The URL can be used to link to this page

370 ESSEX STREET - YALE, GLENN - ZBA 370 Essex St. R-2 City of Salem-Library(0) \\1` Glenn Yale(petitioner) i I � �� i i 37,0 Essex St. R-2 City of Salem-Library(0) � Glenn Yale(petitioner) ottrb of upeul April 22, 1985 Michael O'Brien City Solicitor Legal Department City of Salem Dear M. O'Brien: Enclosed is a copy of the Complaint received by all the members of the Board of Appeal regarding the Special Permit and Variance granted to the Salem Public Library on March 20, 1985• The Board has also received a Complaint from Ardiff & Ardiff of Beverly, representing the Connollys. Sincerely, James BHacker Chairman, Board of Appeal JBH:bms PAUL M. LYNCH LAW OFFICES ZERO SPRING STREET MARBLEHEAD. MASSACHUSETTS 01945 - (817)831-7808 PAUL M.LYNCH DANVERS OFFICE WILLIAM R.ARDIFF - 16171 7743830 April 19, 1985 Mr . James Hacker c/o Board of Appeals of the City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Re: Frank V. Hale and Dorothy A. Hale v. Glenn A. Yale, Secretary, Trustee of the Board of Trustees of Salem Public Library, et al. Dear Mr . Hacker: Enclosed herewith please find the Notice of Complaint and a copy of the Complaint in the above captioned matter which is being duly served on you pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A Section 17 , by Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested . While no answer is required under the aforementioned statute, if you do file one with the court , kindly send me a copy. Ver ly s, aul W. PML/jb Enclosures CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED PAUL M. LYNCH LAWOFFICES ZERO SPRING STREET MARBLEHEAD, MASSACHUSETTS 01945 18171 8317808 DANCERS OFFICE PAUL M.LYNCH - m51717743810 WILLIAM B.ARDIFP April 19 , 1985 TO: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Salem and Glenn A. Yale, Trustee of Salem Public Library RE: Notice of Complaint filed pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A .§17 On April 17 , 1985, Frank V. Hale and Dorothy A. Hale filed a Complaint appealing the decision of the Zoning Board entered March 29 , 1985 regarding the application of Glenn A. Yale, Secretary, Trustee-_of. the Board of Trustees of Salem Public Library. Very tYu rs, aulK PML/jb COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT ESSEX, ss . CIVIL ACTION NO. : 85943 FRANK V. HALE, AND DOROTHYLAI. HIFFS) ) V. GLENN A. YALE, SECRETARY, TRUSTEE ) OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SALEM ) PUBLIC LIBRARY, AND JAMES HACKER, ) SCOTT SHARNAS, ROBERT GAUTHIER, ) EDWARD LUZINSKI , PETER STROUT, ) ARTHUR LABRECQUE, as they are ) ' Members of the BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SALEM DEFENDANTS) COMPLAINT This is a complaint for judicial review under M.G.L. C. 40A, Section 17. 1. The Plaintiffs , Frank V. Hale and Dorothy A. Hale ("Hale") , reside at 5 Monroe Street , Salem, Massachusetts 01970 . 2. The Defendant , Glenn A. Yale is Secretary of the Board of Trustees of Salem Public 01970 ("Pet tioner ry, 370 Essex Street , ") 3 . The Defendants James Hacker , Scott Sharnas, Robert Gauthier, Edward Luzinski, Peter Strout, Arthur LaBrec Richard Bencal, constitute the members of the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem ("Board") , One Salem Green , Salem, Massachusetts 01970 , a zoning board duly established pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 12:�� ' 4. Since May 5, 1944, Hale has owned the land at 5 Monroe Street, Salem, Massachusetts ("the Locus") . 5. The Locus abutts the land owned by the city of Essex Street , Salem Public Library Salem known as 370 ("Library") . 6. On December 26 , 1984 the Petitioner applied to the Board for a Special Permit and/or variance from all density to allow Library rehabilitation and/or setback requirements and the construction of an addition. In addition to the petition for a Special Permit a Variance from minimum parking require- ments was sought with the same application. 7. On March 20, 1985 hearings. were held by the Salem Board of Appeals ("Board") upon the applications by the Petitioner for a special permit from density . and setback requirements' and a variance from parking requirements to allow rehabilitation and construction of an addition at 370 Essex Street. 8. On March 29, 1985 the Board issued a decision upon the application of the Petitioner to grant a special permit for renovations of the building , installation of a handicapped access and the installation of an elevator by a 5-0 vote; to grant a special permit for the addition of a single story and egress at the rear of the building by a 5-0 vote. 9. On March 29, 1985 the Board also issued a decision upon the application of the Petitioner to grant a variance from the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance by a 5-0 Vote. A true-attest copy of said decision appears as Exhibit A to the Complaint. 10. The Library and Locus are located in a residential 2-family, R-2 , Zone. 11 . The Library is an existing non-conforming structure. 12. The Petitioner 's plans, as approved, allow the construction of a one story addition to the rear of the original building . 13. The Petitioner's final plans as submitted call to enlarge the one- story addition to four stories. 14. The extension and alteration of the original Library structure as planned will cause the one-story addition to come as close as 2 1/2 feet from the Locus. 15. R-2 Zoning requires a Side-Yard setback of 10 feet. The grant of the Special Permit would allow a Side-Yard setback of only 2 1/2 feet from the Locus . 16. R-2 Zoning requires a Rear-Yard setback of 30 feet. The grant of the Special Permit would allow a Rear-Yard setback of approximately 8 feet from the property line of an abutter . 17. Due to the substantial reduction in Side Yard and Rear-Yard setback requirements the Petitioner's one-story addition to the Library will create a visual "brick wall" as seen from the Locus and abutters, completely out of character with the surrounding resideritial area. 2 18. As a result of the above, the property value of the Locus and abutters will be decreased. 19. The extension and alteration of the original Library structure as planned will be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the residential charactor of the neighborhood. 20. The Library and Locus are also situated within the Federal Street Historic District of Salem pursuant to the Federal Street Area Historic District Ordinance, and subject to the provisions of M.G.L. c . 40C. 21. The purpose of the Historic Districts Act, M.G.L. c. 40C Section 2, is to "promote the educational , cultural , economic and general welfare of the public through preservation and protection of the distinctive characteristics of buildings and places significant in the history of the commonwealth . . .". 22. The alteration and extension of the Library as proposed, and the substantial reduction in Side and Rear-Yard setback requirements, will marr the historic aesthetics of the Locus and abutters and thereby decreasing the property values of the Locus and abutters and in contravention of the purpose of the Federal Street Area Historic District Ordinance. 23. The approval of the Special Permit to waive density requirements will severly aggravate the residential quality of the Locus , abutters and other neighbors, due to the increased congestion and activity from the use of the one-story addition and courtyard . 24. The record shows opposition to the granting of the Special Permit by neighbors , abutters, and other residents of , the city. 25. The grant of a Special Permit to waive density and setback requirements will impair the status of the neighborhood and will not substantially serve the public convenience and welfare . 26. The Board also granted a Variance from parking requirements for the Library property. 27. The Library is located on Essex Street, a busy thoroughfare, situated in a densely developed and populated neighborhood offering much competition for few available off and on-street parking spaces. 28. As approved, the Petitioner's plans show no provision for any off-street parking facilities. 29. Library patrons now compete with property owners and others for the few available on-street parking spaces in the Essex Street area. 3 30. The Essex Street area has been identified as an area with a high proportion of traffic accidents resulting from parking problems . 31. The extension and alteration of the original Library structure will produce increased demands for parking upon an area already overburdened for on-street parking use. 32. Due to the existing congestion in the neighborhood parking concerns exist for all properties and not soley for the Library property. 33. As the Library is situated in a residential area, substantial injury would result to abutting parcels of land because the parking variance would constitute a substantial derogration from the intent and purpose of the parking ordinance. 34. The Board has not shown evidence of substantial hardship owing to conditions especially affecting the Library lot but not effecting the zoning district in general; that whatever hardship which may exist is personal to the Petitioner and its proposed use of the land . 35. For all the above reasons the Board has exceeded its authority to grant a Special Permit and Variance . 36. The actions of the Board in granting the Special Permit and Variance were capricious and based upon untenable legal grounds . WHEREFORE, Hale prays; Y 1 . That the decision of the Board be annulled . 2. That this Court order the Zoning .Board of Appeals of the City of Salem to deny the issuance of a special permit and variance to the Salem Public Library in accordance with their application of December 26, 1984. 3 . For such other relief as to the Court seems just . FRANK V. K'-T.E and DOROTHY A. HALE By their Attorney, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL M. LYNCH P M. LY CH FRANCES E. RAFFERTY 4 '� (tlit of Salem, �ttsstttllusetts � g{ cam-. PIIMta of ckppen rr ' M r4ccoms.�'4r r•lrn n 3� b 'r1 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARYM N :..1 FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE AT 370 ESSEX ST. , SAL'EO(R-2j�-. rn O A hearing on this petition was held February 20, 1985 and continued until March 20, 1985 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Associate Member Richard Bencal, Acting Secretary; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the original hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner has requested a Special Permit from density and setback requirements and a Variance from parking requirements to allow rehabilitation and the construction of an addition at 370 Essex St. in an R-2 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance, with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, . grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargements, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, en- largement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri- mental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests; guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon .a .finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health , The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The building is in disrepair and is in dire need of the proposed renovation; 2. The building in its present state is not accessible to the handicapped residents of the community and area; 3. The proposed single story addition wig;? greatly enhance the usage of the facility thus serving the public good; 4. Tremendous support for the plans was shown by neighbors, abutters and other residents of the City and area; 5• Opposition to the addition to the building was presented by some neighbors, abutters and other residents of the City and area. