye sore on Lafayette St.
We the registers voters and residents of Salem are opposed to the granting of a variance
for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St. that is being proposed
by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette Development, LLC. We
feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as permitted by the existing R-
3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height variance for that site would
negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We believe that the proposed
physical characteristics of the six stories building whose entrance would be at the corner
of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the existing or potential development of
the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this height and mass will create a greater
population density in an already densely populated neighborhood and will significantly
add to the already existing traffic and parking problems in that area. The safety of people
traveling to abutting properties and nearby streets will be compromised because of
increased congestion on Lafayette, Washington, streets.
Compliance of the DPU should be maintained.
Pla check one or two
Name Address vo property owner in Salem
2 v
S' 4r� ly/ nss .
n-> > IU �- � r
I-D �
jt r! -
SALEM CITIZENS OPPOSED TO REZONING OF ST.JOSEPH SITE
TO: The board of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: St. Joseph site rezoning
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a tall, building which is not complementary
to the existing houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not
demonstrated that there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total
development other than an area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this
building will not be aesthetically or architecturally gateway to our historic down town as
well as Lafayette St., but instead will stand alone like as a big eye sore on Lafayette St.
We the registers voters and residents of Salem are opposed to the granting of a variance
for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St.that is being proposed
by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette Development, LLC. We
feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as permitted by the existing R-
3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height variance for that site would
negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We believe that the proposed
physical characteristics of the six stories building whose entrance would be at the corner
of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the existing or potential development of
the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this height and mass will create a greater
population density in an already densely populated neighborhood and will significantly
add to the already existing traffic and parking problems in that area. The safety of people .
traveling to abutting properties and nearby streets will be compromised because of
increased congestion on Lafayette, Washington, streets.
Compliance of the DPU should be maintained.
Please check one or two
Name Address voter/property owner in Salem
TO: The members of the city of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: The application for rezoning of St Joseph Church site
We are owners of properties in the Point neighborhood who are opposed to the granting
of a variance for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St.that is
being proposed by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette
Development, LLC. We feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as
permitted by the existing R-3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height
variance for that site would negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We
believe that the proposed physical characteristics of the six stories building whose
entrance would be at the comer of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the
existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this
height and mass will create a greater population density in an already densely populated
neighborhood and will significantly add to the already existing traffic and parking
problems in that area. The safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby
streets will be compromised because of increased congestion at the intersections of
Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Sts.
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a community life enter,rental units, and
condos all in one large,massive,tall, building which is not complementary to the existing
houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not demonstrated that
there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total development other than an
area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this building will not be aesthetically
or architecturally connected to the Point or be a gateway to the neighborhood,but instead
will stand alone like a big wall on Lafayette St. separated from the neighborhood by a
large parking lot. Particularly since it has been recently recommended that the Point
neighborhood(with some expanded boundaries)become a federal historic district and
obtain national register listing as the Point Historic District we feel that issues of design
and height be paid strict attention to so that any development will be a contribution to the
neighborhood and to the city of Salem.
NAMES PROPERTIES OWNED IN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
Y Imo °
----
TO: The members of the city of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: The application for rezoning of St Joseph Church site
We are owners of properties in the Point neighborhood who are opposed to the granting
of a variance for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St.that is
being proposed by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette
Development, LLC. We feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as
permitted by the existing R-3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height
variance for that site would negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We
believe that the proposed physical characteristics of the six stories building whose
entrance would be at the comer of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the
existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this
height and mass will create a greater population density in an already densely populated
neighborhood and will significantly add to the already existing traffic and parking
problems in that area. The safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby
streets will be compromised because of increased congestion at the intersections of
Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Sts.
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a community life enter,rental units, and
condos all in one large,massive,tall,building which is not complementary to the existing
houses and.buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not demonstrated that
there-will be usable and accessible open areas within the total development other than an
area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this building will not be aesthetically
or architecturally connected to the Point or be a gateway to the neighborhood,but instead
will stand alone like a big wall on Lafayette St. separated from the neighborhood by a
large parking lot. Particularly since it has been recently recommended that the Point
neighborhood(with some expanded boundaries)become a federal historic district and
obtain national register listing as the Point Historic District we feel that issues of design
and height be paid strict attention to so that any development will be a contribution to the
neighborhood and to the city of Salem.
