Loading...
1931-PLANNING BOARD A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held on Monday, January 5, 1931, at. 7.30 P. M. All the members were present except Mr. Perkins and air. O'Donnell and the Chairman presided. Mr . Pitman reported to the Board the circumstances of his appearance as a witness at the case of A. 11. Joly vs . City of Salem for damages for land taken in Palmer Cove. The Board discussed the extraordinary amount awarded to Mr. Joly by the jury and its effect on future takings by the City. Mr. Pitman informed the Board that the Salem Chamber of Commerce proposed to invite Mr. Henry Harriman to give before their organization an explanation of the extension of the Plan for the l:4etropolitan District with reference to the North Shore . It was suggested that invitations be sent to the Planning Boards of the cities and towns involved - Beverly, Marblehead, Danvers and Swampscott. There was some preliminary discussion of the Report of the Planning Board for 1930. The Board adjourned at 8.15 P. 14. Attest:- Secretary i A meeting of the Planning Board was'. held. on Monday, March 16, 1931,. at 7.30: o 'clock P. M. , in .the Council Chamber. The meeting was 'opened to the public .for the purpose of. considering an exten- sion of the Dion boatyard at the foot' of Glendale .Street. All the members were• present except Mr. wiswall and Mr. O'Donnell. Mayor -Bates was also present. Chairman Pitman" presided. ; The Chairman opened the meeting and explained the reason for calling the same. The proposed extension of the Dion boatyard at the foot of Glendale Street would apparently be an obstruction to an extension of Congress Street .for a shore p.oulevard.. It would also appear to be a violation to the zoning ordinance which can only be modified by the Board of Appeal ( if it is a case over which .the•Board, of Appeal has jurisdiction) or .by amendment by • the City Council. Hon. Rufus D. Adams appeared representing Ward Five, residents who feel the time: has arrived to do something in regard .to the pro- posed shore boulevard, with the assistance of the State,. the County and the Town. of Marblehead. If the proposed boatyard extension will interfere with the fruition of. the boulevard plan,, it should be opposed. Mr. W. H.- McSweeney, appearing as a private citizen.and :not as counsel, after 'questioning the right of .the Planning- Board to hold a hearing at this •time, explained that Mrr.• Dion's only proposition at this time wa•s to-build a`bulkhead between mean: high and mean low water and fill in the land. TYie',question of`'the use of -the land will come some time. in the future and the properrt ,me for a protest will be 'when there` is some definite proposition• to be considered. A matter of public interestvwould be the question of the disposition of the -flats of the proposed extension of -Willow. Avenue .to mean low water. The, Chairman, explained that the meeting .was held° for the sole purpose of getting an. expression of public opinion on. the matter. Mr. Frederick, J. Dion appeared and explained that he wanted a permit to fi11 inland washed out by storms; - the fill to extend 17..5 feet beyond the sewer pipe on. both sides: of Glendale Street. He would give flats for street extension to city and would sell flats for $3.000.00. lar, Webber - When-would you consider giving flats to the. City? Mr.' Dion Today.' _ -• Mr. Adams - Mr. Appleton says that the fill will extend beyond the, pipe 27.5 feet. Is this .so? Dison - No. i Mr. Pitman : Has the areaa. of the boatyard. been increased in the last six years? L Mr. Dion - No: Mr. Pitman - Have you extended the railways? - Mr. Dion - The: runs have been extended. Mr. McSweeney - He has extended .the .runs beyond the pipe 15 feet. Mr. W. P. .Very appeared. as the owner of the property, most vitally affected. He liked the location on the 'shore but considered the filling of private dumps a nuisance. Mr. Dion's ,dump was one of the •cleanest. 'L He. was .most concerned with what will happen if the permit to fill is granted. will the work be done immediately; or will it be extended over a period of years? It. the shipyard is then, ex- tended he.-would suffer property loss. He had no objection if a rapid and decent filling was made. Mr. -G'oldthwaite - The boat yard was .extended only 15, feet? • Mr. Dion - No. Mr. Goldthwai€e - How .far outside of .pipe is new railway? � J Mr. Dion = No more than the. pier.: Mr. Goldthwaite) How far. outside of pipe is new pier?..-' Mr. Dion - One hundred feet. Mr. Goldthwaite stated that he had lived in the vicinity since 1903 and there had been several extensions in that time.,: His objec- tion to the extension: of the boat-yard to the proposed fill was on the. theory that the. gasoline in the boats would create a fixe. hazard. Mr. Pitman - Did the Harbor and .Iand Commissiorigive their- consent for the erection of the new railway? Mr., Dion. - It was not necessary inside the pipe. . ' Ur.