Loading...
44-60 BOSTON STREET - ZONING 44 �b rza c� f y �w.coym>1to Chi#u fft �$aleni, 'ffittssarhilutts A Planning 33varb �A�o �` YYPMIPYYT CYEPYt j i INNS A Com• � r 7 Decision Site Plan Review Special Permit The Kennedy Development Group .s 500 Broadway Everett, MA 02149 RE: Osco Drug - 45-53 and 59 Boston Street d On Thursday, May 4, 1995, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a public hearing regarding the application of the Kennedy Development Group, 500 Broadway, Everett, MA 02149, Section 7-18, Site Plan Review, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, with respect to the construction of a +/-13,237 s.f. Osco Drug store and associated improvements at 45-53 and 59 Boston Street, between Proctor and Pope Streets. Board member John Moustakis recused himself from hearing this petition. The public hearing was closed on July 6, 1995. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on July 6, 1995, the Board voted by a vote of six (6) in favor, one (1) opposed, to approve the application as complying with the requirements of Site Plan Review, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance With Plan Work shall conform with set of plans entitled, "Site Plan Review Documents for Osco Drug, Boston Street, Salem. MA", dated April 6, 1995, revised July 12, 1995 prepared by Geller Associates, 77 North Washington Street, Boston, MA 02114, containing four sheets, LR-1 through LR-4. 2. Amendments Any amendments to the Site Plan or waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 3. Traffic a. There shall be no left turn exit out of the site onto Boston Street. The applicant, his successors or assigns, shall provide a detailed plan to the City Planner for his written approval depicting the construction of the exit driveway to prohibit left turns onto Boston Street. The plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. C tv of tt1em, tt s r��us>�##s 3^ '' � �Ittnttin$ �nttra QDw SaIrm (15run Decision July 15, 1999 Kennedy Development Group C/o Atty. Joseph Correnti Serafini, Serafini, Darling, and Correnti 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Osco Drug Store and Office Building, 44-60 Boston Street Site Plan Review On Thursday, February 4, 1999,the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing on the application of the Kennedy Development Group regarding Site Plan Review for the construction of an Osco Drug Store and an Office Building on the former Sylvania Manufacturing Plant site. The plan consists of a 13,600 square foot Osco Drug Store and a 23,000 square foot, three story office building. In addition, the plan shows the parking for 168 vehicles on the site. The Public Hearing was continued to March 18, 1999, April 1, 1999, April 22, 1999, June 3, 1999 and closed on July 1, 1999. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on July 1, 1999,the Board voted by a vote of seven(7) in favor, none opposed,to approve the application as complying with the requirements of Site Plan Review, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform with the set of plans entitled, "Site Plan Approval Drawings—Salem Office Development, Boston Street and Bridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts", sheets Existing Conditions Plan, CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, CR-4, CR-5, A-1, A-2, prepared by Geller Associates, Inc., dated December 18, 1998, revised XX. 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. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. Osco Drug Store and Office Building May 6, 1999-2 3. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans. b. Trees shall be a minimum of 3 %z" caliper. c. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. d. After such landscaping is completed, the developer will add further landscaping, in particular to dumpsters and loading docks, if such is requested by the Planning Board or the City Planner, e. Additional landscaping shall be planted at the corner of the Bridge Street and Boston Street intersection. Final design shall be approved by the City Planner. f. The perimeter sidewalk shall be kept clean of litter and obstructions. In addition, the perimeter sidewalk shall be plowed and sanded by the applicant, his successors or assigns. g. A five foot cast iron or anodized aluminum balustrade fence shall be constructed along the perimeter sidewalk and the adjacent parcel to the east. The fence shall be constructed on top of a granite or concrete berm along the inside edge of the sidewalk. The final design of the fence shall be approved by the City Planner. 4. Storage There shall be no exterior storage of materials on the site. 5. Building Permits Building permits for both the Osco Drug Store and the Office Building must be pulled simultaneously. The developer will proceed on good faith to complete the buildings in a timely manner. 6. Signage a. Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the Sign Review Committee. b. The number of signs and the materials proposed for the signs will be reviewed by the City Planner, particularly the freestanding signs. 7. Lighting a. Lighting shall be installed as shown on the approved plan. b. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way, or shall adversely effect safe vision of operators of vehicles moving on nearby streets. c. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Osco Drug Store and Office Building May 6, 1999-3 e. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. f. All lighting located on the office building shall be turned off when the last office within the building closes. All lighting on the Osco Drug Store and in the parking lot shall be turned off when the Osco Drug is closed. g. There shall be no sodium vapor lamps located on the site. 8. Traffic Mitigation a. There shall be no left turn permitted out or in of the entrance located on Boston Street. The entrance shall be designed to eliminate left turns and there shall be signage located at the entrance to prohibits left turns. The final design of the entrance shall be approved by the City Planner. c. There shall be no left turn permitted out or in of the entrance located on Bridge Street closest to the intersection with Boston Street. The entrance shall be designed to eliminate left turns and there shall be signage located at the entrance to prohibits left turns. The final design of the entrance shall be approved by the City Planner. b. The applicant shall support the City of Salem in the construction of a deceleration(right turn only) lane onto Bridge Street from Boston Street. The lane will be approximately 250 feet in length and 12 feet of pavement with a five foot sidewalk. The lane shall begin to taper at the entrance to the Osco Drug Store site. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing design plans for the deceleration lane and for all construction costs associated with the implementation of the new design. The final design of the deceleration lane will be approved by the City Planner and the City Engineering Department. 9. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: a. Work shall not be conducted between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM the following day on weekdays or at any time on Sundays or Holidays. 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. Osco Drug Store and Office Building May 6, 1999-4 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 and not on Boston Street or Bridge Street. 10. Clerk of the Works A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the applicant, his successors or assigns' expense, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner. 11. Board of Health All Board of Health requirements, as specified in the decision dated February 18, 1999, shall be strictly adhered to. 12. Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 13. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 14. Conservation Commission All work shall comply with the Order of Conditions issued by the Salem Conservation Commission. 15. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the developer, 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, his successors or assigns. The applicant,his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two-(2) year period. 16. Hours of Operation a. The hours of operation for the Osco Drug Store shall be 7:00 AM until 10:00 PM. Any amendments to hours of operation shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 17. Exterior Elevations Final elevations, brick type, and other building materials and fencing shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 18. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Osco Drug Store and Office Building May 6, 1999- 5 b. Drainage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. c. The developer, his successors, or assigns shall inspect the culvert located on the site during construction. If it is determined that the culvert requires repair or replacement, the developer, his successors, or assigns shall repair or replace the culvert as deemed necessary by City Engineer. d. The swaile proposed to be located to the rear of the site shall be maintained and cleaned of debris by the owner. 19. Deliveries Deliveries shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. 20. Noise a. The applicant shall conduct a post construction noise test at 2:00 AM. The noise test shall be conducted at the site of the nearest residential dwelling unit. b. There shall be no significant increase in noise level. The post construction noise level shall not exceed 44dB(A). c. All rooftop equipment shall be screened. 21. As-built Plans As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 22. Violations Violations of any condition 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 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 I , �; ".I !i � i1 i�'+"V ^4 � � r. 9 � ' � �_ _� . ,r n.. .. ' 1 � �'. �. I !1 � � ` 1 fi� f, y� , 1 M J'. 1� II .. � r_.» I @ I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS , COPA ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT C.A. NOs.: 98-2424A & 00-1239A FEDERAL STRREET NEIGHBORHOOD) ASSOCIATION, et al ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) BRIAN CONNELLY, SALEM BOARD OF) APPEALS, et al ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANT SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY THE FEDERAL STREET NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., MARTIN H. IMM. JUDITH G. IMM, KENNETH S. WALLACE, JR., AND JOYCE E. WALLACE Now comes the Defendant Salem Board of Appeals (hereinafter"Board") in opposition to the Motion to Intervene by the Federal Street Neighborhood Association, Inc. (hereinafter "Association) and Martin Imm, Judith Imm, Kenneth Wallace and Joyce Wallace. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 2, 1998, the Board voted four to one (4-1) in favor of granting Kennedy Development Group (hereinafter "Kennedy") three variances for the proposed development of 44-60 Boston Street. (See attached Exhibit "A" Decision on the Petition).' The public hearing on this petition was originally held on November 18, i The proposed development is a one-story retail drug store (Osco) and a separate three-story office building. The property is zoned Business Park Development ('BPD") which allows for an office building by right. The three variances granted by the Board allow for the retail use in the 1 1998, and continued to the December 2nd Board meeting. Id. The written decision of the Board was filed with the City Clerk on December 7, 1998. Id. On behalf of the + original Plaintiffs, Brian Connelly, Phyllis Connelly, Brenda Connelly, Paul Konstadt, and Marin Fine, Attorney William H. Sheehan, III, filed a Complaint pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, section 17, seeking review of the Board's granting the three variances. (See Exhibit "C" Original Complaint). Attorney Sheehan filed the Complaint with the court and the City Clerk on December 23, 1998. The Association's participation in the zoning review process of this proposed development has been extensive since even before the first public hearing on the petition for relief on November 18, 1998. On October 23, 1998, Kennedy presented its