Loading...
135 LAFAYETTE STREET - WDDO113S F� W DDb ZUOco Chu�z-1 t Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX (978)740.0404 NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR A WAIVER OF DEMOLITION DELAY ORDINANCE RE: 135 Lafayette Street On Wednesday,December 6,2006,the Salem Historical Commission unanimously denied a request for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance from Salem Lafayette Development, LLC for demolition of the former church building at 135 Lafayette Street. I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken,not amended or modified in any way to this date. December 7, 2006 Jane AAthe y Clerk Commission cc: Building Inspector City Clerk 1 SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI. JR. 978-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 781-581-2743 JOSEPH C. CORRENTI December 1, 2006 TELECOPIER 978-741-4683 VIA HAND DELIVERY Jane A. Guy, Clerk �` `c Salem Historical Commission REj°E_'1VE 120 Washington Street DEC 0 1 7.006 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 DEPT.Of PLANNING& Re: Application for Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Salem Lafayette Development, LLC 135 Lafayette Street Dear Ms. Guy: On behalf of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, owner of the former St. Joseph's Church property at 135 Lafayette Street, I hereby request that the Commission defer any action on the Application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance due to the fact that appeals of both the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeal approvals have been taken, and those matters are currently pending in Superior Court. Since the six-month demolition delay commenced on August 8, 2006 and will expire on February 8, 2007, no demolition will occur prior to that time due to the appeals. The applicant is prepared to allow the six-month time period to run, while continuing to litigate the issues put forward by the appeals. Therefore, we would request that the Commission allow the time to run and hereby grant any extension of time required to do so. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, alem Lafayette Development, LLC its Aa�rny,GLy�G'" os ph C. C rrenti JCC:dl cc: Salem Lafayette Development, LL SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R, SERAFINI, JR. 976-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 781-561-2743 JOSEPH C. CORRENTI December 1, 2006 TELECOPIER 97a-741-4663 VIA HAND DELIVERY Jane A. Guy, Clerk Salem Historical Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Application for Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance Salem Lafayette Development, LLC 135 Lafayette Street Dear Ms. Guy: On behalf of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, owner of the former St. Joseph's Church property at 135 Lafayette Street, I hereby request that the Commission defer any action on the Application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance due: to the fact that appeals of both the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeal approvals have been taken, and those matters are currently pending in Superior Court. Since the six-month demolition delay commenced on August 8, 2006 and will expire on February 8, 2007, no demolition will occur prior to that time due to the appeals. The applicant is prepared to allow the six-month time period to run, while continuing to litigate the issues put forward by the appeals. Therefore, we would request that the Commission allow the time to run and hereby grant any extension of time required to do so. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, alem Lafayette Development, LLC its Attorney, os�ph C. C renti JCC:dl cc: Salem Lafayette Development, LL RE".-J'EIVE® DEC 0 6 2006 Aim CPU DEPT. OF PLANNING& je� �� j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G]"L li SsThe Bowditch House ul�m 9 North Street Post Office Box 865 incorporated Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Telephone: (978) 745-0799-0799 December 6, 2006 Ms. Hannah Diozzi Chairperson Salem Historic Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Diozzi: Reference: Salem Lafayette Development,LLC We understand that the request for a waiver of the Demolition Delay ordinance with respect to St. Joseph's Church has been continued to the Historic Commission meeting on December 6, 2006. Historic Salem continues to oppose the granting of a waiver of the Demolition Delay ordinance for the reasons stated in our letter to the Commission of August 16, 2006(copy attached) all if which reasons we believe continue to be valid. Sinc rely, Dnna mson w Vice President Attach(1) Fax: (978) 744-4536 • Email: info@historicsalem.org 't Ai0fic � T� H �sThe Bowditch House lem 9 North Street (`\J' Post Office Box 865 incorporated Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Telephone: (978) 745-0799-0799 August 16, 2006 Ms. Hannah Diozzi Chairperson Salem Historic Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Diozzi: We understand that the owners of St. Joseph's Church are asking for a waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance this evening. Historic Salem is opposed to the waiver for the following reasons. • A qualified independent consultant has issued an opinion that the church is eligible to be a contributing building in a National Register District. A copy of the National Register opinion is attached to this letter. • The developer is in the process of seeking zoning variances and Planning Board Approval of its plans. Allowing demolition prior to the Boards' review of the plans may jeopardize efforts before those boards which may result in saving the church building. • The project has not yet completed its Section 106 Federal review process with the Massachusetts Historic Commission which may result in saving the church building. • There is no immediate time urgency that would justify a waiver of the ordinance. The project still needs to apply for and receive commitments for subsidy funding through the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, a process which can take 4 to 6 months, followed by another number of months before a financial closing take place and construction begin. Therefore, failure to grant the waiver will not result in a delay of the project. Fax: (978) 744-4536 • Email: info@historicsalem.org For all these reasons, we respectfully request that the request for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance be denied. Sincerely. Donna Vinson Vice President Y Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 December 20, 2006 Brona Simon Massachusetts Historical Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston,MA 02125-3314 RE: Former St. Joseph's Church at 135 Lafayette Street Dear Ms. Simon: Please be advised that at its regular meeting of December 6, 2006, the Salem Historical Commission voted to deny an application from Salem Lafayette Development, LLC to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance in order to demolish the former St. Joseph's Church at 135 Lafayette Street. The Commission would like to formally request that it be considered an "interested party"when the Section 106 Review process commences for this project. In this regard, could you please inform us if or when a Project Notification Form is submitted for this development. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, N Hannah Diozzt, Chair Cc: Joseph Correnti, Esq. RECEIVED AUG 0 8 2006 DEPT. OF PLANNING & Salem Historical Commi§'MWEVELOPMENT 120 Washington St. ,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 E)M 311 FAX(978)740-0404 APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF THE DEMOLITION DELAY ORD[N NCE Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission Ordinance, application is hereby made for issuance of a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for demolition as described below. Building Construction Date, if known: SEE A"�TtGHE l� Address of Property: 135 Lafayette Street Name of Record Owner: Salem Lafayette Development, LLC Description of Demolition Work Proposed: See attached. Signature ofOwner: l rti ty��' Tel it• f01"1 S PL,#,NNIr1GrD(�FI�PV2 UR .t PP14-lRS Mailing address: I&H ST071—r City: 5L2E70N Stater Zip:02101 PROCEDURES FOR FILING APPLICATIONS A. Be prepared to apply for approvals well in advance of commencing any exterior work. Before making M changes to the exterior of a property in an historic district,the owner should call or visit the Commission representative at the Salem Planning Department to discuss proposed alterations and to determine the category of the application(Appropriateness,Non-Applicability or Hardship). B. The Commission normally meets on the fust and third Wednesdays of each month and notices are posted at City Hall. The meetings are held at 120 Washington Street,3rd floor,and begin at 7:30 p.m. All meetings are open to the public and any person is entitled to appear and be heard on any matter before the Commission before it reaches a decision. - C. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness or Hardship must tie received by 3:00 p.m.o:m the Monday 16 days before the meeting in order to make the agenda. An application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability may normally be added to the agenda up to the day of the meeting. In some cases,a Certificate of Non-Applicability may be issued by the Clerk,without review by the full Commission,after receiving signatures of approval from an officer and a member of the Commission. There is nofee for any applications. D. All applications for Certificates of Appropriateness or Hardship require a public hearing. Notice of the hearing must be posted with the City Clerk 14 days before the hearing andabutters must be notified in writing. Commission staff will handle these procedures. A public hearing is not required for a Certificate of Non-Applicability. E. Applications must be submitted by the owner of the property. In case of a tenant,a waiver of the owner's appearance may be granted at the discretion of the Commission if it is requested by the owner. - F. All applications must include three to four 35mm photographs of existing conditions. No esrtificates can be issued prior to receipt of photographs. O. An application will not be considered complete unless1�1 work items are thoroughly described or.scaled drawings and include specifications regarding dimensions, materials, and any other information needed for the Commission to visualize the changes in order to make a determination. Applications for paint colors should include a paint chip or chart The following items should be included in your drawings as applicable: 1. Site plan showing location of improvements; 2. Elevation drawings of the specific improvements: 3. Detailstprofiles(i.e.moldings,fence caps,cornices,vents,etc.); 4. Materials(i.e.wood,brick,etc.); 5. Dimensions(i.e.size of trim);and 6. Transformers,heat pump and condenser locations,electrical entries and meters,lamp posts,stove pipes. H. At the heating,the Commission will discuss the application with the applicant or his representative,hear the abutters and take a vote. Owners having professional consultants such as architects or contractors are urged to have them be present at the hearing. If the application is approved, a Certificate will be issmed,'mailed to the applicant and copies will be sent to the City Clerk and Building Inspector. Please note that the application can be continued until the next meeting if the Commission deems necessary(Le.for reasons of incomplete drawings,to perform a site visit,etc.). In any case,the Commission must make a determination within 60 days from the date the application is received,unless the applicant waives that requirement in writing. I. A property owner or a contractor cannot receive a building permit unless a Certificate has been issued or the applicant has a letter from.the Commission stating that the change involved is not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Please be sure to obtain appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings prior to commencing work. J. The City of Salem reserves the right to inspect the project to determine compliance with the conditions set forth in the Certificate issued. Violations A person commencing or completing work to the exterior of a building in an historic district without the necessary approval of the Commission is subject to fines of up to$500 per day from the date of violation. The Commission is not responsible for an owner's neglect to inquire about necessary City permits and approvals. All records are public and we will confidentially assist you if you are concerned that someone in your neighborhood is in violation. - Assistan The Commission's guidelines aro available for viewing at the Salem Planning Department and the Salem Public Library. The guidelines provide examples of what is historically appropriate(or inappropriate)for Salem's neighborhoods including trim,siding,doors,fences,gutters,masonry,paint colors, parking solutions,porches,roofing,satellite dishes,secondary egress, skylights,utilities,windows,etc. These guidelines help you understand what changes are likely or unlikely to be approved. The Commission supports your efforts to improve your property and can guide your on historical appropriateness. Further information,in the form of books,articles and pamphlets,City-wide architectural inventories,and photographs,arc available at the Historical Commission's office at 120 Washington Street.. For more information,contact the Clerk of the Commission,Jane Guy,at the Salem Planning Department, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970,978 745-9595,Ext 311 Rev.9/01 SALEM LAFAYETTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC C/o Planning Office for Urban Affairs 84 State Street Suite 600 Boston, MA 02109 (617)350-8885 T (617)350-8889 F Application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance Building Construction Date, if known: St. Joseph's Church - 1949 Address of Property: St. Joseph's Church 135 Lafayette Street Name of Record Owner: Salem Lafayette Development, LLC Description of Demolition Work Proposed: The proposed work includes the demolition of St. Joseph's church. All above- and below-ground components of the building are to be razed and removed. RECEIVE® SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP SEP 0 5 nHCE ATTORNEYS AT LAW DEPT. Of PLANNING& 63 FEDERAL STREET COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI, JR. 978-744-0212 JOHN E. DARLING 781-561-2743 JOSEPH C. CORRENTI TELECOPIER 978-741-4663 September 5, 2006 VIA HAND DELIVERY Jane A. Guy, Clerk Salem Historical Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Application for Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance Salem Lafayette Development, LLC 135 Lafayette Street Dear Ms . Guy: On behalf of Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, owner of the former St . Joseph' s Church property at 135 Lafayette Street, I hereby request that the Commission allow the applicant time to complete a more thorough photographic and documentary history of the building and site, copies of which will be provided to the Commission for its records. Additionally, as the applicant proceeds with the Section 106 review process, the Commission can more fully participate in that process and comment with the additional documentation made available to it. Realizing that the six-month demolition delay commenced on August 8, 2006 and will expire on February 8, 2007, at which time a demolition permit may issue, the applicant hereby waives its right to a preliminary recommendation by the Commission within thirty (30) days of submission, and requests that this matter be continued for a period of ninety (90) days, until December 6, 2006. September 5, 2006 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. js cerely, e h C. Correnti JCC:dl cc: Salem Lafayette Development, LLC I SF w � Wti iS til � ;��--,, � ,.�], "» .f° �,,,IN�•<<.�.+' ri h �I .., � _ �:yam, •. ra»u LiilJ. II� ��XPTTI �-�S �3 In the ycar one thousand nine hundred and eighty—six An Trbina:lrP establishing a review process on applications for demolition permits for certain buildings Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows: gg �� 1 Part II , Chapter 2, Article XV, Division 2, Section 2-394 `(LPemoLition Delay) of the Code of Ordinances is .hereby enacted as follows : "The Director of Public Property shall receive applications for demolition of buildings or structures , and, in 'accordance with applicable laws or regulations , issue permits for demolition of buildings subject to the following restrictions: (a) No permit for demolition of an existing building or structure which is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places , or which is located in an established Historic District, created pursuant to this Code .of Ordinances, or which is fifty (50) or more years old, shall be granted unless it is first submitted to the Historical Commission for review and comment. (b) Upon submission to the Historical Commission, the Commission, within 30 days of such submission, shall issue a preliminary recommendation regarding the granting of a demolition permit. If the Commission issues a recommendation in favor of the _ granting of such a permit, a demolition permit shall be issued. If the Commission issues a recommendation in opposition to the granting of such a permit for demolition, no permit• shall be issued until a more thorough investigation is undertaken and a.final written recommendation is provided by • the Commission. Such investigation and reco-.e:daticn shall be completed within 180 days of the original submission to the Historical Commission. (c) During said maximum one hundred—eighty (180) day period, the Historical Commission shall meet with the property owner and conduct such hearings or investigation as it may determine to be necessary in the formulation of its written recommendation regarding the granting of such permit. The Historical Commission shall consider the following criteria in its deliberations: (1 ) The building or structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably meet National, State or local criteria for designation as an historic or architectural landmark. I - --- --••e -• •J u . aucn unusual or uncommon design, texture, or materials that it could not be I reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty and expense. (3) The building or structure is of such architectural or historic interest that its removal would be to the detriment of the public interest. (4) Retention of the building or structure would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the city. (d) The Historical Commission shall , within said one hundred- eighty (180) day period, issue a written recommendation to the Director of Public Property and to the property owner, regarding the granting of the permit for demolition. , If no such recommendation, is issued within said period, the Historical Commission shall be deemed to have recommended the granting of said permit . (e) In the case of a residential garage or storage shed (but excluding carriage houses as defined in the Zoning Ordinance , Section IT . B. ) , the Director shall forward an application for demolition of such a structure to the City Planner and a representative of the Historical Commission. Within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of such a request, the Director, the City Planner, and the Historical Commission representative . shall make a determination of the historical or architectural Significance of the garage or shed. If the structure is ` deemed significant by a majority of these three (3) individuals, the application shall be forwarded to the full Historical Commission for review as outlined above. If the structure is deemed to possess no historic or architectural significance by a majority of these three (3) individuals, or. if no action is taken within the fifteen (15) day period, then a demolition permit shall be issued. : (f) Nothing in this Ordinance shall supercede the regulations of the State Building Code 780 CMR, Sections 123.0 and 124.0 regarding Unsafe Structures and Emergency Measures. Section 2. Parr IT , Chapter 19, Article IV, Section 19-65 of she Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding the following: (h) To review and comment on any application for a demolition permit for any building or structure in the city which is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places , or which is located in an established Historic District created pursuant to this Code of Ordinances , or which is fifty (50) or more years old. Seition 3. This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter. J In City Council 'March 27, 1986 Adopted for first passage In City Council April '10, 1986 Amendment defeated Tabled by roll call vote of 7 yeas, 4 nays, 0 absent In City Council April 24, 1986 TaItpil from the table 1 ' a09t3'ryn '}n .