Loading...
1940-PLANNING BOARD A meeting of the Planning Board was held on Monday, April 1, 1940, at 7 .45 o'clock P . M. Mr. Butler, " Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Baker were present and Mr. Butler presided. The Board proceeded to organization fof the year 1940 and the following officers were elected: Chairman, Mr. Butler; Vice-Chairman, Mr. Baker; Secretary, Mr. O'Donnell. Billboards and advertising signs were considered and it was .. decided to ask the opinion of the City Solicitor as to what con- stitutes a billboard as distinguished from other advertising signs on private land; whether a sign can advertise any other than a legal use in a residential zone; whether the City Council, under the zoning ordinance, can make any regulations as to size and nature of adver- tising signs on private land. On motion of Mr. O'Donnell it was voted to pay Miss Curtis $25.00 for three months services as temporary clerk. It was decided that a traffic survey should be the major project for 1940 and Mr. Baker was appointed to arrange a conference with members of the Police Department in .regard to this. The meeting adjourned at nine o'clock P. M. Respectfully submitted, Secretary` A meeting of the Planning Board was held on Monday , April • 29, 1940, at eight o ' clock P. M. Mr. Baker, Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Whitmore were present and Mr. Baker pre.sided. 0. Notices were received from the City Council of the petition of Charles' Puleo for a change of zone on Highland Avenue and the peti- tion of Heirs of Thomas L. Cronan for a change of zone at corner of Pleasant and Bridge Streets. Hearings an these ,petitions were ordered for Monday, May 13, 19409 at eight o'clock P . M. A communication was received relative to the inclusion of a revised zoning map with the W. P. A. codification of the City Ordinances now being prepared for publication and on motion of Mr. O'Donnell the matter was referred to Mr. Baker. The Clerk was directed to write to the Massachusetts Dedera- • ' • A .. tion of Planning Boards to suggest that meetings should be held on some other day than Saturday. The meeting adjourned at 8.45 o'clock P. M. Respectfully submitted; Secretary : e April 123, 1940 lir. James Kinsellap City Solicitor, Salemp Bass. Dear Sir: For the information of the Planing Board in.their future consideration of signs and billboards in the City of Salem, will you kiruily give your opinion on the following; 1. What constitutes the distinction between is billboard, w ntrolled and licensed by State authority, and other signs on private land, such as those on Lafayette Street advertising 1/Vooms", "Tourists", oto.? Arethese latter signs controlled by any State lava? 2w The Board recognizes that if the use of a building in a residence zone is legal (such as n rooming house) then a sign advertising such use is Segal. However# can a sign or billboard advertising €a busln6ss which would be illegal in residential mass #1, '2 or 39, as determined by the local zoning ordlnance; be erected and maintained In these zones? 3, Has the City Council any authority over the size or nature of any advertising signd on private land in a resi- dential zone? 9 If not, could tip soping ordinance be g a11y amended to provide such authogity Very ttuilhWuRP,CiDonnell secretary By Cleat April 29, 1940. Miss. E. Mabel.. Curtis, Secretary, Planning Board, At a regular Meeting of the City Council, held on April 25, 1940, the following petition was referred to the Planning Board. Salem, April 23, 1940 To His Honor the Mayor and Members of the City Council: Respectfully represents your petitioners: That they are the owners of certain premises situate in Salem, on Bridge Street at the corner of Pleasant Street, bounded and described as follows:- "Northerly by said Bridge -Street, easterly by said Pleasant Street, southerly by lot C on a"Plan of estate of George W. Hodgkins, Salem, Mass. , May 1920, Thomas A. Appleton, • C. E. " recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds, Book 2455; Page 482, and westerly by lot A on said plan, being lot B on said plan." That said parcel was conveyed to Thomas F. Cronan by one Ellen M. Hodgkins, trustee under the will of George W.Hodgkins. That in the application of the-zoning. ordinances to their property aforesaid your petitioners are being restrained and hindered in their use thereof, and are being inequitably deprived of the opportunity to do business thereon, and otherwise suffer great detriment.; and therefore desire that the zoning of saidrictproperty be changed from ee to business Wherefore your petitioners pray that the zoning ordin- ances may be changed in their application to the petitionerst above described