development plans to the Association for its input on the project. (See attached Exhibit "D").2 After "considerable discussions", the Association voted to oppose the proposed retail use for the site. Id. By correspondence of October 23, 1998, the Association informed the Board of its position and asked that it be considered when voting on Kennedy's petition for zoning relief. Id. Again on November 18, 1998, in a more detailed memorandum, the Association voiced its opposition to Kennedy's request for variances to develop this parcel. (See attached Exhibit "E"). The Association's memorandum cites specific use sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Id. In addition to the opposition of the Association, several individual Federal Street neighbors voiced their opposition to this project by writing to the Board (See attached Exhibit "F"). Two children of original Plaintiff Paul Kondstadt wrote the Board in BPD and also reduces the seventy-five foot buffer zone to fifty and thirty-feet respectively. The Properly line between the site to be developed and the Federal Street abutters is also the line dividing the BPD district from the R-2 (two family residential) district. (See attached Exhibit "B" Zoning Map of Area). 2 opposition to the project. (See attached Exhibit "G"). Rita Markunas, who provided an affidavit on July 10, 2000, in support of the Motion to Intervene, also voiced her opposition to the project as early as October 20, 1998. (See attached Exhibit "H"). Notwithstanding its extensive involvement with and opposition to Defendant Kennedy's proposed use for this site, the Association intentionally chose not to file an appeal of the Board's decision granting the variances to allow same. In his affidavit supporting the Motion to Intervene, David Hart, resident of 104 Federal Street, Treasurer of the Association and former Salem Planning Board Member, states that "Prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, ... a decision was made not to include the Association as a named plaintiff in the case for certain strategic reasons." (See Affidavit of David M. Hart Supporting Motion, ¶ 4)(emphasis added). Finally, would be Plaintiffs Martin and Judith Imm did not even move into their site abutting Federal Street home until August 1999, some nine months after the disputed variances were granted. (See Affidavit of Martin Imm Supporting Motion, %2). They bought this abutting property.with full knowledge that the variances had been granted, but were being appealed by five individual plaintiffs. Id. ARGUMENT The Intervening Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Prosecute the Appeal as They Are Not "Aggrieved Parties."' A court has no jurisdiction to consider a zoning appeal unless it is brought by a "person aggrieved" by a decision of a zoning board of appeals within the meaning of 2 All documents provided as Exhibits have been produced to original Plaintiffs through discovery. 3 Defendant Board of Appeals also contests the standing of the original Plaintiffs for their failure to prove they are aggrieved by the Board's decision. Mere recitation of statutory "aggrieved party" is not enough to assert standing. 3 the Zoning Statute. See Mass. Gen. L. c. 40A, § 17; see also Marotta v. Bd. of Appeals of Revere, 336 Mass. 199, 202-03 (1957). The law on standing is not a mere technicality, but an important element of all zoning cases: [W]hether a party has standing to participate in a judicial proceeding is not simply a procedural technicality but rather involves remedial rights affecting the whole of the proceeding. . . The multiplicity of parties and the increased participaticn.by persons whose rights are at best obscure will, in the absence of exact adherence to requirements as to standing, seriously erode the efficacy of the administrative process. . . [To] preserve orderly administrative processes and judicial review thereof, a party must meet the legal requirements necessary to confer standing. Save the Bays Inc v Dep't of Public Utilities, 366 Mass. 667, 672 (1975). The presumption that a "party in interest" under Section 11 is also a "person aggrieved" under Section 17 is rebuttable. Bell v. Zoning Bd. of Gloucester, 429 Mass. 551, 553 (1999); Cohen v Zoning Bd of Appeals of Plymouth, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 619, 621 (1993). To gain standing to prosecute this appeal, Plaintiffs must prove they have sustained some significant degree of harm as a proximate result of the challenged zoning decision. The injury must be real, substantial and directly caused by the zoning relief challenged to support, on balance, judicial intervention to protect against such injury. Boston Edison Co. v Boston Redevelopment Authority, 374 Mass. 37, 46 (1977). Zoning appeals may be brought only to protect those "legal rights" the zoning ordinance or bylaw was intended to create. Redstone v. Board of Appeals of Chelmsford, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 383, 385 (1981). In general, "[a] party has standing when it can allege an injury within the area of concern of the statute or regulatory scheme under which the injurious action has occurred." Massachusetts Ass'n of Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers Inc v 4 Comm'r of Insurance, 373 Mass. 290, 293 (1977). The judiciary has not been reluctant to deny access to the courts when only contrived or speculative injuries are alleged. Barvenik v. Bd. of Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 129 (1992)(unsupported fears of increased traffic and declining property values not enough). "Only a limited class of individuals, those whose property interests will be affected, is given the standing to challenge the board's exercise of its discretion." Green v. Bd. of Appeals of Provincetown, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 469, 479 (1988), rev'd on other grounds, 404 Mass. 571 (1989). Individuals acquire standing by asserting "a plausible claim of a definite violation of a private right, a private property interest, or private legal interest." Harvard Square Defense Fund Inc v Planning Bd of