�.e.,,l ..can-rlo raaal-wr7Mr +•nll ra77 �rntP�3rR ue'+a�• r rva vc . n aficor;r. Seition 3 . This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter. In City Council 'Merch 27, 1986 Adopted for first passage In City Council April '10, 1986 Asst defeated Tabled by roll call vote of 7 yeas, 4 nays, 0 absent In City Council April 24, 1986 Taken from the table Mr�f_7n +7 3^`�"�i n ♦. c !i_cFd tai lvt. coil call_ �rntq Of S.arcvc, F navc. n ahcPn* Second motion to amend was defeated by ±oll call vote of 2 yeas, 9 •nays, 0 absent Adopted for second and final passage Notice of recor_sideration filed at nert meeting Reconsideration was not taken up at the tday 8, 1986 meeting Approved by the Mayor on rjay 12, 1986 A=7: JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO CITY CLERK SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS01970 RECEIVED E® U 8 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR. AUG 2006y TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI. JR. DEPT.OF PLANNING 8 9611-56142741 1l JOHN E. DARLING 3 JOSEPH C. CORRENTI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTELECOPIER 976-741-4663 August 8, 2006 Jane A. Guy, Clerk Salem Historical Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Application for Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance Salem Lafayette Development, LLC 135 Lafayette Street Dear Ms . Guy: Enclosed for filing with the Historical Commission, please find an Application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance, together with three color photographs of the building. Please place this matter on the Commission' s agenda for its August 16, 2006 meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, A ,,Joseph C. Correnti JCC:dl Enclosures cc: Salem Lafayette Development, LLC t i 7i 1 J:f .:"a&T z At 1 WIR FfILI oil D, tFX FtNo IBM �� ��� + ,i'•r�� ice.. r � i iuL l rv. mss_ N _� frf tri ■ y a 1 I R {v I I r ')J (�Ti1J II� ��IPIIT In the year one thousand nine hundred and eighty—six An (Orbinanre establishing a review process on applications for demolition permits for certain buildings Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows: ss � 1. Part II , Chapter 2, Article XV, Division 2, Section 2-394 `(rrxllitzon Delay) of the Code of Ordinances is -hereby enacted as follows : "The Director of Public Property shall receive applications for demolition of buildings or structures , and, in 'accordance with applicable laws or regulations, issue permits for demolition of buildings subject to the following restrictions: (a) No permit for demolition of an existing building or structure which is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or which is located in an established Historic District, created pursuant to this Code .of Ordinances, or which is fifty (50) or more years old, shall i be granted unless it is first submitted to the Historical commission for review and comment. (b) Upon submission to the Historical Commission, the Commission, 1010 within 30 days of such submission, shall issue a preliminary recommendation regarding the granting of a demolition permit. If the Commission issues a recommendation in favor of the granting of such a permit , a demolition permit shall be issued. if the Commission issues a recommendation in opposition to the granting of such a permit for demolition, no permit• shall be issued until a more thorough investigation is undertaken and a final written recommendation is provided by the Commission. Such invescigat^_on and reccmmna-.dation shall be comoleted within 180 days of the original submission to the Historical Commission. (c) During said maximum one hundred—eighty (180) day period, the Historical Commission shall meet with the property owner and conduct such hearings or investigation as it may determine to be necessary in the formulation of its written recommendation regarding the granting of such permit. The Historical Commission shall consider the following criteria in its deliberations: (1 ) The building or structure is of such interest or quality that is would reasonably meet National , State or local criteria for designation as an historic or architectural landmark. w (2) Tne building or structure is of such unusual or uncommon design, texture, or materials r-hat it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty Iand expense . (3) The building or structure is of such architectural or historic interest that its removal would be to the detriment of the public interest. (4) Retention of the building or structure would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the city. (d) The Historical Commission shall, within said one hundred- eighty (180) day period, issue a written recommendation to the Director of Public Property and to the property owner, regarding the granting of the permit for demolition. , If no such recommendation is issued within said period, the Historical Commission shall be deemed to have recommended the granting of said permit. (e) In the case of a residential garage or storage shed (but excluding carriage houses as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, Section II . B. ) , the Director shall forward an application for demolition of such a structure to the City Planner and a representative of the Historical Commission. Within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of such a request, the Director, the City Planner, and the Historical Commission representative . shall make a determination of the historical or architectural significance of the garage or shed. If the structure is deemed significant by a'majority of these three (3) individuals , the application shall be forwarded to the full Historical Commission for review as outlined above. If the structure is deemed to possess no historic or architectural significance by a majority of these three (3) individuals, or. if no action is taken within the fifteen ( 15) day period, then a demolition permit shall be issued. : (f) Nothing in this Ordinance shall super cede the regulations of the State Building Code 780 CMR, Sections 123.0 and 124.0 regarding Unsafe Structures and Emergency Measures. Sectio 2. Part II , Chapter 19, Article IV, Section 19-65 of the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding the following: (h) To review and comment on any application for a demolition permit for any building or structure in the city which is Listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places , or which is located in an established Historic District created pursuant to this Code of Ordinances , or which is fifty (50) or more years old. Se;tion 3 . This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by City Charter. in City Council March 27, 1986 Adopted for first passage In City Council April'10, 1986 Amendment defeated Tabled by roll call vote of 7 yeas, 4 nays, 0 absent in City Council April 24, 1986 i - ' Tasfram the table p Pagel of 2 Jane Guy From: Elizabeth Rennard [erennard@kflawyers.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:42 PM To: Jane Guy Subject: RE: St. Joseph's Church Jane, the facts as you describe them do not seem to violate MGL c. 268A conflict of interest law. Mr. Hart is representing the interests of the City in both positions, correct? There are certain circumstances (special employee status, etc) in which a city official may represent someone other than the municipality, but generally you cannot serve two masters. Here is the applicable section of the law. Hope this helps. Beth 268A:17. Munici�l emoloveesa gift or receipt of compensation from other than municipality; actingas agent or attorney. Section 17. (a)No municipal employee shall, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly receive or request compensation from anyone other than the city or town or municipal agency in relation to any particular matter in which the same city or town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. (b)No person shall knowingly, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly give, promise or offer such compensation. (c) No municipal employee shall, otherwise than in the proper discharge of his official duties, act as agent or attorney for anyone other than the city or town or municipal agency in prosecuting any claim against the same city or town, or as agent or attorney for anyone in connection with any particular matter in which the same city or town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than three thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. A special municipal employee shall be subject to paragraphs(a) and (c) only in relation to a particular matter(a) in which he has at any time participated as a municipal employee, or(b)which is or within one year has been a subject of his official responsibility, or(c)which is pending in the municipal agency in which he is serving. Clause(c) of the preceding sentence shall not apply in the case of a special municipal employee who serves on no more than sixty days during any period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive days. This section shall not prevent a municipal employee from taking uncompensated action, not inconsistent with the faithful performance of his duties, to aid or assist any person who is the subject of disciplinary or other personnel administration proceedings with respect to those proceedings. This section shall not prevent a municipal employee, including a special employee, from acting, with or without compensation, as agent or attorney for or otherwise aiding or assisting members of his immediate family or any person for whom he is serving as guardian, executor, administrator, trustee or other personal fiduciary except in those matters in which he has participated or which are the subject of his official responsibility; provided, that the official responsible for appointment to his position approves. This section shall not prevent a present or former special municipal employee from aiding or assisting another person for compensation in the performance of work under a contract with or for the benefit of the city or town; provided, that the head of the special municipal employee's department or agency has certified in writing that the interest of the city or town requires such aid or assistance and the certification has been filed with the clerk of the 8/31/2006 J ' � Page 2 of 2 city or town. The certification shall be open to public inspection. This section shall not prevent a municipal employee from giving testimony under oath or making statements required to be made under penalty for perjury or contempt. This section shall not prevent a municipal employee from applying on behalf of anyone for a building, electrical, wiring, plumbing, gas fitting or septic system permit,nor from receiving compensation in relation to any such permit, unless such employee is employed by or provides services to the permit-granting agency or an agency that regulates the activities of the permit-granting agency. -----Original Message----- From: Jane Guy [mailto:JGuy@Salem.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:56 AM To: Beth Rennard; Beth Rennard Subject: St. Joseph's Church Hi Beth, The demolition of the church is before the Historical Commission and David Hart is now on the Commission. David was part of the team that did the redevelopment study for the city. My initial thought was that it was a conflict of interest for him to be voting, but now that I think about it more, I don't think it is because it was a city sponsored study and he, in his capacity as a Commission member, is part of the city's government body. Could you please tell me if he needs to recuse himself or if it is okay for him to participate? I have had an inquiry from Jim Treadwell and I would like to be able to give him your response prior to the meeting. Thanks, Jane Jane A. Guy Asst. Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 (978)745-9595, Ext. 311 Fax: (978) 740-0404 ]guyaa salem.com www.salem.com 8/31/2006 A�1 C' The Bowditch House kem 9 North Street Post Office Box 865 incorporated Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Telephone: (978) 745-0799-0799 August 16, 2006 Ms. Hannah Diozzi Chairperson Salem Historic Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Diozzi: We understand that the owners of St. Joseph's Church are asking for a waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance this evening. Historic Salem is opposed to the waiver for the following reasons. • A qualified independent consultant has issued an opinion that the church is eligible to be a contributing building in a National Register District. A copy of the National Register opinion is attached to this letter. • The developer is in the process of seeking zoning variances and Planning Board Approval of its plans. Allowing demolition prior to the Boards' review of the plans may jeopardize efforts before those boards which may result in saving the church building. • The project has not yet completed its Section 106 Federal review process with the Massachusetts Historic Commission which may result in saving the church building. • There is no immediate time urgency that would justify a waiver of the ordinance. The project still needs to apply for and receive commitments for subsidy funding through the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, a process which can take 4 to 6 months, followed by another number of months before a financial closing take place and construction begin. Therefore, failure to grant the waiver will not result in a delay of the project. Fax: (978) 744-4536 • Email: info@historicsalem.org For all these reasons, we respectfully request that the request for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance be denied. Sincerely. Donna Vinson Vice President r , pa poo c 13 O LE HAsiollc t 4RM P.O. Box 865 Salem, M 01970 incorporated 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 Styli" and its interior is one of the few remaining monumental spaces in non-religious use in Salem. The report commissioned 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 commissioned 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 • Email: hsi@nii.net • Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/ building with the remainder of the site taken up by parking to the very edge of the property. It is also not in scale with the Point neighborhood which surrounds it on three sides. Recommendations • Design We have suggested in several meetings with POUA that they reduce the height of the new building proposed to be built on the site and put smaller scale buildings around the edge of the site,perhaps townhouses. Lower rise buildings around the edge of the site would relate more to the immediate neighborhood and provide a visual shield for the large area of parking which will be primarily viewed from the Point neighborhood. We are also concerned with the precedent set by increasing the height of buildings beyond that allowed by zoning,particularly if such an increase is not offset by the highest level of urban contextual design. • Design Review Salem is faced with numerous challenges of how to handle proposed large complexes in our historic downtown,including the recently proposed development of the Salem Marketplace. These require that a great deal of thought and consideration be given to urban design issues. In response to these challenges, Historic Salem recently added as Potentially Endangered the sense of scale in Downtown Salem. We appreciate the amount of effort that POUA has invested in addressing other community needs,including in particular affordable housing and community space. However, we feel that the urban design issues of this site has not been adequately addressed and certainly deserves the same attention as the City is providing for other very large sites with such a significant impact on a neighborhood and on Salem's downtown. We urge the Planning Board to consider requiring modifications in the site and building design to be more complementary to the existing urban fabric. Historic Salem would be happy to work with the developer to make more specific recommendations for the project. We also recommend that the Planning Board consider seeking the counsel of the Design Review Board to the design of the site and building fabric. Sincerely, BarbaraCleary 1� President Mayor Kimberly Driscoll Lynn Duncan,City Planner Councillor Lucy Corchado Council President Jean Pelletier onna Vinson, Vice President,HSI Kimberly Alexander, Vice President, HSI FORM A _ AREA MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Assessor's Sheets USGS Quad Area Letter Form Numbers in Area MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING 34:307 Salem IX SAL.3995 3953, 3954,3955 220 MORRIsuy BouLEvARD BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Town: Salem Photograph Place(neighborhood or village):The Point(La Pointe) (31'x 3"or 3-%"x 5",black and white only) Label photos on black with town and addresses for all) buildings shown. Record fdm roll and negative numbers here on the form. Staple I-2 photos to left side of form Name of Area: St.Joseph's R.C.Parish Complex over this space. Attach additional photos to continuation sheets. Present Use: Vacant roll negative(s) 2 9A-24A Construction Dates or Period: ca. 1917(rectory), 1921 (school), 1949(church), 1962(convent) Overall Condition:Fair Sketch Map Major Intrusions and Alterations: Thaw a map of the area indicating properties within Parking lot expansion it. Circle and number properties for which individual inventoryforms have been completed. Label streets including route numbers,if any. Attach a continuation sheet if space is not sufficient here. Indicate north. Acreage:2.4 acres Recorded by:Rita Walsh,Dawn Frost Organization: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. M t Date(monrhlyear):June, 2005 u ' EM n� TM+lbloW Follow Massachusetts Historical Commission Survey Manual instructions for completing this form. AREA FORM ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ® see continuation sheet Describe architectural, structural and landscape features and evaluate in terms of other areas within the community St. Joseph Roman Catholic Parish Complex encompasses four buildings situated in the Point neighborhood of Salem, Massachusetts. The 2.4-acre complex includes the ca. 1949 St. Joseph Church building,ca. 1917 Second Renaissance Revival style rectory,ca. 1921 Second Renaissance Revival school building,and a 1962 brick convent. These buildings occupy most of the block bounded by Lafayette,Dow,Salem,and Harbor Streets close to the commercial area of this neighborhood.While each building maintains a fagade and entrance on the street,each also has doors opening toward the interior of the block facilitating circulation between the buildings.The surrounding neighborhood primarily contains wood frame multiple family dwellings from the early to mid-20`s century.The small, triangular shaped Lafayette Park across Lafayette Street lies to the west,while a small commercial area is to the north.Lafayette Street is the major corridor into Salem from the south and is a busy thoroughfare. As part of a reuse assessment study commissioned by the City of Salem, Structures North Consulting Engineers,Inc. and Tremont Preservation Services,LLC both compiled information on the St.Joseph Church complex in 2004 including a brief history and structural information.Much of their information is included here:The following summaries provide descriptions of each building in the complex as well as an assessment of current conditions. (continued) HISTORICAL NARRATIVE ® see continuation sheet Explain historical development of the area. Discuss how this relates to the historical development of the community St. Joseph Roman Catholic parish was one of two Catholic parishes in Salem that were specifically established to serve the French Catholics.Before its suppression in 2004,it was one of six parishes in the city. St.Joseph was established in 1873 to serve the French-Canadian immigrants who arrived in Salem beginning in the 1860s.The four buildings in the parish complex today represent the early to mid-20's century building campaigns after a devastating and widespread fire in the neighborhood destroyed all of the buildings in the parish complex. Salem's history with regard to French Catholic activity began in 1651, when the first French Catholic Jesuit priest visited Salem,Massachusetts as a guest of Governor John Endicott. Although further contacts occurred between 1755 and 1766 and a group of French Catholics moved from Nova Scotia to Salem,political and social conditions for Roman Catholics in Massachusetts were still difficult and many of them returned to Canada.However, a small community remained in Salem and,led by Reverend John Thayer,celebrated their first mass on May 