NAMES PROPERTIES OWNED IN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
'106� � �1
�" 02 y/ea V4,
TO: The members of the city of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: The application for rezoning of St Joseph Church site
We are owners of properties in the Point neighborhood who are opposed to the granting
of a variance for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St. that is
being proposed by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette
Development, LLC. We feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as
permitted by the existing R-3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height
variance for that site would negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We
believe that the proposed physical characteristics of the six stories building whose
entrance would be at the corner of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the
existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this
height and mass will create a greater population density in an already densely populated
neighborhood and will significantly add to the already existing traffic and parking
problems in that area. The safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby
streets will be compromised because of increased congestion at the intersections of
Lafayette, Washington,and Dow Sts.
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a community life enter,rental units,and
condos all in one large, massive,tall,building which is not complementary to the existing
houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not demonstrated that
there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total development other than an
area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this building will not be aesthetically
or architecturally connected to the Point or be a gateway to the neighborhood,but instead
will stand alone like a big wall on Lafayette St, separated from the neighborhood by a
large parking lot. Particularly since it has been recently recommended that the Point
neighborhood(with some expanded boundaries)become a federal historic district and
obtain national register listing as the Point Historic District we feel that issues of design
and height be paid strict attention to so that any development will be a contribution to the
neighborhood and to the city of Salem.
NAMES PROPERTIES OWNED IN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
�� l �7 mss s r
TO: The members of the city of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: The application for rezoning of St Joseph Church site
We are owners of properties in the Point neighborhood who are opposed to the granting
of a variance for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St. that is
being proposed by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette
Development, LLC. We feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as
permitted by the existing R-3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height
variance for that site would negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We
believe that the proposed physical characteristics of the six stories building whose
entrance would be at the corner of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the
existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this
height and mass will create a greater population density in an already densely populated
neighborhood and will significantly add to the already existing traffic and parking .
problems in that area. The safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby
streets will be compromised because of increased congestion at the intersections of
Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Sts.
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a community life enter, rental units, and
condos all in one large, massive,tall, building which is not complementary to the existing
houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not demonstrated that
there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total development other than an
area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this building will not be aesthetically
or architecturally connected to the Point or be a gateway to the neighborhood,but instead
will stand alone like a big wall on Lafayette St. separated from the neighborhood by a
large parking lot. Particularly since it has been recently recommended that the Point
neighborhood(with some expanded boundaries)become a federal historic district and
obtain national register listing as the Point Historic District we feel that issues of design
and height be paid strict attention to so that any development will be a contribution to the
neighborhood and to the city of Salem.
NAMES PROPERTIES OWNED IN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
U S4-r-e
L /moi
er �rrsa A)
j/ �L�vn-S NA�2iSUti �v-/1 i/fl P�ti1c c, _
-56
H/} /
/N0.i,V,,1C,U A , MoOY'`
(.�1/i"�-�'.J �GZ�'ZLGji7l•/,7 jC(j f-"n
pW S 1
TO: The members of the city of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: The application for rezoning of St Joseph Church site
We are owners of properties in the Point neighborhood who are opposed to the granting
of a variance for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St. that is
being proposed by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette
Development, LLC. We feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as
permitted by the existing R-3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height
variance for that site would negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We
believe that the proposed physical characteristics of the six stories building whose
entrance would be at the corner of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the
existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this
height and mass will create a greater population density in an already densely populated
neighborhood and will significantly add to the already existing traffic and parking
problems in that area. The safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby
streets will be compromised because of increased congestion at the intersections of
Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Sts.
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a community life enter, rental units, and
condos all in one large, massive,tall, building which is not complementary to the existing
houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not demonstrated that
there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total development other than an
area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this building will not be aesthetically
or architecturally connected to the Point or be a gateway to the neighborhood,but instead
will stand alone like a big wall on Lafayette St. separated from the neighborhood by a
large parking lot. Particularly since it has been recently recommended that the Point
neighborhood(with some expanded boundaries)become a federal historic district and
obtain national register listing as the Point Historic District we feel that issues of design
and height be paid strict attention to so that any development will be a contribution to the
neighborhood and to the city of Salem.
