Loading...
MINUTES - Special - 3/30/2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Continuation of Public Hearings of the Salem City Council was held in the Council Chamber on Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. for the purpose of discussing conveying a portion of 297 Bridge Street for the sum of $10,001.00 and land disposition agreement and conveyance of land to Sun King LLC for the sum of $990,000.00. Notice of this hearing was posted on March 10, 2016 at 10:03 A.M. Councillor Gerard arrived at 6:20 PM. All other Councillors were present Councillor Josh H. Turiel presided. In attendance were the following: Mayor and representatives from F.W. Webb Councillor McCarthy moved to take up the matter of Land Disposition Agreement first. There were no objections #8 - LAND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT AND CONVEY A PORTION 297 BRIDGE STREET 52,491 SQUARE FEET (FORMER UNIVERSAL STEEL) AND 311 BRIDGE STREET, 2,015 SQUARE FEET TO SUN KING LLC AFFILIATE OF F.W. WEBB CO. FOR THE SUM OF $990,000.00 #7 - CONVEY A PORTION OF 297 BRIDGE STREET 1,260 SQUARE FEET KNOWN AS PARCEL B TO SUN KING LLC FOR THE SUM OF $10,001.00 WITH A PERMANENT PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS ON THE ENTIRE PARCEL FOR THE BENEFIT OF 30-32 BECKFORD STREET Councillor Famico made a statement that Robert Goss Kennedy also recording with a video camera form inside the room Mayor Driscoll gave an update. She stated that the maximum TIF cannot exceed $1,400,000. Also: 1) Regarding soils management after the City and F.W. Webb LSPs spoke at last meeting there are still concerns. The city feels it will be worthwhile to add additional oversight of monitory by our LSP Weston & Simpson as construction takes place. We will put our own LSP on the site, it’s an extra set of eyes. 2) Design, rendering submitted is not likely to come out the same way. F.W. Webb designer works with the DRB even if not required have used this before where the architects get together to vet out problems and to brainstorm views and opinions. CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Planning Board also does a good job of overseeing design to make the project much better. 3) Hazardous Materials, for long term liability the city retained council to work with our City Solicitor. Since it was taken by tax title not a contributor to the site and are taking future steps. 4) Follow up with direct abutters on new concerns and provide additional information Councillor Dibble – asked the Mayor, how we can make your comments part of the Package of the selling price sand TIF. How can we make them meet with the DRB and Historic Commission and make this concrete, and the liability issue working with counsel how can we make this part of the package? Mayor Driscoll responded the Purchase & Sales agreement is recorded at the Registry of Deeds the conditions will be wrapped into the LDA. Environmental Counsel exist within how Brownfields can be redeveloped and why we obtain extra protection because of tax title. APPEARING IN FAVOR: None APPEARING OPPOSED: Cindy Johnson, 13 River Street – she read a letter from the Federal Street Association Opposed. 5 actions, detrimental to quality of life. She also read her own statement. See Next Page. CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Lisa Spence, 17 ½ River Street – is opposed to the sale. It raises human health and safety risk. Piles being driven still contamination under the cap AEG- disclaimer does not and cannot guarantee safety. Dust monitoring will not stop dust. SunKing LLC did not sign EPA Financial. Jeremiah Jennings, 18 River Street – is opposed. The bid should be rejected due to non- conforming. Showed pictures of how he was dressed on five different contaminated sites. Jane Arlander, 92 Federal St., Salem read the following statement see next page: CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 David Hart, 104 Federal St., Salem – Stated he was a member of the Historical Commission but tonight he represents himself. He stated that the pile driving vibrations transmitted may cause damage to nearby houses and the other potential problems are noise factors and soil sediment. Elizabeth Nugent, 12 River St., Salem – Asking Council to please consider the current and future residents. The site has been capped see no reason to uncap it. Melissa Hankens, 16 River St., Salem – Urges safety of children please vote no. Peter Nugent, 12 River St., Salem – Opposed for various reasons: Finance, Economics, Spot Zoning, Health Reasons and Risks, Airborne Toxins, nothing makes sense doesn’t add up. Hand written flyer passed out from people who worked on the site. He use to pass the site walking to the train and started talking to the workers; maybe that’s why they sent flyers. Thanks to the Council for letting everybody speak. You took this job to make Salem better not just to follow the Administration. Vote for Vision, What you Think, Legacy. Patricia Ranen, 190 Bridge St., Salem use to live at 82 Federal St for 36 years. They had no air conditioning so windows were open and kids played in the backyard. Had Pituitary Brain Tumor at 16 years old. Had 2 surgeries