6, 1790. (continued) BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES ® see continuation sheet Anonymous,"Benediction De La Pierre Angulaire de L'Eglise de Saint-Joseph",U Courrier de Salem,May 13, 1949 Archdiocese of Boston,Archives. Correspondence files. Archdiocese of Boston,Parish Census 1954-1986 Dalton,Tom,"Shock Tears at Salem Parishes", The Salem News,Wednesday May 26, 2004. St.Joseph Church. Our History St.Pierre,Lorraine.A Brief Informal History of St. Joseph Parish. Structures North Consultants report,2005. Tremont Preservation Services,LLC.Saint Joseph's Parish, 2005. ® Recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If checked, you must attach a completed National Register Criteria Statement form INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYE'TTE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING I}£ I SAL.3952, 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD 3953,3954, BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 0212$ 13955 ARCHTI'ECTURAL DESCRIPTION (continued) St.Joseph Church, 135 Lafayette Street(MHC#SAL.3952),was the fourth church building for the parish and the third on the Lafayette St. site.Designed in 1948 by Boston architect John James O'Shaughnessy, it was constructed in 1949-1950.The building is a rare example of International style in Salem,Massachusetts and its distinctive tower is a physical landmark in the community.The building bears some similarities to the 1962 Cathedral of St.Joseph in Hartford,CT,especially its tower, white coloring(although this building is sheathed in limestone),and interior arrangement. The Connecticut building was designed in 1957 by the architectural firm of Eggers and Higgins of NY,postdating the Salem church by nearly 10 years. Constructed on the remaining stone cruciform plan foundation of the 1911 church that preceded it,the building's monolithic appearance is accentuated by simple cube-shaped forms that are covered with a veneer of monochromatic glazed white brick with minimal exterior adomment.The building form consists of four major blocks that rise from the cross-shaped plan, with lower, one-story sections flanking the transepts on the north and south sides.The flat-roofed structure is crowned with a three- tiered stepped tower centered above the transept crossing. The red brick or terra cotta-trimmed tower has voids infilled with a pierced square patterned screen.The front fagade features a monumental cast stone statue of Christ, with a large stained glass window behind it, which is centered on the fagade.Two small stone shields flank the statue's base.The slightly projecting wall in the center of the front fagade is trimmed with cast stone molding with a central capstone containing the words"Christus Regnat"(Christ Reigns or Rules).A large,but simple,cross is centered on the rear(east)elevation.A wide,flat-roofed canopy at the entrance shelters a deeply recessed entry with three pairs of original wood doors. Wide piers sheathed in the same white brick as the rest of the building separate the entrances.A full-width set of concrete steps lead to the front entrance. The fenestration on the building consists of paired and single narrow vertical openings with brick sills.The steel sash contains stained and leaded glass with scenes that depict the history of the Roman Catholic Church.Below these windows,in the lower one-story sections, are paired and single smaller window openings. In the sections flanking the front block, these windows contain stained glass depictions of saints. The church interior consists of a full basement and a high-bay main level. The basement contains a large room with two rows of massive columns,a remnant of the 1911 church built on the site.The sanctuary includes a balcony located over the entry hall, considered the former narthex,at the west end of the building.The primary focus of the interior is the voluminous main sanctuary with side chapels. Condition Assessment: The church building is in fair condition. A structural investigation of the structure in 2004 revealed that there are long deep vertical cracks are occurring at almost every comer of the building due to incompatible expansion of materials and water infiltration. Corrosion of steel lintels over the windows has also resulting in some visible horizontal cracks. The steel structure within the tower is rusting,but only requires cleaning and repainting,as opposed to more ambitious structural remedies.Although there is evidence of some interior water infiltration, seen in some staining on interior wall surfaces,the interior is otherwise in good condition. St.Joseph's Rectory, 131 Lafayette Street(MHC#SAL.3953),is a three-story Second Renaissance Revival residence built ca. 1917.The flat-roofed rectangular plan building has a two-story,L-plan rear section to the west and an enclosed side entrance porch on the south elevation. The pressed red brick and stone trim of the building stands in contrast to the white glazed brick of the church. Small one-story bays project from the north elevation on both the front and rear sections. The entire building is INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYETTE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING SAL.3952, 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD 3953,3954, BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 3955 encircled by a stone stringcourse near the top of the wall and wider beltcourse above the raised rusticated brick foundation.The main and secondary block,porches,and bay windows all have prominent cornices with modillions and brackets. The symmetrical three-bay front facade has a central entrance with leaded glass sidelights and transom,flanked by shallow bays on the fust story.Wide windows openings on the second and third stories alternate with shallow brick piers that divide the fagade into three main sections. Original 1/1 window sash remain although exterior aluminum storms have been installed over them Fenestration on the other elevations is primarily individual windows with stone lugsills,but no visible lintel.A full-width brick porch supported by brick piers and stone columns with Corinthian capitals features a stone section above the porch entrance that identifies the building as "Presbytere S.Joseph"(parish house or rectory of St.Joseph Parish). The rear and side porches are similar to the front porch, with stone or concrete steps and rusticated brick foundation. A brick chimney on the south elevation of the rear section has been truncated and capped.Although the interior was not visited for this documentation effort,recent photographs during the reuse study show a relatively intact interior featuring highly varnished wood(probably fir) trim and built-in elements with a classical design. Condition Assessment: The rectory building is in good condition,but the integrity of the masonry is somewhat threatened due to the original use of concealed headers.Water infiltration was also noted in the basement and attic areas as part of the structural assessment of the structure. The concrete steps at several entrances display some cracks and spalling. Repointing is needed in the area between the upper string course and cornice and in other locations,due to mortar erosion. St.Joseph's School, 20 Harbor Street(MHC#SAL.3954)is a simple,three-story Second Renaissance Revival building with a flat roof and rectangular plan. The brick building has three main bays on the Harbor Street side,and five primary bays on the east and west elevations. The south elevation only contains a single central entrance with 1950s detailing and a large single window above it on the second story.The Second Renaissance Revival style is seen in the building's form,beltcourses and interior cornice,and classical entrance on the Harbor Street elevation.Mission style parapets with cast stone coping surmount the central sections of the north, east and west elevations. A brick chimney,now stuccoed,is near the center of the roof. The front fagade,considered to be the Harbor Street side,contains a central cast stone portico with engaged Doric columns. The deeply recessed entrance has a set of double doors with aluminum frames infilled with glass.A large window above in the second story is infilled with multi-paned replacement sash.A cast stone plaque between the window and the front entrance is badly eroded,but is presumed to have indicated that the building was St.Joseph School,probably in French.A niche in the brick parapet contains a statue that appears to be St.Joseph holding the infant Christ.A cornerstone with the date"1921"is placed at the northeast corner of the Harbor Street elevation. Windows and door openings throughout the building have simple cast stone or brick solider lintels and narrow cast stone lugsills.The windows have predominantly replacement sash. Fenestration is primarily composed of banks of four and five individual windows with brick piers between. The interior of the school features a wide central corridor with a wide stair at either end. Smaller offices and corridors on the second floor separate classrooms in the building. An auditorium with a stage on the south wall is located on the third floor with partitions added to create two rooms in the northeast and northwest comers of the hall. INVENTORY FORINT CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYETTE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Areas) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING SAi 4952 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD 3953,3954, BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 LDL3955 Condition Assessment: According to the 2004 structural conditions assessment,the school building is in fair condition,but sections of the cast stone trim on all elevations are eroding.Repointing is needed on certain sections of the building,especially around the pediments. Miscellaneous cracks are visible on all elevations,but are not extensive. St.Joseph's Convent, 18 Harbor Street(MHC#SAL.3955),is a simple two-story,flat-roofed concrete block structure sheathed with brick veneer in a Flemish bond pattern with no other decoration.Due to its cube-shaped forms and lack or ornamentation, the building exhibits a mollified version of the International Style.The L-plan building is nine bays wide on the Harbor Street and east side elevation.Fenestration consists of individual windows with cast stone lugsills and no visible lintels.A large garage door opening is on the west elevation behind the rectory. A door on the east elevation with a flat-roofed canopy provided convenient access to the school building. Condition Assessment: The convent is in good condition,with no structural issues noted in the 2004 structural conditions assessment.Mortar displacement around the masonry near the top of the windows is the result of rusting of the embedded steel lintels. , Historical Narrative(continued) Beginning in the 1860s,a new wave of French Canadians left their native country and moved to Salem for employment at the Naumkeag Steam and Cotton Mill.Located on Naumkeag Street adjoining Prince and Harbor Streets to the east of the parish complex,the mill employed hundreds of factory workers many of them immigrants.Large,brick tenement buildings quickly sprang up around the mill and were occupied by French families primarily employed there.Known as"La Pointe",the area became what was essentially a French village within a growing metropolis. St.Joseph Parish was founded on May 17, 1873 to serve the expanding community of French speaking Catholic immigrants arriving from Canada in the La Pointe neighborhood. Led by Reverend Matthew Harkins,the parishioners met in the basement of Immaculate Conception Church,an English- speaking parish,as they could not afford to build their own church. Having studied French in Paris,Reverend Harkins was able to celebrate mass in French for the Canadian immigrants of St.Joseph. Reverend George Talbot was appointed pastor of the French community consisting of approximately 90 families shortly after the parish's establishment in 1873. The community was eager to build its own church building,but resisted a South Salem location desired by Revered Talbot. In the same year,Reverend Talbot was called away and Reverend Harkins returned to the parish. He oversaw purchase of the old Seamen's Bethel(place of worship for seamen),a small wood frame front gable structure,on Herbert Street near Derby Wharf,a short distance northeast of the current location.However,the parish continued to look for land to construct a new church. A series of pastors served short-term appointments in the mid-1870s,succeeded in 1879 by Reverend F.S.L. Vezina, who oversaw the parish for seven years. During his tenure,the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston(RCAB)purchased the Luscomb estate on Lafayette Street in 1881, the current site of the parish complex,for the Parish of St.Joseph to erect a church.. Construction began almost immediately and the first mass was held in March 1884.The wood frame church was Romanesque Revival in design and included a square tower fifty feet in height on the north end of the fagade. A few years later, the Elwell Estate was purchased and the house converted for use as the rectory.This second purchase of land marked the INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYETrE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Ama(s) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING SAL.3952, 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD 3953,3954, BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 3955 beginning of a process to acquire most of the property bounded by Lafayette,Harbor, Salem, and Dow Streets into the early 20th century. In 1887,Father Joseph Gadoury was appointed pastor and remained for seventeen years.Father Gadoury also pursued purchasing the entire square of 15,000 feet with the exception of a short interior byway named Harbor Court still owned by the city.In time, the city donated that street to the church for use as a playground. Two years later,in 1889, after Father Gadoury joined the parish the congregation numbered 5,000,which maintained a strong emphasis on preserving the French Canadian culture, Always interested in a parochial education for their children,the parish finally built their fust school in 1892.The building on the comer of Harbor and Salem Streets was designed by architect W.D.Dennis,a native of Salem.The four-story brick building had separate entrances for boys and girls and,eventually,a connection to the convent built in 1906 to the west on Harbor Street. The small,wood frame convent housed both the Grey nuns, also known as the Sisters of Charity of Montreal, would be the first of three religious orders to teach at St. Joseph, and several girls who boarded there. The Sisters of Ste.Chretienne would replace the Sister of Charity in 1903 and would teach for the next 22 years. Father Gadoury passed away in April 1904 and left substantial funds to the parish for building purposes.In May of that year, Reverend George A.Rainville was named the new pastor of St. Joseph.A brick rectory was built with the funds left by Father Gadoury at the comer of Dow and Lafayette Streets in 1911.A new church building with a cruciform plan on the site of the older wood frame church building was also completed in this year.The old church building was moved to the west towards Salem Street ahnost directly behind,or east of,the newly planned church.The succeeding use and subsequent disposition of the old church building are unknown. The new brick St.Joseph's Church was completed in 1911 and featured large stone twin towers 185 feet tall between which stood a large statue of St.Joseph. Only three years later,the Great Salem Fire in June 1914 destroyed this church, all of the other buildings in the parish complex,and a large section of the southern part of the city.The basement,towers,and a few walls were all that remained when the fire was finally extinguished.Residents of the area were housed in tent villages for a long period while nearby homes and tenements destroyed by the fire were rebuilt,while many others moved to other nearby communities,including Beverly. An exodus of nearly 1,000 French Catholics to Beverly as a result of the fire caused the creation of a new French Catholic parish there that was named St.Alphonsus. Those parishioners of St.Joseph who remained in Salem reused the basement of the church for their religious services, while classrooms for the school were built above the basement level.This arrangement would be used for several years while members pursued fundraising for new construction.In 1917,the first new parish building to rise on the block was a rectory, built at the corner of Lafayette and Harbor Streets.Father Rainville oversaw the construction of the rectory and began plans for a new school building. His tenure ended in 1920,just before the school was completed.Father Pierre H. Grenier served the parish from 1920 until 1931,during which time,two new school buildings,a small garage,and a new convent were built. In 1921,a new high school building was erected on the comer of Harbor and Salem Streets on the site of the old 1892 school building. That same year,a two-car brick garage with concrete floor was built behind the rectory on Harbor Street.In 1921, land was purchased south of the church from Paul Chaput in an exchange of property owned by the Archdiocese on Wisteria Street to the south. A second school building for elementary grades followed in 1925,which fronted on Dow Street at the intersection with Lafayette Street. A new convent was built on Harbor Street in 1925 as well,toward the middle of the block INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYETTE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING i,.3 , 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD I 3SA953,3959524, BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 3955 near its earlier location.The new convent was occupied by the third order of nuns at the parish,the Sisters of Assumption,who began teaching at the parish in 1925 and continued until the school was closed. Father Jean-Baptiste Labossiere was appointed to the parish in 1931.While the parish continued to fundraise and worship in the basement of their old church building,it appears that plans for a new church structure were being circulated.A 1938 letter to Reverend John B.Labossiere from the secretary for the Archbishop,William Henry Cardinal O'Connell,regarding the design of the new church building indicated'His Eminence,the Cardinal,directs me to inform you that he has seen the picture which you left of the proposed rebuilding of St. Joseph's Church,Salem,and to say that he does not approve of same. His Eminence wishes you to finish the church in red brick as it is at the present time(Archdiocese of Boston, Correspondence files,December 16, 1938).Although no picture or any further detail about the design accompanied the letter;it is assumed that the design was modem in style and may have been similar to the one built ten years later. Father Labossiere died in 1940; similar to Father Gadoury,he left substantial funds in his will, specifically for the new church that was'being planned.His replacement was Father J. Stanislas Vermette who served for four years.In 1944,Reverend Eli Bamaud was appointed pastor. In 1946,a small mission church known as St.Theresa's Chapel was built on Summit Avenue, just east of Lafayette Street about a mile away to the south of the St.Joseph complex.Parish histories assure the chapel provided worship space while fundraising continued for the new church or that it provided a closer location for parishioners to the south,who did not have access to convenient transportation.A 1945 letter from Reverend Bamaud to the archbishop,then Cardinal Richard J.Cushing,indicated that the mission was the result of a petition by 500 families (with over 800 children)to establish a new French Catholic parish to the south of St.Joseph(Archdiocese of Boston Archives,Correspondence files,May 17, 1945).Under Reverend Barnaud's direction,the parish leased the old Burtram Public School on the comer of Summit and Willow Avenues to serve as a Catholic School for children in kindergarten to fourth grades:By the late 1950s,the school only served the fust and second grades and was not widely patronized,as parents preferred their children attend the"mother-school, which has a full cafeteria".The school was closed at this time(Archdiocese of Boston Archives,Correspondence Files, November 7, 1957).By the 1970s,the school building was tom down and the city redeveloped the lot for senior citizen housing. In 1948,Reverend Father Bamaud became ill and retired.Father Arthur Mercier replaced him,and it was during his administration that the present church building was constructed. Soon after his appointment,Father Mercier