Cambridge, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 491, 492-93 (1989). Claims that involve matters of general public interest or concern, rather than a private right or interest, are insufficient to confer standing as an aggrieved person. Id. General public concerns such as possible vehicular traffic increase, open space, architectural style and aesthetics are not the type of harm that would support standing as an aggrieved party. Barvenik v. Board of Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 133-35 (1992). Where recognizable harm is claimed, the damage to the plaintiff must be shown to be definite and material and not predicated merely upon "speculative personal opinion." Cohen v Zoning Bd of Appeals of Plymouth, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 619, 622 (1993)(neighbors' general concerns about preserving integrity of-zoning district not enough). A slight, immeasurable or speculative effect on plaintiffs right or interest will not be sufficient basis on which to find a person aggrieved. Bedford v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 372, 381-82, n.8 (1988). Standing is not 5 liberally conferred on residential abutters where objections to a board's action is not grounded in concern for any actual potential decrease in the value of their properties. Barvenik v. Bd. 'of Aldermen of Newton, 33 Mass. App. Ct 129, 134 (1992). The intervening Plaintiffs have failed to show they are aggrieved parties as a result of the decision of the Board. Intervening Plaintiffs as abutters to the a . development site are "parties in interest" requiring notice under the statute. Intervening Plaintiffs in their Motion, however, provide not a scintilla of even obscure evidence suggesting real, direct and substantial harm to them giving them standing as aggrieved parties. Intervening Plaintiffs' mere suggestions that there is a "strong probability" that traffic on Federal Street will increase or that it "could easily be a popular travel route" as a result of the retail use is unfounded. (See Affidavits Supporting Motion to Intervene, David Hart, 115, Martin Imm, ¶2, Rita Markunas, %2). Intervening Plaintiffs' mere conjecture and hypothesis that building a retail drug store next to their residential neighborhood may decrease the value of their home is at best too speculative and unsubstantial to confer standing." Intervening Plaintiffs provide absolutely no proof that the retail/office park use will somehow decrease their property values — especially in comparison to the present blighted, vacant lot or the expressly permitted uses of warehousing and manufacturing. (See attached Exhibit "I", Salem Zoning Ordinance, Section V.); see also Barvenik, 33 Mass. App. Ct. at 133. Mere hypothetical concerns about vehicular traffic and declining property values are not enough to gain standing as 4 Plaintiffs fail to mention that there is a Walgreens Drug Store with a drive through directly across Boston Street in close proximity to the end of Federal Street and that it is not even possible to enter that end of Federal Street as it is a one way street in the opposite direction. 6 an "aggrieved party." The Intervening Plaintiffs provide not only no admissible evidence of harm, but no evidence at all. See Bik v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Blackstone, et al, Worcester Superior Court, Civil Action No. 96-1155B (May, 2000)(Toomey, J.)(direct property line abutter no standing where no admissible evidence, only provided speculative personal opinion that his injury is special and different from rest of the community)(copy attached as Exhibit "J").5 As the Intervening Plaintiffs Have Failed to Show They Are "Aggrieved"For Purposes of Zoning Appeals, They Should Not Be Allowed to Intervene. Although, Section 17 does provide that "other persons may be permitted to intervene upon motion," intervention in zoning appeals is not a matter of right pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). "The judge is entitled to a full range of reasonable discretion in determining whether the requirements of intervention have been met." Board of Selectman of Stockbridge v Monument Inn, 8 Mass. App., Ct. 158, 162 (1979). Intervention maybe denied where the party fails to submit a pleading in accordance with Mass. R. Civ. P. 24(c), where the movant's interests would be adequately represented by the board or where the movants cannot demonstrate injury to qualify as "aggrieved persons." See Id.; Prudential Insurance Co of America v Board of Appeals of Westwood, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 632, 635 (1984). Here, would be Plaintiffs qualify for denial on at least two of the three grounds. Intervening Plaintiffs have not filed an accompanying pleading setting forth their claim for intervention; they only suggest being amended to the original complaint. As discussed at length in the previous section, the Intervening Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate injury giving them 5 We know nothing about intervening Plaintiffs Wallaces other than they live at 174 Federal 7 standing. "Rule 24(a)(1) grants intervention of right where a statute gives an unconditional right; Section 17 is not such a statute." Prudential Insurance Co at 634, n. 3. With respect to Rule 24(a)(2), "the same considerations that render the applicants not "aggrieved" for purposes of Section 17, also count against there being able to claim a C cognizable interest under 24(a)(2). Id. at 635. As the intervenors have been unable to show they are "aggrieved", they should not be allowed to intervene under Mass. R. Civ. P. 24. Timely commencement of the appeal in the Superior Court is a condition of maintaining it, a condition "sine qua non", and it is a requirement the courts have "policed in the strongest way." Id. (citing_Pierce v. Board Appeal of Carver, 369 Mass. 804, 808,811 (1976). Allowing the Would Be Plaintiffs to Intervene Some Twenty Months After the Board's Decision Would Be an Unreasonable and Unjustified Exception to the State Zoning Statute's Twenty-Day Appeal Period. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 17 requires that notice of a complaint filed for judicial review of a zoning board decision must be made within the twenty day appeal period. See Cappuccio v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Spencer, 398 Mass. 304, 309-12 (1986)(appeal filed twenty-one days after board's decision dismissed as defective, notwithstanding board's failure to mail notice of decision to appealing landowner). None of the intervening Plaintiffs argue they were unaware or not notified of the public hearings and the Board's decision on this petitions Certainly, in light of the Association's scrutiny and input on this proposed development, it had Street. 6 The reason the intervening Plaintiffs Imms did not get notice is simply because they did not even buy their abutting property until August 1999. 8 every opportunity to become an original plaintiff to the action. By its own admission and with no explanation, the Association with the advice and consultation of competent zoning counsel made an informed and deliberate decision against becoming an original plaintiff. As the Association knowingly and intentionally opted not to be an original plaintiff, it waived its right to later become an intervening plaintiff upon its change of heart. See Kahn v. Royal Ins. Co.. 429 Mass. 572, 577 (1999)(waiver consists of the voluntary or the intentional relinquishment of a known right). In this case, where extensive discovery is almost complete and there is a strong likelihood of settlement with the original plaintiffs, would be Plaintiffs should not be allowed to intervene simply because they may now realize their strategy to stop the project may fail. Intervening Plaintiffs argue nothing other than that the Association's relationship with the original Plaintiffs has soured. Allowing new Plaintiffs to intervene at this eleventh hour of the suit is unjustified and unreasonable based on the particular knowledge and deliberate actions taken, or better yet not taken, by these individuals. Such derogation of the twenty-day appeal period is simply not warranted. Bad litigation strategy and not liking the potential resolution of a lawsuit should not be given judicial imprimatur as exceptions to the otherwise purposefully strict limitation period. Carving out a new exception of this nature would create chaos and uncertainty in the innumerable appeals taken across the Commonwealth from municipal and town board decisions. CONCLUSION As the would be Plaintiffs are not "aggrieved parties", have waived their rights of appeal and have failed to provide justification for making an exception to the twenty- 9 day appeal period, Defendant Salem Zoning Board of Appeals respectfully requests this honorable court deny their eleventh hour Motion to Intervene. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Defendant Board of Appeals of City of Salem, By its attorney, tsex , olicitor tusetts 01970 Tel. 978.741.4453 Fax 978.740.0072 10 • Certificate of Service I, John D. Keenan, do hereby certify that on this 1st day of August, 2000, 1 served a copy of Defendant Salem Board of Appeals, Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Intervene delive5fig via courier, in hand to: Counsel for Intervening Plaintiffs, Robert L. Halloway, Jr., Esq. Edward T. Patten, Esq., Ardiff& Morse 15 Court Square, Suite 240 55 Ferncroft Road Boston, MA 02108 Danvers, MA 01923 Blake J. Godbout, Esq. William H. Sheehan III, Esq. DiMaria & Godbout Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan 33 Broad Street, 1,1'h FI. 30 Main Street Boston, MA 02109 Peabody, MA 01960 Joseph C. Correnti, Esq. Robert A. Ledoux, Esq. Serafini, Serafini, Darling & Correnti 314 Essex Street 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 John Andrews, Esq. Andrews & Koufman, LLC 265 Essex Street, Suite 301 Salem, MA 01970 John . Keenan, Asst. City Sol. 11 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss. Superior Court Department Essex County Division Civil Action No. Brian M. Connelly, Phyllis M. ) Connelly, Brenda A. Connelly,, ) Paul S. Konstadt and ) Marin L. Fine, ) Plaintiffs, ) V. ) Stephen C. Buczko, ) Nina V. Cohen, Richard E. ) Dionne, Stephen R. Harris, ) Ronald B. Harrison, Paul ) Valaskatgis, and Michael D. ) Ward, ) as they are Members of the ) Salem Zoning Board of Appeal, ) and Kennedy Development ) Group, Inc. , ) Defendants. ) PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 1. This complaint constitutes an appeal pursuant to General Laws c. 40A, section 17 from a grant by the defendants members of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal (hereafter "Board") of three variances to the defendant Kennedy Development Group, Inc. (hereafter "Kennedy") . 2 . The plaintiffs Brian M. Connelly and Phyllis M. Connelly own and reside at 188 Federal Street, Salem, MA; the plaintiff Brenda A. Connelly owns and resides at 180A Federal Street, Salem, MA; and the plaintiffs Paul S . Konstadt and Marin L. Fine own and reside at 178 Federal Street, Salem, MA. 3 . The defendants members and associate members of the Board are as follows: Stephen C. Buczko 27 Surrey Rd. , Salem, MA 01970 Nina V. Cohen 22 -Chestnut St. , Salem, MA 01970 Richard E. Dionne 23 Gardner St. , Salem, MA 01970 Stephen R. Harris 30 Boardman St. , Salem, MA 01970 Ronald B. Harrison 450 ,Lafayette St. , Salem, MA 01970 Paul Valaskatgis 24' Gables Cr. , Salem, MA 01970 Michael D. Ward 4 Hilton St. , Salem, MA 01970 4 . The defendant Kennedy Development Group, Inc. has a usual place of business at 500 Broadway, Everett, MA. 5. The plaintiffs Connellys are abutters to a parcel of land located at 60 Boston Street, Salem, MA (hereafter the "subject parcel") and the plaintiffs Konstadt and Fine are abutters to abutters to the subject parcel. The plaintiffs are persons aggrieved within the meaning of G.L. c. 40A. 6. By decision dated December 2 , 1998 , and filed with the Salem City Clerk on December 7 , 1998 , the Board granted variances to Kennedy for the subject parcel as follows: (1) as to so- called Lot A of the subject parcel, a variance to permit a retail use (drug store) which is not permitted in the Business Park Development District in which the subject parcel is located; (2) a variance to reduce the rear buffer area on said Lot A; and (3 ) a variance to reduce the rear buffer area on so-called Lot B of the subject parcel . A certified copy of that decision of the Board is attached hereto and marked "A. " 7 . A literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would not involve a substantial hardship to the defendant Kennedy. 