property in such manner and to such extent as to your Honorable Body seems meet and Just upon consideration of the facts involved. Heirs of Thomas F. Cronan John J. Connelly Jr. , Attorney i254 Essex Street Salem, Massachusetts COPY Salem, April 9, 1940 • To His Honor the Mayor and Members of the City Council: Respectfully represents your petitioner: That he is the owner of certain premises in Salem, on Highland Avenue between Barcelona Avenue and Ravena Avenue, Bounded and described as follows:- Southeasterly by Highland Avenue tw6 hundred three and 20/100 (203.20)feet; Northeasterly by lot 242, as shown on plan hereinafter mentioned, two hundred eleven and 13/100 (211.13) feet; Northwesterly by Savona Street, two hundred three and 90/100 (203.90) feet; and Southwesterly by lot 247, as shown on said plan two hundred seven and 37/100 (207.37) feet. All of said boundaries are determined by the Court to be located as shown upon numbered 11,802-E, drawn by Thomas A. Appleton, C.E. dated Dec 6, 192$, , as modified and approved by. the Court, filed in the Land Regis- tration Office, a copy of a portion of which is filed with Cer- tificate of Title #7179, in said Registry, and the above described land is shown as lots #243, 2442 245 and 246, sheet 1, on last mentioned plan. So much of the above described land as is in- cluded within the limits of Highland Avenue is subject to ease- ments as set forth in a waiver in favor of the City of Salem, dated April 11, 1903, duly recorded in Book 1825, Page 56, and so much of said land as lies within sixty (60) feet of said Highland • Avenue is subject to easements as set forth in a grant to the Eastern Massachusetts Electric Co. , dated March 11, 1926, duly recorded in Book 2671, Page 309, so far as applicable; and subject also to the conditions, reservations, easements and provisions contained in a deed given by the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Company, Inc. to Frederick H. Griswold, dated Sept 20, 1928, duly recorded in Book 2783, Page 50 . That in the application of the zoning ordinances to his property aforesaid, your petitioner is being restrained and hin- dered in his use thereof, and is being inequitably deprived of opportunity to do business thereon, and otherwise suffers great detriment; and therefore desires that the zoning of his said property be changed from general residence to business district Wherefore your petitioner prays that the zoning ordinances may be changed in their application to the petitioner' s above described property in such manner and to such extent as to your Honorable Body seems maat and just upon the consideration of the facts involved. Charles Puleo Hyman Marcus, Attorney 2142 Essex Street Salem - Massachusetts • Referred to the Planning Bd, April 11, 1940. A meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Council Chamber on Monday, May 132 1940, at eight o'clock P. M. Mr. Baker and Mr. O'Donnell were presente,and Mr. Baker presided. A hearing,was held on the petition of Charles Fuleo to change a general residence zone on Highland Avenue between Barcelona Avenue and Ravena Avenue to a business zone. " Mr. Hyman Marcus appeared for the petitioner and waived the petitioner' s right to be heard before a quorum of the Planning Board. Mr. Marcus stated that there had been no increase in the papulation of the City since 1914 and no in- crease in industry. There was, therefore, no need of reserving High- land Avenue any longer, .for homes and there. were only, a very few homes there at the present time. The .petitioner had recently acquired the property which had formerly been 'owned by his father-in-law for twelve • or more years, 5.The-,purehasepprioe^of the property was $1,000.00.. It was the. wish of the petitioner to erect a dairy building on the front of the land, the building to be 50'x 50' and cost .$p59000.00 with a store front . The necessary blasting would cost about $¢1,000.00. The surround- ings would be made attractive and two or three homes would -be built .-oz There would be nothing detrimental about .the dairy. ,Mr. Antonio Calandro, 66 Essex St... Lynn, owner of 48,000 feet of -land in .vicinity, appeared in favor. Mr. (Puleo also appeared in favor. Mr. O'Donnell asked if any retail business would be carried on. Mr. Puleo replied that there would probably be a retail sale of ice cream. No one appeared in opposition and the hearing was closed. A hearing was held on the petition of Heirs of Thomas F. Cronan to change an apartment house zone at the southeasterly corner of v� Bridge and Pleasant Streets to a business zone. Mr. John J. Connelly, Jr. , appeared in favor for the.