submitted plans by Boston architect John James O'Shaunessy to the Archdiocese.Little was found about Mr. O'Shaunessy;he was listed in Boston City Directories at 92 State Street from 1928-1934 and 1948/1949-1956.It is unknown if he specialized in religious architecture.This building would be the third built by St.Joseph's Parish on the same site on Lafayette Street.Each church had been a focal point of a complex of parish buildings that always included a rectory,at least one school,and a convent.Before the demolition of the old church began,the cement statue of St. Joseph was taken down and moved to the schoolyard. Masses were held in the high school auditorium until the church was completed.When construction of the new church began,the parish decided to bury the statue, as they could not find a suitable place due to its large size. A parish history stated that the statue was buried underneath the parking lot. The cornerstone for the new church was laid on May 15, 1949. An article in Le Courrier de Salem May 13, 1949 featured the architect's drawing for the church, which reveals a slightly different front fagade.The proposed fagade displayed a more monumental appearance with a solid front block with tall piers,surmounted by a slender stepped tower. It also appears that the roof was originally proposed to be a cross gable form The church as built has a flat roof,while the front features a large statue of Christ on the cross with a pierced screen behind.In 1954,the parish population numbered over 5,540, a number which rose INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JosEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYETTE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL CONMESSION Area(s) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING 220 MORRL4SEY BOULEVARD 953 9554, BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 3955 during the rest of the 1950s,but which began to drop in 1961. In 1962,a new convent was built on the site of the old one for the Sisters of the Assumption.The building was designed by the Providence,RI,firm of Fontaine(Oliver W.Fontaine)and Delsesto(Eraclio Delsesto). In the same year,Oliver W.Fontaine also designed St. Anne Roman Catholic Parochial School in Hyde Park,Fontaine was the son of architect W.F.Fontaine(1878-1938) who was responsible for the designs of many ecclesiastical buildings. In 1969,renovations were carried out at the St.Theresa Chapel; the nature of this work and the subsequent disposition of the building are unknown. The parish population continued to decline in the 1970s,dropping from 4800 in 1974,soon after the 100th anniversary of the parish in 1973;to 3700 people in 1979. The 1970s saw a cultural shift within the city with the arrival of immigrants from Latin America and Caribbean countries.With the influx of these immigrants,the area around St.Joseph's quickly became home to a growing Hispanic community,many of whom became members of the parish. Spanish-speaking priests were assigned to the parish,not unlike the earlier practice of assigning French speaking priests to the newly arriving French-Canadian immigrants.The high school was closed in 1980 and the elementary grades moved into the high school building at Salem and Harbor Streets. In 1983,the elementary school at the comer of Dow and Lafayette wasdemolished as it had been found to be structurally unsound. The area was paved for additional parking spaces.Father Lawrence Rondeau was appointed as the new pastor in 1983 and continued to serve until 2004,when the parish was suppressed by the Archdiocese. Its closure was part of the reconsolidation of parishes by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston which called for the suppression of over 65 parishes in the Boston area including St Joseph's, which was suppressed in August 2004,and St.Thomas the Apostle on the Salem/Peabody line(note: the Archdiocese reconsidered its decision on St. Thomas the Apostle parish,which will remain open.)The welcoming parish for former St. Joseph parishioners is St.James Parish in Salem,which also serves a Hispanic community.Although the school at St.Joseph was closed as part of the suppression,the institution was moved to the former St.James school,which was re-named St.Joseph. INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYETTE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL CONMUSSION Area(s) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING SAL.3952, 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD EK 3953,3954, BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 3955 DATA TABLE MHC# Parcel Name Address Date Style/Form RCAB Photo owned? No. SAL.3952 34/307 St.Joseph Church 135 Lafayeffe St. 1949- Wtemational No 2/14a, 1950 Style 16a, 17a, 19a, 20a, SAL.3953 34/307 St. Joseph Rectory 131 Lafayette St. c. 1917 Second No 2/21a, Renaissance 23a,24a Revival SAL.3954 34/307 St. Joseph School Harbor St. 1921 Second No 2/10a- Renaissance 13a, 15a Revival SAL.3955 34/307 St.Joseph Convent Dow St. 1962 Intermational No 2/9a Style — 34/307 Parking area n/a No INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYETTE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVFS BUILDING SAL 395 1X 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD 3953,3954, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 3955 Sketch Map HerlwrS6eet Convent Rectory School Grass Area Parldrrg w Area m 3 y Church m Grass Area Paridrg Area Parking ��.. Area ..._...� .,�...�...�.. r• Property Boundary Grass Area Dow Sfr T Not to Scale INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYEITE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL CONMUSSION Area(s) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHNES BuimiNG SAL.3952, 220 MORSSEY BOULEVARD 3953 RI ,3954, BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 3955 View of parish complex (c. 1940), Archdiocese of Boston Archives Le presbyt?re, riglise, et Acote rue Lafayette. INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX 135 LAFAYETTE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area(s) Form No. MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING IX 952, 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD 3953,33954, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 13955 Rendering of new church (from Le Courrier De Salem,May 13, 1949) Community Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH cowLEx,135 IAFAYETm ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING 220 MoRRIssEY BOULEVARD BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Area(s) Form No. IX ISAL.3952, 3953,3954, 3955 National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form Check all that apply: ❑ Individually eligible ❑ Eligible only in a historic district ❑ Contributing to a potential historic district ® Potential historic district Criteria: ® A ❑ B ® C ❑ D Criteria Considerations: ® A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ E ❑ F ❑ G Statement of Significance by Rita Walsh,Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. The criteria that are checked in the above sections must be justified here. A 2005 report prepared by Leslie Donovan of Tremont Preservation Services,LLC included a recommendation that the St. Joseph Roman Catholic Parish Complex was eligible for listing in the National Register of historic Places. The recommendation did not include the 1962 convent as it is not yet 50 years of age. The four buildings within the St.Joseph complex are recommended eligible for the NRNP as a historic district with a period of significance of 1917 to 1962. The district includes the 1949-1950 church building,ca. 1917 rectory,ca. 1921 school building, and c. 1962 convent. All of the buildings are considered contributing buildings in the district, while the paved parking lot to the south is considered a non-contributing element.It should be noted, however,that the parking lot area previously contained the 1925 parish elementary school, which was tom down in 1983. A statue of St.Joseph, an element of the 1911 church building destroyed in the 1914 fire in Salem is also buried somewhere underneath this parking area. The historic district meets Criterion A for its association with the French Canadian immigration to Salem and the community that made their home in Salem for many decades,despite the destruction of their parish complex,the mill buildings that provided most of their livelihoods,and their homes in the devastating fire in the neighborhood in 1914.The historic district also meets Criterion C as an assemblage of relatively high style examples of architectural styles from the early to mid-20th century. Built in 1949-1950,St.Joseph Church is a rare example of the International Style in the city.The rectory and school are representative examples of the Second Renaissance Revival, a popular style for schools and other institutional buildings in the early 20'h century. While the ca. 1962 convent does not meet the standard 50-year age requirement for National Register eligibility, its function as the third convent built on this site for the nuns who taught the school is significant and contributes to the historical importance of the complex. (continued) Community Property Address SALEM ST.JOSEPH R.C.PARISH COMPLEX, 135 LAFAYETTE ST. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Area(s) Form No. IX SAL.3952, 3953,3954, 3955 National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form The complex also meets Criterion Consideration A as a collection of religious buildings significant for their contribution to the historical development of the French Canadian community within Salem.Retaining integrity of location, setting,design, feeling,association, workmanship, and materials,the St. Joseph Roman Catholic Parish Complex meets the National Register criteria with significance at the local level. 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, l 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, 1 also support the goals of more affordable housing for Salem and believe that that the community center idea is promising. However, 1 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: • 1 recommend that, should the Planning Board decide to grant a PUD,you approve no more than 60 units. • 1 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 f 'nµ 0.00T/Z•920Z S0tl9 t=9 T+N N N T00 GZZtS NO ST0< T T est# S110 I Ar `M. -- � r It s.c rorn S Z A 2 ZO M e-.. mW Gl �S S C•l ^J v S S 4� jo., • +`l i � •Y ��.y �.L � Y All, 40 aR ,L 1 0.00T:'L"3£0Z S&J9 t,T T+N N N T00 e-lZtS N3600< .—� - ofV Sb# SOO �• yam. 'i,. ! -. . T�J9 1: g A S0�99 90 I+N N N 100 LZt,S NO Oi0-_ SOT - of`J> 1S17# S43 1 eV I I 1 a•®0t:�•92OZ G08� 0T t+rl N N 100 � t>; rr� t,tr,�f Z, t - ora: - l9v# SAI �� v i AY -�, g `t is. � /ti'•X *t. .i;.�`G52 �. - , arc _ _ 0.0011' 9£0Z 5049 b0 T+N N N 100 OZt G No 200< 6 ' C-3f-l? LS4l# SnO r ' r s 0'00 T: L'9£0% S089 .'_0 I+N N N 1002Zt-9 N'1 ITO< Sti • c3fd !_St,# SO`-] l IN A `two 1. 1 y*a©T•'' 92OZ 9089 TO T+N N N 100 ,'Zt,; NJ zlrl - t-ti - C3P1> 1.Str# SOO ni i { .� _ _ III.. �; .d �♦ ,,II s .4II III{ • '�.. �_— -�- ' ..._ r+�-'-�I ,� _—_�iw www. T _,�i� � � ve.-_ ;� O*OOT Z,9i'OZ &Oa 9£-Z+N N N TOO SZb NO t-00< 8 - c3rl> LSh# SAO I�11 IIII ... n'1 _ ,mgr.��- 0'001=4'9£0Z G&JO 81-Z+N N N 100 SZtpS NO 800< !Gt,# Soo ,� ` O -� R� _ i , -- I���^ - _ -'�.�, _'"w� T ��T, 0.001: �•s<0Z 50;99 sz-z+N N N TH30 SZV • or,�::=- �sra sr. x, t k � t I 4Fw nor _ 0,00T.'r,9" OZ 'SOZ19 0 Z+N N N IOO 8ZbAS 1 1' 4 1� "' K O'00T!L"5.'OZ 50;A9 �0 T+N N N 100 :'uVS NO S70C T - C3"> LSV# SAO w _ .. .,�. .. t � .. �� '^ ,fif.► �. f�^ t may. '��� � ��4 r � ..,, �, r .:Y .y'� :�> w�� / `-i .. r i._ i` - Z. __ _ _ _- 0'00 T. Z "Koz SM9 01 I 1 N hl N 100 Zft,9 NO 2%0<: of'I LSb# Sit:=I .y �� . � d � :.� � � r t � � �� .' . a� 4, ` �: t � �'S�.. A,.., ti y i Y, �. rt z # ,. 2. �r 1 ��_ aeRw A��� w-.. � '. �. �-: _ �. K � T ��;. �� `� .++ � 4 *001/�,92OZ 90;99 OZ 1+N N N 199 �ZthS NO i?ZO<_ T ' 4:3fM> LSV# Sf1:1 y 4 . q 3. y n i 11 0"OCIT,`' 0Z -;M9 IT T+N N N 100 LZtbS Nri 77-0<:_ t C)PA .'SV# SOO L J 3 a i Y • '=a4'< t t ��� , .:�=- � _ rte•► t i s 0.00[-:_"31202 Sku19 91 i+N N N 100 -2ZtrS I n f i O'00T:'c'9<0< '�0%J910 T+N N N T00 g t,;N3 �00C S ' c3f^4-- :'Stl# 31'7_ ' � W yam...• }� 'RF �r.T T 'rZ awl �^ Alt f 0100T/Z'K.OZ 90;19 90 T+N N N 100 :Z49 N3 100f_ S F • C Ad-. l9t# S(7O _n y t 0.00T%L'9£0Z gO�tl@ 0Z T+N N N 100 ZZ V9 NO 200< S�L - C:YF\I 29b# SOS r.r .c e K r f o ; RA y CVS #457 CNo . 1 1 :x001 CN 5428 001 N N N+1 10 GR05 2036.7/100.0 :,0N4,, • t� „t �,s W+w�Jwr 1dIN�►MW wM P.^'�. yMy'lt•.NMwnir� ./IYJ�11�9wkbw- µ _ s}},, Al pp . l)14! C,r FJ ff� �j 0 L cn =G =0 Z Z to� N 9 J h} ,T,n s- lift� �r VP ��\ - . • »jam , . , za�z - § � - to Lni! is N in -J s� "v _z _o ip v a! U) nGi TO? Cd . i v y i -�� yrs ��• `_� �'.. � ,' T' _ t1`. - 0.001%'Z'9120Z 90x9 90 T+N N N 192 Mt. NO 900C ©Z ' c3f47 291* OO iy f .;. T FVS #457 <No - 19 >007 CIA 5427 001 N N N+1 02 GR05 Z0;€,.7.100.0 *MIR- r� f 4V r 0.90T/Z"3£0Z S0d9 80 T+N N N T00 LZbs NO 500< T c. - C3f`J> L90# Sfl=j St. Aidan 's, Brookline Preservation , Conservation and Affordable Housing in aTransit - Oriented Development yy 3, r .. .,.i• ,.rr 3 +'• Ar Y;- r 1 rf tl^ C� yy r- }; 7 te w s ,j+1 •, } +_.�. y 4rAI yl ,IMP - � r'.�z...,e...r J 4 1 M1 � � `4Y �'j{. Y, �.• t[i Yi �� 1 '..v "r .. r-' Background Brookline Today ♦ 57 , 000 residents in 26 , 400 units ♦ majority of households ( 55 % ) rent ♦ 21 % of all units are single family homes ; 31 % are in buildings with 20 + units ♦ 29 percent of units are condos We have about 1900 units of Affordable Housing Elderly : 975 General Occupancy : 781 Special Needs : 41 Single Room Occupancy : 96 Chapter 40B Count - about 8 % AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS ♦ To achieve at least 10 % of units affordable to lower income households ( < 80 % of SMSA med ) ♦ To increase units affordable to moderate income households ( < 120 % SMSA med ) ♦ To give preference to persons with ties to Brookline ( residents , Town employees, METCO families ) to the extent possible ♦ To preserve affordability for the longest period allowable by law . ♦ Use Town controlled funds in a way that best leverages outside funding . TOWN STRATEGIES 1 . Preserve existing affordable housing 2 . Encourage purchase and conversion of existing market- rate rental buildings 3 . Use inclusionary zoning to achieve set- asides in new market- rate housing 4 . WORK WITH DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS TO DEVELOP NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ♦ Lack of building sites ♦ Prohibitive cost of sites ♦ Neighborhood issues : - density, design , traffic, parking j ie Proactive Strategies Undertaken beginning in 2000 ♦ Two public forums held to increase understanding of concept of density by design ♦ Board of Selectmen endorses welcoming of " friendly 40B 's " ♦ Outreach to owners of institutional properties , including Planning Office for Urban Affairs ( POUA) upon notice of closing of St . Aidan 's St . Aidan ' s Site Characteristics ♦ 80 , 000 sq ft site in North Brookline ♦ zoned single family , 7000 sq ft minimum lot ♦ across street from multifamily district ♦ 3 miles from downtown Boston , served by both MBTA B and C lines UOr.1 11T. 's,DLII -1 &2? -.gl_ru '_') rCQU@TJl.) —eO -LTj11q '.t �uat 4���[14(�� ,41E PL � If IN X1 - 4�L{Fflti,�k".4•f( '•'ftp r '' ' �'•``•'�'f''_t ry f i 4 �1, .r ' 'f,'�I. Y IN I4 l i� f h'iY'OI'i.�5 '`�4� Lir 1 �"�_ � —__~� Y' ��"i• i� fr �, � �'`' �tiri_ \� 'y� : t'�'' � �+ti � •�}� ''ee��}} _ -�4•` %ms:+µ+ . {irk 4 tk10 5 i +i T+' � S 1 `y�a 4�r'f i J f •4.If IN ili { i+ ,ll ii I ••44 .i r Amy ,+f. �f. t +5 I _ I ay5'h�4{-•t IN ILL, IN 'y *� flff 4 � yyLh Pl , .4 Ls rD i ,:j1t' y��i .�'.�l Wil,"' i• {,i' I 'I Ilia y 4�; -, .'. ,.4 ' `, .1' ,1 1 M1 '..��T•. t- �1 II 1 �/ l �� { ' I tw � f4f rte• •y s' � .�1�� TTT� ��- III I V. l I'i I ti,4 5 f t 4t+S rt r it 4Y �t 1 4 `4 } "f� � � � f :•y�t+ N-ilii= � I I I 4 14ti�',� I II I rp .;r.'� y`1' �Y. 4•. .1�.• ti�. �a � ty.�,�r''r. J lr`_!.�, i Y'Yy ♦ Church and rectory on state and national registers of historic places ♦ Church attended by Kennedy family during its residence in Brookline , including site of John Kennedy 's baptism ♦ Specimen trees , including 150 year old beech .B 1•Jrt � wt MJII. '? .�•�� .Q.sr. JCJ. r-5lr — Y rl 1p v ♦ f ;4�. r �� 1_, �rjR �( 'i� '� � ` v .a �- 1 f -- •axa �• }t r� I' ♦ r' - f � !lIAAA �f �;` . .I,,,T ! h Y-{•� .). p}�,�� >i•.C�I..'p4{iy,.,�,�r 36t y. i tv .�- !" -....-'�f-'r` e'± :7 !.'• J P •c.�Ir VJ J �fA('�'! _fit,-,o ,�I �"•'' MI �r �qTz �-,_:.: ` � ' • .9rJi;,'�� �♦�•��4`���,���� YY �' �~ � L r ., 7 Y ��«,1 „i,', '1 �.5 r`C31�y,,,q•.`.i".'�sc '�` -...✓..4�`+IY�Y-../'� IM/t�rA.�l•/.•.A�t -.•.ilirrf/�:QDIQ�V'i.�� I. -.� •r-'• J� � . _ � 14, � a{ irk,� 'rte 33 1 W. :,. a � � e � i t � �� ca a . Al 40 Al 1 x i} _ sy as , Neighborhood and Preservationist Concerns ♦ Density : In 2001 , Planning Office was working on a 40B proposal for 100 - 140 units on a cleared site ♦ Demolition of the church : warrant submitted to Town Meeting to make site a Local Historic District. Alternate Course of Action 1 . Articulating goals : Selectmen proposed a committee , comprised of representatives of neighborhood and various boards , and hired architectural consultants to examine trade- offs among issues of preservation , size , massing and maximization of affordable housing . ( POUA agreed to put a hold on its desi process ) do Alk wiaY11M `t +� f Now i TF ` AA w r . M { �ya If• �P.' �� � / •' Fac 11 l �'� �, Alternate Course of Action , cont. 2 . POUA agrees to work with a Planning Review Team ( PRT) , lead by a Selectman and comprised of neighbors , members of the Preservation Commission , School Board , Housing Advisory Board , Economic Development Advisory Board , resident architects to fashion a "" friendly 40B " application . f . Alternate Course of Action , cont. 3 . The Selectmen committed up to $ 2 . 5 million in Town Housing Trust funds for a 74 unit project with 58 affordable units which substantially achieved articulated goals , including saving the church and some existing open space , pending ♦ further design review ; ♦ approval by the ZBA of Comprehensive Permit ; ♦ POUA 's raising additional monies from public sources . Alternate Course of Action , cont. 4 . Board of Appeals hearings occurred with continued involvement of PRT ; Comprehensive Permit granted in 2003 which will ♦ preserve church by adaptive reuse for 9 market rate units , requiring recordation of a preservation easement ♦ preserve existing forecourt through recorded preservation easements for bot private and public use . Alternate Course of Action , cont. ♦ create 50 affordable units - 20 low income rentals - 15 lower income homeownership ( < 80 % of median ) - 15 moderate income homeownership ( < 110 % of median ) ♦ require permanent affordability ♦ provide preference , where possible , to those with ties to Brookline n .73:15'tlF N+it1 F Y t � � 14 m i>' tad 'e -- ? `"'4 ..-. . ..��- ••r ff E .;" - 3 � � qy nt ny ' a n� x � ) r Town increased its financial commitment to 3 . 