NAMVS PROPERTIES OWNED IN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
22, 27` �I{llds
H_fl✓�/S sT'
CS V,
27 4KM 3 -
41-4 l 3 — /r PA liner Sk
7
TO: The members of the city of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: The application for rezoning of St Joseph Church site
We are owners of properties in the Point neighborhood who are opposed to the granting
of a variance for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St. that is
being proposed by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette
Development, LLC. We feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as
permitted by the existing R-3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height
variance for that site would negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We
believe that the proposed physical characteristics of the six stories building whose
entrance would be at the corner of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the
existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this
height and mass will create a greater population density in an already densely populated
neighborhood and will significantly add to the already existing traffic and parking
problems in that area. The safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby
streets will be compromised because of increased congestion at the intersections of
Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Sts.
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a community life enter, rental units, and
condos all in one large, massive, tall, building which is not complementary to the existing
houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not demonstrated that
there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total development other than an
area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this building will not be aesthetically
or architecturally connected to the Point or be a gateway to the neighborhood, but instead
will stand alone like a big wall on Lafayette St. separated from the neighborhood by a
large parking lot. Particularly since it has been recently recommended that the Point
neighborhood(with some expanded boundaries)become a federal historic district and
obtain national register listing as the Point Historic District we feel that issues of design
and height be paid strict attention to so that any development will be a contribution to the
neighborhood and to the city of Salem.
NAMES PROPERTIES OWNED IN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
TO: The members of the city of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: The application for rezoning of St Joseph Church site
We are owners of properties in the Point neighborhood who are opposed to the granting
of a variance for height for the Planned Unit Development at 135 Lafayette St. that is
being proposed by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs and Salem Lafayette
Development, LLC. We feel that the maximum height of three and one half stories as
permitted by the existing R-3 zoning should be maintained and the granting of a height
variance for that site would negatively impact our properties and the neighborhood. We
believe that the proposed physical characteristics of the six stories building whose
entrance would be at the comer of Lafayette and Dow Sts. is not compatible with the
existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. A building of this
height and mass will create a greater population density in an already densely populated
neighborhood and will significantly add to the already existing traffic and parking
problems in that area. The safety of people traveling to abutting properties and nearby
streets will be compromised because of increased congestion at the intersections of
Lafayette, Washington, and Dow Sts.
We believe that nothing is gained by putting a community life enter, rental units, and
condos all in one large, massive,tall, building which is not complementary to the existing
houses and buildings along Lafayette St. Also the developer has not demonstrated that
there will be usable and accessible open areas within the total development other than an
area allotted for parking. We are of the opinion that this building will not be aesthetically
or architecturally connected to the Point or be a gateway to the neighborhood, but instead
will stand alone like a big wall on Lafayette St. separated from the neighborhood by a
large parking lot. Particularly since it has been recently recommended that the Point
neighborhood(with some expanded boundaries) become a federal historic district and
obtain national register listing as the Point Historic District we feel that issues of design
and height be paid strict attention to so that any development will be a contribution to the
neighborhood and to the city of Salem.
NAMES ) PROPERTIES OWNED IN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD
C/�.
Estamos de acuerdo con el desarrollo de la propiedad ubicado en 135 Lafayette St., conocida
como St. Joseph Church y apoyamos al los nuevos Duenos, Planning Office of Urban Affairs, y
su plan para el area.
We support the plans submitted by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs for the site known as St.
Joseph Church located at 135 Lafayette St.
Name Address
1. , s7`� qf�°w
2. ' Q� L�
=":
4. lei
0
'F Y) NO
6
< z s
8. 457u 6z-
9. a--
10.
11.
12._ 3
13.
14.
rJ
15.
16. G17X4
17 S
18.
19. 0Z
20. OZ (!V
Estamos de acuerdo con el desarrollo de la propiedad ubicado en 135 Lafayette St., conocida
como St. Joseph Church y apoyamos al los nuevos Duenos, Planning Office of Urban Affairs, y
su plan para el area.
We support the plans submitted by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs for the site known as St.
Joseph Church located at 135 Lafayette St.
Name nn Address
3.
4. _ p�
5. 9
Vit/
/l 9
G
6.
' l3 0
s. W
9.
11.IN: 024" per¢ , I [7
:12:Z %i.
13. 7 Lo, V'/50 t- J ¢
14. ,4 PF 9 -ek
15.
:16..
17. �i�,� --(//
6
5l � s Z�� 1'�e
18.�,� /r
20✓ 5 2O
Y.--d S N76
Estamos de acuerdo con el desarrollo de la propiedad ubicado en 135 Lafayette St., conocida
Como St. Joseph Church y apoyamos al los nuevos Ducnos, Planning Office of Urban Affairs, y
su plan para el area.