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE FOR 370 ESSEX ST. , SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed renovations, handicapped access and elevator will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming, use and will greatly enhance the use of this facility by others in the community; 2. The proposed addition of a single story at the'rear of the building will enhance the usage of the facility and will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the.Special Permit requested for the renovations of the building, installation of a handicapped access and the installation of an elevator per the plans submitted for the Salem Public Library at 370 Essex St. Also, the Zoning Board of Appeal separately voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant a Special Permit for the addition of a single story and egress at the rear of the building at 370 Essex St. per the plans submitted with the condition that all aspects of the plans and alterations to the plans must be done in conjunction and cooperation with the City Planner and Library Commission. The petitioner has also requested a Variance from the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property in question, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The neighbors, abutters and others are infavor of -the plans presented; 2. The property in question is unique due to its architectural and aesthetic qualities; e 3. Literal enforcement of this provision of the Zoning Oratnan wou in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise tojtbe P iti r; � i7 I No m yn 1i to � I DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE FOR 370 ESSEX ST., SALEM page three 4. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and will in fact keep the aesthetic qualities of the area in tact. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . • The property in question is unique because* of the existing structure; 2. The property has been used for approximately ninety-seven (97) years as a Public Library; 3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question but not the zoning district generally, causes special hardship to the petitioner; 4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 in favor of granting the variance requested by the petitioner for relief from the parking requirements at 370 Essex St. SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCE UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED X000 Richard A. Bencal, A erary 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 MASS. GENER;,L LAWS. CHAPTER BCS. AND SHALL BE FILED V,nHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING T CF THIS DECISION 1N THE OFFICE OF THE CITY SECTIDN 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL FEP.',1IT P:'RSABT TO tlASS. GENERAL IAivS. CHAPTER 8081 i;1:A:7fE0 HEREIN, SHALL NIT TA £ EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION. BEAR'.Y,G THE CER c THAT IT HAS BEEN DISI"ISSE;, DEir'lED IS -'� ,%A:j EN OF THE CITY CLER:: THAT 20 UAY$ HALE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, C3 THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE 'r M R.t THAT. . IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAM OF THE OWNE�f*t OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. rn m _ ) BOARD OF APPEAL 3T A TRUE CO?Y No !'1 ATTESTi - n O S EPAM R. POSCO, F++ CITY CLERK y (ILitg ofttlem, � ttssttclju�etts v>-< Psarb of � ezd m �.A < DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY N m FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE AT 370 ESSEX ST. , SALE M( R-k -1 M A hearing on this petition was held February 20, 1985 and continued until March 20, 1985 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; 'Associate Member Richard Bencal, Acting Secretary; Messrs. , Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of the original hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner has requested a Special Permit from density and setback requirements and a Variance from parking requirements to allow rehabilitation and the construction of an addition at 370 Essex St. in an R-2 zone. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request ,for a Special Permit is Section V B 10, which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargements, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, en- largement or expansion shall not be substantially more detri- mental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests; guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health , The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, makes the following findings of fact: _ 1 . The building is in disrepair and is in dire need of the proposed renovation; 2. The building in its present state is not accessible to the handicapped residents of the community and area; 3. The proposed single story addition will greatly enhance the usage of the facility thus serving the public good; 4. Tremendous support for the plans was shown by neighbors, abutters and other residents of the City and area; 5. Opposition to the addition to the building was presented by some neighbors, abutters and other residents of the City and area. • DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE FOR 370 ESSEX ST. , SALEM page three 4. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and will in fact keep the aesthetic qualities of the area in tact. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The property in question is unique because of the existing structure; 2. The property has been used for approximately ninety-seven (97) years as a Public Library; 3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question but not the zoning district generally, causes special hardship to the petitioner; 4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 in favor of granting the variance requested by the petitioner for relief from the parking requirements at 370 Essex St. SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCE UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED Z'"' Richard A. Bencal, A e tary- A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK p RPEAL FP.D" THIS CECISION. IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS. CE"JERAL LAMS. CHAPTER BLS, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIIIN3_ t SECTIDIr 11, THE \'AP,IANCE OR SP:Ci.'.! CF Ty;c. CEL:S!ON IN THE Of RCE OF THE CITY CLEP.K. - C_"' F c A�iT T ;.S, GE.i Fu li G. CHAPTER SDB. E^. H Rci t °h-LL NO T >E EFfECT UNTIL A COPT OF THE DEL'S�LN HAS.'•C 03 HAS BEEN DIS:"SSED OR.CEI.'ED IS -i tJ1 F TI�''i CF THE CITY CLER;: THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED i\f.0 NO APPEAL HAS 6"E. FILE 0� THAT. !F frJCi'. A;: APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAI ITHAS INDEXED UNDER. THE IiA;fE OF THE 04; 3W Cl) � (Tl P,EC08G✓ G1 THE SOUTH ESSEX R.ECISTRY OF M. C)V rr- C-) Of RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OVlNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. rrlrri � BOARD OF APPEAL 3� N :i N CD N _� C') ? m C� DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THE SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND/OR VARIANCE FOR 370 ESSEX ST. , SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed renovations, handicapped access and elevator will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use and will greatly enhance the use of this facility by others in the community; 2. The proposed addition of a single story at the rear of the building will enhance the usage of the facility and will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant the Special Permit requested for the renovations of the building, installation of a handicapped access and the installation of an elevator per the plans submitted for the Salem Public Library at 370 Essex St. Also, the Zoning Board of Appeal separately voted unanimously 5 - 0 to grant a Special .Permit for the addition of a single story and egress at the rear of the building at 370 Essex St. per the plans submitted with the condition that all aspects of the plans and alterations to the plans must be done in conjunction and cooperation with the City Planner and Library Commission. The petitioner has also requested a Variance from the parking requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without -nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing and after viewing the plans of the property in question, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The neighbors, abutters and others are in favor of the plans presented; 2. The property in question is unique due to its architectural and aesthetic qualities; a ad 3. Literal enforcement of this provision of the Zoning 0 nan�. woul in- volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to�ti e pWtioAr; ^r++rri z i7 N O [n N v n a m O Ctp of &akm, Affia0arhugettg a d Votice Mepartment JbeabiquarterO y Chief of Police Charles J.Connelly ILI C-L li '1 o , C SPc Sn�� SALEM ATHENEUM 337 ESSEX STREET SALEM, MASS.01970 March 19,1985 Salem Board of .Appeals Gentlemen: Salem Public Library is a most important institution in the City,well operated and maintained.2t is my opinion that the renovation which it contemplates to make a suitable Children' s Room should receive the support of every- resident of the City of Salem. Sincerely, Librarian Mrs.R.L.Wiggin of `�5 Tale ' r as%lc�usctt5 m � �.I� O{{TCE of toe TRU RU (gaunrit " g 0tv �ittA 'A J AY me�� WARD COUNCILLORS JOHN R. NUTTING 1985 COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT 985 GEORGE A. NOWAK JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. JOSEPH M. CENTORINO CITY CLERK STEPHEN P. LOVELY FRANCES J. GRACE LEONARD F. O'LEARY -IEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU JEAN MARIE ROCHNA GEORGE P. MCCABE RICHARD E. SWINIUCH JOHN R. NUTTING February 20 , 1985 Mr. James Hacker Chairman Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Hacker: I would like to take this opportunity to express my interest in the proposal of the Essex Institute. To my knowledge, none of the residents in the area have informed me of their concern with the endeavor, and I believe that this matter would go along way in meeting the fiscal demands of the Essex Institute. I would, therefore, request that I be recorded as in favor of this undertaking. Thank you for your consideration . With warm regards, L.I.remain , Sincerely, HJT a" Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr. Ward Two Councillor Lahikainen essexlns`titute 13z Essex Street Salem,MA 01970 Salem Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts O1970 RE: Public Library expansion plans i i i _- � _� - - i - �- - _ _ _ �� ... 19 March 1985 Salem Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Gentlemen: We wish to express our whole hearted approval of the proposed plans for the improvement and expansion of the Salem Public Library on Essex Street. These renovations will assure the preservation of an important historical build— ing while providing much needed space for library services, espically for children. As residents of Essex Street, we have no objections to the Board of Appeals granting the necessary variances to allow this important project to be undertaken. We fail to see how these renovations will have any impact what so ever on the parking situation. The public library is one of the community' s great assets and we urge you to give the trustees your approval. Sincerely, Ak� , /"* - Dean & Elizabeth Lahikainen 31$ Essex Street .la ,�,_ � r��'�,Ay �-�c�a,� may'fix. "�"4 �� `�"5r4x *' s` �� ,c, y��h.t _ `7•s , ;N � - vim Ut ' .,�: 'i�_ -5'r '.4a Cwt x •�5.:a 'r' z, x 74, 'Will � #. ^rs f4v r�48Cy��,�' )i � z x�v`t 3t .