5 million , required to ♦ increase size of courtyard , preserving specimen beech tree , while ♦ reduce overall project scale , eliminating 60 % of the market rate units ♦ replace internal subsidy lost when number of market units reduced Progress to Date ♦ POUA obtained funding commitments from Low Income Housing Tax Credit, Mass Affordable Housing Trust, DHCD , Federal Home Loan Bank ♦ Final design review almost complete ♦ Preservation & conservation easements almost complete ♦ Construction to start by end of 2004 r, 3 IAso y, ism 77 1 N i w All rY ♦ e+r ITT r w�• "`Y� 'rya +.v . �..:- ol'Osalbraoes to the sue of the of Ar. and Mrs. ,pndraw;�P. Buglers, of and"Mwr¢aret J. McCsrthj this etty. was chosen "Queen of the Peabody, and one brother I.00kltgl- like little ants, from the Boston University- gall" ay a formai McCarthy of Poaptidy, ant dewalk low, the nun inspected dance held at the Hotel atatler on �'e f erandchild.' Funeral seryic a tlhsge,.t;aeu worked colla of rope, Saturday night. Miss Bu�ler is a held On Wednesday more uttd and round about the statpe. Junior 1n the College of Liberal Arts, her- late home, b Page Ott at under the arms. Finally, another and Is majoring in languages. Danvers, followed by a req I­ was entwined about the neck. The 11 contestants, chosen from mass at Annunciation chug provide proper balance. the several thousand girls of the un1=- wllrbe"IntWi 3amlly lot in The. workman performing this last veraity'were judged on. the basis df cemetery, S&Ietn, by Franc sk gave the crowd a minute of un- poise and peraonallty, as wall sa, way ds ,$oras, 'est, for he lay flat on *his beauty. Miss Buglar was erowrjed' ' itlaroi%0 Servlcei On the- head of the statue, queen by Daniel L. Marsh, presitlPt The funeral of Edward J >e feet-dangling in the air, and oc- of the university. former Peabody-man wh olaally kicking about In the cold Both Ualned Oeste. r Providence, Thursdayafter r as .be reached far down to make In the recount held here Saturdat�`h`�y rises, was held on Sunday e ropes fast. With considerable re- for the office of attorney general, from the home of his a !f they watched him climb down both candtddtea gained One vote Catherine Howp, 1 ,Colur his dangerous perch. apiece, leaving the total differetlee followed by prayer at an the two men made their way exactly the same as on election dty. Church. Rev. Thomas A. oes the roof arld hid behind a The recount showed Kelly to hate of the pariah; read theTra eItsring decorative post as the 4928 and Barnes a014. t a large,lietherlag of relt ria"ie the weighty statue a pre- Dlphtherla,Clinic friends and "later adjourn utarylift, They brought aloft with The regular diphtheria clinic_ t=,. ,oatmetergg-_where_ hs _ oomlt M a blowtorch to cut the two ducted for chtidran q1 pte4ohool:sye- committal services at--Ae-inch steel relnfortng rods, but a age under the sponsorship of the There was a protusion or fl 411ILClt „ _branhealth t b 'held In - -the casket-a apped the rode Ilk ' matchsticks. the health office tomorrow aftefaoon abd they were a tribute to th • "crack" piously_heard by the from 2.1b to 9. Parents of pre-school actor of the deceased, "'B tchera betbvr, "it that operation age •children are urged to take ad- many pieces were those. not neoessary. vantage of this opportunity to pro- Council K. Of C. Of pea L another rope had to be twisted tact youngsters against this dread Meter Div, of the Goner t the concrete image to bring disease by having the children given Company, the Morrill Le e weight into proper balance. Than the three inoculations roqulyd for 4h& Cllrlar of the -Danvers workmen were through. and complete immunization. These are eter Stock,Dept. 7of thi 0Yin g the about from below, given some weeks apart. and those Electric CO., 'the Bridge erybody off the roott" they made who have attended one or two of ployeee of the Weld Tito eir way back to- the sidewalk and tbese should make certain to sp- CO., Textile W rkers Unloh ty-.as power was applied to the for thg_thIrd_And_JIAALAQ&_C_I_.Q.. and mAny blea. Tighter and tighter ace0 necessary. more personal. nature. -T. The Cables\Stralned This past month there was one were "Jon Woodbury, p der the terrific weight. the statue case of diphtheria In this city, the Anthony Curtin, Arthur eyed, then fell backward. as the afflicted one being a pre-school age John Walsh and Edwa child, this being the age now con- Burial was in the family wd gasped. but it was all right, sidered most susceptible to the dle- Mary's cemetery, Salem, d slowly, very slowly, the statue Y pp ease. With opportunity offered for a11d._as cel b hied itself. then rose off its base �� d. hung suspended in midair. protection through We clinic. every of requiem was celebrated .WOd,14 It crumple' That was the ,horst should see to it that their Ing by Rev. wniia& J. Mc question, for the cracks in tlje Children take advantage of It. DMeDermott Funer tuw'were prodigious. For a mo Christian Service Who funeral of Frank !nt the suspense-was terrific, as The regular meeting of the Wiim- moil, well known resident great form moved back and en's Society of Christian Service will who died Thursday after i -before earn to s. back san be held 1n the vestry of the Ms o- begs Was held Saturdaymo INaall7, the suspense was lifted dist church tomorrow : Garranan save a happy a mas serviee. will' be pre wed by • solea L-W- his r. Tnf—was no cinch. moving sented under the direction of Mrs, qulem at at. Johh's churel from church tops. and he wag Walter Beckett, secretary of Mission- ward S. Godfrey. chaplain 1 6y` glad everything had gone ary education. Mite boxes will be col- N v Reserve, celebrated hly leeted it this-time and the slection' will ly attend. Beglaning Operations Bpturdap of officers for the coining end ing year will many relatives, friand g, he bad expected,the 'Job to tike plats. of the deosseed. Rev, Jon "completed by 9 P. M. at Ua let- mer the btmlbees meeting, a mya. 8t. Thomas' pariah 'Wtsu But although the crane was tory pal party will be bold. hostesses can and Rev:Thomas A. At y by 130, It was fully four hours for the affair will be Mrs. Cedric. IAL John's church win sub when the statue finally reached MCOlauflin, Mrs. Charles Matmonsld large delegation froth the , eldewall, after a long Inch-by- and Mrs- Frank Riley. rencs Leather compsny-w h drop . Scarnegle Funeral a body and Lroarioug Qtptth, -a The status will be placed in the Funeral 'services for Chariot Scare civil and state representYti-, a•}N,Cd-aL.St. Joseph's parochial school, negte. former South Peabody resident attsstdanos, The floral draftsman, who died,In Chicago 'erere untlaua_lly numerous who told The 14wa that weanes ay. were d tlzday - ¢ ""'lag frroom the Ito a of his W t- the soaks& reposed, Among .4 -platta�tx ItslOizaLiO>D were gq4 s _ b _ _ Pleasant street, Llan„ followed by a foramen of .abr Mp A"Wr .aaaathoa of three bunks each rsgttiem high Mao at- At, Ann'&. LaorreaKe M. cline smjl w y ,. on_bs conversed 1ntO soba church. W-uth Peabody. at 9 0' _LratjSer G+ le lase railway eaeepers bo- {with Rev Richard Burke otfictating. socials'of b C. Larrrem - lrpSlt far tae AFMJ. A,.4, 'Z+ Ise" pthactag to ah?4;o. Tlkt..atlJCt- Ot ..tine'.! �Aq Stzve VO iviLilk THk SALEM � :'d, ✓*'. i..;1! �� n � ink .� ��, ; '4�"101 . . -'F : yam, r r s r �. r 1 t�. Y.j pr x I a : y.. glg,rnv cTATUlt M 8T. JOSSPU LIFTED FROM-CE(Ill;t`lar of, Crowd__WMcbeo With Rated Breath As Cables'etraln Under Ml hta Load. Evetryt�hl��n tnt Like (loek No Acttfdm—u Vir'e-d the Dell.ate and Bpeatdous ams-- - as �� k y C� NN V� T STATUE RESTING ON SIDEW. Ifly- Al All -$at:.3.wa ahw flrrai_Mve 41 the R'hteh6Nessure rnt�oe d1f Pett to 14elk hr. Is lfaight of the- C'Ysildren Yizamining It, The Statue Mat Put in Place In 1918. ;0110 Tey Beto] ' - 3` ��I•rm Far --a-"}-' .Statin-=) � �a continued From First Page �Y PEABOMiss Bugler Honor .0 f rl 4d - a I1, C through the Baleen ilia of 1914 and. .� - badl� crarJced In fou1-pla.ces. Was essential, then. dor the safety necember �1_=..Bait tendanoe war e yatan�atx Aha2 iia- Pealmdy� eaentatli lar enough away so that, should the James A. - Cosgrove, tura e a Dodgy Almerete Image crumble, they woukV .-3ehn's church, today waw-trans+ tributes -wart -6SI.Ll1-,kumf "Bot be Injured. forred to a new -amlgnment -at the " "d'lncludad-rern ..._PYlrthermorg. workmen explained, Sacred Heart parish In Middleborg. 'from oT ua-Corp, and - -ttta-groat-weight"of the statue were Rev, Fr. Cosgrove came to Lhis_cl-ITTif the-{7 'k'erea2-=6Yt1n6--11Lad y released, by the.crumpling January, 1948, this being his first aa+ An a P18n6` ngirt0ait�3 bf the statue or a" break In the signment, following his ordins4om. went of Dodge-Co., all of t UW action fe t Rev. .m Burke conducted .ow the -crane armLack fully many friends who will be grieved MA servloea at-4t-Mary" _ park — - - _fig-_ U ia_SAWA here ,interment ThL.matte; of 1lgeutpg out' what well In his new assignment: No skit- under the direction of the lork� socbeth+rtg bap- essior hes-Asn y e for Funeral Homes - The 1 xm=14h,dlbuef e j�rlme regtllaltea the local parish, which has two other ne fe,a ticklish job as curates, Rev. James McDonald and B bothers cif the debi ore them. The trent Rev. William J. McLean, 1n addition F'raak liossi6ud_John Mt (Operator told The -News-that his cal- to Rev. Henry C. Reardon. the pastor. 31ra. Alfred--SUttl tu:ations were pared down to split Discuss aunday Sale Mrs` Mary A, (French) f Of Alfred S. 8uttia and d aexonda. between the- iron out the dtflerencea the late John and XlItm "What would he do 1f the cable between the' PRabody Mlnlaterial as- McCarthy, died Bunds at failed to hold or a ropebrokel" soclatiOn :and the . Peabody. liquor y dealers over the Sunday liquor sales 6 Page street court, Dan Well, air, It would take three sec- a brief illness. Born in P it& for the to this city, w111 be made this even- ilncreLe masa-.to.. i attended h parochial eah e ground. In these three second body aad' resided in Pell o ail l wsafd_he had just time Groups' will meet with local ,Ifcens- relater per -_ commission, to djacusa the whole part of 110r life:a 1 n Danvers about three vas �1]e operatais.,satd, he had just time Ing commlastotr to Wacuss the wnote jn Danvers about three year gttotigh to clamp df1-*he brak.gP jump. tpatlon. y tar of the crane and dash to safe was very well known in t brtunately, nothing happened. It -is the hope and desire of the body and Danvers arid nu chief obstacle was the cold, latter group that some fair compro- hoot of friends 1n both-con chilled workmen to the mar- mise may be worked out-between the She was a member of the S lrOWe especially the two men whose present wide open conditions on the resell Court of Foreaterls-.oi It waa-'to climb up the long Lord's Day and. the complete drying and was a devout attendw crane iEm. That was a feat rem- up of the city on Sunday as sought Annunciation church in by the Mlnist"I group who have Survivingher besides, her ant of the let- George Polley, considerable backing-. d. yhcm. "human fly'„ and the crowd Alfred E. Suttls, are twd`e -Held IUs Breath GERTRUDE 1'. Rl 'ii" � .Mrs. James O. McGillivray c _ Crowned Ruleen Mass., and Mrs. Stuart Pro, two men made their way up Miss C4ertrtide T. Bugler, daughter- bod ttvo sistera, , e Mleee etaggbraces to the base of the of Dr; and Mrs. Andrew.P. Bugler, of and Margaret J. McCarthy tale. this city. wall cboeen "queen of the Peabody, and one brother. Imooking-like little ants from the Boaton University ball" at; a formal McCarthy of Peabody. and ewalk below, the men Inspected - ante held at the Hotel Statler on grandchild. Funeral service e 14bage.-then worked colla of roate, Saturday ,sight. Miss Bugler 1s a held On 'Wednesday morr. Ind and round about the statue, junior in the College of Liberal Arts, her late home„ 6 Page •Str' under the arms. Finally. another and is majoring In languages. Danvers, followed by a req _ was entwined about the neck. The 11 contestants, chosen from mass,st Annunciation ehur -.provide proper balance. the several thousand glrls of the uni- will be In the fam,IIy-lot In -The workman performing this last versity were judged on the :basis.of cemetery, Salem, by Fran] gave the crowd a minute of un- posse and personality, ee wall as Wayy jjnna_ _ ' SM, for he lay flat on his beauty. Mesa Bugler ""was crowned Maroney strviees Mach On the head of the statue, queen by Daniel. L. Marsh, president The funeral of Edward J feet dangling in the air. and oc- of the university. - former Peabody man whi lonal]g kicking about in the cold Both Gained One r Providence. Thursda after r as he reached Sar down to make *-in the recount held here Saturday base, was held on Sunday ropes fast. With considerable re- for the office of,.attorney general, from the home of .his a of they watched him climb down both candidates gained one vote Cathsrine 'HOVFe," 1 -Colur �q his dangerous perch. apiece, leaving the total dlfforenae followed by prayers`''at On the two men made their way exactly the same as on election 'day. oburon. Rev. Thomas A. the roof aqd hid behind a The recount oweQ Bally to have of the,parfeh; read the ora' eltering deC1brative post as the 4928 and Barnes 0f4. a .4e rge.'gathering of felt ne Elive th. weighty statue a pre- Dlphther Cltntc' irlenda and +later adjourn WaInstry lift,-The brought aloft with The regular dip.ht1h a clinic c=n . 44imptery where he Wadi m a "DlOwtOtcll to cut the two ducts or c n p - e OOIIlA1 L1A1 sarvicta st_ � e-inch atetl rofnforsing rods, buta ,age under the SPOriscrahrp, of the There was a profusion or fat quick_"dr . akes" _by the crane lgcal board of health w1 ba eid In _She%casket e peed the ;rods Ilk' matchsticks. the health orrice tomorrow, efts con and theywere a tribute tc h IL "crack" plainly_heard by'the from 2.16 to 8. Parents of preach 1 atter of rift..:deceased. ' ! -tehers below. and that operation age .children are urged to take ad- any places, wen those, not.n vantage of thJs opportunity to pro- until H. of C. of Pes t al n-a "'had to be twin Leet youngsters against this dread ate Div. .of the pane= t e.`co rete image to bring disease by having the children gintl Com , . the Morrill L1 ht into proper`balance-. Then the three lnoculktlons required for the air of the Danvers .workmtist were through. and complete immunization. These are eter B Dept. Of th that shout from below, given some weeks apart, and those Electric CO,.-- a Bridge w t.ti. •w.,I P, �F.e. ,w.A� ,.rb:, Y..,.. .If�wA�A nn. w. ♦�'rw 'wI wln��u wI ♦\. LII ma. ,L+vnW, Me: .IIICUICal men in iris tear.con- -ee•w s-- -r-- ,----• -•.-- _.-.., ., „_.• . , a great- story., and in Roden and Fraulqutern, resojved - with - •a -.--ne-.i Vin���.�r� 1 M S. Seventh army troops had making a Communist u I ftAd4-"i .battled.Anto._Hsguenanr"1apt.-.imp a -Democrat...vioe premlera I S tart Herman base in Naftherh llleace, Ivailoe Bonoini, French First army men pushed re- London, Dec. 11 (A�)- treating Germans toward the Rhllta- cast were'iuflietec iced Remove 'Six-'Fon Statue Few Chi ). Ke Safely From " Ste. Joseph's Remain -Theft navvy,army ani L 3. - i vade Salem tonight, bi in France Big Crowd Watched Proe'eedYngs Saturday specific purpose of-bri 1. .,We used captured l '✓.y�';.i3�a1 +',g'> ei< y.. .3t'3 '� <xx Edi,`^ �t _'«; _ ..;' c«„ who will present he ot :nt for the first couple € K <oy N �. ' Anchors Aweigh" on nued on frontline duty xa , ft�eek,. � �� '�' . `' a„ the Empire theatre. -- when S was transferred _ - S c Thi; affair tonl 11t u duty.., .x# ?,'kasmucq as admlegio legion - 611--was-a--• - :a �. 1 '� beralded revue- is by pi 1 & Morrill Co. of Lor- a �,' ; " � - Bonds. A 4100 bond alem. at thetime he ,\ffi choice orchestra east, rmy in octotrer; 394$ a-balcon Ann J. Elumerton, to- who who- was 3hiand avenue, address. to i ' %f"� + _�,> ��. o ��` Uh1s -local appearance Is meclical training at morning that there art +, Texaq. realalning and these. �' < <zr Y„ ' chaaei( at ills-box offlc r` right up until she Lhsa evening,. BOnds alleged at the box •of n (MAXY REV VC T ,ering. the military .ring the milliary sir T ro Iplbyed at the Deniers 3 LI /i"Al Besides his parents, % < l _ - Henry,,,tW. Woodman, brothers, iddwin.,.I and im'an Viand a'kater, Mrs .; -I--� Is.`-aIY'ut-thin,town. ;•.. " . it us�LL � .�.' _ - +um of records, it most d for young and Old, at ' J G.h o dad - — Black- and Re $rirgundy anz nded St. John's Prep. ' lie developed Into a Lipstick Red. 1- catcher and played a teams. ;notably the - Dark and Lig] Ine and the Lord Tan- But his career was before he entered the isult of an arm -injury. ting, early in March. 2. vorked for the Helburn ping firm in Salem for s. His brother, Joseph, :c:: -& - IV-y. Two 8leters, E2 = w�Fwr"`C"`a Rita, 26, ale enlistedL He also has It brother- - - -6 -c� - navy, Morris 6ibeley, f.IAWT C$.4�5 ETS READY TO LIFT HUGE B�ATUE ber of the Salem police Semoval of Famous Landmark Drew Hundreds to St. Joseph's ChdrCIrOn Lafayette Street On Saturday. Pat to Place In the Morning. theGcacle - -- - Did Not Finish ,its Task Until Late Afternoon. Every Precaution Wag - electrical fixture -foP - Takenr'Ym-the 9sfety-OUthe Throng. The Statue Towered 112 Feet er's-Adv. Above the Sidewalk and Cory coffee makers A noted Salem landmark disap- lofty position atop St. Joseph's M.up at Silver's.-Adv. peared from the skyline late Satur- church, Lafayette street. ,e,poultry. Tel. 0676.- day, when the hugaL,Aix-ton 'statue of Made necessary as a part"'Of the F ry, razing of the church t -b- which now >"-- _-_- - - - St: Joseph- wasremoved from -ifs -under-wag. -- which measure* 12 feet In height ' !'-----..------- - - aad fotr f.et m ire at": caned Into - --- _ aetlon the greatest of skill on tha patt„of workmen, clambering about. _ the roof of the church-112 feet from Rid .the ground. OF OF M, �,._.-, ' - Saturday morning. when the spe- X-TUESDAV- TEL. 1030 -- cial crane arrived, the weather was mild and no wind was blowing. But mecaEA &1g1'3t1''1` FIELD E M P i R E before the boom of the crane lifted fi TON1O11T: Its peak. its full length of 120 feet _ R] Great Moment BOND PREMIERE lnt , the air to grapple with the-mak- Show•u at 3.20-6-1:0-0-20 No aesul.r perform.ace glue e0}'lerete image a chill breeze de- _ -PLUG- ay veloped, growing colder as the sun a Summerville a EI nrendelwaded. 'I'M IB,OM ARKANSAS" Tomorrow: John MCrfarrahan. who had charge -- •'Arxair and old tare" bf operations for the W. J. Halloran - ads,: "A RICAN RO IANCE ••Leave it to the Irish" Co. of Providence, R. I., is an-expert In his line. He.knew that his was one of three such cranes In tke coun- try, capable of reaching to such a OVER 50 YE ARS tremendous height. .Yet, despite ex- perlence and care, he knew, too. that �+ �c v 'e'L*at�T7 --___ _ _ _ in such a hazardous task almost Any- OF FR LL j vr+n F jai" precautions were takenf to setpguard We Gla&y�t the lives of his workmen, and of the, W $U $ON1�S hundreds of bpsc"- tat6rs y71I8 -As the crane began to lift ..Its - )kelp yckt °ke Then buy Roger Conant shares mighty arm police, and pfteeta from Itol<lilr►g the church, headed by Rev. 211 Bar- for that after-the-war home.Well naud be gladto show you how. Urged the crows IS -- from Lafayette street, and far LCr0e4 the park to Washington street. For one thing, the statue had gone Open on Tuesday (STATUE-) Dec*mbei Contintled on Second Pare .- s Ocher da,.-9:3 j i-m. to 1:3o p. m. - - — �+1� •a.. Saturday#, to 12:34 p. m. N0ZTX ■Yo agM BMS TMCMX . _ . Leman ell th:. w k thrcmgh T .Duns. i .. alae � tr tit alert _ sp �nI }'tit n�n�m•. Prone hat eInool, nut YI John'! 1 Jai n:eie be er`I[vLaw- alleep m I' nay I.r lxnd 11,Our le. ...... n and n G mtiv in. rem ot - "I n leprt• av Io the xHart,,Of 16ns. .1M mint I,, h:11 date hehemde. hl. ll H. Nicb.le. pony Weems.— Nlbx til Penboey. I I H.and W. t h%[I LY, George ark,11,CaTeIE I-LEIT.1 .11 1'1:111111\1 re and john E. arm,.now ate. Iwft to Right.alalnr Jnaph N.Nbvinglon.Long.1:earge J. Rntr.. Lp. emahm, "am. Cnnrle+ vlmPple.8me. J. Near. Preside, of the City fennell: C.I. school N F."". Tmolmr MTM he,rl I:,ening. Newt, +xle ,rtaoll`able.ben. (``UPflerstsone—) ,go n be held in aunt t Ibe Candurs ep trmn s 'um 1 to PHa On Mm 6 P.m M1 M. P, tit_ The r wltpeq It, memornnle ea.eebea, he...dream Oatbered pot 'he.txnd with Bbhpp re 'e. Wright were Rev. Arthur O, MpUar, a ` r ..it Auxillary PeaMr Rwv. Neal M.M. Het. P4nvW xN be among Ilagrom Ret_ Paul Martin and Rev. i +1 Y and another almond Trammel. all M the Ideal le,, ( to. . Parleh Rev. Shuns Vincent, Plate, r e ph P.Y n be. of Sh Anneb Derlsn Rec P4sncm I.Ily dl el'tor If the of The PItm Rev. William Dra peau. .ban dnRev. Clarence Reducher . andRev tim for the pj' nil or 6, Jan de nam- . h tlnf the pndthitchurch Of and Ree.Rviee aL {1w bed- Sunni a J.. of Solum Alh heol •�- Ll en flute Rulmn Wngnl nlne.,ed ms gree I Lb I. e.me pr)cue..til beteg mtltetl {n blew the Y ce l h The gcll mrneanne led recited a prayer for e [ue mouse with the nem 11.111. Ne elted the greal mp L1is afar huth of anRepel Int their Instal,rondo the neve- achem and fellowship With Other for n Rune races amt-parucalarly praised their I'he tnrk uem of the in"Rosg g alive tee ng to ot. for a este ,a. of the"language. I.(eto.ire to tM .h and Rn ue tradition and se...coausuea oI me will be a Joel IRevch. HIIW Wrlglt delved let. re Man a1 Ism ,a h,W,of the Pre.oh Ca1h.11'.. n1d.,Betvfl, recltlne "I deeds It Rt. That" of ` MY,n bvlbell L,Iwtiem, Bt Jeen M ped,en, - Irenneus and at.Joan Or Are ! Prwt I" Po Mercier. prior In Introducing p J. H h6ld a Dry the bishop dlepiged s copper the It park vxdmw- which will be are preparattem for Peed In the Corver.mne aaP lett, y,�. C the league Lada. In the non a wPY of Th e.paax, June Salem Hews r.IaltJg the hle{My ! 1 I rand Commit, the reuwn ptcl.m. nr let of 1 L III e. S.Elk. Yount InN bishop O!lave church In Ian p with the Prm Out stageof the -moraddir pounra yay.and have tied of the old one the dew en b. f : hothv them- andel Cepe r3 tha legal ranch tspar, I }.. kill be s "we- wHl be among the uhhhh'i _ lu -squads at to- Other Items to he 'Id", In the metal boa are A book published by 'L, Planning s the turbot lommlteM nM dna nmuse W rmunutw this til all 'he soldiers OI the peruse In arm In In served In both World Wit, Of be Issue game rnmpatgn 1. mmll.l. of 11e offices _ t M • P.Ir of of the t'.I.. Item aauon. aawmi- 'e game The eIM allot In,p.flash,of His H,ho... I the openlnq Pnpe Plus 311,It Ant, Cunning and =:• Lne Red Fna- OI I`l Pnnl•`r til :h,:'ntu1M1 `IIIc 4a•I uli. L'alm. TLeMay a Al. IP,:be plaretl In the Ma a im^I^`I` 1t rl[III nP...... 11 1 lruxel n!LYmenl fm Lorne sum, the ..me. Of the Pfw.Of uouhmS InMwill In- nen_.. et.te and City official-,a e. LeFIxnCOla.. Mo55 better. LUtled Ld• D. Ciumnatp_Code, a IMY,LIL EL WInthrod. of the coiltetors and seetons e.ne ..,it -and Bfrtr.m Peru M. candle Jean the Swingy Mutual Benefit n M Mnrblr- reels or he patron RL J.H[ph. the bearer.;'.lrmxud Be,arr n x el It lub from Et'- Sacred Hest(. the Holy Family. SL. P D Iib rleq', RI Jean Lha-BaPtel CnumcLL Vincent never Robert La one xn6 Raymond fa.utq Reneh M Ined Ill.. des Paul ane the Bleweb Vit- eouceartl, guvtl-. and . -11hise,leas Y.Gnada t��•�u4 core )) the aafI.J sarsdadt1 Tnmlwrna anal front em El.edmke club, x'bleh Yacht c1Ym. lcuteLafayette A.nl Jclub hitch mclod- Wd ah"ng -I meeting from the Included (r L. 1.rc s .S Marv. Cenad.v 8uC1ai yYb. 