We support the plans submitted by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs for the site known as St.
Joseph Church located at 135 Lafayette St.
Name Address
z. /CK C lZ
3.
5. �2
6.
7.
8.
9.
lc
10. SZ S4re � �
11. o
ye-e4
1 �
134
14.
AC-
15. Q�,� r � /�Y� --?�
16. -t 4 bjv j
�s� Sr P nArf4p '}
17.So s s5T � —'--
3
18. A 3d
I-ehA
19. �1 1 QC(�
zo.- S C
I .
Estamos de acuerdo con el desarrollo de la propiedad ubicado en 135 Lafayette St., conocida
tomo St. Joseph Church y apoyamos al los nuevos Duenos,Planning Office of Urban Affairs, y
su plan para el area.
We support the plans submitted by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs for the site known as St.
Joseph Church located at 135 Lafayette St.
Name Address
1. 01
a `j s .63o
2. Na�„ I a I307
3• J S
a w�Z�
3a
4.
5
6.
7.
9. iM
10.
11. dtdr C DY\-2,Q je 2
_ r� � aCe 5
121 ( �-1J5 1pp L �letf 308
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Estamos de acuerdo con el desarrollo de la propiedad ubicado en 135 Lafayette St.,conocida
Como St Joseph Church y apoyamos al los nuevos Dueifos,Planning Office of Urban Affairs, y
su plan para el area
We support the plans submitted by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs for the site known as St.
Joseph Church located at 135 Lafayette St.
Name Address
1. q I 2 -s7• 'Co)w-
2 `d S 2 ,ai iva/0/9/
4.
e
6� ,
7 � n
9
10.
11. �
12. "
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Estamos de acuerdo con el desarrollo de la propiedad ubicado en 135 Lafayette St., conocida
como St. Joseph Church y apoyamos al los nuevos Duenos,Planning Office of Urban Affairs, y
su plan para el area
We support the plans submitted by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs for the site known as St.
Joseph Church located at 135 Lafayette St.
Name Address
1.
2. /,go /1pa 7I Sl AZa
3. eiL17 w ! Ov
4wl t2
0lQ'7d
6. 7y .' �S4 Q t 76 .
7�LL trSU$fiO rO02 U lel pu) S, `—
9. l /i--y'
10. QQ�q, <+jI l— r
11.
6
12.
13. /12 74� /2G �C�� /oZ L &A-r o/ 7 `dSLL4;2
14. q�
n 1 ' `
15. CLQ—. cyto e ��tfc�t
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Estamos de acuerdo con el desarrollo de la propiedad ubicado en 135 Lafayette St., conocida
Como St. Joseph Church y apoyamos al los nuevos Duenos,Planning Office of Urban Affairs, y
su plan para el area.
We support the plans submitted by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs for the site known as St.
Joseph Church located at 135 Lafayette St.
e Address
c®irr
2 3.
� f s
4. t L CA cI cJ 7� �fj t
5 o / rrt a20 sT sa Z All
c2 59
7.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. ,
12. , ryyjG -D�C U j
13�
F SaZti�
14. Pi1 1�
15. plil
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Estamos de acuerdo con el desarrollo de la propiedad ubicado en 135 Lafayette St., conocida
como St. Joseph Church y apoyamos al los nuevos Duenos, Planning Office of Urban Affairs, y
su plan para el area. '
We support the plans submitted by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs for the site known as St.
Joseph Church located at 135 Lafayette St.
Name Address
1.
2. /s , CY
3. � P Lugil�//b 6y Hbl1h� J�
4.5. /NJ�rc _ SmA �a I �1 Sin � 1
/ t S� L4ww 1kOlq� 2.
6.
'. u r S
8.
9.
10. (3—� 6 Gl
11.
12.
13.
14. SAM
15. � caQTmsQc� � cfv„� �
17.
18.
19. W1J�
20.
Estamos de acuerdo con el desarrollo de la propiedad ubicado en 135 Lafayette St., conocida
Como St. Joseph Church y apoyamos til los nuevos Dueflos,Planning Office of Urban Affairs, y
su plan para el area.
We support the plans submitted by the Planning Office of Urban Affairs for the site known as St.
Joseph Church located at 135 Lafayette St.
Name Address
1.
��
2. W�
9�
3. �L�,RtIY�Cv��S�' rnt�(�lj
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.