�'�.+>�rv, '"Y�m�j�'' � �'� °�'-c_�3 �` � �4 � Y�f�x��a�ty ,,,�f�i p� � �-L `�-a .�-✓ fl'�`�tr��r A�� ^ rM {a'f9rer f1�-�,� �# ;4F. x_ .,...su-m '4 m .� x a:•�" Wil > 8 s . k IS �i� y} e f •� `'Mf xf a . k i A E •. � r • � f4 tit R _ p x ryss: � Ltti air S f +y4z'i rf� ]'1 T..may. pY,k Air'"=f' r `3 rs v .f '>, �, r 4 sw ^ t ".a' T.d•`xr * ._ #"x' ry: '' $ "`A ux x `� lzc rt.P bf Y y rEt" <r� S y�x' . " s-' %�,c A -¢s r T"n � ..+ [ ...•+. 'f � x -$ .t� .«,.,,1...-�. � .§. "-'if' •-��, S•.a.+; a x r W- srx r�'Y ::'E7_�.+w'"' �«Fwd „5_i..+.cc saxunc°er.'.�s ¢±,nk 'cx vtn..:$ �•s+,'..i.�: ft.�t*:�s��"rif�t�~>��i^�c .��{.,'.'esu;�•�wy�,y-`tom..�4.� .��.�cu-.€3'x.v;:,`c'r: MRS A, 1:t 1 67 A 4�_J:1 ell 1985 Q o - Co M C) 70 ? o i W 5� -• O i970 i i �I Ir M1. � J & a� ��'�- _� �i 2 �-�-�G��: t..� �-� mac- /ae.��. /L�ro fey-�� f� ��.z� G�/�.��-�. �O /��-� _ �1�-ate- ...,cue. �ati-e a� �a�i�c� . �� .�✓z-amu--- � C1�1-�-�-r�`� G��n��o-r��o. �� a G�e� ��/cam a.� �' C�-ee �- .�,�',�-ems- �/� �-r�� --<r Via, _-Gf�s�-rc�G� � Q._.��lu� �PiG�eiS�f�e- �� /moo G�s�v—� �,�-a.., /�2e-��--jam G�_� � �GG--c.�� /1�f/>Gaa�y�v-� �irnrnP/� ��ij-cam Cv�2,L��I.G"�U�� ;—�-tt�f� �Ci/U2-- G�-�GL� _!/J-vim _��_ 0��0 � �/Z�'�-ems �l��, Q-Poo--'__,.-u-�-/�-�- V� ��cez�eJ�ro�oC . �� -e- vim" .�'�`� ��-'''�-` �,. x n AM ina vla ft AZ 2r a s x k nt s A�_ �� a t rtS w � a E. ��6b1 e y ate' T}y X> YE99ppyy [' � i-h Fi k � ,iy�gLa. y 9' 3 �TFiL1 F ' O t�x��L`'P � f[��4 �!'i,C{= �'v A�S'• � Y J �hY��4�d1 'ti Cr��`M 'y Sa{ �F� 1 � .;t tY 4 � + Y t Ti f, TY R � F�lby��i 3u,t�uu. >c�lY„.x>",:^i�n�a ,�'YT-� i.h.�n f..:.;. r� ,.,9,•.:.G i n3•: �� .� .,r r b w. � a m+ .. ,_, .; ry r.. ' t-s8ry� ,rt ., ._3,. 5 +.e..=f•�� z. .. E •z. .1& may' "��-N� Fes. s t� d y 17 (2_1z �d/� a. �� -� _SGL� �• r �y 9+x' � �/_ C( ��%LL i��✓I` ,�i� RYA `' �: sNLI MA w x . ji a wx K ryry y �- a Yfi.tti id`s �.�J -$F C, / aF •�`i'�i�w� Y uyH i V k 4�V { ff _31 R3 N R }suF3;er "t3Mma S"L °,,,,. -. :K� t 4.n » '��' � q�y11-1.4 � '-+u'*✓ 3�� '�` 3s � `i `� '�'' „ .,,. iY �+� ��.�st-cam�{a : �- �y+� hr x� Ta +�'. 6�,n3"i t .Masi - �.�,.eY`.•s:2K-3X^�'A�M"=W4. 5�t. �Yt„ #i... .' {{s _ O ,J'CON°Re- 1t1-T �"1 o �$aje TIS CI " assar4usetts z O££irr d the Cgitg T=tdl (gitg pail A�gfclMmy D��r WARD COUNCILLORS JEAN MARIE ROCHNA 1584 COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT I984 GEORGE A. NOWAK - JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. JOSEPH M. CENTORINO CITY CLERK STEPHEN P. LOVELY FRANCES J. GRACE LEONARD F. O'LEARy "JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU JEAN MARIE ROCHNA -' GEORGE P. MCCASE RICHARD E. SWINIUCH JOHN R. NUTTING March 20, 1985 Mr. James Hacker . Chairman Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Hacker: I would like to take this opportunity to express my interest in, and support of, the Salem Public Library' s application. It is my belief that the Trustees have taken every step to insure that the neighborhood is protected and that the renovations will benefit all the citizens of Salem. For too long we in municial government have neglected the noble structure, and now the bill is due. The plans that you have before you will go a long way in meeting the future needs of the city. I indorse the proposal without any reservation. Thank you for this opportunity. With warm regards, I remain, Sincerely, Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr. Ward Two Councillor , TELEPHONE 745-5909 ti GA$l t- kxk 1910 w ❑ a THE HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES SETTLEMENT !? � i 114 DERBY STREET • SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Z Mrs. Edith T. Harman Director Salem Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 in regard: expansion of The Salem Public Library To Whom It May Concern; I am writing on behalf of The Salem Public Library in regards to their proposed expansion. As Director of The House of Seven Gables Settlements' After Sch000l and Summer Camp Programs, I have my groups visit the library's Children's Room often. However, because of the influx of other children' groups and the lack of space within the library, we have.been forced to lessen our visits. With the new expansion of the library, our children would then have the opportunity to experience many of the special events offered by the library. I feel the Salem Public Library is essential in the community, for it allows us to expand our knowledge which will supplement our growth. Sincerely, Kathleen Wilson Program Director 4 Holly Street Salem, MA March, 20,, 1985 Board of Appeals - Gentlemen The brouhaha over proposed. library renovations has me extremely concerned. _ The plans put forth by the library are reasonable , conservative, and in good taste. Parking must not be allowed to be a major issuer 4e4--it' s fairly easTj to` .find a space in that area -----after renovations the same faithful library users will not increase substantially because that isn' t how library use works among adults - -----an expanded. children',s. facility MAY, attract, more' children but -;these childzeri,a' relthere befor"e ..the neighborslieturn from work. IfA What concerns me the.most is that agalf-a-dozen ,people; are jockying for a position"where they can dictate -how a public . facility should be run=-fromjlimiting the -public to,specific hours to 'limiting themsto specific' publically-owned' parking spaces. And their wardcouncillor is condoning Your mandate is to secure the good of as many people as possible. You are men of integrity and -I trust you to do so. Cordially; �`� � Nadine hada ° -k DANIEL J . FOLEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 116 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS OIDTO March 18, 1985 Mr. Patrick J. Cloherty, Director Salem Public Library 370 Essex Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Cloherty: For more than sixty years , I have used the resources of the Salem Public Library for. research and borrowing books. The proposed plans for improvements are badly needed and essential for the comfort and safety of all Salem residents, especially the young folk and the handicapped. I hope they can be implemented in the near future. As a longtime resident and neighbor, I realize the existence of a parking problem in the area, but it would be sheer desecration to tear up the Library lawn to remove the famous Victorian fountain and some of the trees to promote comparatively few parking spaces. Since 1888, the Salem Public Library has rendered distinguished service , to the citizens of Salem. The proposed improvement has been planned for the common good of all Salem citizens, and I trust, their voices will be heard by the Board of Appeals. Sincerely yours Dssssssavvvvvv'»'n///lll,JJi///l a l y Landscape Architect GRACE CHURCH IN SALEM March 20, 1985 Appeals Board City Hall Salem, MA 01970 Greetings: I am writing in support of the variance requested by the Salem Library. Parking is a major issue in this area, but I don't think that the proposed changes will increase the problem, at least as far as the church is concerned. The new programs and services which will be made possible by the changes certainly are very important to our community, both children and adults of all ages. I hope that you approve this variance for improving our library. Sincerely, �-+, , , n � The Rev. Steven F. Crowson Rector SFC:MBH 385 ESSEX STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (617) 744-2796 The First Church in Salem — UNITARIAN 316 Essex Street - Salem, Massachusetts 01970 - Office Telephone 744-1551 A lF� . HENNY PENNY NURSERY SCHOOL 20 March 1985 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS I am writing to express my support for the expansion of the Salem Public Library. I am concerned about the inadequate space found in the children' s room. My Nursery School children are frequent visitors there. It requires a good deal of planning for both the librarians and myself so as to avoid too many children being there at one time. My contingency of twenty fills the room, making it a congested area if any other groups arrive while we are there. As an educator, I truly see a need for expansion, both for safety reasons as well as educational . Sincerely, Mrs . Nancy M. Albert Director Henny Penny Nursery School NMA/an THE OLDEST CONTINUING PROTESTANT CHURCH GATHERED IN AMERICA — 1629 15 1/2 Chestnut Street Salem, MA 01970 20 March 1985 The Board of Appeals Salem, MA 01970 To The Board: We are writing to endorse the proposed expansion of the Main Branch of the Salem Public Library. Please consider the following points as you meet to come to a decision on this matter. In recent years, Salem has had to close a number of its branch libraries -- an unfortunate, but understandable fact in these times of fiscal difficulty. Consequently, we should all be appreciative of the fact that the Main Library has taken on greater significance for Salem as a whole. In turn, we should' be supportive of new programs and facilities which are necessary to keep the Main Library current, modern, and responsive to community needs. It seems that much of the issue here is that the closing of branch libraries has increased traffic to Salem's Main Library. If the Main Library is to succeed in serving all of Salem, it is inherent that some increase in traffic must occur. This is the case whether alterations at the library are architectural or programmatic. The proposal to expand the children's facilities at the Main Library is very appealing in its goal of reaching out to young readers and promoting reading and learning in an age dominated by video entertainment. Let us support together this opportunity to help children feel comfortable and at home in the library -- a place where the doors to "the best that has been thought and said" are always open. Respectfully submitted, David Lash Lynn Stevens �l ; l\,.9 COY POi SAL.yM COi%ZUSSION FOR THE HANDICAPPED March 18, 1985 Be it resolved that the Salem Commission for the Handicapped unanimously supports `renovatin ofthe Salem Public Library, including construction to make the" building handicapped-accessible ." Voted this date, March 18, 1985• " Andrew F. Quinn ' Chairman t w r �Qly M U CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ANTHONY V. SALVO March 20j 1985 MAYOR James B. Hacker, Chairman Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Hacker: As Mayor of the City of Salem and Chairman ex-officio of the Board of Trustees of the Salem Public Library, I am writing to express my enthusiasm and support for the plans for the Library as proposed by the Board of Trustees. The Salem Public Library has over the years maintained the distinction as one of the finest educational and cultural institutions in the area. Our Library provides a consistent high level contribution to the educational development of children from the public, private and parochial schools, and provides a wealth of valuable resources for all of our citizens needs and enjoyment. I feel it is '. incumbent upon us to address the existing problems; namely;,, the lack of handicapped access, the severe space limitations and the serious safety hazards imposed by the present physical condition of the building. Again, I express my strong endorsement of this very worthwhile project, one that will enable us to repair and expand to meet the present needs and the needs of future generations. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Anthony 11. Salvo Mayor AVS/pd cc: Trustees, Salem Public Library RICHARD L. POHL, M.D. March 19, 1985 Salem Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Mass . 