- Philbrick. appeared for lire. Fussell of the adjacent estate , who was unable to be present and who opposed the extension as: objection- able and. damaging to 'property values. He said that last summer Dion Ya d said ne owned tlie- flats:. • Mr. Rhyno expressed interest in the former ownership of the flats - 60,000 feet filled in. Fir. Webber asked if" the'. extension of the boatyard which had been made the previous summer was: a violation of the.toning.ordinance? Mr. Pitman explained the applicat-ion ;of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Adams Is a pier or runway a 'structure? Mr. Pitman - Yes. In this case thene is an engine house on the end of the pier. Mr. Adams stated that the persons present who 'were 'opposed were asking the Planning Board to oppose the petition at the hearingr " This would -be for the best interests of the City. Mr. McSweeney said that numerical representation was no indicative of public opinion. ` Mr. Goldthwaite -Does the petition call -for bulkhead, pier and marine railway? Mr. Pitman read the notice of the hearing to be ;held.by the Dept. of Public Works, on March 12th, at 2 P. M. , "for license` to, build and maintain a pier and. a marine railway andtofill solid in. Salem Harbor at his property". 14x.' Dowst objected to the noise from the motors. Mr, Robinson said that there was need of neighbors and petitioner !°getting .foge'ther" . What do the -neighbors want,? Mr., Pitman explained that Mr. Dion was entirely within rights ifhe conducted the boatyard. as• it existed when the zoning ordinance went into effect. Mr. James R. Farley said that the opponents wished to find out the exact purpose of the. petition and if the Planning Board-would take some action. The people, in the vicinity were apprehensive of the. future of the business. The noise, especially on Sundays and at night, was objectionable, also the attraction of traffic by land as well as by water. Theneighbors are willing to take a generous • attitude but do not wish their own homes jeopardized: They are . fearful of 11r. Dion's intentions.. They, wan.t to see the Planning Board's plan of 1913..materialize and Willow Avenue and Ocean Avenue bound theares', included in that 'proposition. . Mr. Robinson - Isn't there:,,less noise than formerly? . Mrs. Philbrick - No. Mrs. Philbrick, an early resident of Ocean Avenue, said she knew the situation. The boatyard was, detrimental to homes and peace. There is no such noise at. the boatyards in Marblehead. Mr.. James Huston said the engines: were run at all hours of the day and night and many complaints had been made at the Police Station. Iast year condi.ti.ons had been a little better. - . .14r. Pitman asked those in opposition tq rise. About twenty five were recorded in opposition. Mr. Very asked the Mayor to speak. Mayor Bates said that he believed the City should go slowly in acquiring flats because of the damages involved. He thought Willow Avenue and Ocean Avenue should not be filled. A fifty foot strip to be given to the City. Hr . Dion had said he intended to sell the filled land for house lots there would be no objection to that. Mr. Dion said he had no intentionofenlarging his business. If a nuisance existed it should be handled as a violation of the law. The City would like to acquire the flats for a fair price. If Mr. Dion was willing to cooperate +pith the City, the City would cooperate with him. Vi-. Adams - Would the City go on with the shore boulevard plan if the State .would cooperate? Mayor Bates - There has been no decision as to the new state • highway on Loring Avenue location. If this is extended along Forest River' to` the' Marb,lehead road it would promote the plan. Mr. Pitman reported that there had been a conference with the Marblehead Planning Board on the viaduct and shore. boulevard proposi- tion. Mr. Rhyno - What about the outside flats parallel to Dion's lot? Mayor Bates - The City will buy them, if they can be purchased for a.•reasonab.le price. Mr. Philbrick stated that he feared theaction that might be taken by the City Council and the Board of Appeal Mrs.. Adams said that she believed the neighbors would like to cooperate with Mr. Dion as suggested by Mr. Robinson. Mrs. Goldthwaite. spoke in opposition. `• The hearing was closed at 9.30 P. M. The Planning Board went into executive session. On motion of Ur. Perkins, itwas voted that the Planning Board, having in mind a petition of Frederick J. Dion to the Department of Public Works for a license to build and maintain a pier and a • marine railway and to fill solid in Salem Harbor at his property at Messervy Cove,; which wpuld appear to be evidence of an exten- sion of a business zone which is contrary to the existing zoning ordinance of the City of Salem, wishes to register its opposition on that basis. T'., _ ti The motion was-.voted unanimously, Chairman Pitman speaking for the absent members who had authorized him to represent them. The Board adjourned at T0.15 o 'clock P. 11. Attest.- - Secretary L r • A meeting of the Planning Board was held on Monday, June, 15, 1931, at 7.30 o'clock P. EL.. All the members were present and the Chairman presided. The first business was the election of officers. fr. 