-petitioners. He stated • that when the zoning ordinance went into effect in 1926 Bridge Street was more residential than business in character. As a main traffic artery, in fourteen years "business has increased and become predominant on Bridge Street. The petition in question does not ., interrupt an established residential zone but extends an existing business zone. A store formerly on this property was removed. In the near vicinity are two stores, a restaurant and an undertaker' s - establishment. . On the opposite side of Bridge Street the business. zpne extends to. directly opposite the lot in question. . The property is assessed for $6100.00. There is a $5,000.00 mortgage. The house has 22 large high stud rooms, impossible .to heat or rent. In 1939 the revenue from the house was 576.00, the expenses were $271.00 for taxes and $300.00 for interest on mortgage. To change the • building into' an apartment house involves. too great expense. The corner piece of the property has been* donated to the city. to allow - street widening. Mr. Stanislaw Gesek, 8 Pleasant Street, inquired to what use the property is _to be put. Mr. Connelly replied that there was no definite plan at present._ A gasoline station and an antique dis- play room had been considered. . Mr. Gesek said he had no objection. Mr. Connelly said he wanted it understood that the petitioner did not give any guarantee' that a gasoline station would not be erected if the zone is changed. There was no further opposition and the .hearing was closed. The meeting adjourned at 9.30 o ' clock P . M . i Respectfully submitted, � Gy—?ifs--- �ecretary L i A meeting of the Planning Board was held on Monday, May 20, 1940, at eight o'clock P . M. Mr. Baker, Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Whitmore were present and Mr. Baker presided. A communication from the City Solicitor, giving his opinion on certain questions of the Board relative to billboards and signs, was read and placed on file. On motion of Mr. O'Donnell it was voted to recommend to the City Council that the petition of Heirs of Thomas F. Cronan to change the apartment house zone at corner of Pleasant and Bridge Streets to a business zone be granted for the reason that rezoning the land in question will extend the existing business zone oiff Bridge Street which now ends at the opposite corner of Bridge and Pleasant Streets. • The question of the petition of Charles Puleo to change a general residence zone on Highland Avenue between Barcelona Avenue and Ravena Avenue was laid over. The meeting adjourned at nine o'clock P . M. Respectfully submitted, eeerfetary ty,co�wra� z 9 - Citp of balm ftlazzarbeattg '�gfor"aa Waer Ergttl �r ttr#mrn# 3IHIHPH �CfnHPIIH May 17 , 1940 Henry J. O' Donnell , Secretary Planning Board Salem, Massachusetts Dear Sir: I received your letter in which you request my opinion on certain questions relating to signs and billboards in the City of Salem. "1. What constitutes the distinction between a billboard, controlled and licensed by State authority, and other signs on private land such as those on Lafayette Street advertising 'Rooms" , ' Tourists' , etc. ? Are these latter signs controlled by any State Law?" • Signs and billboards on private property abutting on a public way which advertise a business other than that conducted on the premises on which the sign is located come under the jurisdiction of the State Depart- ment of Public Works and the erection and maintenance of such signs is subject to their control. Signs on private property such as those on Lafayette Street to which you refer, which advertise the business conducted on the premises , do not come under state authority and would be subject to local zoning ordinances and any other local regulations which might legally be made. ' 112. The Boafd recognizes that if the use of a building in a residence zone is legal (such as a rooming house) then a sign ad- vertising such use is legal. However, can a sign or billboard advertising a business which would be illegal in resi- dential zones #1 , 2 or 3 , as determined by the local zoning ordinance , be erected and maintained in these zones?" It is my opinion that if a business is conducted • illegally in a residential zone , any sign or billboard erected or maintained on said premises to advertise such illegal business is also in violation of the ordinance which prohlibits the said business being maintained there. Citp of batem, Alaaarbuatto Ergal �P�JFIT#I1tPlt# QUilxB�' NMrs Kinsella On# fnlirttsr Henry J. O'Donnell : -2- May 17 , 1940 "3. Has the City Council any authority over the size or nature of any advertising signs on private land in a residential zone?" If the advertising signs or billboards in a resi- dential zone are for the purpose of advertising business