1929-PLANNING BOARD • A meeting of the Planning Board was held at City Hall
on Monday, February 4, 1929 at 7.30 o ' clock P. M. Mr. Pitman
and Mr. iVebber were present .
At the request of the Mayor, the Board considered the
advisability of opposing the granting of any taxi licenses
in a location which would further obstruct traffic at the
Norman Street crossing. It was decided that the members
would appear before the Committee on Licenses and Permits at
their next meeting to oppose such licenses.
The question of a new zoning map was taken up. The Helio-
type Co. of Boston would print a map in colors , 20"x30" on
paper 22"x32" , 1000 copies for $280.00.
It was decided to request the Mayor for an appropriation
of $780.00 for h
dv the year 1929; $500.00 for general expenses and
$280.00 for printing the-new map.
There was a discussion of the removal of Town Hall and the
extension of a new street to Essex Street.
.The meeting adjourned at nine o ' clock P. M.
Attest :-
/Ljovti Secretary
The regular meeting of the Planning Board was held on Wedaes-
day, March 20, 1929, at 7.30 o 'clock P. If. All the members were
present and the Chairman presided.
The Board discussed the proposed change of the zoning ordinance
as affecting Leach Street between Lafayette: Street and Summit Ave-
nue. The district is now zoned for business and the neighborhood
wish it changed to an .apartment house zone.
The proposed change from general residence to unrestricted
zone in Collins Cove was discussed.
On motion: of Mr. Wiswall, it was voted that it be recorded
as the opinion of the .Board that it will not oppose a petition to
change the classification of land surrounding Collins Cove to an
industrial zone, provided there is no substantial opposition thereto
• by the neighborhood, and provided there is no intention on the part
of the City to develop Collins Cove along recreational and resi-
dential lines within a reasonable time, but that in the opinion of
the Board, on the absence of proof of the necessity therefor, it
is inadvisable to change the classification to an unrestricted
zone in that location.
" The. Board considered the possible use of the old Town Hall,
either as a museum for war relics, or a post office.
On motion of Mr.. Perkins, it was voted that the Board is
opposed to the removal of .the Town Hall. .
The Board adjourned at
Attest:-
Secretary
i
A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held on Monday,
May 6, 1929, at 7.30 o 'clock P. M. All the members were present
except Mr. Perkins and the Chairman presided.
The case of -the Cadorette house for seven families on Haw-
thorne Boulevard was discussed. In connection with this, the
Board also considered the powers and limitations of the Board of
Appeal.
.Mr. Pitman explained the conflicting attitude of the Chamber
of Commerce in regard to the preservation of Town Hall. The
Historical Committee is in favor of its preservation. The Mer-
cantile Committee has voted for its destruction to provide a
parking space .
The Board discussed the advisability of widening Norman
• Street on the southerly side. to make a sixty foot street.
The Board discussed the Bouchard petition for a change
of a residence zone on Porter Street Court to a business zone .
The Board adjourned at nine o 'clock P. M.
Attest:-
Secretary
• A regular meeting of the Planning, Board was held on Monday,
June 3, 1929, at 7.30 o 'clock P. M. All the members were present
except Mr. Pitman and Mr. Perkins. In the absence of the Chairman,
Mr. Wiswall presided.
The Board discussed the proposed zoning change in Collins
Cove but decided to take no further action in the matter. I.t,
was also decided to delay the publication of the new zoning map
until the Collins Cove. matter is settled.
On motion of Mr.. Webber, it was voted that the Board adjourn
for the summer.
Attest:-
• � � Secretary
A regular meeting of .the Planning Board was held on Monday,
November 4, 1929, at 7 .30 o 'clock P. M. There was not a quorum,
the only members present being•Mr. Pitman and Thr. Perkins.
Attest:-
or
Secretary
A meeting of the Planning Board was held on Monday, December
3 , 1929, at 7.3.0 o'clock P. M. All the members were present ex-
cept Mr. O'Donnell and the Chairman presided.
Tar. Pitman spoke on the need of protecting the zoning ordi-
nance and reported that the Civic Division of the Chamber of
Commerce had invited an expert in City Planning from the United
States Chamber of Commerce to spend the day in Salem on December
11th, and to speak at a dinner to which the members of the City
Government, the Planning Board and the Board of Appeal would be
invited.
The petition of Chester J. Burkinshaw for a change of a gen-
eral residence zone on Symonds Street between Chandler and Buffum
Streets to a business zone., which is pending before the City Coun-
cil, was discussed.
On motion of Mr. Perkins it was voted that the Board is
opposed on general principles to any such change in the ordinance
as this is new business in a general residence district, and that
the Chairman be requested to appear before the City Council to
represent the Board.
On motion of Mr. Wiswall, it was voted that the Planning
Board endorses the request. of the Chamber of Connnerce to the
School Committee to allow the expert on City Planning to speak
before the High School students.
• The Board adjourned at 8.30 P. M.
Attest :-
Secretary
���iWosliyu�2r�c>a�
s
� 9
'RICHARD K. CONANT
COMMiAsIONER
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING
EDWARD T. HARTMAN
CONSULTANT TO PLANNING BOARDS
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON
December 30 , 1929.
Mr. J. A. Pitman,
State Normal School,
Salem, Mass.
Dear Mr. Pitman:
I worked over the annual report yesterday and found your
query in regard to amendments to zoning.
The purpose of a zoning law is to protect the different
types of uses . Most of our zoning laws have not gone far enough
in the direction of protection. Too much area has been set a-
side for industry and business in particular. A number of cities
in Essex County have enough business areato take care of the
needs of the entire county. People are constantly coming in with
requests to change new areas to business and when a city govern-
ment is short-sighted enough to grant such requests it is only
making a bad condition worse. If the city government refuses
such a change , the applicant frequently goes to the board of ap-
peals and gets such a change under the guise of a variation. This
was recently done in Medford. A newspaper report now points out
that the city government denied such a change three separate
times and now the applicant has gone to the board of appeals.
The only way to handle the matter, if the city government
constantly breaks down the law, is to attend to it at the ballot
box. If the board of appeals goes too far under the guise of
variations , the matter should be taken to the ' courts as in the
Prusik case , 262 Mass . 451. This is reviewed on page 24 of
Bulletin 22, which I assume you have.
I have covered this question somewhat in my forthcoming
annual report and about all that I can say now is that city govern-
ments and boards of appeal are doing more to nullify zoning laws
than they are to uphold them. On the other hand, a few places
like Winchester, Lexington, Newton, and a number of others , are do-
ing very fine work and the results are already being written in
the type of development taking place under the protection thus af-
J. S. P . -2- 12/30/29 .
i
forded. In my opinion the chief job of every planning board in
a zoned place is to uphold and gradually improve the zoning sys-
tem.
Sincerel yours ,
ETH/So
c