01970 Gentlemen: I would like to support the petition of the trustees of the Salem Public Library for a variance for renovations. The trustees have developed a plan which provides for much needed renovation while preserving both the historic character of the building and the green space . One of the advantages of the library is its central location in the historic district . Although I have heard some concerns about parking, I do not feel that the present plans will significantly alter library usage. Parking has been and will continue to be a chronic problem in the center of Salem, but in my opinion that is no reason to let the library deteri- orate or destroy an urban green space. Thank you. Sincerely, cA"" A&D, Richard L. Pohl , M.D. 18 SUMMER STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE (617) 744-1550 Mr: Chairman: Dr . and Mrs . Robert Alexander strongly support the . petition of the Salem Library for a special permit "and/or variance from density, setbacks', and parking requirements to allow rehabilitation and construction of an addition at 370 Essex Street . :We believe that : . 1 )' The " libraryr s plan reflects, 10 years of thorough professional consideration of .the community's>needs and the library' s public .function. The plan embodies a sensitive and equitable balance of the benefits and burdens of rehabilitation or. construction: The commission deserves commendation for improving its service` to the often neglected elderly in the Salemcommunity and for redressing obvious fireihazards, present'•in the library's « } S structure . • ° _.. a., _, 2 ) Smposition•.of parking requitement"s, and the consequent destruction of the green and^victorian fountain will impair the historical character an'd9amtiience of the community. The. federal appellate court protected'' the .. preservation,of distinctive community character. in ,Steel Hill v. Town of- Sanborn'ton 469 F2a' 956, 961 (1st Cir. 1972 ) .- The 'Supreme Court approved maintenance of a community' s aesthetic values in Berman v. Parker 348 U . S . 26 (1950 The variance sought• by the library will further ends long recognized-'by the courts as legitimate. 3 ) The library' s clientele includes many•ehildren. Children are often unaware of or forget traffic and safety rules. Construction of a parking lot adjacent to an area populated by young children will create serious risk of automobile accidents involvinginjury to life or limb of these young persons . In addition proposed parking on facility' s location will expose youthful patrons to` in-•, • ordinately high levels of toxic fumes and gases. Municipal zoning power, traditionally, is exercised by the municipality to prevent , not create health hazards . Euclid v. Ambler 262U . S. 365, 387-88f {q yb) 4 ) The presence of an inviting green area with a fine example. of 19th century cast work, undisputably enhancesthe economic value of reside cn esrrwhich surround Iw. the library.` A parking-lotkunquestionablyLwill':.reduce the market value and saleability of -these residences. M Finally, we must' reiterate..our firm conviction that the ." Board should grant all variances requested by the,-library. Any other course of action will frustrate , or defeat the' purpose -and goals 'of the library' s'° well'-considered =plan, = • depriving the entire Sa ,em community of.,-it's many .benefi.ts. Dr . Ro ert . Alexder 361 Essex Street , Salem, Mass. E1beth M... Alexander 19 March 19$5 Salem Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 - Gentlemen: We wish to express our whole hearted approval of the proposed plans for the improvement and expansion of the Salem Public Library on Essex Street. These renovations will assure the preservation of an important historical build— ing while providing much needed space for library services, espically for children. As residents of Essex Street, we have no objections to the Board of Appeals granting the necessary variances to allow this important project to be undertaken. We fail to see how these renovations will have any impact what so ever on the parking situation. The public library is one of the community' s great assets and we urge you to give the trustees your approval. Sincerely, Dean & Elizabeth Lahikainen 3"_.8 Essex Street S Iy Sf Sale_ m Histori I 0 P4 Q4/NfMY SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY 370 Essex Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970-3298 PATRICK J. CLOHERTY,JR., Director Mayor Anthony V. Salvo November 23, 1984 City Hall Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mayor Salvo: The Salem Public Library Trustees thank you for the time and attention that you have devoted to studying the Main Library's building problems. As you know, the building structure is now entering an advanced stage of rapidly accelerating deterioration, and without swift remedy, the very life of the building itself is in jeopardy. Severe deterioration of masonry and brownstone has recently resulted in sizeable chunks falling from the building, and rusting nails allow slates to slide from the roof. The main entrance porch ceiling has collapsed, and loose balusters are in danger of falling from the second story onto the front steps. In spite of the recent required boiler replacement, the building continues to be plagued with heating problems : lack of separate return piping for condensate, inadequate heating zones, insufficient insulation, old and drafty windows, etc. Two severe fire safety violations continue to exist within the building: open floor- J ing in the book stacks and illegal earess from the building are still of concern to / trustees and city fire officials. For total community use by handicapped , elderly , infirm, and children , it is essential that a ramped entrance, elevator, and adequate rest rooms be constructed. With City encouragement, we have developed over recent years a comprehensive plan for renewal of the Main Library property, with cost approaching three million dollars. We understand that the City is not in a position to totally fund such a project; how- ever, immediate and substantial funding for major construction is required to save the Main Library structure. Sincerely, AY P' Secretary Board of Trustees FOR THE TRUSTEES -4,� ._. -lli�i ��z��rorz•u�cc�Gf��i �/,%C�dd�,��de,fld� li DISTRICT F - 6 OFFICE 485 MAPLE STREET. DANVERS OIG23 iraziic - S2len i. 'e?'IBSi - . o_ _Olice J G_iC2 .j-t2ti On mss. 01170 - 1+C:a_ 1.11"i C. COnng.l 1 . O'S3 --o YOU _-,,cent Corr s�)onC �-nC.. P:'H have CO.^.;�,l e z_u our is o,,; _ ions aloii; e� - titre?t -to -S03-1011- 1_'le 2CCiC�i1t Stati StlCS SULi'�1 160 Dy uiie r011CC' -iBl�cr tiient 12111 iC3�e af7 a'ti_:'a`e a�PUaI aCC ident it-,:ui-ncy o_ jy aCC1Ce21i,5 210n•Z LY11S •='C Li or . 1_ii. �re'J.O! j -,i,' ; , _ diiv asci Ent, -yule3 arm y(22,j) ailu 1i1, ii:_e'L ODBC i, � ' � ld c= one j-- :?i1-Fs occurreG at ili i"t, 1 ie data '.;as not site s ',-Chic as -O ZII— e;;aCt IOC;T.iOi'1 O each accid-en alon` -EEsse-. Etrees. _ . __l.iai,:10- CO2>S_Si,e�" O_ _ :EIC." __'S ;e Cti 0:1:; Ci SCUSS=O?"?;; �.._ti2 ec_rl4 a re'vie,. O_ iossi Dle, accident es _ � Causes • CaUsc a.nd C'fSec-* relati OrSlii"S. c.JC=�t�`l� tVUc'� �?i2__� r8_: -ed ODj,_,_t; 1=v_ _Cai__ .?i�.vc= -n3 iG1101:_P_ _•OSSi oIC Ca_S3S,: =° ==-='nsimeli�ed ;t,e sect1 ons - . ` _st?-ce. .L. L -- i'%• GO L i -=�t' - SeCt1 Gi'_ VOIU7IB. L•. =hadenuate rca:i,;_..y 1 _ iti n�. I"s-ta': e.^ue.t - inte_^secticn ::arnin- si;;ns. c. Liadec_uate traffic control devices. I °l sios._:_tLr 1_,._ r__c _c s ' . - iv• r -,-o iara o1' in ='r Sec l,lon. Ii iJery S; ' -Ce. LIar= c vo=u-.e Of turnip- vc',_icles. =racecu.a.t_ roadw li`h ,ir_, c - eco on a_�_'irOaCIles. J. .ac:: o- a'.:<O^U8G8 Si aline 7. CrossinZ DeUlestrians. 0 . Inv.= wou"s VCa_-WC Y :ua6v 110c , valinnators, and guard rail'-'. 5 . ina nvaQ rcZwLy Gasyn, 7. surface. ncassive vohicle speed. The above yossibic accident causes, SO of !,.,'_riich co�-, Lribilt�i --o more than one accidont tylDo, ,:,�rc individually addressea for the AssoA Strn _t roadway soc tion under study. Eased On . . observations the slippery roaGway surface and ;d Uroadvay design cateEories were eliminatm as contributin-- accident fictors. Discussions with the Traffic Officer also indicatcd 0MCCssive s-lowE not to be a contributing accident factor. aight an`-le and roar end type accidents occur most fr2quently at intcrsections, §rivewzys, or other, area -.:-iich, - nyerience a ' las'"' number of conflictinS traffic moveventz. Thn -majority of 2 s of accidcnts w2re assumed to occur Et the Doston� 3troet an& Zorth Street intorsections with ssan Street. The Essen Street, Boston Street inters2ctioin' is a vory Vas inter- s�ctior Yith inadequate channelization, signs, pavement =AinZs11, Mineationa , nd traffic control devices. The monu7ent in the romway is a safety hazarl. The large traffic volunn End numbor Oma. turninL vehicles combined with the above factors contribute to a hiZA accisent Dotcntial. The 9�zzey ktrnet, Horth Street intersectionis severly conjestec nue to larEs traffic volumes and confining roadway Zeametics. The Mob accitent potential is a result of the larS: traffic volumes aw inadequate traffic control devices. lomdfninn intersections along issem Street such as line Street, ilton Strv�t ana 300fcyn Streez lack sto; lines and stop signs. n .MO= accidint yroblcvs are evitant at th2sn locations. " Y lilhtonZ luMmairos along Zssoz Street app Car:;-. to be Wesuate Cn, -- aceu , �ut wore inri&cts! during daylight hours. _--alrow should be ins9ected for relamping ant cleaning of _w= _s. Any en Stint nercury vapor luminaires should be Wvanton to hiCh pressure sodium for increased light levels. Any alliti3nal roar end type accidents along Essex Street may be c2uzed by crossing Pedestrian conflicts. The pedestrian crosswalk in front of the library lacks a0equate: -,.,ar_ninE. Hit finca obj?ct type accidents are probably most pravelant at the 3oston Str2vt monument and the Horth Street island and barrels. Along Essen Street, the occasional tree extending beyond the curb into tne rozowav, and the lack of roadway edge lines are contributing accident -actors. it Av: he folloAnS rocannnn A 1 t -vla za tho ace c Lont pots-_.,.__._. :lonw W WZA _ on Esnez Street: A. The issoz Struat at lonton Strowt and Vorth Street 1i'_ .._ _ : 2 arc both high accidurt p,Mont ial locationE . The lack of aawuyto traffic control unvicoz, siEns, §avemeni narnings and channnlizati=_ are contributing acci& Jnu factors. Due to the complelizy of trOVe locations and historical significance, it would W in the best interest of the City to retain tho services of a qualifief traffic engineering firm to provido detai'i :! racc=enlations forimnrovc- ments. A would be pleased to provide the namls of several oualifieC firms if you so desire. B. The intermediate intursections alonL Essuz Street, such -as Pine Street, Hamilton Street, and Mchford Street should have sto:., lines and stop sins installed as ranuircd. A would be yleaced, to process the nacuzsary stop sign permits. C. The psicstrian crosswalk in front of the library should be accenNf with new paint, advance pedestrian crossing warnins siEns, and a flashin6 warning beacon mounted on a span wire overhead between azisting utility poles. D. HigHway liShting luminaires--should bw cho=ed for relap,ing and cleanin, of the finturus. wercury vaVor luminaires should be converted to high prassurs sodium for increased light levels. Z. Roadway obstructions such as trees enteming beyond the curb, monuments, islands, barrells, etc . should be prmarly delinapteo. Curbing should be entended around trees. F. Roadway ee edge lines or parking stalls should be sainted to better indicate the ed of roadway and natura of the horizontal curve . i trust thaL thGse rnco=enuations -will ove to be satisfactory. if you shovM re�uire any further assistance, please do not hezitatc to cortact offica . Viry truly Zou_rs, Sherman Tinalwan zistyizt Ki�hway Engineer .partmeut �?eaaguarteO Chief of Police Charles ,. Connelly October 25, 1983 t1r. Steve Erct;a 1'.4ssachusetts �_'rr 485 Maple St. Danvers , I asr . ar Sir: Due to the :.:a:; rjnount of automobile accidents on Essex ±'rom Ivor ? a; :.;ton St., I- am requesting that your Dept. a; vey this recommend some way in which we can alleviate cre situat;-or. ;., fists . At a ,.