and radiation. Chief of Neurosurgeon at Boston’s Hospital. Entered son into research study for Environmental concerns very rare to be diagnosed as a child. Very bad to allow this proposal and to put children at risk. Connie Arlander, 91 Federal St., Salem read a letter from Jim McAllister (86 Federal St., Salem) – See Next Page CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Resident from 190 Bridge St., urged the Council to vote No. Has lived in Salem for over 40 years and loves its history, even earns a living from the tourist industry. Do not allow city to rezone and redevelop to destroy a historic neighborhood. Ian Cox, 2 River St., Salem – His house is completely exposed to the project. He is rd expecting his 3 child. They have capped the site and asks Councillors to vote No and protect his family. Steve (?) – Real Estate Appraiser for 28 years. This project will have an impact on the value of homes on River St. and abutting streets. After walking around the neighborhood and the project feels will have a negative effect of 10-15% on home values because utilities are on the roof and causes noise. The design of the building is like a Canyon created to magnify sound. When windows are open because of no A/C you can hear sounds like the beeping of trucks backing up. Chuck Von Bruns – 3 River St., Salem – Opposed to the sale of Property and Beckford Way. FW Webb is not bid compliant. Bidder to meet conditions or the bid should be rejected – did not meet requirements “as is” bid. They put conditions in there RFP. Their RFP itself paid out of escrow fund, states Webb payment held in escrow, then rescinds escrow provisions and asked for TIF instead to equal the cost of remediation. Despite what the Mayor says not a Limited TIF. Still a non-compliant bid, should have been rejected, preferential treatment given to Webb. Minimum bid $600,000 not $1M. Nobody knew. At the last meeting, he gave a 10-year analysis; update of his 10-year financial plan only paid if property sold not repaid if not uncapped. Best Business Decision would be for them to move within Salem. Why is the administration bending over backwards? Why is the city willing to offer a $1Billion Company a tax credit of $400,000? Fred Biebesheimer, 17 ½ River St., Salem – Opposed to the Project and the TIF. The sealed bid was non-compliant. Why offer a TIF if not leaving Salem; every business will want a TIF – Giving away public property at no cost. Spot Zoning is being proposed will forever change feel of Salem. Once zoned B-4; always be zoned B-4, it will be destructive to the McIntire District. Reject the bid, keep residents safe and keep the parking lot. Steven Sass and Ellen Golub, 92 Federal St., Salem – Read the letter below: CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Resident (?) – Speaking for herself and 9 other Tenants - For 6 years has served as the “super” a lot of work has been done in the interior and exterior. Tenants concerned about health risk. A lot of people are afraid. Anne Whittier, 10 River St., Salem – She is against Webb. She also read a letter from her neighbor Carol Carr, 7 River St., Salem who is opposed to the bid. Tim Jenkins, 18 Broad St., Salem – Read his following letter – See Next Page CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Constance Arlander, 91 Federal St., Salem – Read her letter – See Next Page – Opposed because of Parking CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Jim Kearney – 1 ½ Cambridge St., Salem – Spoke about the Universal Steel Parking Lot Analysis Needs vs Supply – See Next Page: CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Lou Sirianni, 6 Botts Court, Salem – The RFP should not be accepted based on two principles. First, the RFP state any response should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. And this is the wrong use. Secondly, the RFP requires “As Is” no qualifications in proposal but two were submitted with FW Webb’s proposal a) TIFF; b) Remediation Costs. Webb is still free to redevelop red brick building into condos for example but the 35’ high plumbing supply building is detrimental and should not abut our oldest historic streets. Victoria Sirrianni – 6 Botts Court, Salem – Opposed to the Proposal. Only you Councillors can stop it the general public does not receive benefits from this and it puts our health at risk. Ms. Sirrianni read her letter. See next page: CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Jan Eschauzier, 15 ½ River St., Salem – Opposed to project See her letter on the next page CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Justin Whittier, 10 River St., Salem – Opposed to proposal for two reasons – 1. NRCC Master Plan and 2. Flood Hazard Overlay District. FW Webb is not allowed by use and no B-4 in the NRCC. Alex Marks, 8 Botts Ct., Salem – Two comments regarding Sun King’s Proposal. First, Sun King ‘s bid is likely below the land’s fair market value because the City of Salem appraised the land based on B-1 Zoning. The city’s land appraisal of $990,000, which was used to estimate a fair market value and to establish the RFP’s minimum bid, was based on zoning that limits lot coverage to 40% and building height