'hrtlle club urrF mrhld auotl were. Meats Joseph e. Har- d Arthur ou ne.c end IeJTnpnd add the Y.".DIX..V.U. nd 6uruhllfe u.... . COL Tlglmd W. bleY, ltse- earl, color EUMda. Henn GsBnml The mlMop pu s •tl the Lina.and lave Isere of The 8+lem EvenlnB Nev.: e'sa anal marshal wuh E. Pete Wr- paatete p2,aue pL.,eleea.bmb to - xlll )mn{Iy Cory pe.rge J. Bates. Charles Whip- genal. a chipf of aleft,sed Alms V. lowed the ttwmeay. .n and mole- Pit. Cl" MnrM.l John C HaM1lnn Audet. sWadut chief of telt A In the Guneillpr6 Ernst I W APrll. Wilfred Illrinped emnne the gnr{Iclpgting I. c. TR1AHlBl'flT�TF.>IE3T ], P011ra. and Jgmle J. MU.P. Nep' nrq.IlltellOun u re. IN'laUe trn.n {nI \t'aanl 1^ mann nn gh. 1. Toad, Jr Pro, Duchene, pmI•• land '.vee del•Del. I r Sumo ngmn:M.Y Ia f qbm Peal` [Wb nrmllle x'nO . m cn.ry(< o, lave rhurrn P Of ufr Annu mm mo. Lnr Gnetlten- limn of the "'Oult Met % Ina twitcher mrurtlml.and Hint, J [:ourateu on Rloumkr rtµn f1_anro budget wtetpla sTEdpp,aYLgb: pup Iblloalog the Lauder Onnrtl C¢4rann YnlmerY ll emPrle Bmuntl belae,s 0,M A0.747A.- uwome mRet n11 Inured all.,on satcelatlon. Child 'O' Mar Menti r!C.I" for mevly:ll:.QV,dg,,. •ere: The ryrush tler moll, Roger Woman$ andanty, Holy N.M sal- BCY C. d BBCCYSl,'rp3p e • r s� i rNe wl.ylet. ��i 9 `� I ,n .•n n • red.♦ elf _..I Ge name t.. i m re, .� R n MynSt.m thaw exx xlgn ad &I, IA MN . THE . SALE M EVE N N G — t ESTABLISHED 1880 — +�• SA4EA1, MASS., MONDAY, MAY 16. 1944 - St.Joseph's Church Cornerstone Blessed 16y Bishop Wright; Boyle _ Mrs: Of Peabody �_ a tan- . _ DiQd Today • - - -._- • - _ 1 �{ Y. Bo'b wife .11 be 1 I J. Boy11. rot— Ne Ylth Y[G CPRrt\lnlmhr �� Mid _.� 1 no mdb[ hied nr4 _ On - - ml mng I Y @aeflo _ fonowlaa s enter ulnen. Be.- J M '- • Pannone atmerp r of th..LeG John •` _ ---_. .- artaMed INMe ;WmAMr W_Mm;wn- In bo. LYe ell hitt. Ilf 1. mpto Colorful Ceremonies at L •.... ( di Rhyll .boli as ��tL many -hers Ih dprll he Ib h�e•�MTtttme r��aYd • . b t el 94 JOnnn hWtya • nh ou�m -R111til ttlL..hmbu the M1 VJohn, P_ _ ni x i b tw Lam I J Jn..Jopp L emu M ens Jpmn.P EmL,W At. bbd) lett, MI Amb R.Man- Craig"to-Vesta 11110 VYOr�� tR Ti om.a x oveav n two anagen she dlsciplitary erguytgvl A ✓s m ul.a.al EoLina,ta_coia E Nauru. f Bel m [+L+wnlYdaw on, o-T mea r tun -iWi-miz formaj5=-`-t- - re'�- _-Pu ural aervmravrtt ae-feta lnM [41htm�.hipe tl,el;�C�PIem.WiH-be atLchnred tdStlept�iatePg T17C'�OF_a nr rtaarn.L.11ouwu mm aanhm over Ihr ufr Fmvth hnhda - -- - In i r At Sf. - - - " red hmr< TTuredaS.ala tenoned �__ Y--A_allEipd-a0-6j}g�Lv LGO A me If at _ f b° Hamm, p,gh m r et at. Jmwf citiztn'of thin city, fur Nhtrh the a ificent W, a 4d- --ii [!s[a - K•'t A nurch u F e t k E.'ai be Fel is rani can mpli... the=tl�ritl OBO,Q06-ves ha d` 'rt RZlAfmmd 1 '- . Y 11 Anounele[lo amen.)'. nee. naly(W .mens mvked - every a serene of palgfOR TObin .Sa s Bl s.rwa rat -I Me mlghr p." mtae:or Me bmdlda fen-m.-.i.l "hah _ tR tGr. .\ MCI'B81R FIR PLTI Rg n..1.RATIO\n �, tf-L ted ROYte y Win Never m n1e dllehe one map Me Tjw Err.Arthur o.Mersin Pmmr.HOlawp COPp'TTpe Ra lrm gvnlnF New•Mu on tutu AGCInF 11 In Caneenlom Boa: ��b�frit �°1p caret out fey i - R1Tpl1Q:�at1iR OIY. Ford Strike Could an, d wn ro hien I[Y (((cleft creamour for In• Thh Yat tD thh nn d Wed, wed ER AppropnaG mremmlu Narked the favored wnh leeal had May, Comm whin guars of the Are tan Of A New IMW , be red aNy"n ap hxynth nl�teL eedtmnan of Me carnet stone oI [he •Hove brightly In tee tlmNeveskPL Have Been Settled vme' v nae Ilat. vv mmnyn.a`h at dmelplln•' an new xt JOmpn'a Niweb a urea Yu- wine lap mNnbere tit NIIIGry, tell• " tit eePemenGtfve Balhm group ZWN uo from ITh-mDlKtn: neh It b •PPBFQ-^1�ypule be m; r Weight wife AVaI!1 - Mayor Jrph B. Henle ba, r n° ave Ile.of A Pooled In n.rin [B the'ethal -ceded-yaYgg; Auxiliary BbnaP in filmy ea0 tivfc ee♦ecfanoa cIGm9 Thrones At BmtVrl.Way I6(�I�aay,Ot Zab& LbnF. O®Rn J. Bete. y tOrmq yy{ pint•• J. WOghl OI )(thee bnbwbg bb relsle0 m at.JowpD'e pule mseehed - Nahnoe J.Tomo ray.ob dailartmeGt °layer a WL+Gty,jpl-Muer PI ;; yen Pme[vend ma'TIMI mltGh-nna_ahai4.be-.v t m.nes Met. Meem;yp m part of tae structure b a f rawalm from special-Rowle bound- A.Coney and nab ebmr.Mtn Y v8° mire tit Wan ned Me fVrt Rymllmg btber goon b wets m117 APon be one of th lam.. MeY b the Sem c o Me els pan owned tee Fora mo dry o. mater'wen rat. Nun.menu shin. P 'tine meat beautiful ednlen to @L O. WaYetG street the � -y � o°ftu, spencer of.Me hem hatemg Atter(Wt. Jenne tnnlel wn L eNnt ane We IY�alt�rit _ ane- - irocrlm. Tmnn told•brine®far®a frui.gyp' and Man ntl\yd 1Ymte. haat tALEN-) blddm:' LW.�tytgL r&Mus�ta Ae eesdralJwndrM led hied Me wlnrfvl taunt, oband Lr wbh.d -wp°-ams odder Mi Ideal wnlhae aaTea'i nae y1vP-: _ Coetlev to on_Py 6erte meed. � wren bnrta avd mit formed a Comfort through which ChurchEvent IurYdlcnm. _ _ue Cetnolln tvrongM Ingo Intayetb nergymen of Bt Juaye'r urleh end - 1 would have had my man on tae _ =`yi rhrFLM Ou Ro,.Ia1 May lifli Wnta the ter. Jab before the mpl y a t e p �'h only-s short Umr ern n from men[ b n Deo rated tend effetely In hit Vnaty-Z6BQPYtd1�"LmTyTapq n nd'tne � .V�pV - n V Wee ielem ted b Pr Wrightem e(the Cenerebne of the Count yog4,l°Y b aven him e0 err -m'TIRe�'pB�a' fill 1111(D�.R�ri'--� wen veterans. Blend Wrl me of seen Re an m of been tiled.' new Led, I don) j i�/llllLUJIIT ry, P F The auxlllary blehop o1 anne. ht [he udltorlum of b•Rerh Mnke waa neceaG -_ - — - - Llje meat(onefW_epesken for Cairo- entered by all I the PrlmG in the rood dl the v8repulmM coarco u Jeb bin mid nes m lift heeleyen, — - llc unm enol int rtvnM for than nllFlou.celem nY and he blere Me n mouonito negemaLloD veno 'b very Pne Inst [n. �_�.� Aute-Aeeident : � -S a•�'r - mN r.M b[We VaWi np be Clair wiaarµape pray b dalle bT'Ice y t cavy nlnR eOd mhll IIkM termer Ctp IfIpM avtsesora W ennleng Lve,Llih rue. er�• Nesry evmv eat In-the Derby m from atlbmane .�- loyalty toward Ged Rnd their fellow Near[-TouchingAdener � °-B°BYHed'at 'Ted i.ea�Aun.Yet elm _ tlhnyhFi.Mit Ia-T►b amb� Tyg mm' ` - In Lobo moo gatne[ed abmlt to uamllY be the a lupiWax,1.. sof two, treat b brin8 the uvloa yd Mm. Th, city anree tleen fl by prom-I tmnen m the my, 5r'e and m Lire way antler° reg LDer. 1 teal now. Zw113 {�j a tnen4 city and Citic Offldtb. w 'r('nRNF.H5TpNg_1 Pxm1a men fldhnt ee em[Id litre.ABtned re Cmnpued m th ted I M 8rpa[ 6p vVIII mfthout Vlka bel -�aR Y Ie-A TImIW women alttbmi - ° PYt fYtep' rttl In Me (oemer meubGah' am- *i - aj Y Purpurin bla ruthOtltln pe u in the n° u y W vlat�mwaj aYiYYd b meyRr Lry. Tee lug. re°emblage Inthided wu eenouety i bred and hu pro- d+lxlr>r6 brl_arq Ylddbbh /y k Retired Leather heMG from Tpemlelt f eergafmmb and nor thea[ but department rale namrmen re b.N EY �a-PD��re nelpp LNG James J.-Clan y eat her he he bneen rib a am.Of wOVn Y enured whery Lhelr ev to the rlgb m pr a muck trot My Cur 1!h .hare _her mYWrt About i nmralaglma Me been mar. .. M of terminal, xtng.lafx corn. A.ore Panml lira 1] YrMran yxya vera reDnavted wlrp Bead"why" ted strikewu Jart•ufacturer";`Dies.n His Home e'ellowh,lyrtarn 8Gr Rebekehn Vet_ h and e"01 ellf M to br hr ldn.temY true • at pomtag In tea oppanm Tee-der of_ ptlou of the Meer. R lodger oda Cno alrcorie nr o lulvle�ttV e NIR., M me polaetr Anrmr dlnetlon emVng Irani ted a[psr YEa br •L --V •• am tRQ7:B Jima eeJ.Oleet. Weil-known Mired th who u e termer.lee- meat rexeu m4 aanWq efmrnoeh_. p( tyycya-1n10-red vaolola -. Mygh yt r 1<ethe+ manvlwWrer. died At hie the Rol Nema eyletym Met W of enm M owlelgn Wnri Rev end Girl been reyumM to Inmrnvt b apace,N.of Butl cord; Owrgea 9tselea, 19 Rnare(ew 9aPeftalE yrrraNn o> �mrea p lurhd. IIMtI hover. 24 Hmw° effort, thin buyer 1-9 an two . M are°. R Gmh town nlflelcla. PWlte. enlon. y Cos Mlnml. wet tatap b lfbpt XamaMY e[eeet.]gwnna.opm[bt n{ip•aq_ amtN Lpt nip• Mlre Ma tleten, the (Icemen, Grange. Bea auum Aad . Tran - AaPIW In en rmbWenm ummmed and nr.Gn pollee he e - .- -- _BLR YappA lvt -_Rita rJdO- -- Baluday, evening--after a snort In- .Fant R. and Rntnryv I. neer group wen rtPrannmd. from Ch meh nab I°m9r01rR�aaY ray aFC'Jdm11b" N. Fs le Oho le- — replied:bort ttrHlb m�tmgp(t hill. _ Orae. Be wBr the wn pt the LG clIn' Tee vrgrntntlem anembled et _ r°Wmefagmp, vs[IFhud Ills aaideat with O(Irem Lurn�notLWa reed ropy all be ata d- Hugh dna B e.f (9 ley) mark mopTo°1 lu°°rel will De hale, bmbermw yrrlaue pert/ of the town, --and gerard.L Melbald, BM wen fnand den his vWble='a wuvg riQhwge Yr.Clyt we.for mpby yyeah rex- ng trom Ehe Mrvppy (unarel marched b Me ebmch In e 1 In Wa8l11nF�tOn�`' Le-gf(nerTa'g'}'I�ns",paler Thed V. at Bt.Jamin thatch (ad a fed- enm. B9 gYd°rnl etre, at 8.16 tot• tve[p9 ni end-Lt�n'hd'a -- Inwrd b e re idem hl pryrlm put otmn wftnen!d upon tun Or the"Wt aid epintl lot unn the guy, on. mer ylSa preelden[oI[fie'BS Vin int Jemn ahuch9eL P. p mr At at the Monte oI Hawley vlllage tan. m Cls'AnortaGd Pnu The we"dent."Ven wen Rbmd by HatMer Melva ray hug generate, It de PMLl,saclety m Me perI He m8 Volume B ]titer the thirteen began• OHM SENATE: InCornell.Mbwll and titer Vebe. Luclen PerrnWL,TF IafsyeeLa aVaet. _[ofvut Vemmar N tea -- L Cbntibnn nali 'tefled b EWem-h -Rey-nue- _ _ mULCtI, R. VlatNht ee brim eYl tyai• dtroga Pivnpple June.,Q!a 1•�r1sYed • pfverloom number as ConmbL stn tet - tawlmnor, wen ID _ htY. K BtL Patp°d9 bISB.-Ada. lored one Inge.umber-bf Lrnpprpptn (Inner by bean). a v req sett At 11 A.M"�2'iT--- _- a cu belh8 Name ho the mdltorlum Mi fa me-tL.rh-pagly woe pedtf drR The mymm, Hymn -Commerc.mb.ohnio ewnaeleap.•rrydlhg to Von. literati by Me-eW- InvMiptlan of airline induftry tl - - mmYd trot ",,Ccaine thou AhN¢ptl A_MI '. Ring' W fmmmee by an roves. Aemed hervir arE�bian, ro- - y Clea by the peRm Ran. wceare d sump prone of Maim Beverly g I ./m/t{NR1lYs Bn{{{/L.- achabn. tee Lard's prayer, apohtlal Wels rig A.M.1 Mumer! �y it creed tem b of the toolphe... .n Leon, Inrearinering mD commhree °pent the anthem by the thee. allyl Man he "a' o "a.h tickoutr m In- - !! anebnl 'rtuof onanon uarwiny -A.M.,utburnfor foreign fh(pmevm le Chars Area of 15Aeres pe non tit welcome y,bebi choir inn¢ A M the hymn "Ther Lem and Pother W HOIPB' f mankind" A dart an four by Mn. . C .ldefh roont Protatnor int.- aeeerlY MAY la-ID the nM n.d - - Aro�pnd _ t Lucy Wlltlrme and O.Culb.aroma Ltlon Ip A M) would fire sloth the .arlew °( blob ea�jl� an and your anewerM the TTe frovenn wen delivered by Rea nR "commllrea contldere,gmPOfM era[ralYd paves:1[n Beverly t You PL.m.D wen fyted b my h{6p - _F NnLhmIN X- OYPtni oft Booth Frit- pilon M lorbylvg 18Art A.M I ego lrat-fall. i6 earn of wooeLDd feet y hue ban wlhg pump cava I� ftp LRCR-) PPPRByIg COt"RT_ were I ymi over by tuna 9aturdu erdam,.,pav,L,hueNG m ben, tpa O 1 continued an Pre Nine Mnm at 1I A. N. Io opine. dsY afternoon Iv era F`rerdW Cforing DLm whbl emel � .rip ihe ft.. of Luh NLy dgt Lei htteet P nd AL gM A U.Beached,tben, to TEMPO" Kn/',M.e''(-/f•%,[}[r( gm gig wee Headed m 18a fed tLa mood fin bmugb[ llrzmev bhck m BUy O. 1. 1HCBEITY BONpP run. and Ompipetlpn ODi uE Rn- •.«nae.r •• ltaalaerntg btu My opo Bim- ;, l :aclt°�eto�www rad.➢o :bmat Orr 1 1 1 - FOR A IYed n neap out the gra htru. -yyl�Ig1 -fie Vr rare trhlen wen on property ewved by - 1 IlliI�■ 'tilt nNumangy Th-emdq ro- �� a M th< eat w lh ® -... JIII1111111wage IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIHMIIIM r n inn d` of tri,. 1 FINf)�OUT'A80UT OUR 'c RR■ rr. ,. m 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 ) 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. ) LESCH, GARY R. JENKINS,PATRICIA O'BREEN, ) 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 PULEO,TIMOTHY REIDY, ) CHRISTINE SULLIVAN,and WALTER B. POWER,III, ) CHAIRMAN,BEING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ) BOARD OF THE CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS,) DEFENDANTS ) COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40A.SECTION 17 APPEALING SEPTEMBER 14.2006 SITE PLAN REVIEW/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DECISION OF THE SALEM PLANNING BOARD CONCERNING 135 LAFAYETTE STREET,SALEM MASSACHUSETTS This is an appeal from a Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem,Massachusetts Planning Board(hereinafter"the Planning Board"or"the Board"),dated September 14,2006 and Sled with the Salem City Clerk on September 14,2006,concerning the former St.Joseph's Church complex at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts(hereinafter "the subject property","the St.Joseph's complex,"or"the St.Joseph's property")on the grounds that said Planning Board 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 September 14,2006 Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. PARTES 1. Plaintiff,William Dziernek,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 1 Pickering Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns 4446 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- 1 T 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 0 180 1, 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 I 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 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. 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 Ropes Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. -3 - 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 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.Ingemi 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 IL 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 Rosario Beltre,owns and resides at 15 Harrison Ave, Salem,Massachusetts, 01970,which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 30. 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. 31. Plaintiff,Jordan Castro,who resides at 2 Station Road, Salem,Massachusetts 01970, owns 15 %Palmer Street, Salem,Massachusetts,which property is located within the 300 foot notice requirement of the Salem ZBA. -4 - 32. Defendant,Salem Lafayette Development,LLC(hereinafter"SLD'),is a non-profit development corporation with headquarters at 84 State Street,Suite 600,Boston, Massachusetts 02109;is the owner of the former St. Joseph's Church complex at 135 Lafayette Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970;and is the recipient of the September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision from the Salem Planning Board herewith being appealed. 33. Defendant, Eugene Collins,also known as Gene Collins(hereinafter"Mr. Collins'),who resides at 63 Appleton Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 34. Defendant, Paul Durand(hereinafter"Mr. Durand'),who(according to information obtained from the Salem Planning Board)resides at 209 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 35. Defendant,Timothy E. Kavanagh(hereinafter"Mr.Kavanagh"),who resides at 14 May Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 36. Defendant,Pamela Lombardini,also known as Pam Lombardini (hereinafter"Ms. Lombardini"),who resides at 3 Larch Avenue, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 37. Defendant,John Moustakis(hereinafter"Mr.Moustakis"),who resides at 23 Dearborn Street, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 38. Defendant,Charles Puleo, also known as Chuck Puleo(hereinafter"Mr. Puleo"),who resides at 5 Freeman Road, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14, 2006 Decision. 39. Defendant,Timothy Reidy,also known(according to information obtained from the Salem Planning Board)as Tim Reidy and/or Tim Ready(hereinafter"Mr. Reidy"),who resides at 22 Sable Road, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 40. Defendant, Christine Sullivan(hereinafter"Ms. Sullivan'),who resides at 111 Federal Street,Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is a member of the Salem Planning Board who voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. 41. Defendant,Walter B.Power,III(hereinafter"Mr. Power"),who resides at 18 Loring Avenue, Salem,Massachusetts 01970,is the Chairman of the Salem Planning Board. He voted to approve said September 14,2006 Decision. - 5 - 42. All of the foregoing Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action,as all are substantially aggrieved by the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board. 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 14,2006, which is when the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision 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 rectory,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 %:-story residential buildings fronting on the northerly side of Dow Street at the southeast corner 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. 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. 50. 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. 51. 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 -6- modem architecture which is unique in Salem. As such,it makes an important contribution to Salem's world-renowned stock of 17', 18'h, and 19'b century architecture. 52. 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. 53. The former St Joseph's school building and convent have no particular architectural significance. 54. 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. 55. The entire St.Joseph's property is located in an R-3 Zoning District 56. 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 %stories. 57. 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 '/z 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. 58. The grade of the parking lot at the southern third of the site is already approximately 4 feet above the grade of the 2 '/rstory residential buildings fronting on Dow Street at the southeast comer of the site. 59. In the Spring of 2005 the Archdiocese of Boston sold the entire St.Joseph's property to the Planning lice of Urban Affairs(hereinafter"POUR'),a private non-profit corporation,for$2,000,000.00,which thereupon created Salem Lafayette Development Corporation, LLC(hereinafter"SLD')to develop the site. 60. The head of the Archdiocese of Boston,Cardinal Sean O'Malley, serves in his individual capacity as the chief executive officer of POUA. 61. 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 units,which represents 64 units more than the 33 maximum number of residential units allowed by the current R-3 zoning for that district. -7 - 62. 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 75 units,64 of which are proposed to be residential and 11 are proposed to be commercial,including an 18,000 square foot Community Life Center on the first floor,which would also double as a Senior Center. 63. Unlike the existing cruciform church,which was built with its narrow(i.e.40-foot wide) nave perpendicular to Lafayette Street,the proposed new,65-foot,6-story structure is to be built parallel to Lafayette Street,approximately 180 feet in length,within a few feet of the existing sidewalk. 64. The width of the proposed new structure is approximately 120 feet,or three times wider than the existing 40 foot wide nave of the former St.Joseph's Church building. 65. 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 sing Le- interior space(albeit 63 feet tall)was primarily used for brief periods only on Saturday afternoons, Sunday mornings,and holy days. 66. 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. 67. 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. 68. 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 certain income limitations of the buyer or tenants. 69. 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 301/6 below prevailing market rates. 70. 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- - 8- 71. 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. 72. 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. 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. 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 heating 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. 76. 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 stories to 6 stories,which represents a 58.33% increase. 