-ith the residents in this area, it was a.-reed that s;itr. ; er.zl _:nforcement alone does not appear to have f something structural should be added, I would on in that area. in for your cooperation, I remain Very truly yours, `o Charles Connelly Chief Police 4 . coves v,,- A7m t0 U-W%_4 _ Irklr�►�d�,l- -- 1� -� u��--��d.� r cam_ s - - - Utitwau -IwR_ �_hr' - unx Mel o_c��ec�G'�w_.e. 1 .�,..�. t:h*�. • ' c I..�.e.�e,.,� �_�o-�a-u.l� q1 - — - [( _c¢�cart Ot—�{�Si-- -CX_r_►ad. Wg�_t¢n��a ceu-"_o - a�•.�w..o,.�_ 4,MCONO,}�.L 0YY @ � n A A R S'�faIMML D'�rY SALEM PUUBLIC LIBRARY 370 Essex Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970.3298 PA'rRICK J. CLOHP.RTY,JR.,Uiruefor Dear Mrs . Connelly -- I 'd like to invite you to drop in to the Library later today, or Tuesday or Wednesday, if you would like to review the architectural plans we have for the Library's upcoming rehabilitation project. Of most concern to you, I am sure, would be the variance we seek to be exempt from the ear-yard set-back (to your land) , so that we may construct behind the present low Reference Room wing a one-story addition , later to be added' to.-for a total new four-story rear„wing, next to the present rear stack wing. At this time, we desperately need that new addition on the ground floor for additional space for children 's activities , which are so popular at the Library. We chose to build on our rear land in order to preserve the Essex Street corner and the fountain (by not building there) , as well as to preserve the view of the front historic Bertram mansion house. If you have any questions , please don 't hesitate to call (744-0860) or drop in -- we'd be more than happy to show you the full plans. I am attaching a copy which shows how the rear addition is planned, and its relationship to our mutual property line. We hope that you will be able to support us at the Board of Appeals hearing next Wednesday. Sincerely, P.S. If you do support our project, but cannot attend Wednesday's hearing, would you be willing to write a note of support for the Library to me that we could present to the Board of Appeals? If possible, we would like to be able to demonstrate to Appeals Board members that our neighbors consider the Library a special asset to our neighborhood. Thank you so much. R 4 m^ t SgfaIMINE��nY SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY 370 Essex Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970.3298 rXrauch,l. cLOHERTv,JR,no-�clor Dear Mrs . Connelly -- I 'd like to invite you to drop in to the Library later today, or Tuesday or Wednesday, if you would like to review the architectural plans we have for the Library's upcoming rehabilitation project. Of most concern to you, I am sure, would be the variance we seek to be exempt from the ear-yard set-back (to your land) , so that we may construct behind , the present low Reference Room wing a one-story addition, later to be addedf to„_ for .a toxal new four-story rea ,,,wing, nex erat to the present rear stack wing. At this time, we desptely need that new addition on the ground floor for additional space for children 's activities, which are so popular at the Library. We chose to build on our rear land in order to preserve the Essex Street corner and the fountain (by not building there) , as well as to preserve the .view of the front historic Bertram mansion house. If you have any questions, please don 't hesitate to call (744-o86o) or drop in -- we'd be more than happy to show you the full plans. I am attaching a copy which shows how the rear addition is planned, and its relationship to our mutual property line. We hope that you will be able to support us at the Board of Appeals hearing next Wednesday. Sincerely, P.S. If you do support our project, but cannot attend Wednesday's hearing, would you be willing to write a note of support for the Library to me that we could present to the Board of Appeals? If possible; we would like to be able to demonstrate to Appeals Board members that our neighbors consider the Library a special asset to our neighborhood. Thank you so much. fix.%CONpryA 0 � a 7 a R �q`�O/MING(PINY SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY 370 Essex Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970-3298 PATRICK.J. CLOHERTY,JR., Director 2111� Dear Mrs . Connelly -- I 'd like to invite you to drop in to the Library later today, or Tuesday or Wednesday, if you would like to review the architectural plans we have for the Library's upcoming rehabilitation project. Of most concern to you, I am sure, would be the variance we seek to be exempt from the ear-yard set-back (to your land) , so that we may construct behind , the present low Reference Room wing a one-story addition, later to be added1 to._ for a total new four-story rear wing, next to the present rear stack wing. . At this time, we desperatefy, need that new addition on the ground floor for additional space for children 's activities, which are so popular at the Library. We chose to build on our rear land in order to preserve the Essex Street corner and the fountain (by not building there) , as well as to preserve the view of the front historic Bertram mansion house. If you have any questions , please don 't hesitate to call (744-0860) or drop in -- we'd be more than happy to show you the full plans. I am attaching a copy which shows how the rear addition is planned, and its relationship to our mutual property line. We hope that you will be able to support us at the Board of Appeals hearing next Wednesday. Sincerely, P.S. If you do support our project, but cannot attend Wednesday's hearing, would you be willing to write a note of support for the Library to me that we could present to the Board of Appeals? If possible, we would like to be able to demonstrate to Appeals Board members that our neighbors consider the Library a special asset to our neighborhood. Thank you so much. ,.LUNp,fA� z e A '0` 7A S SAr01MIHG t>l*nY SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY 370 Essex Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970.3298 PATRICK J. CLOHERTY,JR., Director Dear Mrs . Connelly -- / I 'd like to invite you to drop in to the Library later today, or Tuesday or Wednesday, if you would like to review the architectural plans we have for the Library's upcoming rehabilitation project. Of most concern to you, I am sure, would be the variance we seek to be exempt from the ear-yard set-back (to your land) , so that we may construct behind the present low Reference Room wing a one-story addition, later to be added to for At thisatimealwenew desperateTyfour-story read,_wing, next to the present rear stack wing. need that new addition on the ground floor for additional space for children 's activities , which are so popular at the Library. We chose to build on our rear land in order to preserve the Essex Street corner and the fountain (by not building there) , as well as to preserve the view of the front historic Bertram mansion house. If you have any questions , please don 't hesitate to call (744-0860) or drop in -- we'd be more than happy to show you the full plans. I am attaching a copy which shows how the rear addition is planned, and its relationship to our mutual property line. We hope that you will be able to support us at the Board of Appeals hearing next Wednesday. Sincerely, -__. - P.S. If you do support our project, but cannot attend Wednesday's hearing, would you be willing to write a note of support for the Library to me that we could present to the Board of Appeals? If possible, we would like to be able to demonstrate to Appeals Board members that our neighbors consider the Library a special asset to our neighborhood. Thank you so much. ,CONOI},CA- `4 r � t �, pn �T T OIMINE tp�nY SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY 370 Essex Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970-3298 PATRICK J. C1,01-1FRTV,JR., Direclnr Dear Mrs . Connelly -- I 'd like to invite you to drop in to the Library later today, or Tuesday or Wednesday, if you would like to review the architectural plans we have for the Library's upcoming rehabilitation project. Of most concern to you, I am sure, would be the variance we seek to be exempt from the ear-yard set-back (to your land) , so that we may construct behind , the present low Reference Room wing a one-story addition, later to be added4 to...,for a total new four-story read,wing, next to the present rear stack wing. At this time, we desperatery need that new addition on the ground floor for additional space for children 's activities , which are so popular at the Library. We chose to build' on our rear land in order to preserve the Essex Street corner and the fountain (by not building there) , as well as to preserve the view of the front historic Bertram mansion house. If you have any questions, please don 't hesitate to call (744-0860) or drop in -- we'd be more than happy to show you the full plans . I am attaching a copy which shows how the rear addition is planned, and its relationship to our mutual property line. We hope that you will be able to support us at the Board of Appeals hearing next Wednesday. Sincerely,, P.S. If you do support our project, but cannot attend Wednesday's hearing, would you be willing to write a note of support for the Library to me that we could present to the Board of Appeals? If possible, we would like to be able to demonstrate to Appeals Board members that our neighbors consider the Library a special asset to our neighborhood. Thank you so much. i [fir 11 rir�.. . . Concerns of Homeowners Affected by Library Expansion AC f4rt r JSP ; .3vr� yZ eEsse-SCG`�hac/" �r We would like to go on record as being in strong and unwavering �t "t S support for the goal of making any necessary remodeling, or repair to V the City of Salem's Main Public Library building in order to make it safe, secure, consistent with building and fire codes and accessible to handicapped persons. Because we are historic homeowners, neighbors, tax- payers and long-time library users, we more than recognize the need for this and the obvious benefits we ourselves will receive, We have conk. scientiously maintained and improved our own historic homes, and have, by so doing, benefitted other residents of the historic district and the city. There is no disagreement that the necessary renovations be made to `. the library. Support for this is evident on the part of all parties o neighbors, users, trustees, city councillors, and the mayor, Despite our support, we know that the particular strategy or plan hof which the requested variences are a crucial part)that the Library Trustees have decided to adopt as their goal raises severe and legiti- mate concerns regarding the future residential character of the Samuel MacIntire Historic District in the blocks surrounding thelibrary because of increased density and parking problems, and reduction of property values because of building additions to extend a nonconforming use in a heavily settled residential area. Let us address the varience issues in the following order: 1) impacts regarding the proposed addition; 2) impacts regarding the parking problems; 3) impacts regarding density and congestion for neighbors and users; 4) recommendations. 