2 8 . There are no circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the subject parcel and especially affecting said parcel but not affecting generally the zoning district in which the subject parcel is located which warrant the grant of the said variances. 9. The defendant Kennedy is able to develop the subject parcel without any variance from the zoning ordinance, albeit in a manner different from that proposed by the defendant Kennedy. 10. Any hardship allegedly suffered by the defendant Kennedy is of its own making and cannot support lawfully the grant of the variances by the Board. 11. The relief granted by the variances issued by the Board may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance. 12 . The defendant Kennedy presented to the Board insufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of variances for the subject parcel. 13 . The Board failed to make the necessary factual findings to support the issuance of variances for the subject parcel . 14 . The decision of the Board granting the variances exceeds the authority of said Board and is contrary to law. 15 . The decision of the Board is a mere recitation of the statutory and ordinance standards and is deficient as a matter of law. 3 16. The decision of the Board is inherently contradictory and is deficient as a matter of law. Wherefore the plaintiffs pray as follows: 1. That the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal granting variances for the subject parcel be annulled; 2. For legal fees and 'costs incurred by the plaintiffs; and 3 . For such other relief as this Honorable Court deems meet and just. Respectfully submitted, Brian M. Connelly, et al Plaintiffs By their Attorney, 41 Will am e an, III BBO 457060 Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan 30 Main Street Peabody, MA 01960 (978) 531-1710 Dated: December 23 , 1998 4 ., �rT CITY OF SALEM. MA ' Ctu of Inle tt� ?ISSMCIILISPtt E'ft'S OFFICE Poara of �kppeal 1998 OEC -1 P 2: 4l DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET A hearing on this petition was held November 18, 1998 and continued to December 2, 1998 with the .fo.11owing Board members present: Nina Cohen, Ronald Harrison, Richard Dionne, Michael Ward and Stephen Buczko. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting on Lot A, Variance for use and dimensional reauirements in a buffer zone in a BPD district, Lot B, Variance from relief on buffer zone requirements for the property located at 44-60 Boston Street. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of this board that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other land, buildings, or structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogation from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful considerations the evidence presented at the hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner has an agreement to purchase a site at 60 Boston Street consisting of 3.2 acres of undeveloped land formerly used by Osram Sylvania in association with their electric light business . This site is zoned for Business Park Development (BPD) under the Cit_v of Salem Zonine Map. 2. Petitioner, who was represented by Joseph Correnti . Esq. . of Serafini . Serafini & Darling. sought three variances from the zoning ordinance . The most highly contested variance was the request to develop a retail drugstore on a 1.81 acre lot at the southeast edge of the site. with frontage on Boston St. and Bridge St. Petitioner also sought variances to enable the proposed drugstore and a second proposed structure. a 3 story office building, to be built fifty feet from the rear Droperty line, which is within a mandated 75 foot buffer zone. 3. Petitioner met with the Federal Street Neighborhood Association on or about October 13, 1998. At that meeting, following a presentation on petitioner's proposal, the neighborhood association elected to oppose the application. J DECISION OF THE PETITION OF KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 44-60 BOSTON STREET .page two 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals heard arguments on Kennedy Development's petition at its regular meeting on November 18, 1998. At that meeting the Board requested additional information regarding the issue of the traffic impact of the drugstore on traffic flow on Boston and Bridge St. Petitioner agreed to continue the hearing on the petition in order to present an analysis of traffic impact, and a second hearing the Board was scheduled for December 2, 1998. 5. At the December 2, 1998 hearing, Bruce Campbell of Transportation Engineers & Planners, presented an analysis of the proposed development's traffic impact. The architect presented rendering of the proposed structures, including elevation drawings. The developer, Tom Kennedy, was also present. 6. With respect to the legal issues, petitioner argued that the existence of a retail zone on the southern side of the property (across Boston St) and of a residential zone on the property line to the southeast creates a situation that would make literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance a hardship. The Board made no finding on the issue. 7. Vigorous opposition accompanied both presentation before the Board. The Board heard critical comment from more that 45 Salem residents, including 3 members of the Citv Council (Two City Councillors, Regina Flynn and Scott McLaughlin were strongly opposed, Joan Lovely, explained that due to a conflict she was unable to. take a position) . 