to 30 feet. Sun King met the minimum bid but also asked for B4 zoning, which allows up to 80% lot coverage and 45’ building height. The City did not re-appraise the land based on B4 zoning to more accurately reflect the fair market value of the parcel in this transaction. If approved, the City will be conveying this parcel below its fair market value. Secondly, Sun King’s bid creates a “buildout” risk. Sun King and any subsequent owner can build with 80% lot coverage, no setback in front or on the sides, 45’ high and use enclosed parking to meet those requirements. If Sun King were to resell the land or if another company purchased the business, the value of these more generous building rights might be exploited. A review of the Planning Board’s deliberations before approving the zoning change shows no discussion of this buildout risk. While it is clear that FW Webb does not plan to buildout to a B4 maximum, I think it is important for the City to consider today, the potential unintended consequences of B4 zoning before ceding ownership. The images on the following (showed images) are hypothetical examples of buildout closer to what is allowable under B-4 zoning. Potential buildout when compared to current proposal could double the lot coverage and increase building volume by 140%. Barbara Cleary, 104 Federal St., Salem – Is opposed to the sale of the Universal Steel Site to FW Webb and to the vote to allow the Mayor to enter into a Land Disposition Agreement. See letter below CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Linda Jenkins read the following letter from Meg Twohey – See Next Page CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Tim Dogget, 9 Lynn St., Salem – Opposed to Sale. The Urban Renewal of 1970’s, almost 50 years ago, was to preserve the Historic aspects of Salem. It wanted to develop Historic Districts. Please think seriously about changing zoning - if change arbitrarily for one project then everybody’s zoning is at risk. Jane Stauffer, 28 Beckford St., Salem – Spoke about history of Beckford Street and Way. The sewer pipes and gas main are not effected as is. It’s a safe way for pedestrians to get to Bridge Street. Anne Knight, 11 River St., Salem – Has lived there since 1978. Opposed to sale of land and Beckford Way to FW Webb. We need to preserve the ordinary things like our pathway to Bridge St. It’s like repainting a masterpiece. When you walk down the path, you are reminded you are walking down a path for the 1600’s – need to preserve it. David Whittier, 10 River St., Salem – Opposed to Sale. Objections as a carpenter – we need to repair and preserve Salem’s past. Deal with train shaking homes but to deal with construction damage to homes. We accept restrictions to live in a Historic District and pay more for renovations and changes. Now Salem is going to give money away. CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Jennifer ? – 3 River St., Salem – Opposed to Sale – not compatible with neighborhood. Historic Neighborhoods are bread and butter to city; plumbing stores are not. Stores can be relocated, historic neighborhoods cannot. Sandra Roberts, 190 Bridge St., Salem – Opposed to Sale - Has lived in Salem for 50 and has worked in the travel and tourism for 20 years. Listed as Historic Landmarks. Tourists dismayed by lack of parking and leave city with their money. Vote NO. Will not enhance entrance corridor. There are health factors as well. Danielle (?) from Watertown, MA – Opposition to project. On a state level and national level well known as a Historic Place. Trade that flourished between Salem and China. Take Visitors to Salem because of history. Preserve past, present and future. Susan Weldon, 106 Federal St., Salem – Read a letter from a new resident (letter not on submitted for record) Lillian Hsu – 17 Cambridge St., Salem – Statement as a private citizen not as a member of the Public Arts Commission. Oppose the sale of FW Webb. New comer to Salem about 2 ½ years ago. Salem offers quiet neighborhoods as well as urban districts, you can walk to the train station, the growth of restaurants that has been happening. Keep considering this long-term vision instead of short-term only. David Hart, 104 Federal St., Salem read a letter from Darrow Lebovici from 122 Federal St. opposing the sale. A letter was read from John Carr, 7 River St., Salem – Opposed to sale. There have been procedural flaws. Councillors need to have the political courage to make the right decision. FW Webb has choices; the neighbors do not. Josiah Fisk – residential 358 Essex St., Salem; Business 8 Front St., Salem. Still feels as though he does not know enough and have enough information. What build out would look like and future implications of changing the zoning. Have not heard from Webb why so important to them. Why then the City offer them a break of this is so important to them. This is in your hands – I have faith that you will make the right decision. Robert Kennedy, 17 Carlton St., Salem – As discussion progressed over time, TIF still hasn’t been set to $400K. They want to get best deal, the more they get the more we are on the hook. Webb has done $1.4B in sales/yr – they don’t need the $400K TIF. Give the money to someone who needs it. Will they put on the addition and then sell the building? Safety Issues – EPA has serious issues – lead in water in Flint Michigan. We are relying on same agency to protect us from airborne contaminates. He lives near the plant, city doesn’t care about noise and construction. Worry about how things progress. There is a special meeting right after this. CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Mike Cusick, 19 Putnam St., Salem – Neither for nor against this because there are too many unanswered questions. 