2 1) IMPACTS REGARDING.PROPOSED ADDITION a. Our primary concern is to preserve the residential character of the Historic District in the blocks surrounding the library. We believe that an additional structure in the only remaining green area in the rear of the library at such close proximity to abutters will create a visual nuisance, a brick wall, and if subsequent intended development goes through as planned, will result in a four story eyesore which will be completely out of proportion with the historic homes abutting it. If the the Library Trustees are granted a variance for ignoring setback requirements in this case, their next step will be to expand up over the present stack building and also over the present reference wing. Indeed, plans have already been drawn up which describe this. 6 b. We fear the granting of this setback variance will set a precedent for undesirable and detrimental future growth inconsistent with a very densly settled residential neighborhood. We fear that if this variance is granted, it will be much more likely that future variances will also be granted. This step-by-step encroachment of nonresidential use leads to deterioration. We feel there are numerous examples of this; colleges are an example,as we are sure the homeowners near Salem State College would tell you. c. We belive that the proposed use of this addition - an assembly room for large groups - in combination with the adjoining assembly/activities room, and the courtyard capacity, and the rest of the library open for normal activities will absolutely contribute to neighborhood density problems. If one counts the capacity of the proposed addition together with the children's activity/assembly room, one sees that 80 to 120 people could be present simul- taneously. Where are these people going to park? Add a courtyard activity - 3 another 40 to 60 people - and all the regular users to this. We repeat, where are all of these people going to park? It is very difficult to argue that this would not aggrevate severly both the residential quality-of life for affected neighbors, and could also lead to deterioration of the neighborhood. We also fear that having a meeting roomof this size in a building which is open during most times of the day and evenings, would encourage use for many city functions other than library functions. Public meetings, for example,could be held there. We believe that the neighbors, at least some of the neighbors who seem to feel that this addition is pretty inocuous, will change their minds about this if large groups are coming into the neighborhood frequently and cars are double parked in front of their living room and bedroom windows, or, worse yet, buses. d) The last point we would like to make about the expansions, and the point which we believe would be of concern to the taxpayers of Salem is that money is being spent for additions and expansion instead of for necessary renovation and repair of the existing problems. We were really shocked to learn that expansion is being planned, over a million dollars spent, and after all is said and done, we will still have a library which is unsafe, and does not meet building and fire code requirements. When questions were asked of the library why they were proposng to expand instead of use the money (no small sum) for expansion, we were told that it would probably cost another 2 to 3 million dollars to fix the rest of the building. When we then asked city officials what was actually wrong with this building that could conceivably cost this much to repair, their opinion was that the building could probably be brought up to code very well for probably one tenth of this. One city official remarked that you could probably knock the building down and rebuild it for that kind of money. We would like to submit copies to you of the official correspondence 4 by the library, the mayor and the City Council which proves that the money allocated for the library was not for expansion or additions but for renovation and repair. We believe that the library should be renovated and repaired before it is expanded and added to. 2) IMPACTS REGARDING PARKING PROBLEMS Most of the very obvious impacts from the increased need for parking in the area of the library can be deduced by any objective, reasonable person from discussion in Section 1. In looking at the library's own survey it is easy to see that parking along Essex Street is at saturation at many times of the day right now. In addition there are presently existing uses of dwellings on and near Essex Street that require on-street parking: doctors' offices, churches, multiple unit houses, some quite large, and many homeowners with no ability to install off-street parking and who must park on the street. We submit the following map for your consideration. If the present situation is aggrevated , we will not be able to park in front of our own houses. 3) IMPACTS REGARDING DENSITY AND CONGESTION PROBLEMS As branch libraries are closed(witness north and south branches) , children and others, elderly, handicapped, etc. , will have to come to the Main Branch. We feel Li�arerv� 13owd i4 dcrt I�Lt, -to VC cloSt..�, lor. 1:bp.F„l Sy s'C�rrf_ �a„,.rt,r �s..a-lwq�,..r..,kel.d,� it is a disgrace that these persons will have to risk their life and limb to cross u Essex Street because of severe traffic and accident problems. We have on numerous occaisions over -the last few years , tried to get some safety measures implemented on this street. We would like to submit evidence to you of the very serious nature of this problem. We do not want to see children, elderly or anyone else hurt while attempting to use the library. The Former police chief has called this stretch of Essex Street the most accident strewn stretch of straight road in the city. There are, on the average, 59 accidents eachyear, many of which have 5 resulted in personal injury, and some of which have involved bicicles. We should not increase the use of this street and put library users at risk until safety measures are implemented. Itwould be unsafe, unwise and irresponsible. 4) RECOMMENDATIONS We stronly recommend that the Board of Appeals deny these variances to the Library Board of Trustees until such time that that Board developes a more responsible plan which will incorporate the needs and concerns of neighbors, users, taxpayers, parents as well as the Board IIitself. Gep q Y'J' t �v� . O�L. access 5�4�1s lNhrtw� �� dwu lno4tn �Aj a rrlGw,r+ i RGlecfpc� n�,v�t,herb.- Cu+.LA ¢� --------------- abiji-L/ rag - - --- -- - --- �� -�YLh�C,Uu�,��-��'�.C,c�Yl�..�{�L., -0�Y'L'u--�j!t�c-� =`JD✓5')— - — -10- -- - - - --- /U,4 _ ow-- ._ c — __ as I li I i I y A lW7 L s �- ��-��-u-/ 7`7i(p�i" �/llJi'✓Y�J�C/hQ� l%L L7� , - o11 k-a � CIL 4A�e _ _.. _ - - _- _ _ __._ _- -- - . . . I _ �i I a.i 11 V1 ,119-4y � Q pu -kid / ,x a _ _ r P'�� log S°Tv c�Cc� - - - -by-� c-- -- uJ - - -- - -- _�r�. r7,n- 'A spy - - + �I iI I ti Y Y • II{I k 1 - _ - /kCQ_lJ � _ _d'Gt1� Cep — � 4 _ c -- -.._.._—__ _ (-�r"--v„-_ —_ _ vL 't�" a_`-Y✓ -lJ�'F/.-__ _ -Q-L A.1- L"6 ._ .___._Y!�5 U �J I �I _ _ . _ �, _ _ . _ . . __ _ . _ _ N. . _ . _ . _ __ 1. _ i 6V Ce�o ct0j" i s cco , StP o d coo, _. +I� � 1 -Lon Yl 11"-) , L ire ,q w - Sc - _ �r-v 6(fir , 0 �l q4,-P- �Kd Sfroo ,(. - w� �tj- � _ �r I CX- Yams a w � /o y 1 P �iClh & ✓U -Zlt ll- --- ---- ----- bit _ 3 1 -vr wC .fir'' -- Ax �� J err �6 - _co'd ll "n_"- -- cy �� n�/t --- - i, - - -- n ` I it �� } I r _ I� � e ---��-- -- _ . _. . _ .. ,- - ---- .� .T. ._.__ ._ i __ _._�_ _..-�- -----._.._ .�_ ._ r -- - I - - - -_._. ._ �� - --- -_ ._ j. ...__ .�_ . - -— _ i �I I 1 • '� I t god) oon oyl@� -G�GQG�+' r_�iyv cQ CYouU c� � y oma_ /�ccQ.. }�� 1`It - - - �n G - i i DECEMBER 3, 1984 i i A Regular Meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chamber on Monday, December 3, 1984 at 8:00 P.M. for the purpose of transacting any and all business. Notice of this meeting was posted on November 21, 1984. Councillor Lovely was absent. ! I Council President Jean Marie Rochna presided Councillor Nowak moved to dispense with the reading of the record of the previous meeting. It was so voted. i 119 A hearing was held on the order of Massachusetts Electric Company for underground loc. wire location on Congress Street. Appearing in favor was Mr. Raymond Coady of Massa- i chusetts Electric Company. There was no one opposed. The hearing was closed. Coun- cillor Martineau moved that the permit be granted. It was so voted. 12 = The following Order, recommended by the Mayor, was adopted for first passage under is suspension of the rules, by a roll call vote of 10 yeas, 0 nays, 1 absent. Councillors Centorino, Grace, Martineau, McCabe, Nowak, Nutting, O'Leary, Swiniuch, Usovicz, and Rochna were recorded as voting in the affirmative. Councillor Lovely was absent. Councillor Centorino moved that the Committee on Municipal Services meet with the Library Trustees and the City Planner, within 3 months, to discuss completion of the project, and the timetable. Councillor Swiniuch moved to include the Committee on 0 Finance. The motion was incorporated The motion was adopted as incorporated. ORDERED: That the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) is hereby appropria- ted for remodeling, reconstructing or making extraordinary repairs to the City of Salem's Main Public Library building and that to raise this appropriation the City Treasurer/Collector with the approval of the Mayor is authorized to borrow under the provisions of Chapter 44, Section 7, Clause 3A of the General Laws. 1121 The following Order, recommended by the Mayor, was referred to the Cocaaittee on er Debt Finance. ORDERED: That the sum of One Hundred, Seventy Thousand Dollars ($170,000.00) is hereby appropriated from the "Certified Free Cash" Account to the "Forest River Lard Acquisition Debt Service" Account (City Treasurer/Collector) in accordance with the recommendation of His Honor the Mayor. 1122 The following Order, recommended by the Mayor, was referred to the Committee on Finance. ORDERED: That the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) is hereby appropriated from the "Sewer Receipts Reserved for Appropriations" Account to the 1U--- TTT Arl nrnni mf- mhihi it GPYVines) In accordance DBcEmER 17, 1984 _ Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-seven Dollars ($10,877.00) to the "Park Maintenance Personnel Services" Account (Park & Recreation) Four Thousand one Hundred Twenty-six Dollars ($4,126.00) to the "Golf Course Personnel Services" Account (Park & Recreation) and Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-seven Dollars ($3,987.00 to the "Recreational Services Personnel Services" Account (Park & Recreation) in accordance with the rerconun - endation of His Honor the Mayor. 120) Councillor Centorino requested and received unanimous consent to take out of order lic the matter of second passage of a Bond Order relative to the Salem Public Library. The matter of second arra final passage of a Bond Order for $11000,000.00 for the ) Salem Public Library remodeling, reconstructing, and extraordinary repairs, was adopted by a unanimous roll call vote of 10 yeas, 0 nays, 1 absent. Councillors Centorino, Grace, Lovely, Martineau, McCabe, Nowak, Nutting, O'Leary, Swiniuch, and Rochna were recorded as voting in the affirmative. Councillor Usovicz was absent. Councillor Grace moved for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail. Recon- sideration was denied. __ . Mayor, was adopted under suspension of I 161 The following Order, recommended by � yo opt Pen � ary I the rules. Councillor Swiniuch moved for immediate reconsideration in the hopes it would not prevail. Reconsideration was denied. ORDERED: That the sum. of Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-seven Dollars and Twenty-eight Cents ($17,847.28) is hereby appropriated from the "Parking Receipts Reserved for Appropriation" Account to the "Parking Services Personnel Services" i Account (Parking) in accordance with the reecnTnendation of His Honor the Mayor. 