not located there , they come under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Public Works as I have stated above. It is my opinion that the City Council may adopt a zoning ordinance to prohibit the erection of advertising signs on private land in a residential zone when said signs advertise a business located on the premises if said business is being dperated in violation of the zoning ordinance. • 114. If not, could the zoning ordinance be legally amended to provide such authority?" I believe this question is answered by the answer to #3. Very truly yours , i. , City Solicitor JK/MT � May 212 1940 To the Honorable City Council, City of Salem, Salem, Mass+ Gentlemen: The Blann Board, to vaom was referred the petition of the Heirs of Thomas Fi Cronan to change the apartment house zone at the southeasterly corner of Bridge and Pleasant Streets to a business zone, has held a hearing as required by late, and after due consideration bag leave to report as follows: The Board would recommend that the petition be granted for the reason that rezoning the lot of land in question .for business will only extend the present existing business zone on Bridge Street, the opposite lot at the northeasterly corner of Bridge and Pleasant Streets being already zoned for and occupied by business. Respectfully submitted, OyHt k,.w Secretary June 3, 1940 Board of Appeal, Salem, Mass , Dear Sirs: The Planning Board wishes to record its opposition now under consideration b your Board, one to two petitions, y by the Almy Trust to operate a poultry farm and piggery at the Old Artillery stables on Highland Avaiue, and one by Gasper Adamo to operate a poultry farm at 212 Highland Avenue, both properties being zoned for general residence. Since the adoption of the zoning ordinance, the Planning Board has vigorously opposed "spot" rezoning for business on Highland Avenue in the belief_ that this street could be developed for residential purposes. The City Council has so generally supported the view of the Planning Board that in the fourteen years the zoning ordinance has been in exist- ence only two lots of land on Highland Avenue have been rezoned gor business and only one of these is now occupied by business. There appears now to be a residential development beginning on Highland Avenue. Homes have -been built and with the installation of sewer and water pipes completed, it seems only reasonable to assume that more houses will be built. For this reason, the. Planning Board is opposed to the introduction of any business, and in these cases, business Ahich by its objectionable nature may put a .stop to any further erection of houses in the vicinity. The Planning; Board respectfully askss that your Board refuse to allot any business use of this land on Highland Avenue, and that you will not consider any such petitions until at least there has been a fair opportunity to determine whether the in- stallingoof a sewer and water service will not encourage resi- dential development. Respectfully submitted, Salem Planning Board 11#Opp `vSecretary August ?.8r 1940 To the Honorable City Council, Salem$ Mass. Dear Sirs: The Planning Hoard has considered the petition of Charles Puleo to change a general residence zone on Highland Avenue between Barcelona Avenue and Ravena Avenue to a business zone. The Board has consistently opposed such changes of zone on Highland Avenue in the hope that this important entrance to Salem through the only considerable tract of undeveloped land in the City might become a valuable residence district. If there • is to be any future residential development of any emount in Salem it can only be in this direction. The installation of scattered business zones along Hik .iland Avenue would of course defeat any such plan, Already some homes have been built in this vicinity and with the installation of sewer and water service it• seems only reasonable to assume that more will be built, The Planning Board is of the opinion that there should be no change in the zoning status of Highland Avenue and its vicinity until there has been a fair opportunity to determine vhether the installation of sever and water service will not encourage residential develop- ment* The Board, therefore$ respectfully recommends that the petition of Charles Puleo be denied* Respectfully submittedo 140r7z� rAZ ecret€ry 9� • The Planning Board believes that there is no more impor. tant municipal problem in Salem than that concerned with traffic flow and with parking in the downtown area, We believe that every major project in this area should be ',judged and its value appraised in relation to the extent to which it contributes towards the re- lief of this problem. Ve believe that this