1. Any provision to improve Bridge St. i.e. sidewalks, shoulders 2. Dumping is a problem any provisions to clean this up 3. Area infested by rats; the whole corridor infested when property capped on Boston & Bridge rats came up. Cancer research denominator what are those numbers need a baseline for numbers. Toxic Waste not just Universal Steele but other factories. Parking don’t know the capacity until real numbers are obtained. The garages are empty. There was only 1 bid on this site – why only 1 bid? Power Plant in Boston dozens of bids to redevelop why only 1 here. The Master Plan written many years ago, plan is not wrong Councillor Arthur Sargent – need to act more like a business. If sell property give up total control as of now as the owners, we have the ultimate control. The parking lot brings us 30-50K/yr. We shouldn’t disturb a capped site and open it. Webb could have bought this from Universal Steel but they let the city pay the $3M to clean up. They formal Sun King LLC to buy it, not FW Webb and then they can walk away. Then they get the leverage. If it goes bad, then we get it back. We need to maintain leverage and ownership. Maximize revenue to pay more for parking. I’m asking my colleagues to maintain ownership treat people as you would to live. Consider their property values and quality of life – do not sell. After everyone spoke, Mayor came back up to podium to make a number of comments on what she heard tonight. Thanked everyone for being here. But would like to clarify a few points. Just because she is for this project does not mean she doesn’t support quality of life issues or that she is bending over backwards to help a private business. Many of you did not want this parking lot, it was only meant to be temporary. Shared the RFP with the neighbors and nobody against it. The city could have just auctioned this off but decided to go this way to give more public input. Webb was the only proposal submitted. Then we negotiated with them. They included requirements – doesn’t mean we accept them. TIFs have been used many times to provide relief when reinvesting in the city. The TIF will not be higher than $400K. Could be less, not just writing them a check or billing them $40,000/yr for 10 years. Heard additional Public Health Concerns. I would never put public health above people. It pains me to hear about those affected with Cancer nor do I expect Councillors to put a project above health. Over the years, not one person called about clean up. This was not a big neighborhood issue. EPA had a process. We have homes living near this contaminated site. If we were to have a No Build Policy for every brownfield we would not have any redevelopment. We have all these sites from years past and if we didn’t redevelop we would have not growth. This is not a failed city planning experiment. This is a good proposal and planning board will make it better. I don’t like being in the middle of a hostile projects with neighbors. I care I want to make this better. Talked about reinvesting resources into Bridge St., then Boston St., then Canal St. Sorry this is hostile but this corridor is commercial may be zoned residential but I see it as commercial. My motives are pure I care about the neighbors. This is the process; there are no hidden agendas. Webb has been a good partner. I’m listening – I’m keeping track of the comments from the 40+ speakers CITY OF SALEM CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MARCH 30, 2016 Councillor Sargent – Zoning what you want and what you don’t want. Made R2 from commercial. The Planning Board decided years ago and they were good people as well as good vision for down the road. Other Brownfields are not owned by the city Justin Whitter – Care about the outcome. We oppose – The Mayor has talked about hostility; there’s no hostility just disagreement – don’t agree with proposal development Receiving a TIF is like getting something in return for sale and purchase. The NRCC does allow increase in height but not setbacks. Tim Jenkins – City Could have done this a different way. If an auction – R-2 Zoning only thing that could be built was R-2. Could not do that because can’t be residential. Not fair that the Mayor spoke again. Councillor Famico moved that both hearings be closed. Councillor McCarthy seconded the Motion. So Voted. Councillor Famico moved both matters to the full council and the special meeting be held next. Councillor Eppley seconded the Motion. So Voted. On the motion of Councillor Furey the meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. ATTEST: CHERYL A. LAPOINTE CITY CLERK