1 1162 The following Order, recommended by the Mayor, was adopted under suspension of i ement the rules. Councillor Nowak was recorded as 'opposed' . i f ORDERED: That the sun of one Hundred Three Thousand Three Hundred Ten Dollars and Fifty-seven Cents ($103,310.57) is hereby appropriated free the "Certified Free Cash" Account to the "Judgement" Account (City Solicitor) in accordance with the reccum- endation of His Honor the Mayor. 1163 The following Order, recommended by the Mayor, was referred to the Committee on e Finance under the rules. ORDERED: That the sum of Thirty-eight-Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Eight Dollars ($38,898.00) is hereby appropriated fren the "Golf Course Receipts Reserved for Appro- priation" Account to the "Golf Course Nonpersonnel Expenses" Account (Park & Recreation) in accordance with the recem!endation of His Honor the Mayor. Page 4-October 1985 Z.B. • • Z.B. October 1985-Page 5 a state highway. Quinn applied to the County Planning and-Zoning all relevant public hearings on his proposed'zone change. He was given a Commission to°change his property to a business/highway zone. He full opportunity to be heard on the subject and failed to show that the wanted to construct an ice cream parlor, restaurant, craft shop and town's exercise of its veto power was unlawful. health food store on the property. Buhler v. Racine County, 146 N.W.2d 403 (1966). After conducting a joint public hearing on the matter, both the County Planning and Zoning Commission and the town board Industrial Park-Appeal of Permit Filed Too Late Fla. recommended that the County Board of Supervisors deny Quinn's Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Florida Land & Water application for a zone change.The county supervisors, however,granted Adjudicatory Commission, 464 So.2d 1361 (1985) Quinn's request for the zone change. The town board then vetoed the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) planned to develop an industrial county officials' decision. County officials accepted the town board's park in Dade County. The Dade County Board of Commissioners veto and took no further action. approved FEC's plans. Quinn appealed the town board's veto of the county officials' On July 8, 1983, Dade County zoning officials sent an unsigned, decision in court. Both the circuit court and the appeals court ruled in uncertified copy of the FEC's development permit to the Department of favor of the town officials and dismissed Quinn's lawsuit. He then took Community Affairs (DCA). They also forwarded the original resolution his appeal of the town's veto to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. granting FEC's permit to the county clerk for signature. The county clerk signed the original permit on July 11, the same day the DCA Quinn argued that the town's power to veto zoning decisions made by received its unsigned copy. The DCA then requested a certified copy of the County Board of Supervisors violated both the state and federal the permit which it received on August 1. constitutions. He claimed the town supervisors' veto power violated the On September 12, the DCA submitted its appeal of FEC's one person, one vote requirement and interfered with comprehensive development permit to the Florida Land&Water Adjudicatory Commis- planning. sion. FEC challenged the commission's authority to hear DCA's appeal The • T e issue before the state supreme court was whether the Town in court. FEC claimed DCA waited too long to file its appeal. Board of Supervisors' veto power over county zoning decisions was State law provided that appeals could be made to the commission unconstitutional. within forty-five days after approval of a development permit. The DECISION: The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' commission argued that the time period for filing DCA's appeal began decisions to dismiss Quinn's challenges to the town's veto power. on August I, when DCA received a certified copy of FEC's permit. As a The state supreme court ruled that the town board did not violate any result, the time period would not expire until September 15. constitutional requirements by exercising their veto power over the The issue before the court was whether the DCA had waited too long county officials' zoning decision. The court found that state law after FEC's permit was granted to appeal the decision to the Adjudica- authorizing the veto power properly envisioned that town officials would tory Commission. sometimes act as a check on the discretion of county zoning officials. DECISION: The court ruled in favor of FEC and ordered the Adjudica- tory Commission to dismiss DCA's challenge of the development permit. The court ruled that the statutory time limit for appealing a power did not violate the one person, one vote standard. Even though development permit begins to run when the original resolution granting residents throughout the county were affected by the town board's veto, the permit is signed. In this case, the court said, the time for DCA to file the proposed zone change most directly affected town residents. As a its appeal of FEC's permit with the commission began on July 11, when result, the court stated, town residents'votes through their town board's the county clerk signed the original permit. Since DCA filed its appeal veto power properly had more weight than the votes of other county more than forty-five days from that date the Adjudicatory Commission residents. had no authority to review the matter. In addition, the court noted, the town's veto power did not violate Fox v. South Florida Regional Planning Council, 327 So.2d 56 the statutory requirement of comprehensive planning.The town's veto in (1976). this case precluded a single parcel deviation from existing comprehensive county planning. As a result, the town board played an integral and • • Community Home-Multi-Family Use-Zoning Approval Required La. effective part in the countywide planning process. City of Kenner v. Normal Life of Louisiana, Inc.,465 So.2d 82(1985) Finally, the court pointed out,Quinn was given notice of and attended Normal Life operated community homes for the mentally retarded. Page 6-October 1985 Z.B. • • Z.B. October 1985-Page'3 To that end, Normal Life leased several pieces of property in Kenner for until sometime after October 24. As a result, the attorney waited until use as community homes. The homes were located in a single family October 11 to file the necessary papers to begin White Oak's appeal. This residential zone. Normal Life intended to house six or fewer persons in was forty-seven days after the board mailed its denial notice to White Oak. each home. The board claimed the superior court should dismiss White Oak's In discussions with city officials concerning the venture, both the appeal because state law required such appeals to be filed in court within mayor and planning officials told Normal Life their approval was not thirty days of notice of the board's denial of an application. White Oak necessary for the homes to begin operation. Normal Life obtained state argued, however, that its actions had been determined by the crowded approval of the plan and opened the homes. nature of the court's calendar and that the board had not been harmed Soon, however, the city received complaints about the homes and by the delay. ordered Normal Life to close them. City officials claimed the homes The superior court ruled in favor of White Oak and ordered the violated the municipal zoning regulations because they were located in a board to issue a conditional use permit to the developer. The court based single-family residential zone. Homes such as those operated by Normal its decision on its finding that the thirty day rule applied only to denials Life were permitted only in areas zoned for multi-family use. City of applications to the Board of Adjustment and not to the Board of officials also claimed Normal Life failed to obtain the approval of the Aldermen. Kenner Planning Commission for the homes as required by state law. Members of the Board of Aldermen appealed the superior court's Normal Life refused to close the homes.City officials then obtained a court order permanently. closing Normal Life's homes in Kenner. order to-them and the appeals court reversed the superior court's Normal Life appealed the court's order. decision. The appeals court dismissed White Oak's appeal, stating that Normal Life argued that it had been misled by city officials into the superior court should not have reviewed the case since it had been failing to obtain planning commission approval of the homes. Normal submitted to court more than thirty days after denial of the zoning Life also claimed its homes qualified as single family residences under application. state law because each housed no more than six people. The city zoning • White Oak appealed the dismissal of its claim to the North Carolina ordinance, however, allowed only four or fewer unrelated persons to Supreme Court. The issue before the state supreme court was whether qualify as a "single family." White Oak only had thirty days from the issuance of the Board of The issue before the appeals court was whether Normal Life was entit- Aldermen's denial notice to file its appeal of that decision. led to operate its community homes in a single family residential zone. DECISION: The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the appeals DECISION: The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision that court's finding that White Oak had waited too long-to file its original Normal Life could not operate its homes in a single family residential appeal of the Board of Aldermen's decision denying its conditional use zone. permit. The appeals court ruled that although state law considered the Normal The state supreme court ruled that the thirty day time limit did not Life community homes to be single family units, state law permitted apply to individuals seeking review of a decision by the Board of location of such community homes only in multi-family zones.As a result, Aldermen. In the absence of an absolute time limit on filing an appeal the court said, state law also required that Normal Life obtain approval of such as White Oak's, the court said, the rule is that an appeal should be its plans from the local planning commission before opening its homes. filed within a reasonable time of the board's action. What is reasonable The good intentions of city officials in originally telling Normal Life to depends on the circumstances of the individual case. proceed with its plans did not waive the requirements of state law. Here, however, the superior court properly found that the board had . Clark v. Manuel and The Lafayette Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc., 463 So.2d 1276 (1985). not been harmed by White Oak's delay in filing its appeal. As a result, the court ordered, the appeals court must determine whether the board properly denied White Oak's conditional use permit. "Planned Use Development"-Zoning Amendment Upheld N.J. Redevelopment Commission v. Capehart, 150 S.E.2d 62 (1966). Zanin v. Iacono, 487 A.2d 780 (1984) The Township of Weehawken wanted to encourage development of its • • Zone Change-Town's Veto of County Decision Wis. deteriorating waterfront area on the Hudson River. In March 1983, the Quinn v. Town of Dodgeville, 364 N.W.2d 149 (1985) township began efforts to amend its master plan and zoning ordinance. It decided to use Planned Unit