77. On August 23,2006 the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal (hereinafter"ZBA")voted to grant said variances. A copy of the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision,entered in the Salem City Clerk's office on September 5,2006,is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 78. On September 22,2006 forty-one 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 ZBA,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 Dzierzek et al vs. Salem Lafayette Development, LLC et al,Civil Action No. 2006-1820C. 79. 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 -9 - significant building and would not waive the demolition delay ordinance if a vote were then taken on SLD's application. 80. On September 7,2006 the Salem Planning Board voted to approve SLD's PUD application. The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision(Exhibit A)reflecting that vote,which is herewith being appealed from,was entered in the office of the Salem City Clerk at 5:27 p.m.on September 14, 2006. 81. The Salem Planning Board is a"special permit granting authority"within the meaning of Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws with respect to said September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. 82. As to each of the following Counts,the Plaintiffs reaffirm,re-allege,and incorporate all of the prior allegations contained in paragraphs 1-81 inclusive above. ARGUMENT COUNTI SLD's PUD does not comply with the statutory purpose of a Planned Unit Development as defined in Section 7-15(b) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 83. Section 7-15 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,entitled"Planned unit development," regulates PUDs. 84. Section 7-15(b)defines the statutory purpose of a PUD as follows: "The planned unit development district is designed to provide various types of land use which can be combined in compatible relationship with each other as part of a totally planned development. It is the intent of this district to ensure compliance with the master plan and good zoning practices..." Emphasis added 85. Clearly the components of SLD's PUD approved by the Salem Planning Board in its September 14,2006 Decision do not represent"various types of land use"which are being combined"in compatible relationship with each other." 86. 'Be"types"of proposed land use are not`various," but are merely two-fold: namely, 86 residential units and 11 commercial units- - 10- 87. Even more to the point,there is no compatibility between the relationships of the proposed 86 residential units,as 8 units are proposed to be located in the 3-story former St.Joseph's rectory,which structure conforms with the current 3 '/2 story and 45-foot height restriction of the existing R-3 zoning, 14 units are proposed to be located in the 3- story,former St. Joseph's school,which structure likewise conforms to height and number-of-story restriction in the existing R-3 zoning, and 64 units are proposed to be located in the proposed 6-story, 65-foot tall new structure,whose scale,dimensions,and density completely overwhelms the other two structures of the project. 88. SLD touts the fact that 33 of the 86 residential units will represent"affordable housing," but that is not"a various type of use"within the meaning of Section 7-15(b). 89. Similarly,there is no compatibility between the 11 commercial units,which consists of one 18,000 square foot Community Life/Senior Center and ten other commercial units, which are far smaller in scale and dimensions. 90. Section 7-15(b)also recites,in relevant part,that another primary purpose of a Planned Unit Development is as follows: The advantages which are intended to result from the application of the planned unit development district are to be ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan with a specific time limit for commencement of construction 91. With respect to a primary component of SLD's PUD,namely the 18,000 square foot Community Life and Senior Center,there was/is no precision whatsoever concerning all of the particulars of said transaction,even apart from the fact that an overwhelming majority of Salem's Senior citizens who currently use the existing Senior Center on Broad Street are emphatic in their opposition to relocating the existing Senior Center on Broad Street to the proposed new Senior Center at the St. Joseph's site. 92. None of the several Salem City Councilors who attended the three Planning Board hearings seemed to be aware of the details of said purchase,or the annual costs to maintain same;no one(including the City Councilors)seemed to know how the City of Salem(which is,and has been,under severe financial constraints)is going to afford the purchase price or annual maintenance costs;and no one(including the City Councilors) seemed to know what would happen if this material component of the PUD could not be realized,either because the City could not afford the estimated$5,000,000.00 purchase price,because of strong opposition to the acquisition,or otherwise. 93. The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Decision also violates the express requirements of Section 7-15(b)of the Salem Zoning Ordinance because there is no"adoption of a precise development plan with a specific time limit for commencement of construction." Emphasis added - 11 - 94. Similarly said September 14,2006 Decision does not demonstrate"compliance with the Master Plan"of the City of Salem,nor does it represent"good zoning practices." Indeed, with respect to the latter,it increases density to 97 units,64 units above the 33-unit maximum for the site pursuant to the existing R-3 zoning, representing a 194% increase; it increases the current 3 %s max;mum number of stories to 6 stories,representing a 44.44% increase; and it increases the current 45 height maximum to 65 feet,representing a 58.33% increase, among other deviations from the existing R-3 zoning. 95. For these and other reasons the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously, and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision_ COUNT H The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planncd Unit Development Decision is not in harmony with the Salem Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan of the City of Salem,as required By Section 7-15(c)(1) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 96. Section 7-15(c)(1)of Salem Zoning Ordinance provides the following in relevant part: (c)All uses or any combination thereof permitted in R-3...Districts may be allowed in a planned unit development,subject to the following limitations of uses: (1)There can be a multiplicity of types of residential development provided that, at the boundaries with existing residential development, where typical development is permitted,the form and type of development on the planned unit development site boundary are compatible with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. Emphasis added 97. It is absolutely clear that the proposed 6-story,65-foot tall new stricture is incompatible with the existing development of the surrounding Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods,including,in particular,the existing residential development at the very boundaries of the St. Joseph's site. 98. 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 complex(ie. across from the pocket park)are either 2 %2 or 3-story residential - 12 - dwellings 45 feet in height or less. As such,said overwhelming majority of buildings on said surrounding streets conform to the existing R-3 zoning in both respects. 99. For this reason alone, among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. COUNT III The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision does not comply with the height limitations of the R-3 zoning district in which the planned unit development is located,and thus,is a clear violation of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 100. Section 7-15(cx4)is another of the 5 express limitations governing approval of planned unit developments. 101. Section 7-15 (c)(4)reads in relevant port: Height limitations shall be in accordance with the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located. Emphasis added 102. The R-3 height restrictions for the St. Joseph's site is 45 feet. The maximum number of stories is 3 '/2 stories. 103. The proposed new structure is 65 feet tall, or 20 feet above the existing maximum, representing a 44.44%increase. The proposed new structure is also 6 stories in height, or 2 '/2 stories in excess of the existing R-3 maximum,representing a 5833% increase. 104. Section 7-15(cx4)refers to the height limitations of the existin zoning; it does not refer to height limitations which may be enlarged pursuant to a variance. 105. The August 24,2006 variances granted to SLD by the Salem Board of Appeal do not set aside the requirement of Section 7-15(cx4)that the proposed new construction not exceed the existing height restrictions for the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located. 106. For SLD to maintain that variances of the maximum height and number of story restrictions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance by as much as 44.44% and 5833% respectively represents compliance with Section 7-15(c)(4)is circular reasoning of the worst sort,and makes an intellectual mockery of the planned unit development process. - 13 - 107. For this reason alone,among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. COUNT IV SLD has not demonstrated a reasonable relationship between the proposed lot size and the usable and accessible open area within the total development,and thus,violates Section 7-14(c)(5)of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 108. Section 7-15(c)(5)is another of the 5 express limitations governing approval of planned unit developments. 109. Section 7-15(c)(5)provides in relevant part: As a prerequisite, the developer shall demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the proposed lot size and the usable and accessible open area within the total development. An individual lot shall be large enough to provide for private open space associated with the living accommodations. Emphasis added 110. In point of fact there was no such demonstration,nor is there such a reasonable relationship. 111. For this reason alone, among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. COUNT V The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision does not make adequate provision for usable open space,and thus,violates Section 7-15(h)(1)-(2) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 112. Section 7-15(h)(l)-(2)provides the following in relevant part: (h)Provision shall be made so that usable open space shall be owned. - 14- (1)By the City of Salem for park,open space or conservation use; (2)By a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or residential units within the land that may be approved by the planning board, with provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of the city,provided that such ownership shall vest in sufficient rights to enable it to enforce compliance with the restrictions imposed by the planning board as condition of its special permit. 113. In point of fact,there was/is no such required provision in the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board. 114. Virtually all of the open space in the project is devoted to parking,which is not what Section 7-15(h)(l)-(2)contemplates. 115. For this reason alone, among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. COUNT VI SLD's proposed PUD doe not meet the three most fundamental requirements of a planned unit development as provided in Section 7-15(g)(l)-(3) inclusive of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 116. Section 7-15(gxl)-(3)of the Salem Zoning Ordinance provides that a special permit may be granted by a two-thirds(2/3s)vote of the Salem Planning Board after notice and public hearing(s),provided that all other requirements of Section 7-15 are complied with, but only if the following three fundamental requirements are met: (1)The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section [as defined in Section 7-15(b)]; (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; - 15 - (3)The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact 117. The September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision,which consists of 7 pages,contains absolutely no findings of fact whatsoever. 118. Indeed,after subtracting the six pages of largely boiler-plate conditions which are routinely applied to all such projects,and the single-paragraph recording of the Planning Board vote,which comprises pages 2-7 inclusive of said September 14,2006 Decision in their entirely,one is literally left with a one-page decision,ie.page 1,for this $26,000,000.00 proposed development. 119. Even that single-page is deceiving,in that much of page I of the September 14, 2006 Decision is involved with such non-substantive matters as the title of the project,the name and address of Salem Lafayette Development,LLC,the location of the project,and a brief, 11-line single-paragraph summary of the scope of the project. 120. The entire rest of page I of said September 14,2006 Decision boils down to the following: (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. 121. While said September 14, 2006 Decision characterizes the foregoing three paragraphs as findings,it is clear that they are nothing more than self-serving conclusions which simply repeat the statutory language of Section 7-15(g)(l)-(3)inclusive,except for the addition - 16- of the second sentence in paragraph 2 of the Decision,namely"Specifically,the project incorporates a Community Life Center,as requested by the City,and mixed income affordable housing providing substantial public benefit,"and except for the addition of the second sentence in paragraph 3,namely"Based on the [undisclosed] information from the Environmental Impact Statement and plans,the project will result in public recreational space,a decrease in peak stormwater discharge rates and will improve the vacant site significantly from its current condition." 122. Even these two single-sentence additions are conclusionary,self-serving statements on their face. 123. In point of fact, said September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision is not in keeping with the purposes and intent of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, including(in particular)with respect to height,number-of-stories,and density,among otherissues. 124. Said September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision is likewise not in keeping with the 1996 Master Plan of the City of Salem, including in the following material respects: a. It does not"improve major vehicular routes through Salem"(page 19); b. It does not"improve access...[to] the downtown"(page 19); c. It does not improve"intra-city road linkages to enhance traffic efficiency and flow" (page 20); d. It does not reinforce"public institutional master plans"(page 26); e. It does not"protect residential streets from commuter traffic"(page 31); f It does not"improve appearance of entrance corridors"(page 31); g. It does not"improve appearance of private property"(page 32); h. It does not materially"improve maintenance of parks"with respect to the adjacent park(page 37); i. It does not"protect and improve areas of historic significance,"including(in particular)by demolishing the landmark St.Joseph's Church,which is eligible for inclusion on the Nation Register of Historic Places maintained by the United States Department of the Interior,and by overwhelming the scale and density of the historic Point neighborhood(page 38); j. It does not"improve efficiency of water and sewer system to guarantee public health and safety"(page 41);and - 17- k. It does not improve"adaptive reuse of public buildings"(page 42). 125. The Plaintiffs aver that the mixture of uses in the planned unit development is not sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district,especially since said PUD has many significant deleterious effects on the surrounding neighborhood, including with respect to density,scale,height,traffic, parking,and adverse impact on neighborhood infrastructure,among other negative effects. 126. The Plaintiffs further aver that the approved planned unit development will, in fact,result in a significant net negative environmental impact on the surrounding neighborhood, especially with respect to density, scale,height(including the consequent shadows cast by the proposed new 6-story structure),traffic,parking,and adverse impact on neighborhood infrastructure,among other serious negative effects. 127. 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. 128. Especially considering the huge volume of traffic on Washington and Lafayette Streets, which are two of the City's primary entrance corridors,and that the 3-way intersection at Dow,Lafayette,and Washington Streets,and the nearby 2-way intersection at Palmer and Lafayette Streets,are two of the busiest and most dangerous intersections in the City, the approval of said PUD without such a traffic study is all the more alarming. 129. With respect to the tripling of density of the SLD project,increased traffic not only involves the increased traffic from 86 residential units and 10(conventional)commercial units,but also the increased traffic from those using the 18,000 square foot Community Life/Senior Center. 130. Said increased demands also apply to parking 131. At least one member of the Salem Planning Board made it clear that his mind was already made up when he spoke at the first Planning Board hearing on July 27,2006 that he was enthusiastically in favor of all aspects of the project even before the developer had completed its presentation,or public comment(which ultimately lasted 3 evenings)had begun. 132. The Planning Board also began substantive discussion of the project at the second Planning Board hearing on August 3,2006,even before the public comment period had concluded,thus raising serious questions as to whether the public hearing process was a sham to begin with. - 18- 133. For the foregoing reasons alone,among other reasons,the Salem Planning Board acted willfidlly and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in approving its September 14, 2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision. RELIEF SOUGHT The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court_ a. enter a Judgment in their favor annulling in full the September 14,2006 Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision of the Salem Planning Board; 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, October 2. 2006 John H. Carr,Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 978-825-0060 BBO#075281 - 19- f f L i . Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision 135 Lafayette Street. September 14,2006 n Salem Lafayette Development,LLC g C/o Joseph Correnti,Esq. in o 63 Federal Street `moo ;X-n uicn Salem,MA 01970 J= o� nm RE: 135 Lafayette Street/Former St. Joseph's Church site Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development m3 N � D L 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, L.ombardini, 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 All 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 DEP standards for the proposed use. c. The developer shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. d. The developer 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 developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. f. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. g. The developer 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 developer 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. in. The resultant establishments) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health. n. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 10. 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. 4 ( 11. Department of Public Services l 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 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. 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 31/s" 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 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. 