'diswall nominated Mr. J. Asbury Pitman for 6hairman. There were no further nominations and Mr. Pitman was elected. Mr. Perkins. nominated Mr. Henry J. O'Donnell for Secretary. There were no further nominations and TSr. O'Donnell was elected. On motion of Tarr. O'Donnell, Miss E. Mabel Curtis was appointed as clerk. On motion of Ur. Perkins , it was. voted that MY. Webber be appointed to represent the Planning Board at the National Con- ' • ference of. Planning, Boards at.Hochester, N. Y. I. if it is possible for him to attend. On motion of Mr.. Wiswall, it was voted that the Secretary be requested to communicate with certain cities in Massachusetts relative to the enforcement of the housing and zoning ordinances. The. Board adjourned at 8.45 o 'clock P. M. Attest ;- Secretary • A meeting of the Planning Board was held on Tuesdwr , July 71 1931, at five o'clock P. Tri. All the members were present except Mr. Webber and the Chairman presided. The Board considered the petition of R. S. Vernott to the City Council for a change of the general residence zone on Highland Avenue hear Swampscott Road to a business zone to allow the maintenance of a chicken farm. On motion of Mr. Perkins it. was voted to notify the City Council that the Planning Board opposes the petition as the Board is of the opinion that there has been no change in con- ditions on Highland Avenue since they last considered the question of zoning on that street, and they wish to re-affirm the. position which they have already expressed to the City Council, The Board adjourned at Attest:- Secretary 1.4 Ale �0e, Avjk � RICHARD K. CONANT COMM IESIONER DIVISION OF HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING July 17, 1931 EDWARD T. HARTMAN STATE CONSULTANT ON PLANNING Mr. J. Asbury Pitman 1 Fairfield Street Salem, Massachusetts Dear Pair. Pitman: . I want to get certain observations on paper and I am going to write you and keep a carbon. I note that your City Government is consider- ing a petition to change the zone lines so as to permit a man who does not live in Salem to develop a hennery in what is now a residential district. I consider this a very hazardous and uncalled for proposal. In the first place, we have entirely • too much area set aside for business in every city in the State. A hennery is a particularly offen- sive business in a closely settled area.. It will develop a certain amount of assessable value but it will kill probably ten times as much value; not value that necessarily exists at the moment, but that would be developed by an artistic residential development . We find ourselves in a rather peculiar posi- tion in this State owing to a recent decision of our Supreme Court. In the case of Winship v. Wake- field, January 30, 1931, the Court —eld'tiat the man in question was conducting a farm and that the hennery was incidental thereto. From the decision it seems that the man sold from his farm products between 930 and $40 of vegetables in 1930 and sold $468 of apples; he sold between ; 100 and 123 of eggs per month, and the amount he received from poultry was much greater. Let us assume that he received ;200 a month from poultry and 4p100 a month from eggs . He had a total of y�3600 a year from his hennery and a total of practically 4500 from all of his other • farming activities. I think this raises a very serious question as to whether he was conducting a farm, upon which his hennery was''a mere accessory, or conducting a hennery in connection with vahich certain farming activities were accessory. _2- • In the case of Chudnuv v. Bloomfield, 154 Atl.161, the Connecticut Court seems to me to have given a much more, clearcut decision. The Connecticut Court held that the zoning regulations allowed farming in a residence zone and specified, in addition, truck- gardening, nurseries and greenhouses, and thereby negatived the intent that enterprises less obviously related to farming be allowed. The Court brought out that the test to be applied was whether a proposed use of property in a residential zone is farming is whether the use is incidental to farming operations or is an independent and dominant enterprise. in this particular instance the man had three acres of land and expected to keep from 800 to 1000 hens. The Court held that the use of less than three acres of land for henhouses of this size was not a permissible use in a residential district. In the Massachusetts case the man had 18 acres of land but he was keeping upwards of 3000 hens and, as above noted, this was by far the predominant use to which he put the land. . I have brought out these points because it seems to me that in the light of the Court decision and in the light of the apparent tendency of this sort of business to seek opportunity of development in residential areas, we are facing a rather serious situation. Yours sincerely, Lll ETHIC A meeting of the Planning Board was held on Monday, October 5, 1931, at 7.30 o 'clock P. IS. As only Ur. Pitman and Lir. Webber were present, there was no quorum and the meeting adjourned. Attest : - Secretary A meeting of the Planning Board was held on November 27, 1931, at 7.45 o'clock P. M. Mr. Pitman and Mr. Perkins were present, and there was not a quorum. Mr. Osgood, Building Inspector, was also present. The matter of a proposed new street from Lorigg Avenue to Lafayette Street was .discussed. Mr. Osgood explained the case in question of the zoning- ordinance oningordinance as applied to a one-store building at the corner of English and Cousins Streets. The building is located in a semi-residence district and was formerly used for the manufacture of leather, but. this is now discontinued and a delivery business • is located there which will probably be developed into a large garage. The members present were in favor of allowing the use of this building for business purposes. The meeting adjourned at 8.30 P. M.