8. Residents voiced concern about the impact of the proposed retail use of traffic flow through the intersection of Boston and Bridge Sts. (which is currently rated at a Level of Service F, according to Mr. Campbell, the traffic expert) , the impact of additional spill-over traffic on adjacent street, including Federal St. , the failure to explore alternate sites, the impact on property values within the historic district adjacent to the site, the impact of a low-end use upon a site that is in the entrance corridor to the City of Salem, the failure to adhere to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, the failure to adhere to the City of Salem Master Plan, the impact of the proposed development upon planned state-funded improvements to the Bridge Street corridor, the presence of several other drugstores, including a planned Walgreen's across Boston Street, the absence of demand for additional such stores, and the precedential value of "spot zoning" . 9. The Board also received a petition in opposition to the proposed development, signed by 25 Salem residents. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearings, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject orooerty and not the district in general . 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substation hardship to the petitioner. 3. Desirable relief can be granted without substantial detriment to public good and without nullifving and substantially derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. m T C) J Or- �S N n .. mz • u.uYv.11u I,I Vl\VVIR l\I'i\(V IiJ 1L1YV !1 VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT44-60BOSTON STREET page three On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4-1 to grant the variance requested, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statures, ordinances. codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain building permit prior to beginning any construction. S. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board of Commission having Jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the Planning Board 6. A Certificate of Inspection shall be obtained. 7. Applications for building permits on Lot A and Lot B shall be Dulled simultaneously. 8. Hours of operation for drug store use shall be Monday thru Saturday 8:OO a.m. to 10:00 D.m. and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Variance Granted \ C \ December 2, 1998 Nina Cohen, Chairman Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK ADDeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the Cit_v Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chanter 40A, Section 11 . the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearine the certification of the City Clerk that 20 , days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal MIRK o m SALEM, MASS. c, N rn a � D J " W SLI' ._JA I RE SCHEDULE5 z � N LABEL QTY LUMINAIRE DESCRIPTION LUMENS LLF SPIN U o A 1 GMA40129AS 400W MH 40000 75 0 Z A2 0 QTY 2 GMA40129AS 40OW MH 80000 75 0 a x B 9 GMA401293VH W/H, S, S. 40OW MH 40000 75 0Q ¢ C7z Q0 C 0 GMA401293VH W/H, S, S OPTICS 90 DEG 40OW MH 40000 75 90 a" 3 D 0 GMA401293VH W/H S, S, OPTICS 270 DEG 40OW MH 140000 75 270 C-D 0 QTY 2 MA401293VH W/H, S. S, OPTICS ROTATED 80000 75 270 con , Z o F 12 ITRADITIONAIRE DAYF❑RM 175W MH TYPE V 14000 75 0 G 2 MHWL-100-MT 8000 . 75 0 H 2 GMA251293VH W/H, S, S. 40OW MH 20500 75 0 �I C 0) 4) c 0) _m c No COOPER Q w o r N > < `° N �' X a C) L L ° ccompw U07h2u l N c C � 3 _p y 0 v 3C Project; 0 3 ❑ SC ❑ # :380 c ° NZ- CORNER BR I DQE & B ❑ ST ❑ N NNZE C l i ent: THE-0 KINDERMANS -- - RGC Sca t e; 1' = 0 Ft, Project No: 990 1 7 9 B Date: 03-09-1999 Draw ; ng A C f ' I • , 3 +1 +1 , -7 . .5 ,.9 ,15 ,2,2 +24 , 3.3 . 3. + , 3 1 v .m+ O m m 0) Ci O mar O oc Z ff + 4 ,3,6 +31 ,2.2 +1J +1 + 1.2 , ,. ,1 + 7 ,. 6 ..8 ,1.2 .1,6 +2 , 2.5 + 3 + .2 .3 O ® ~ 9 2,6 2.9 a (A 41 V MZ Ca W ` to CO) U + +3.7 .4 3.3 2.5 +2 +1,5 +1.3 +1.3 .1.7 +2 ,E.7 + .6 +3. 3,4 . 3.8 I . 34 + 31 +3,1i +3, . 34 .9 3,3 +3J +2.8 + 2.1 +1.6 + 1.1 9 . 9 +,9 +1 +1,6 + 1.9 +1.9 +2 +2.1 .2.3 +2.4 .2.2 ,2 41.9 ,2 42.6 +28 3 3.6 O of - .3\' , 3,3 + 3. + 3.4 + 3.1 *2.5 +21 +2.1 +18 +15 + 1.5 , + 1 + +2.3 , 1.8 +1,5 • +L6 + + .4 + 3 ,7 3,3 1,9 ,2, .4 + .2 + 3.2 �3,3 ,3.6 ,3 , 3.2 ,3,7 . 3. ,3 2 , .7 , 3.4 3.3 +3.3 .2,4 ,2,2 +2 +1. «l 5 .5 , ]8 , 2.2 2,7 , 3,2 +2.6 +2,1 , 1 9 2 2.6 f � IN CO +3.4 \+ 3 -+2.7 +2.5 +2,4 +2.5 +2.4 + 3.1 + I + 19 +1,3 . 1.2 +1,4 + 1.7 +2 + 2.3 ,2,4 +2,3 +2,4 + 2.5 +2.9 +3.1 +2,8 +2.6 +2.6 +2.4 +2.1 +1,8 + :.7 +1,8 +2.1 , 24 , 3.3 + 35 + a.3 , ,1 +3.2 .3. .2, , 2. +2 ,3/8 +3.3 . 2.3 + 1.6 +1.7 .1.9 +2.2 +2.8 ,3.3 +3.3 +3,6 .5 2.1 J ' �1 + ,7 + ,4 2.5 3.9 3 2,5 2.1 +2.4 +2,9 +2,5 +2.4 +2.7 + +0 +2 +2 1.5 + 1.1 W , 3,8 .31 +2.8 *2.4 ,2.2 +2.3 +4.1 3 4 .5 + 1.2 +.9 ,1 . 12 + 13 , 1.4 +1.6 * 1.8 +24 +33 + 33 , 4.1 + 3.3 + 23 + 1-8 +1.6 + 15 +1.4 + 15 +2.2 + 3.6 +2,3 +3,7 +53 + 4.1 +1.3 +3. , m + 3.8 . 3 +3.2 +2.4 +2. . 2.3 .7 +29 1 ' 15 X27 +lb .1 +.8 , ,9 + 9 +1.1 + 1.5 .2.7 + 4,1 +2.1 +2,8 +3.5 + 1.8 ,1.4 .1.2 + 1.2 , 1.2 +1.5 .2,6 + 3.8 , +4,1 . 4.5 E.9 , 3.1 + +24 , /+3.9 ,319 +23 ,4.1 +3.6 +2.4 +2,2 +2.4 +2,4 /'2,4 +27 .2.1 + 1,4 +1. -- --------'- -- NVA + + 3.4 +2.4 +2 /2.1 +2. .2.7 .2.3 , .3 , 1.6 .,9 +•6 + _ c ^� I� X .L + 3.6 .2.4 +1.3 + 1 -9 ,1 +1,3 +2 .2. 2.5 +2,3 .4.8 ,4,7 4 �� , 1 2.7 'E. + 3.9 ,4. .5 •5 . + •8 +2,5 + 3.1 + 2.7 +2.3 .2 +2 .1 00 / WH3,6 +2,4 , 1.9 + 3 , 4.2 , 4.9 .3,8 ,2,9 +1,4 + J + 5 , 1,3 .1 2.3 + 1.8 . 3 2 , 1.8 � +.8 �. +.9 + 1.1 +1.9 + 3. 4 , 3,2 +3,8 ,3,5 . 3,1 , 3,4 +2.6 .2,1 +2.3 .2.8 3 2,3 ,2.9 +3.3 , 1S 4.1 /+4.5 4 3.6 +4,5 , 3.9 +2.7 ,2 « 1.9 .2 / DRIVE •HRU �+ j \ ,3,2 .26 , 2 +2 1 + 3.1 .3 + 48 +4 +2,9 +13 +.6 +.3 . 1.8 1,2 +!8 , .7 + 1.5 +2 +2. 2.8 _ 2.7 +2.8 +3.6 +3.9 + 4,1 +3,5 .2.3 .1.4 +1.3 + 1,3 ..9 . 1.6 +3.1 +3. +2. +4. + 2 + - 3, +2,8 .2.4 + 2.5 +2.9 W (Y lrT . 0 V) +3.4 + 3 +2,1 + 23 + 3.5 .1.7 +2-7 +2.3 ' 1.3 +.7 , .4 ,2.3 +2-5 +2. 2 7 +2.8 .219 +4.2 + 3 +1-9 + . 1.2 +.8 ,.6 +•6 .1 +1.7 +24 +2.4 2.9 41 +1.8 + 3,4 +39 +3 .3.4 + 3 . 3. ^ W oa z + +2.4 + 3.4 � x +2.6 +3.7 +1,9 ..9 ,.4 3.3 3, 3.3 , 3.4 .7 .2 4 ..5 + 8 + 1.2 + 1.5 .1.9 +3 9 .6 +3,7 4.4 ( Q 0 2.8 3. , 2.4 + + . 3.2 , 3.8 + +� +• + + ,3.5 +3,5\,3.5 5 .2. � � 2.7 +2.2 +2.9 + 38 8 .4 - + 4.2 2.4 ,1.1 ,.5 .3.3 + 32 . 2. 