18. As-built Plans As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the C- 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 lie 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 6 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 l 1U W.P7 O_p 1TY CLERK va SALEM, MASS. r3 e rrrCITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • " 0 BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET. 3RD FLOOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 0 �J O TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 cn KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Or MAYOR rr1� August 24, 2006 y 0 9 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 Hams,Beth Debski,Stephen Pinto, Bonnie Belair. i 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 '/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. o c-)- 5. Mayor Kimberly Driscoll addressed the Board and spoke in favor oiahe me project, citing the City's detailed involvement with the development due tq the L'i proposed construction of a Community Life Center within the project anAhe o� great need for mixed income housing and the community benefit, as wells a -na City benefit that the Life Center provided. F3- C) rTI n: I ' 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. C 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 indicatinat a certain minimum number of market rate units are necessary in order to sl*port u,v the 45 below market units proposed for the new structure, and that with4six or, stories; the lot could not be developed for residential use. A local developer3 testified that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the projZt profitable. A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to v 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 bf 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, Hams,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. 4 � 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. 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 _ rTt vicr. ��tt pp loi.AJSccq�. �z SALEM, - - m� O D COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVILACTIONNO: Z03C�' l$ZOC 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 ) INGEML STEPHEN C. INGEMI,ROBERSON D. ) TRONCOSO, CLARIZA J. TRONCOSO,MARY C. ) LESCH,GARY R. JENKINS,PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ) SHAWN M. O'BRIIN,RALPH BERRY,DOROTHY A. ) FORTIN,JOHN J. PHELAN,ROSARIO BELTRE, ) ORILLE L'HEUREUX,CONSTANCE SANFORD,and ) JORDAN CASTRO, PLAINTIFFS ) V. ) 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 SALT M BOARD OF APPEAL fiRA N In YAItWaS CQNCERN1NG 135 LAFAYETTR S'T'REET,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 0 192 1, 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 Ahneda 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 Mitabito 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 I 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.Hammon, 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 Z.BA. 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 Bembe,owns and resides at 191 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, which property is located in the immediate neighborhood. 22. 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. 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 Cheng 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 '/x 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 , 185 1ewn8hi(2 'Px o Massachusetts 619270; 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, Salem,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 Harris(hereinafter"Ms. Hams"),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 Z13A 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 rectory,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 %-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 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. 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 modem architecture which is unique in Salem. As such, it makes an important contribution to Salem's world-renowned stock of 17th, 18th,and 19th 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 an 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 %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 'h 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 Yrstory residential buildings 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"POUR"),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 rqxumts 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 sinele-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 301/o below prevailing market rates,for which eligibility will be based on income limitations of the buyer or tenants. 67. Thus,in essence, SLD's PUD application seeks an approximate 1940/6 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 '/: stories to 6 stories,which represents a 58.33%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 Decision, 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 COUNTI 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 existing R-3 zoning, and for increasing the 3 '/2 maximum number of stories to 6-stories,which represents a 58.33%increase. 81. Most of the findings represent either self-serving conclusions without any specificity whatsoever, or attest to the project's popularity with either the Mayor,some elected officials,or certain groups within the local Salem population,all of which is hardly a legal basis for granting said relief. Whatsoever its merits,popularity with some groups is not a proper basis for granting variances. 82. The reason that no such specificity was cited is because, in point of fact,no such legally- relevant evidence was introduced at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing in support of said variances. 83. Findings 1, 2, and 3 offer absolutely no guidance whatsoever as to the bases for said variances. 84. Finding 12 recites that"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 the district...,"without specifying what said evidence was,how it related to the height or number of stories issues,or why other solutions that might have been more compatible with the existing R-3 zoning were not possible. 85. "The uniquely large size of the lot"alone is not a sufficient basis for said variances. Indeed,one might reasonably conclude that such a large-sized lot offered more opportunities for development compatible with the existing R-3 zoning,not less. 86. Finding 11 recites that"The Petitioner presented all evidence pertaining to the history of institutional use on the site and the history of the building on the site over the past 100 years,two of which buildings were taller than the proposed structure...,"which purported information,even if true, is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether said variances should be granted 87. The proper issue before the ZBA was not what the area may have looked like at one particular point in its history,especially if that occurred before the introduction of zoning, but what the current conditions are, as well as thecurre to zoning. 88. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of a colored lithograph of Lafayette Street looking north toward the downtown of Salem that was drawn in 1852 from the vantage point of Lafayette and Harbor Streets. Surely it is just as irrelevant for the petitioner to argue that it should be entitled to a 6-story building because at some point in history there was a taller building on the site as it would be for the opponents to argue that the 1852 neighborhood should be replicated. 89. Findings 4,5,6,7,and 8 all deal exclusively with the purported popularity of the project with some groups within the Salem community,which certainly does not include the - 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 overwhehn 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 p1 or 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 whichres uia 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(renter 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 overturned. COUNT II There is no legally-recognized hardship at all, let alone hardship sufficient to entitle SLD to either or both of said variances. 99. The only purported findings of fact with respect to hardship are the self-serving conclusionary statements found in Findings 13 and 15. 100. Finding 13 recites simply that the hardship is"from the uniquely large size of the lot,2.6 acres, compared to others in the district...,"and Finding 15 simply recites that"A hardship exists which requires a height variance in order to provide the high level of public benefit being proposed." 101. Note that in the first instance there is absolutely no explanation as to how and why"a uniquely large"lot constitutes hardship. Indeed,the more compelling inference to be drawn from that single fact, even if true,is that such a lot affords far more opportunities 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 zoning itself is the basis for the hardship. 103. With respect to Finding 15,it should also be noted that the alleged hardship is unexplained. The hardship"which [supposedly] requires a height variance"is accepted as a given. [Emphasis added] Even though this is the findings section of the Decision, said finding is, in fact, an unsupported conclusion. 104. It is clear that SLD had the burden of proving each of the primary elements needed to justify the granting of said variances, especially variances which increase the existing R-3 height and number of stories restrictions by as much as 44.44%and 58.33%respectively. 105. It is axiomatic under Massachusetts law that hardship cannot be self-created. 106. In point of fact there was no evidence with respect to legally-recognized hardship submitted at the August 23,2006 ZBA hearing,or to be found in the August 24,2006 Decision. 107. SLD is presumed to know the R-3 zoning for the property, and presumably it took that into account in negotiating its purchase price for the property. 108. If there were zoning issues that needed to be resolved,those should have been resolved prior to consummating the purchase. _ 12 _ l 09. 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 willfiilly 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 at the August 23, 2006 ZBA hearing on the issue of special conditions and circumstances,as finding 13 implicitly and explicitly makes clear,nor do such special conditions and/or circumstances exist. 118. As such,the ZBA acted willfully and capriciously,and exceeded its authority, in granting said variances. 119. For this reason alone, said variance should be nullified and overturned. COUNT IV Said variances constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. 120. There are absolutely no findings of fact in the August 24,2006 ZBA Decision in support of its formal Conclusion No. 1,found on the third page of said Decision,that"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." 121. As above,this essential finding necessary for the granting of said variances(along with the other necessary elements) is simply accepted as a given. 122. How the 6 stories totaling 65 feet will relate to the surrounding neighborhood, the shadows that will be cast,the impact on traffic and city infrastructure,including impact on the water and sewer system,the density of said stories,and other effects,are all 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 people to have a 33%discount on their rent,or the purchase price of their condominium,may be a laudable goal,but it does not justify the obvious significant adverse effects that will be caused to both the Point and Lafayette Street neighborhoods if such a monstrosity is allowed to be built,especially if specific provisions of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which are intended to prevent said adverse effects are ignored. 124. Clearly the scale of a neighborhood is a critical aspect of the integrity and vitality of that neighborhood,and any variances granting increases in the height and maximum number of stories by as much as 44.44%and 58.33%over the existing R-3 maximums should not be granted without clear and convincing evidence that such action will not cause substantial detriment to the public good,which evidence simply does not exist here. 125. In light of same,it is clear that the ZBA has acted willfully and capriciously in drawing its formal Conclusion No.I that there will be no substantial detriment caused to the public good,and thereby,has exceeded its authority in granting said variances. - 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 IV,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 '/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 %2 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 sin e- story of the same height,which is entirely ceremonial in nature; - 15 - C. The former use of that space primarily occurred at limited hours, generally only on late Saturday afternoons, Sunday mornings,and Church holidays; d. The church is a cruciform church, with its narrow(i.e.40 feet wide)edge to Lafayette Street,which thereby min�the impact of its height on said street; e. As a symbolic and ceremonial building,the very epicenter(originally) of the surrounding French Canadian Community that built the complex,the size and height of the church have an obvious visual logic; f. None of the foregoing apply to SDL's proposed new 6-story structure; g. Clearly there is no such visual logic for height or massing in a 6-story condominium building; b. Instead of a single-story interior space that was primarily used only for ceremonial purposes during a limited number of hours each week,the interior of the proposed 65 foot tall building will consist of 6 floors,each of which will be in 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 Lafayette Street, SDL intends to construct the long(i.e. 160 feet)side of the new, 6-story, 65-foot tall structure directly on the sidewalk. 134. For all of the above reasons,any comparison between the former St.Joseph's Church building,and the proposed new 60-story building, is glib,disingenuous,and intellectually dishonest at best. 135. For all of the above reasons,and more,it is clear that the ZBA acted arbitrarily and capriciously,and exceeded its authority,in granting said variances,which basically amount to political decisions. 136. Because the proposed new 6-story structure does in fact nullify and substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,said variances should be 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 Decision of the 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 John H. Carr,Jr.,Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 978-825-0060 BBQ#075281 - 17- c u CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 N -;GC`1 M>xe FAx: 978-740-9846 �o cn KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Of MAYOR T� August 24, 2006 _ , 0 Ja 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 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 1)to approximately sixty-five (65) feet, and from the three and one-half(31/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. r: 5. Mayor Kimberly Driscoll addressed the Board and spoke in favor oiahe 70 project, citing the City's detailed involvement with the development due tq the N proposed construction of a Community Life Center within the project anAhe o great need for mixed income housing and the community benefit, as wells a T- City benefit that the Life Center provided. — m, C5 v 6. A number of abutters and Salem residents, along with several members OR.he 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. nJ 15. Evidence was presented in support of the requested variances indicatinat a _;0 certain minimum number of market rate units are necessary in order to sport u, the 45 below market units proposed for the new structure, and that withot%six o stories; the lot could not be developed for residential use. A local developer �3 testified that he would need to construct at least 8 stories to make the pr6zt Vv3 37 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 bf 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,Hams,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. i 11. That the former rectory and school buildings existing on the site shall be reused in the proposed project. pp yy� sCLCtw ��^ 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 p C-)� C�) r—,; cPY ATTEST Cnt l:Fl�te�� D fir'. SALEM, MASS. 7 C-)=' ma O D L Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development Decision 135 Lafayette Street. September 14,2006 n Salem Lafayette Development,LLC C/o Joseph Correnti, Esq. m Mo 63 Federal Street v Salem,MA 01970 _ ujcn >_ o� RE: 135 Lafayette Street/Former St. Joseph's Church site Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development cti m3 N D 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 storrnwater 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 deeTed 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 PIanner 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 All 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 DEP standards for the proposed use. c. The developer shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. d. The developer 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 developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. f. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. g. The developer 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 developer 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. in. 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 developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 10. 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. 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 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. 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 'h" 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. L 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 on the site shall be removed off site. c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. Tht 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 6 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 1 The City Sea Trade Built ax x 'bY �� � ♦ �""ya•. N �' i" �� ���'I�� � � I � 'w � q\{I� � �i��� R �i N� � �� f� gMlyy, � u 1 ^ 1�1 . r ,�t4• � A'!9r ,1 �. [`�( Of(OYr .. � r' st � ,: e �,I.� qtr � �"� `'`�..� � '� �� ,•I,,. I', �,� � to `- 4�,'> {� n oa ❑co ior 13SC �4em P.O. Box 865 incorporated Salem, M01970 Telephone: (978) 744 5-0799-0799 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 religicbs 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 commissioned 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 commissioned 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 • Email: hsi@nii.net • Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/ building with the remainder of the site taken up by parking to the very edge of the property. It is also not in scale with the Point neighborhood which surrounds it on three sides. Recommendations • Design We have suggested in several meetings with POUA that they reduce the height of the new building proposed to be built on the site and put smaller scale buildings around the edge of the site,perhaps townhouses. Lower rise buildings around the edge of the site would relate more to the immediate neighborhood and provide a visual shield for the large area of parking which will be primarily viewed from the Point neighborhood. We are also concerned with the precedent set by increasing the height of buildings beyond that allowed by zoning,particularly if such an increase is not offset by the highest level of urban contextual design. • Design Review Salem is faced with numerous challenges of how to handle proposed large complexes in our historic downtown,including the recently proposed development of the Salem Marketplace. These require that a great deal of thought and consideration be given to urban design issues. In response to these challenges, Historic Salem recently added as Potentially Endangered the sense of scale in Downtown Salem. We appreciate the amount of effort that POUA has invested in addressing other community needs,including in particular affordable housing and community space. However, we feel that the urban design issues of this site has not been adequately addressed and certainly deserves the same attention as the City is providing for other very large sites with such a significant impact on a neighborhood and on Salem's downtown. We urge the Planning Board to consider requiring modifications in the site and building design to be more complementary to the existing urban fabric. Historic Salem would be happy to work with the developer to make more specific recommendations for the project. We also recommend that the Planning Board consider seeking the counsel of the Design Review Board to the design of the site and building fabric. Sincerely, Barbara A. Cleary y President Mayor Kimberly Driscoll Lynn Duncan,City Planner Councillor Lucy Corchado Council President Jean Pelletier onna Vinson,Vice President,HSI Kimberly Alexander,Vice President,HSI 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 suffrciently`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 sane 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. I C�N r , Density/FIeight 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 I F 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 aPptovals 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 aprominent,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