problem trust be looked at as a whole and in relation to the whole downtown district and- not ndnot in relation to any one particular area. We believe that to do so the major arteries and main traffic flow affecting the district must be considered. The essential facts are these: Traffic flowing to the downtown area comes, not merely from the residential sections of Salem, but from the neighboring 'cities and towns. Half of the .retail business of Salem originates • from outside the city. Two-thirds of this business comes from, or through, Beverly, Danvers, and Peabody. The W P A traffic survey confirms this density of Northern traffic and discloses that the 1 . combined traffic on the three Northern arteries of Bridge, Boston and North Streets exceeds by fifty percent the combined traffio on the four Southern arteries of Highland Avenue, Jefferson Avenue, Canal Street and Laffayette Street. The central fact in the downtown situation Is that there is insufficient provision for the passing of Northern and Southern traffio through this area. There are only two good links now exist- Ing between the Northern and Southern arteries ; First, to the East, the by-pass between Bridge and Lafayette Streets provided by the • Boulevard, Congress Street, etc. This is heavily travelled and serves the Eastern side of the city to excellent advantage. The i -2: second, and only other connection between the Northern and South- ern arteries, is provided .by Washington Street leading directly through Town House Square. Since this is the only link in the Central or Western side of the area, it is also heavily used and carries the major portion of the through traffic from Peabody and Danvers travelling in this direction . While this portion of Wash- ington Street carries less actual traffic than lower Bridge, that traffic does not move freely and creates long delays in transit and traffic Jame in the busier hours of the week.. The reason for this is that Washington Street traffic, flowing North and South, has con- stantly to be Interrupted by oross-traffic, (1) crossing from Lynda to Church, and (2) pedestrian traffic crossing from Webber9s to Liggett's corner. There is no way of relieving or eliminating these • two obstacles to traffic flow through the Square. Only minor oor- reotions . can be made. We believe that the reasonable solution is to provide another link between the Northern and Southern arteries, nest of the Washington Street link. We believe that these considerations are paramount in ,judging the various projects or suggestions discussed by the Mayor with the Planning Hoard and would like to make the fol- lowing applications; 1. Widening North Street between Essex and Federal Streets to a width of sixty feet, by a widening on the Westerly side of the Street. Widening North Street, North of Federal, by taking a strip on the Easterly side, extending from Lynda Street to the Southerly side of the old gas works., insuring a maximum width of sixty feat. The Planning Board fe decidely in favor of this project. • This project, more than any other that can be proposed, looks di- . rectly to the relief of Town House Square by the diversion of Wash- ington Street traffic, by a parallel link to the Nest. We believe . a widened North Street, conneating .Bridge �an.d through rummer, Nor - man, and Broad Streets, and Broad Street Extension, would by-patio much of the traffic now moving from the North through Washington Street, or through Lynda Street into Washington. The ,project is relatively inexpensive, since in th7e major- ity of cases there is ample room in the tear of buildings affected to move them back of the new street line. Another important consideration is the' improvement in the important historic monument known as the, Witch House. . This House • now fronts on: Essex Street, it's front marked by the drug store addition.; The main body of the house extends inward from North street at right angles to it. A wing, much less valuable than the main house, extends up North Street from the main structure. There is room between Essex Street and the lane by the Elks Home to re- looate the Patch mouse; after .the removal, .of the drug store and the wing, and place it .so that it will face a widened North Street, We believe this will improve the condition of this edifice importantto the city for Its, historic value. 