2.8 + 3.2 + 3 +33 3 . .1 .. +1.1 +2.1 +2.3 +4.4 . 4.6 +3.9 +2.8 9 + 3 + 3.7 ,3 w Q / w z � w / a � � � \ 43.2 .2•6 +28 . 38 , 5,2 , 3.4 , 6 .3.3 + 1,5 . .5 PREPOSCB I ST ❑ R Y , 3.2 +3.4 + 2, .29 , 25 •6 , .25 ,43 ,27 .23 2.9 . � � p / A m \\ . 3.8 , 3.1 .2.7 + 3.3 . 4.7 3 6 +2.6 +1.7 4.8 T A T 1 .2.5 + 32 + 3 + + 2.6 + 1.9 + 5 /" + 26 . 3• 2: + / R C I L S O R E p .3.5 .2,6 +3.1 + 33 .17 + 3.4 .2.5 + 1 - +23 + 2,7 + 2( + + . 15 +1. � � v � 1.6 . 3 3 + 211 + 5 ----EARAAREAAAAA-- D PLANE AREA 13, 600 SCS. FT. TOTAL 1 C D�� P❑INT SPACING LEFT-TO-RIGHT = 10 ft � r I � POINT SPACING TOP-TO-BOTTOM = 10 Ft , 3.3 +3. . 2.6 +2.9 +4,6 + 6 +4.5 +23 +1 +2.9 +23 +1. +1.7 +1.6 + '4 _ 1.1 U . 2.6 + 19 + 1. LOWER LEFTHAND CORNER OF PLANE X =-6. 5 Y =-9 Z = G �6o j UPPER RIGHTHAND CORNER OF PLANE; X = 633. 5 Y = 355. 5 Z = 0 + 3.9 + 2.7 + 34 +5.2 .1 +4,2 .211 +.8-- - .1.6 .1.4 I + 1.2 + 1 + 1 9 3 S?�Rj�SQC1TpRI J Iv / . 1 + 1.1 _6 LIGHT METER IS NORMAL TO PLANE _.-- .l F �T MAXAVEIMUM fc = 5. 035 1 MINIMUM Fc = 0 \ + +2.8 +3,6 +4.7 , 3.4 + .6 +3.1 +2.3 + 1. ; .3 . 1.6 +1,2 +.L1 +1 + 9 + .7 + 5 + a + ,4 AVERAGE/MINIMUM = 0 - MAXIMUM/MINIMUM = 0 LLJ TOTAL NUMBER OF POINTS - 1030 \ +2.6 +2.9 + 3 +3.1 2.7 +3.9 +2.4 .7 + .3 .1.3 +1. + 1.2 . 1,3 + 9 + .7 +. _2 ,.2 .,2 v .2.3 +2.6 .4 +4.6 +3.6 +3.6 +2.2 + 1.4 9 , 5 + .3 , .1 1 , .1 1 4.1 , 1 , .1 ..2 + .2 . ,.4 +.8 .1:3 +1.7 , 1.7 + 1.- + 1.2 +1 +.7 1.4 + 3 +z +.2 +2 2.5 + 3.1 +37 . 34 +2.8 6 .2 + 5 +.3 + .2 ] 1 + .1 1 ,.1 , 1 , .1 , a 3 ..6 4 1.2 .2.5 .2.6 +3,1 ,2 8 ,1,9 .1.3 +.8 4,5 .•3 +.3 +.3 ..3 .3 +,2 . .2 ,.2 , .1 + 1 LUMINAIRE-LOCATION-SUMMARY c , COORDINATES IN FEET Q --�_ LUMINAIRE AIMING COORDINATES +2 .27 .3.4 +37 +3-9 9 +2,3 . 1.4 , .8 4 + .3 +,2 +.I + .I ..i + 1 1 +.1 + 1 + .1 . 1 + 2 ..4 + 8 .1.7 / +3- .3. +3' + 1. +1/1 _6 +.4 , ,4 + .5 +.6 +-6 +.5 , ,4 . .2 + 1 NO. LABEL X--COORD Y-COORD Z-C'O❑RD ORIENT TILT X Y Z ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- •� 1 B 55, 5 166 20 17 0 55. 5 166 0 r ^ 1- 2 B 11.3. 5 83. 5 20 111 0 1:3 5 83, 5 0 v L 3.4 +3. +3,6 . 3.4 +2 _ 1.2 + .7 ,,4 , ,2 + 1 _I + 1 . :. , 1 ! , 1 + 1 1 ..1 , .2 ,,4 .7 + 1.3 +2.9 .2.9 + 3.5 2 22 +1,5 1+.-,7 . ,6 ,.6 +,8 +1 +L1 , 9 + 7 6 +,4 , .2 3 B 24 249 20 20 0 24 249 0 f -` I / 4 3 69 313. 5 20 293 0 69 313. 5 0 '. 5 1 189. 5 306 20 270 0 189. 5 306 0 6 3 278 306 20 270 0 278 306 0 ; . 35 + 3.5 .2 +3.1 +3-1 + 1.7 .1 +.6 + ,4 -2 . 1 -1 _I +0 + _ , . 0 .0 + . + I +,2 ..4 +.6 *.7 +.8 .2:4 ,1.7 ,1.1 + 7 ,,6 +11 / ,1, + 1 '49 +11.7 +1.3 +.9 5 7 B 434. 5 328. 5 20 262 0 434. 5 328. 5 0 / 8 A 341 193. 5 2C 0 0 341 193. 5 0 Q --_-_ 9 9 535 5 293 20 240 0 535, 5 293 0 1 10 3 587 5 207. 5 20 133 0 587. 5 207. 5 0 (1/ 3 + 3.2 + 2 U + 1-6 +2 .1.3 H + 5 ..3 2 +.2 +,4 +.6 8 ..6 , .4 +,4 ,.5 ..9 9 3,1 +3. 31 +2.2 1,3 7 11 H 456 5 60 5 14 71 0 456 5 60 5 C L.�. *'1 *' *' * ' ` + «' 12 H 357 5 96 14 70 0 357. 5 96 0 ( n 13 532 224 14 336 0 532 224 0 14 489. 5 244. 5 14 336 0 489 5 244. 5 0 15 F 442. 5 261 14 336 0 442. 5 261 0 \\ . 1.7 +2.2 , .9 ,.7 6 _ 5 4 ,- ..4 +.3 ..3 +. 4 3 4 +,8 +16 +3.5 + .3. .2. +1. 16 F 387. 5 269 14 336 0 387 5 269 0 17 c 393. 5 215 14 336 0 393. 5 215 0 18 512 181 14 336 0 512 181 0 19 F 105 257 14 336 0 105 257 0 \ 9 5 � ..2 , .2 +.3 , .6 .1.2 .2 +1.5 + 3:2 +2.2 , i.3 06 213 5 0 2I F 120. 5 174. 5 14 336 0 F 106 213. 5 14 336 0 120. 5 174. 5 0 22 F 119 137 34 336 0 i19 137 0 23 F 238, 5 251. 5 14 336 0 238. 5 251 5 0 .1 „1 2 4.3 ,:3 + 4 ..6 +1.3 +1.2 _7 24 G 303 203 JA 0 0 303 203 0 25 0 303. 5 151 14 C 0 303 5 151 0 �i 26 F 349 258 14 336 0 349 258 C 4 +.1 +,2 +.3 +.5 . 4 At TOTAL NUMBER OF -OCAT I ONS = 1 i# B: TOTAL NUMBER OF LOCATIONS = 9 *.2 , F TOTAL NUMBER OF LOCATIONS = 12 Gi TO-AL- NUMBER OF LOCATIONS = 2 ` Hi TOTAL NUMBER OF LOCATIONS = 2 ' AVERAGE TILTED LAMP CORRECTION FACTOR APPLIED = 1 ' r 1 � T � - ti ti 'U r+ L f0 ,' S ✓i i o v Z: o ' o c C FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ONLY DATE: 12/11/98 APPROVAL n nCONSTRUCTION F0R DR BY DC7 CH gv E • PROJECT N0: 9409 cu SHEET N(1. ran n CR-2 .n a -.;� .,. •J r,. ti ..� .L: .♦ �•t:.i•" 4.. t`. X. .h'i -. �. .. ... a. .. ,, r ,... .. . -�.: . •'�y� ,,yep�. � �a fa -.rli. 4. _ a .. .. .. .. . l a. 4,14�. -r r yam. .Iw. .a _y,• c y 4l-S+:'. ...i.' ryy� •'Y j"t� • `ri.: 3 -_. •... ., - .. ...'.r. r .3' ]l:•.S.a'i+l kS3Y .. . l'�K�..S^7, _,.•..' ti.7,".-`.'R�(14.iV `.,..�`2Ti�V�1 '�r.;w ..•. ,._:J�,.... ,.;'. '... ., .wss7r:ik:....,,r.4 � �. _ 9 k P ♦O Qj W O 1� U�i I� _ �•a • + ZC Lsa s ad a I p c o•n WIDEN DEPARTURE 1LANES_II TO ACCOMMODATE TWO ';+ Le®® THRU LANES BRIDGE STREET MEN PROPOSED NEW PROPOSED NEW CURB CUT I CURB CUT EXISTING CURB CUT PROP. CURBLINE TO BE CLOSED ' —------ -- ---- -- — —— -------------------- -- ----•— •.-------—•I —•--•--•--•--•--- -30'-3o' 1 i Ilk ��• L EXISTING • ; 1 ��•� CURB CUT i LOT A i' `� PROP. 6')SI wHPROP. PR _� .PROP. BA _ LOT B } • �"' Z 01 Na r { E 7f#tV;� OO m v �v yz 1 �� `� _ � S`,So- � � ��` y, •s`Q' g,� r�°��'�� 2�' <c�M"a'� 1 y:A.c,��h�.f �^ � � -- ��C`ss:av,�$�` � r��*,5 s � 'ys r�•+� r 7 t Ste' �� � y +:' pq 1` 17811'76 s ft.T BE x x 1 z _ �,` � �i''`,a � _.-.� NCti<'+ '�✓S` ,r'''F �,v -n lw:.,-u:,' 1 �`' :'� ,w;y� � .�� �y +v ��'ds3�j��dy- iF�+ ��:. v +'T END -HT END 1 hb.3 TURN ANE TAPER', V•� t i '^fi,:'.^''S�'.'C't'..'r' -�k''�Ca' za,' .. w �`;.c' .,,f� F'S' ., ',' ' 1 x C � r ar�y �ary ��,• r •y ,�ha� t o{�y .n1 a ar�y� O F— // is ry '4nI^ 'x ; ',nt� ar�nl fart lar ; �` �ar� •� (n lil EX,tST1NGZURB CUT \ •, 11a ar^Iy l'i 1's f's_ ;,I1t* y'�;'��" Z 0 ?� ATO BE-'CLOSED ,��" a.�y " ; - e - --- ✓ • e ar�yIt 47j, i ; ar"ly� - GIN RIGHT TURN ` t ar NE TAPER a n t^ r'' ,� • i ar�ys � \\\ ` .A.t�' • �' - '�fik^ „ • = tar's + ` t STOPY BRICK V41 JIrr1 ` •a .r'� ;'_'�•t" ; L t ar5, RND M.TAL BL9;DING r PROPOSED CURB,CUft T � � ' ys'�►" i '= ary � yY ' STORY 3 ID} v 11 w N0. 184 3 STORY BRICK. 2 STORY ^. `' • 5 \�15- 3 S?OF!Y 3 STORY NO. 1tWt w00c wvoa °Nv' NO. 1L2 Ii O. 1$L+ GARAGE F0. T8H t g - FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ONLY A` NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION m W.Tw o+gf_rx wlucr NS SIEFr ND 20 75 10 S 0 20 40 HO SKL-4 GRAPHIC SCALE (r=2o)