Development(PUD)as the device to stimulate Quinn owned 5.6 acres of land in an agricultural zone and adjacent to Page 2-October 1985 Z.B. Z.B. October 1985-Page 7 Taking Required Just Compensation -Administrative Remedies Must be the desired waterfront development. PUD requires that specified parcels Pursued -- S.Ct. of land be developed as a single entity according to a plan, or built with Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton an approved ratio of residential to non-residential which also needs Bank of Johnson City, 53 L.W. 4969 (1985) approval from a planning board. PUD's may be contrary to existing Hamilton Bank's predecessor in interest, a land developer, obtained zoning ordinances and builders must negotiate with planning boards to the Planning Commission's approval of a preliminary plat for ensure that both the public's and developer's interests are satisfied. The development of a tract. The tract was developed in accordance with approved amendments divided the waterfront into an industrial park, a recreation area, an office park and a special zone for hotels, existing regulations for development.The zoning ordinance was changed marketplaces, conference centers or "any other use which the Planning subsequently-so as to reduce the allowable density of dwelling units, but Board. . .determines. . .to be consistent with the standards" of the the commission continued to apply the old standard to the developer's district. The amendments also specified restrictions on size of buildings tract. The commission then decided to begin to apply the new zoning and required approval of plans and sites. Corporate landowners in the changes to any further developments on the tract, and disapproved of area challenged the changes. One of the arguments was that the new further development for various reasons grounded in the new zoning ordinances were too vague and allowed the planning board too much requirements. The bank filed suit, alleging that the actions of the discretion. Before the rest of the case was litigated, the court heard this commission constituted a taking of property without just compensation. preliminary matter. The commission appeals from a ruling of the Court of Appeals DECISION: Amendments not void, planning board subject to sufficient holding that a taking did in fact occur, and that the bank had no other standards for the exercise of delegated powers: economically feasible use for the land. In determining whether local legislation is impermissibly vague, DECISION: Reversed. Even assuming that a taking has occurred, the standards may be implied from the entire act in light of its surroundings bank has brought this action before it was entitled to. It has not gone • • and objectives. The generality of a legislative delegation does not through the administrative processes in order to obtain a variance, which necessarily entail unbridled official discretion. Legislative guidelines would have allowed it to continue to develop as planned. Denial of need only be as specific as their subject matter will permit. In this case, approval for proposed development is not denial of a request for a the amendments to the zoning ordinance and to the master plan, when variance. read together, are detailed enough and provide sufficient guidelines for Therefore, even assuming that the actions of the commission may the municipal planning board to defeat a claim that the amendments are constitute a taking of a variance is not granted, this suit is premature, void and invalid. since the Fifth Amendment does not require just compensation to be Rudderow v. Mt. Laurel Township Commission,497 A.2d 583(1972) paid in advance of taking. The taking, if indeed there is one, has yet to N.J. occur. The present state of affairs is 'merely a temporary cessation pending a final resolution of the variance request, which has yet to be Developer Demonstrated Prima Facie Compliance with Local and State filed. Law Me. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining&Recl.Association, Inc.,452 U.S. Mutton Hill Estates, Inc. v. Town of Oakland, 488 A.2d 151 (1975) 264. Mutton Hill Estates is a developer seeking approval fora subdivision in Oakland. It was originally denied by the Planning Board and the Board of Conditional Use Permit-Time Limit for Appeal N.C. Appeals of the town. The trial court held that procedural irregularities White Oak Properties v. Town of Carrboro, 327 S.E.2d 882 (1985) rendered the Planning Board's decision defective. The trial court also White Oak applied to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen fora decided not to remand the case back to the Planning Board,because of the unique circumstances present in the case. conditional use permit to build nineteen townhouses on a 3.31 acre tract Court held that it would be improper to approve first appeal, the Supreme the application without of land. The board denied the application and mailed a notice of its further proceedings, because there was no determination whether the decision to White Oak on August 25, 1983. proposal complied with local ordinances and state law. The matter was White Oak then decided to appeal the board's adverse decision in • • remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the application court. On September 20, White Oak's attorney discovered that the was in prima facie compliance with local ordinances and state law. superior court schedule was so crowded that the case would not be heard On remand, the trial court found that Mutton Hill did not meet its Page 8-October 1985 Z.B. • p �► Zoning Bulletin burden as to water pollution or soil erosion, and found against it. f Mutton Hill appealed, and the issue is whether Mutton Hill satisfied its burden of showing prima facie compliance with local and state law. DECISION: The court found that the trial court had imposed too heavy a burden on Mutton Hill, and reversed. OCTOBER 1985 The Supreme Court intended that the trial court on remand view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mutton Hill so that the court could decide whether by any reasonable view of the evidence a decision for Mutton Hill could be sustained. This was so that an application would not be approved that had a fatal flaw in it. In this case, there was sufficient evidence, particularly findings by the State Board of in this issue: Environmental Protection, indicating that there would be neither water pollution nor unreasonable soil erosion. A finding that the subdivision complied with local ordinances and state law reasonably could be sustained, and therefore Mutton Hill did demonstrate prima facie • Taking Required Just Compensation - Administrative compliance. The unique circumstances of this case justify immediate Remedies Must be Pursued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 2 issuance of an order granting approval of the proposal,rather than a new hearing before the Planning Board. • Conditional Use Permit -Time Limit for Appeal . . . . page 2 Mutton Hill Estates, Inc.v.Town of Oakland,468 A.2d 989(1983)Me. • Zone Change-Town's Veto of County Decision . . . . . page 3 Rezoning-Industrial/Agricultural Pa. • • Pace Resources v. Shrewsbury Township Planning Commission, • Industrial Park-Appeal of Permit Filed Too Late . . . page 5 492 A.2d 818 (1985) • Community Home - Multi-Family Use - Zoning Pace Resources (Pace) had purchased a 145 acre tract in Shrewsbury Township (township) in 1965, before the township had either a zoning Approval Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 5 ordinance or a comprehensive plan. Preliminary subdivision plans to convert the tract into an industrial park were drawn up and approved by • "Planned Use Development" - Zoning Amendment the Board of Supervisors in 1973. Final approval for several of the Upheldpage 6 ... . . . . . . . . . :. . subdivision lots was later given. In 1976, the township enacted its first zoning ordinance, in which it • Developer Demonstrated Prima Facie Compliance zoned the Pace tract as "industrial." In a meeting three years later, thirty-seven acres of the tract were rezoned to "agricultural." Pace with Local and State Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 7 objected to this proposed change. • Rezoning - Industrial/Agricultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 8 Pace appeals a decision of the lower court which held that no discriminatory zoning had occurred. DECISION: Reversed. No substantial relationship between the rezoning and public health, safety, morals or welfare was shown. In this case, the court found the rezoning to be "spot zoning," the singling out of a parcel of land arbitrarily for different treatment than that accorded to similar parcels of land with similar uses. Additionally, the rezoning was This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered.It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal,accounting,or other in conflict with the stated purposes of the township compehensive plan, professional service.If legal advice or other expert assistance is required,the service of a competent professional • • which advocated "a spirit of positive industrial development." Finally, person should be sought, theplancaused tremendous economic hardship for Pace, which was Zoning Bulletin Postal Service No. ISSN 0514-7905 unable to use the land for any other feasible purpose. is published by QUINLAN PUBLISHING CO., INC., 131 Beverly Street, Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Peternel, 211 A.2d 514. Boston, Massachusetts 02114. Copyright © 1985 e v� < r ri ATTIC _ : I ' 1 + t �_ - --------- -- - — --- --__ I i . �._ . t — H . • p* r L _ -. t .._ _._. -ice _.._ .. .:A � im LI �. } '. I wwna�v- 1 i j 1 , I , - - - I A ' �} �? r . rt• - .� n -� , ;= ROB IARLEY ARCNT C 16 Park St. Danvers, MA 019,13 k , ,, .` ' '`4 ,� Phone 774.40394.. 1 : t `'.... ;'�+ .. , :r:. i ;. �"� . „ .•.'rN.,a:r i�*Y . '.. *ka`.�`av' sd k'_a.1ti' a'iio . . . `. . ".5 +a E-. v.nf�.+•-.. - -r .. - -.T..,..,. _ w:rt:.. _ ... i ^s AT-?`IG f 1 r 17 3 : 7f LT 1 - 1 CnR.. — 1 — -+- —— — �. � ? � - _ r .a -_t �rn 6 , : 1 x� �A ri� 3 °Y�"aLa e4•� pj� -• �. w >. 't rt a. e , r s , - - s• [ ' ' ' .,. .� �� it y 1 !7; ST F 1 I I . - III ' i - G ROBERT D. FARLEY { - ARCHITECT + 16 Park St. Danvers, MA 01921' f. Phone 774-4039 Q i I 17 I -- I� ROBERT D. FARLEY ARCHITECT 16 Park St. Danvers. kA 01923 Phone 774.4039 a, 1 " } O e — ,,µms y FP-711 Ir FT 1 F--'- , � { .J❑ 6 - _ - t -' ---- --- 1 - YI �_. — _--- . 4. ! 1 — ---a ` 1 1 i� F — 7 F-- : F It C 1 i i a � FF i , - -- - - "q,� V ROBERT D. FARLEY eARCHITECT 16 Park St. Danvers, MA 01923 < Phone 774.4039 i u,iiduV�& I— -- ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS l `I'O SALEM PUBLIC UiRARY j ESSEX SI-RLET l SALEM, MASS. Join! 1 >GLEA�10 ,, J. COuktELY NALLOU & EARLEY Architects Datc: yam:1 M -3 r Ifs-DU CSEt) E x I S r �T6 o yRtF ai* `� • 125 Derby St., Salem; MA Sca1c: �,1• _ N G h 10 Park Vit.• Danvers, MA Dram n: a 1 �• w w\ oP I it Fr2_Nwv_1 V q� \NY A k1A�'✓ Y = L \ c �/ •' N 7(00 /� /. � r { _ i - i�� —� 1 ��4 � ;�' �• •� *• .� �M �. .,v• .. _ .. 32.7$- ,'chK-- oFLU i _ I / ail L ` s, Au Nl N V I O / v- D MAr_IC ! . L . PL-[t_o500 2 (\w. 5t'— — — 3s 6tzo 1;vI r . /�I > IM.M•31 1 77 OA{C tz+- s.-,, - �t 3i-11 11rXl ATG Si�11 I / _ 7 ,F� w Vi a / l �3 11Xf9T'G. CiQA�11T1 CLIC $ f EXFgF'C�. OQdIAMEPITAL F 6 H 2• M�•t!AI-• P�1—'�' �.E1�of 33• _ — — 110 20 II i W ExIS7 :� 3�^Yln1:.(•^i`vF c:�rl:: .. � ° • 59" W QI C y— _._ — ------ ` d I° MA�Ig 6t1C• 8(pP sf(+h�_.---_-- {� • MAPLE — RJM` '1.8� WAT EV_ _-- - — _ G R7 E f _ _ --- - '/ pM4 II s w — v! -- W — W I 2M= �2,A2 I SdMP2b. &P ° T l< 12'' Y '�6• 5 E w � .''-- r ;1� PIN: ..: . C,1.r"q (Q\i- '2 0 2 Al 1 - -- - 1 . i 3 4 s J