2. Elimination, of the grade crossing at Bridge Street and the elimin$tion of the Northern head of the tunnel on Washington Street by the erection of :an overhead. ,structure on Bridge Street, grading • up from the packing houses on the West and from Rust Street .on the east. The Planning Hoard heartily favors this project. Bridge Street is the natural link of the three Northern arteries of Boston, s North and Bridge Streets. The section of this street between Beverly • Bridge to Winter Street, and also the section between this crossing and North Street are heavily travelled. The seotion between Winter street and Washington Street is less heavily travelled. One major reason for this is the existence of the grade crossing. tie believe the elimination of this crossing would lead to heavier travel on this section and traffic now moving Easterly via Lynde and Church Streets, in interrupting Washington Street traffic, would in part tend to prefer to travel by Bridge Street were this elimination achieved. 3. Elimination of the grade crossing at kill Street by the erection of an overhead structure linking a n g ti rgin (? ) and Broad EEtreet Extension on the one hand, with Mill Hill and Canal Street on the other. The Planning Board heartily favors this project. It furnish- es some alternative to the elimination of the Norman Street crossing which has proved too costly to be undertaken . It will furnish another important link in downtown traffio, particularly when taken In connection with the North Street widening. Lafayette Street and Canal Street. are readily linked to the Northern Arteries at North and Bridge via this structure, Broad Street Extension, Summer and North Streets, We believe this route on busy days would be much pre- ferred to the Town House Square route and would tend to relieve Wash: ington Street traffic at that point. it also serves as a good route between the Highland Avenue and Canal and Lafayette Street arteries via Broad Street. It should lead to a lessened use of the Norman Street crossing and a lessening of probability of accident at this • danger point. The ,PlanninB board believes an alternative proposal of • bridging from Broad Street Extension over the 'tracks Sunk to .the rear of .the depot,. ,with ramps down to Washington Street, is a pro: je,gt .worth ,study, but probably not advisable and unsightly in rhe lation both to A'aohin,gton Street at this point and also to our new most office. • • The building of anew street from Washington Street through the Ray Etstate, parallel to Essex and extending to Sewall Street, together with a widening of Sewall ;Street from the point of junction Northerly to Lynde Street. The Planning Board cannot see that such a street would be a relief, to downtown traffic be- cause it leads nowhere. It makes no connection between heavily travelled Fiaehington Street and any other outlet or artery. Nore- over, traffic entering or leaving this street via Washington would offer one more obstacle to the free North and South flow of Wash_ ington Street traffic. The Planning Board does not consider that such a street would .offer serious relief to the parking problem, The maximum ,parking capacity of the street would be in the vicinity of fifty cars . The same number of cars could be parked on a lot, • more conveniently, and at a small fraction of the cost: It is a1- ways much less costly to provide parking in parking lots than by building streets.: The Flanning Board does not favor this project. 1 i "s i I References: Salem Traffic Survey, 1934, a COPY of which • may be borrowed from the City Uarshal . other papers turned over to Mr. Pitkini We suggest a review of this material and a checking of ,the points herein .made- by Mr. Pitkin, We suggest also 11ri Pitkin 's checking with Mr. , WilliaIRZ of the Boston * Maine to whom the mayor will give us an introduction and make the plans available to us. We suggest general. otudy .along the lines laid down here and recommends_ tions from Mr. Pitkin to the Board and collaboration on our behalf with the Vayor, the City Engineer and other City officials, under the direction of, a Committee of the Planning Board to be comprised of Varren Butler, Louis E. Baker, and Henry O' Donnell . A meeting of the Planning Board was held on Monday, December 2, 1940, at seven o ' clock P. M. Mr. Baker, Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Merrill were present. His Honor, Mayor Coffey was also present. His Honor suggested the following projects for study. by the Board during the coming year: Traffic problems The use of the Peterson property on Bridge Street as a parking space . The restriction of parking on Essex Street to the southerly side only. The determination of a favorable site for a residential development . Mr. Merrill suggested the removal of the dirt sidewalk on the northerly side of Washington Square south in order to widen the street to the edgeof the Common. It was decided to meet on first Mondays in the month at the Mayor' s office . The meeting adjourned at 10.30 o ' clock P . M. Respectfully submitted, Secretary